So, the slightly click-baity title is echoing what some people said in the past (Brian Dunning) and more recently in the wake of the Going Clear documentary - among them names like Neil deGrasse Tyson and the hosts of the Scathing Atheist podcast. It's been a favourite talking point of super-libertarians who are keen on reducing government interference.

The idea is that the beliefs of mainstream religions are just as crazy as those of Scientology, and hence, what's all the fuss about. My knee-jerk reaction is to say that they are full of it, an that of course Scientology has a different quality from most mainstream religions. I liken it to viruses which range from being well-adapted to their host (the common cold = milquetoast Christianity) as opposed to pretty well-adapted but still bad (HIV) to badly adapted (Ebola comes to mind).

I'm also aware that individuals suffer severely from mainstream religions as well. So, where is the demarcation line between evil cults and religions, and is there one?  Are Scientology and Islam basically the same? 

I'd say the premise is the same: brainwash people into believing a ludicrous story, get them to do what you want and give you money. So I vote no.

It seems Scientology is far more aggressive at the moment in its sale tactics, and is based way more around money and in seeking to isolate people from their family. Also the "levelling up" business seems to make it unique. Normally you get the full spiel for free. This makes it much more obviously like a cult/scam.

I'd have to fall back on the opinion that once a religion gets big enough, powerful enough and earns enough money, then it becomes a cult. Up until that point, it's just some people sharing a crazy idea.

I voted no because I make the comparison from a slightly different perspective; not so much for the beliefs, but for the creation of the religion and the structure. I think Scientology and Mormonism share a lot of similarities. Their founders put themselves central to doctrine, Paul made his about someone else. 

Perhaps it's because Christianity has been neutered over the years, but it seems a lot less practiced in mind control and coercion. Auditors and Mormon Bishops are loathsome, power hungry control freaks.

I don't think Scientology is the same as Christianity. For a start, Scientology is a lot more totalitarian (at least in this life) than Christianity. Nor does it require you to pay increasingly vast amounts of money to keep unlocking 'truths'. It's not like you have to pay $10,000 for the book of Luke and $20,000 for the book of John, etc.

Mormonism and Scientology are much more similar in the regard that they were both founded by criminals/frauds and both secrete away their 'true' beliefs from people until they're so far down the rabbit hole that they'll believe any old shite. They're also both obviously rackets.

It would be interesting in both Mormonism and Scientology to start at the top of the org chart, and start polygraphing everyone and see how far down the chart you would have to go to find an actual sincere believer.

I would suspect at CoS, there might not be a single person on the org chart with a sincere belief in Xemu and the planetary colostomy. As for Mormon, I would concede the possibility of some sincere believers in a narrow strip across the bottom of their org chart.

There is a little apples/oranges thing going on too, we don't see any public apologetics for the CoS like we do for LDS. And I am aware at one time there was in fact a sincere individual for LDS and that when it just became too much for him, he gave up on LDS.

I voted "no" to the question as asked. The only difference between a "cult" and a "religion" that the word "cult" is never used in 1st person to describe one's own religion.


That said, some religions/cults are more dangerous than others. Christianity will only take 10%. Scientology will take 100% and bond you into labor for a billion years. 

First of all, I love your third poll option.  Brilliant!

As for the question, what are your criteria for determining whether something is mainstream or not?  Do you lump all forms of Christianity together?  That is the way that they do it to claim that Christianity is the most popular religion, but there is so much division between the various forms of it that it seems to be a trivial grouping; it is just all of those religions (Christian religions) say that Jesus is special in some way or other.


I know little about Scientology, but from what I have heard of it, its ideas are more or less equally idiotic as the beliefs of a mainstream Christian (as I define the expression).  Once one reaches total batshit crazy, one cannot get more crazy.


As for the damage that is caused, we would have to look at individual sects in Christianity separately, as there is a world of difference between a Quaker and, say, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  The level of "mind-control" and damage is probably greater in some forms of Christianity than in Scientology, but in others, it is less.  Probably the worst thing about the Quakers is that they promote having prejudice (also known as "faith") and make Christianity look more benign than it generally is.

If we look at the Catholic church, we can say that they do damage now, but far less than when they had more power.  So they are a pretty evil organization, but they are presently unable to fully exercise their evil as they have in the past.  To put this another way, historically, we have seen what happens when the Catholics are in charge, and it isn't pretty.


I suppose that the answer to your question depends on what, exactly, you are asking.  Are you asking how Scientology compares with, say, Catholicism, in terms of the idiocy of their beliefs?  If so, then they are probably more or less equal.

Are you asking how much damage they do to their followers?  Then the answer is likely to be that it depends on which followers in particular we are looking at.

Are you asking how much damage they do to society at large?  Then the answer is, the one with the most power and influence.


The way you, Alex K, have worded your opening post makes me think you have in mind the practical aspects, the damage done, and the way you have worded it suggests further that you are interested in the damage done to the believers, rather than society at large.  My guess is that you are thinking about some nominal Catholics (and other Christians who take their religions in a half-assed way), and see that it does not completely ruin every aspect of their lives.  But if you looked at the ones who take all of the doctrine seriously, you would have, for example, people who would refuse to use birth control, and have all sorts of other aspects of their lives completely controlled.  I would imagine that someone, who takes Scientology in a less than fully serious way, would likely have as little inconvenience from his or her foolish beliefs as a Catholic, who takes Catholicism in a less than fully serious way.

(April 24, 2015 at 5:31 am)Quatermass Wrote: I don't think Scientology is the same as Christianity. For a start, Scientology is a lot more totalitarian (at least in this life) than Christianity. Nor does it require you to pay increasingly vast amounts of money to keep unlocking 'truths'. It's not like you have to pay $10,000 for the book of Luke and $20,000 for the book of John, etc.

Mormonism and Scientology are much more similar in the regard that they were both founded by criminals/frauds and both secrete away their 'true' beliefs from people until they're so far down the rabbit hole that they'll believe any old shite. They're also both obviously rackets.

For most of Christianity's 1900 years it was more totalitarian than L Ron Hubbard's widest fantasy everywhere where Christianity held sway.   By 1200s the Catholic Church had required so many to pay such vast amounts to unlock an imaginary salvation that it owned 1/3 of well real and portable wealth of all Europe.

The figures aren't quite right DP. Scientology will take a lot due to the mandatory buying of auditing by its followers. Christians are strongly encouraged to tithe, however ever since the reformation they do not need to buy God's forgiveness. I'm aware of a number of people who have been financially supported by various Christian churches.

I went with (3) as the closest to "can't tell in current context."
With answers in the back of my head from a solid 'yes' to a solid 'no' depending on interpretation of the question which I found insufficiently precise.
does 'same' mean:
identical?
equivalent?
equal?
tactically similar?
sort-of alike?
uses some of the same letters in the name?