I don’t want to get into a religious argument, for the very simple reason I can’t get into a religious argument.
I know nothing about religion because I knew from a very early age the very premise that there was a higher being was so utterly absurd that it has never been a part of my life.
But I am intrigued…
The Scientologists are nutcases. Hubbard said (paraphrasing) creating a religion was a way to become rich, and I have no doubt the ‘established’ religions all agree Scientologists are nutcases.
But what makes their nutcasery unbelievable but the belief in the ‘established’ god is meant to be believable?
Is it simply because established religion is a couple of thousand years old but Hubbard’s religion is only 50 or so years old?
Frankly, I think they’re all barking mad.