Debate with a Mormon
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-04-2012, 08:38 PM
RE: Debate with a Mormon
(02-04-2012 11:05 AM)germanyt Wrote:  
(31-03-2012 11:05 PM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  Its not a genetic fallacy. The fact that the creator of the religion was a well known fraud seems extremely relevant.
After all religion itself, no matter the package, is itself just a fraud.
L. Ron Hubbard himself was quoted as saying the best way to get rich is to create your own religion. How is this not viewed as relevant to anyone considering Scientology? I just don't get it.
I knew about this because of Skeptic Magazine. L. Ron Hubbard had a discussion with his publishers about how to make more money by creating a religion, Lyle Stuart went on the record to explain how that is exactly what Hubbard did --- he created a religion out of something he knew was false in order to make money. This is fraud.

It should be noted that this is a little different, because you have a causal link that explains how this specific religion was a result of fraud. In the case of Mormonism, we are assuming it is fraud simply because the founder had committed fraud in another unrelated circumstance, so it should logically follow that the next time he became rich it was due to fraud... it doesn't.

The true logician would still say that it's possible that Hubbard was telling the truth about the world's origin, but he simply did so on accident, so it's still possible that Scientology is true even if Hubbard was full of shit. But that would be one hell of a long-odds coincidence, so I would personally give you a pass and say that the case for Scientology being the result of fraud is proven.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: