An old man talking about something he doesn't know a damn thing about, like most people who talk about  scientology.

 He is taking advantage of a common perception that has been developped around scientology by people looking from the outside. He is probably trying to sell some low class newspapers and improve his reputation, as you say.

Given that both News Corp and Scientology have plenty of money to defend themselves AND that Scientology is notoriously touchy, this should be worth watching.

I'll get the popcorn on.

Jul 4, 2012 -- 2:48PM, farragut wrote:

"'ll get the popcorn on."

 

I'll get some quart containers of soda-pop.

Make it  7-UP grape or orange, most Mormons do not drink caffeine or other stimulating drinks   

Rhetorical question follows:

How in hell can it be that adult humans can not understand this?

Jul 4, 2012 -- 9:38PM, Ebon wrote:

As I said, everyone's religion looks crazy from the outside. To me, Scientology looks like bad SF but is it objectively any sillier than talking snakes or sacred underwear or believing in a celestial war between good and evil? Not objectively.

Objectively scientology does not look like bad SiFi, it is. If scientology is just as silly as talking snakes, etc, then why bother believing in it at all?

Now, I could suggest a few reasons why people believe weird stuff from a psychological perspective (such as confirmation bias, the need to believe that we are special, social pressure and so on) but none of that would prove that a religion is outright false. In the end, faith is a little like a piece of music: Either you feel it or you don't.

"Feeling" it or not is not a rational way to find the truth. None of those things you mentioned are used by the non believers, or detractors, of scientology. I do not reject scientology on an emotional level any more than I would reject any other religious or fanciful belief. I look at the claims made and then compare them to an objective as possible reality. The claims do not match reality and are rejected on that basis.