@artafrolic It is well accepted that people are gods. This is not to say people are pasta in the sky with meatballs, but a style of or a definition of what a God is. In this respect, the words human, homo sapian, God, person and people are labeling the same thing. Atheism illogical. B

@artafrolic my first thought would be animals that use deception as means to eat or protecting themselves from others.

He is modernizing it and with good reason: if the church held the same beliefs it always did, it would be dead by now.

@JeffMurray you are being fooled by the papal spin in which he pretends to modernise to fool the so called progressives in the church, while winking at the reactionary core of the church assuring them that nothing fundamental will change. It's the kind of balancing act that politicians do, playing off various constituencies, that's all. Catholics are fooled, the media go along with it, though less so than before. Atheists, however, see through all that. I can't believe you would think that without Frank's 'modernizing' the church would be 'dead. Even deluded Catholics wouldn't go that far.

@David1955 This is the kind of shit I'm taking about:
"The Pope drops Catholic ban on condoms in historic shift" [telegraph.co.uk]
If you don't count that, that's up to you. Maybe you count the fact that the church doesn't burn witches anymore? I think it's absurd you don't think the church has made changes in an effort to remain relevant.

@JeffMurray oh yes, I'd forgotten that thanks to Frank the CC doesn't burn witches any more.

@David1955 I meant the church in general had to make changes to stay alive. Always has. Some changes seen small, but if you add them all together adherence to the religion would be untenable.

@JeffMurray i think you mean without them adherence to the religion would be untenable. Yes, the CC has been dragged and kicked into change over the centuries in order to survive, but to a thinking person adherence to this global criminal organisation is and has always been untenable.

@David1955 Yes, thank you, that is what I meant. Also, we agree thinking people cannot abide really any organized religion. But thank you for agreeing with my original point.

Hubbard was an alcoholic science fiction writer. It shows badly when you examine Scientology.

All major religions, it seems to me, had an embryonic, cult stage, often following a charismatic personality who typically claimed some type of divine bona fides. The cult grows until it becomes a sect, and, perhaps while splitting and subdividing into offshoots along the way, eventually develops into a major religion. Most religions cite a supernatural visit, act or call; in other words, a miracle; which is to say, a falsehood.

While I disbelieve all religions, to call Scientology a religion is, well, inaccurate. It elevates batshit craziness and financial shenanigans to an entirely new level. After reading books on it, Scientology, it seems to me, is what one might get when blending Amway with Mormonism and a little Stan Lee thrown in for 'comic' relief.

@DenoPenno And not a good sci-fi writer. You know that in WWII, he had his ship shell a Mexican island.

@p-nullifidian I have a hard time distinguishing Scientology from other religions. The only reason other religions don't scream "batshit craziness" is because we're used to them. The Bible has taking animals and plants for fuck's sake.