cardiganwearer Wrote:Just because it does work for an individual does not mean it works generally or isn't a cult. Your conclusion is unrelated in any way to your premise.
Because most of those other faiths will give you all that for free. Scientology, beyond the introductory course, requires you to pay very large fees for their services. Other religions don't give their recruiters a cut of the down the line fees and operate like a franchise. Other religions don't trademark their iconography.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_as_a_business
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. We have no evidence that scientology is responsible for Tom Cruise's success, just that he's successful and a shill for scientology. Given the amount of money they demand it might be truer to suggest that he works for them rather than them for him
If that lion were showing a rapacious inclination to impoverish people by charging them huge amounts of money for what is essentially free elsewhere while harrassing them and their families if they try to decline it's services, then the sacrifice would have been a noble one. Just because pursuing evidence has unfortunate consequences does not mean the evidence is invalid. It certainly increases suspicion that the lion doesn't want the evidence in the public domain.
So how many individuals do I have to round up to demonstrate that AA works?
There is no such thing as 'free' religion, ever hear of the love gift? How about the passing of the plate? Most religions attempt to guilt you or shame you into not giving. Scientology just charges admission.
Mumbo Jumobo - Logic - Mumbo-Jumo Rationality.
Faith is not about reason, its about, well um, faith.
And that whole lion not charging a fee - that is a low blow, how else are sceinetologists suppose to cover overhead costs? Last I checked lions don't have an overhead to worry about.