I know it's kind of "religious" but since everyone hates Scientology anyways (unless you're an enlightened celeb), I sat down and did one of their tests about 4 years ago, and it was absolutely hilarious. It generalized a lot of basic human compositions and tied them directly to Scientology. The whole thing makes me question why anyone would follow such a bizarre teaching. But yes, they are basically told that anyone who doesn't believe what they believe is an enemy...yadda yadda...don't trust anyone, which basically is counter-productive in growing. But I'm glad another one came to their senses.

jerknut wrote:

Virgin birth, resurrection of the dead, taking a fish and making more (already cooked and adult) fish out of a finite number of fish. Aliens blowing up volcanoes with bombs, souls of aliens attached to humans, the ability to move and control the physical world with your mind. I don't think that if you belong in either of those groups you are in any position to judge the other group. But you can believe what you want.

Dude...if you're trying to compare those two, it's no contest...Christianity wins by those standards.

This is going strictly by the idea of actual logic, not by a God, but logic. For all we know, Jesus Christ could've been a con artist with the fish trick, Irish girls "claimed" virgin births all the time during the 18th and 19th Century. Resurrection, is purely based off of a dozen or so people who claimed to see him.

L. Ron Hubbard on the other hand, how did he get this knowledge? It was just "passed" onto him? Did he have the same visions that Joseph Smith had when he started the Mormon church?

Let's just say for a second that both of these guys were indeed con artists...who do you think is more probable of getting people to believe?