Scientology, et al

[adlp]

Re: Scientology, et al

as a scientologist i am offended by this

[darkshark]

Re: Scientology, et al

You don't make enough money to be a scientologist.

[Izzy]

Re: Scientology, et al

Not CT.

Also, He created Scientology on a bet that he could create a relgion that would be popular. All he needed was a basic framework of history, and then set up a system where rich people were automatically ahead of poor people, and he had a popular religion.

Is this a true story?

[Jaw-Long]

Re: Scientology, et al

lol, my uncle was a scientologist.

[Iam90]

Re: Scientology, et al

not sure if serious

half serious of course scientology is a giant load of bull**** but given that the concept of most religions are unverifiable foundationally, at least scientology's tenets could conceivably be proven or refuted by evidence

[Linkisdoomed]

Re: Scientology, et al

Is this a true story?

Yes, there's some truth to it. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Controversies. Don't forget to check the links, and back it with other sources.

[MayneWithoutModem]

Re: Scientology, et al

half serious of course scientology is a giant load of bull**** but given that the concept of most religions are unverifiable foundationally, at least scientology's tenets could conceivably be proven or refuted by evidence

burden of proof is on the person that makes the extraordinary claim, not the other that calls them on their bull****.

[Rubin0]

Re: Scientology, et al

How is this any more ridiculous than Judaism, Christianity, Budhism, Hinduism, or any other major religion in this world? Just because something is really really old doesn't make it any less insane.

[Iam90]

Re: Scientology, et al

burden of proof is on the person that makes the extraordinary claim, not the other that calls them on their bull****.

are you retarded? Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and other monotheistic religions also have a burden of proof. i'm saying that scientology, given that it doesn't make any empirically transcendent claims could conceivably fulfill that burden of proof while the others are incapable of doing so fundamentally

[Iam90]

Re: Scientology, et al

to clarify since you're apparently slow: scientology has a burden of proof that it could probably never fulfill but it's at least in the realm of possibility (albeit extremely improbable) whereas other religions can never be proven or refuted. they are "outside" of proof

i never made any claim that atheists bear the burden of proof, i am an atheist retard