Is it extra dumb to believe in an admitted liar?

[The Last Conformist]

One claim that often comes up in discussions about Scientology is "it's no dumber than any other religion". I don't think this holds water; most religion-founders were, near as we can tell, perfectly sincere, even if their claims may strike the modern skeptic as ridiculous, whereas Hubbard is on record as saying he'd start up a religion to make money. Surely it's dumber to believe someone who's admittedly dishonest than somebody who believes what he says?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Yeah, I have to say that admitting to being generally dishonest should be a warning flag.

 

[MobBoss]

Trust....but verify.

 

[CoolioVonHoolio]

this is more of a reality check than an actual question.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

One claim that often comes up in discussions about Scientology is "it's no dumber than any other religion". I don't think this holds water; most religion-founders were, near as we can tell, perfectly sincere, even if their claims may strike the modern skeptic as ridiculous, whereas Hubbard is on record as saying he'd start up a religion to make money. Surely it's dumber to believe someone who's admittedly dishonest than somebody who believes what he says?

That, of course, depends on which founders you're talking about. Nearly every religious founder that I've ever heard of is a legendary figure, which suggests that it was really founded later than claimed, by someone else (perhaps several people), with the legendary figure ascribed to its earlier founding. In my view, all religions are equally dumb. It doesn't matter whether the priest is a liar or not, because claims should be believed based on plausibility, not on who is giving them. Who is the bigger idiot? The idiot making fanciful claims, or the one who believes him?

 

[Perfection]

One claim that often comes up in discussions about Scientology is "it's no dumber than any other religion". I don't think this holds water; most religion-founders were, near as we can tell, perfectly sincere, even if their claims may strike the modern skeptic as ridiculous, whereas Hubbard is on record as saying he'd start up a religion to make money. Surely it's dumber to believe someone who's admittedly dishonest than somebody who believes what he says?

How is he an admitted liar?

 

[Masquerouge]

How is he an admitted liar?

Because Hubbard expressively stated he created a religion to make money.

 

[Perfection]

Because Hubbard expressively stated he created a religion to make money.

And he did, where's the lie?

 

[Masquerouge]

And he did, where's the lie?

All right I see what you mean. But people believe in Scientology not because they want to give money... So there's at least a fraudulent clause somewhere

 

[Perfection]

All right I see what you mean. But people believe in Scientology not because they want to give money... So there's at least a fraudulent clause somewhere

Not neccesarily, people don't go to grocery stores because they want to give money. That doesn't make grocery stores fruadulent.

 

[Masquerouge]

Not neccesarily, people don't go to grocery stores because they want to give money. That doesn't make grocery stores fruadulent.

So you're saying all members of the Church of Scientology are aware of the vast fraud this cult is, and are giving their money in all awareness?

 

[Perfection]

So you're saying all members of the Church of Scientology are aware of the vast fraud this cult is, and are giving their money in all awareness?

I fail to see how that follows from my statement.

 

[Masquerouge]

I fail to see how that follows from my statement.

Mmmh. So I think you'll need to clarify what your position is on Hubbard. If you do not think he's a lier, then how do you explain the discrepancy between what he stated ("I want to make a religion to earn money") and the way Scientology is promoted (as a religion, not as a money-making machine)?

 

[Perfection]

If you do not think he's a lier, then how do you explain the discrepancy between what he stated ("I want to make a religion to earn money") and the way Scientology is promoted (as a religion, not as a money-making machine)?

Those two aren't mutually exclusive.

Of course, I still think he's a liar. He just isn't neccesarily a slef-admitted one as TLC claims.

 

[Masquerouge]

Those two aren't mutually exclusive.

Of course, I still think he's a liar. He just isn't neccesarily a slef-admitted one as TLC claims.

So you think that because he openly admitted to committing a fraud, then he's not a liar? That I could agree with

 

[Perfection]

So you think that because he openly admitted to committing a fraud, then he's not a liar? That I could agree with

I don't believe he is openly admitting to commiting fruad.

 

[warpus]

I don't think he admitted to being a liar either. He did admit that he started Scientology to make money, but he never said that any of his claims were lies.

For all we know all the stuff he said is true, and he's just using the truth to make money

 

[The Last Conformist]

How is he an admitted liar?

Here's 1€ saying you're just being contrarian for its own sake.

Anyway, having stated his intention to set up a religion to make money, he set up a religion claiming it was for the selfless motive of improving mankind.

 

[blackheart]

Are there any Scientologists on this board?

 

[Mathilda]

Surely it's dumber to believe someone who's admittedly dishonest than somebody who believes what he says?

And then give them money - that takes the biscuit.