Atheists: honest answers?

Question

Do you hold the same level of respect for the Bible and Dianetics?

Do you think Christians and Scientologists are equally "deluded"?

I was thinking about this after reading Mel's answer here:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ahnktj5jO4H4EkjNErUX9xHd7BR.?qid=20070829093930AAdJ4Im&show=7&cp=2&tp=2&tnu=47#all-answers

I asked for honest answers and I'm prepared to get them. If there's any thumbs down they're not from me, even if you do think I'm as sane as Tom Cruise!

Answer 1

Absolutely not. The Bible has an immense value to us, Dianetics is psuedo-psychriatic babble. The Bible is full of stories, allegories, poetry, songs, and some very important points of morality and philosophy. I just wish so many people would take it as an objective history and miss so much of it's value.

Answer 2

I wouldn't use the term deluded. I would say some are misguided.

I watched Jesus Camp, this, aside from being extremely creepy, was a very informational film. Those kids were guided into the extreme evangelist crowd, they didn't know exactly what they were doing when they were standing out in Washington D.C. with a piece of red tape over their mouth that read "Life". They were doing what the counselors told them to do. Those kids were mislead. Mislead by being taught at homeschool, in a protected environment where the only thing they're allowed to ponder is just how great God is, extremely or supremely. Where the only TV they can watch is special ordered Creation Science VHS tapes, since they're the only things that promote creation and call evolution "states we came from goo".

The most horrible thing to me was the future of these kids. When they turn 18 and go out on their own, if they'll either have an extreme culture shock, or be combative to everything that goes against their beliefs.

Misguided, mislead, or deluded, it's all the same thing, but for some reason to me personally delusional is different than misguided, sounds more nasty.

The Bible can be a great help to people. People find hope, comfort and support in the book. Others like Shirley Phelps Roper, completely misunderstand The Bible's message. What gets me is how one person can take the King James Bible and become a better person, and how someone like Phelps-Roper can take the same thing and speak messages of complete hate and anger. Now if anyone is delusional, it's her and her group of idiots.

Answer 3

I wasn't sure exactly what "Dianetics" was until I yahooed it in order to answer, or at least understand, your question.

I honestly know almost nothing about Scientology but upon finding a link titled "What is Dianetics?" this is the, shall we say, disturbing information that I found so far:

"WHAT IS DIANETICS?
DIANETICS — The all-time self help bestseller

If you’ve ever felt there was something holding you back in life, ruining your plans and stopping you from being who you want to be, you were right.

The fact is, there is a single source of all your problems, stress, unhappiness and self-doubt. It’s called the reactive mind — the hidden part of your mind that stores all painful experiences and then uses them against you.

Dianetics gets rid of the reactive mind. It’s the only thing that does. "

Above is a quote from the link I mentioned above. Right off the bat I notice that the book basically claims to be the only answer to the source of all of our problems. This sends up a red flag for me.

Now as to my level of respect for the Bible vs. Dianetics...as I mentioned I know almost nothing about Scientology. Given the little information I have I'd have to say if I were to respect one book or religion more than the other it would have to be the Bible and Christianity solely based on the fact that I lend more credibility to Christianity as an established religion as opposed to a growing trend. This may only be because of my own ignorance about Dianetics and Scientology, though.

Answer 4

1- absolutely not. Dianetics was hilarious- and something I would willingly read for fun (had I not sent it with agnosticmom to Arizona after she visited). The Bible is something that a great deal of people adhere to and while I feel the books hold the same level of relevance as far as history and human life go- I find Dianetics to have earned far less respect simply due to the fact that it is FAR more outlandish than the Bible's primitive standpoint. Edit: I guess I'm considering the source- people who lived 2000 years ago, vs. something written within our century by someone who knew better.

2. Only fundamentalist Christians....

Answer 5

No. Dianetics was intentially made up in the 60s to defraud people out of tons of money.

I respect the Bible as ancient literature and philosophy, but I don't see anything that special about it when contextualized with all the other ancient literature, philosophy, or holy texts from that general time period on Earth.

However, in modern contexts, I have the same level of respect for the Bible as a "literally true, Word of God, inerrent" book as I would for Dianetics.

If a mainline Protestant like you asks, see the first answer. If a fundamentalists asks, see the second answer.

Answer 6

Well, the two aren't exactly the same thing, but (I'm sorry but) the short answer is "yes/yes."

Dianetics is pseudo-science, the Bible is pseudo-history. I think they both have some truth to them, but the problem is that the truth can't be extracted because Christian Theology and Scientology both reject scientific methods for determining objective truth.

After thinking about it, I'm not sure why, but I somehow have more respect for Christians than Scientologists. I don't know why.

Answer 7

Yes, I think anyone who puts faith in a work of fiction is equally deluded. Why wouldn't they be? What makes the myths of the bible any more acceptable than the myths of L Ron Hubbard? However, I probably have more respect for Christians as people than Scientologists, since most of them were indoctrinated from birth, while Scientologists generally made the decision to follow the nonsense.

Answer 8

Hmmm. Honesty. Okay then.

The core question, do (in my eyes) your beliefs hold more validity than some SF writer's myth, by virtue of age, content, practices, beliefs? (because honestly, you can present as little evidence as they can).

At the end of the day, no. Just because Ron came up with his crackpot ideas in the last century and some anonymous goat-herder came up with his crackpot ideas a very long time ago doesn't mean one is less of a superstition then the other.

That deals with validity. Respect is a different issue. I don't respect institutions, I respect persons. I do respect you, which is why this is something I do not like to discuss with you.

Answer 9

I think Scientologists are more deluded because they don't have the handicap of childhood indoctrination.

edit: I have to agree with Pope that I respect people, not religions, and I do respect you. That is why this is something that I, also, do not like to discuss with you. Sorry to plagerize you pope but you said it quite well.

Answer 10

Yes... very low levels of respect for both the Bible and Dianetics. Yes, they believe in equally ridiculous concepts, but Scientologists undergo much more aggressive and intense brainwashing and, being members of a cult, are much less likely to be left with the mental capabilities to recognize their psychological imprisonment.

http://www.xenu.net/archive/personal_story/funkydonny.html
http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/s/scientology/pignotti/