The Instigator
solo
Pro (for)
Winning
79 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Con (against)
Losing
66 Points

Scientology is a work of fiction.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/16/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,862 times Debate No: 1848
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (18)
Votes (41)

 

solo

Pro

L. Ron Hubbard was a fiction author that created a religion through his imagination. It is what it is.
beem0r

Con

While L Ron Hubbard may have been a science fiction author, Scientology is not fiction. You've merely been duped by society into thinking that it is fiction. However, it is the truth. Hopefully you have enough money to go find this out for yourself by joining the church of Scientology and becoming a high level operating thetan.

It is what it is, and it is the truth.

:>
Debate Round No. 1
solo

Pro

<>

So it just SEEMS like a science fiction story? L. Ron Hubbard wrote Battlefield Earth too, that was made into a movie starring John Travolta. Are people to believe that a writer who wanted to make a lot of money while he was alive, coincidentally, was some kind of prophet in addition to creating science fiction stories?

<>

Society hasn't duped me into thinking anything, as I am not only and athiest, but also a homosexual. If society had any bearing on how I think, I wouldn't be gay and godless, so it's safe to assume that they haven't swayed me on this matter either.

<>

That's doubtful.

<
It is what it is, and it is the truth.>>

You make a good point here. Scientology requires its members to pay enormous amounts of money in order to attain its concealed information. It's a money making scheme; not the truth. The only time you don't publicly extend information that is tied closely to religion is when you do not want it scrutinized without someone to lead your beliefs in a certain direction. Scientology is not only fiction, but it's a dangerous work of fiction.
beem0r

Con

Let's remember for a second that the burden of proof rests with the instigator. Now let's look at what my opponent has offered to support his claim.

>>So it just SEEMS like a science fiction story? L. Ron Hubbard wrote Battlefield Earth too, that was made into a movie starring John Travolta. Are people to believe that a writer who wanted to make a lot of money while he was alive, coincidentally, was some kind of prophet in addition to creating science fiction stories?<<

He wrote Battlefield Earth as a work of fiction. He did not do so with works relating to Scientology. I, for one, don't see its similarity to science fiction. It sounds more to me like science fact. Scientology improves conditions in life, and provides _real_ spiritual answers.
Also, you say he wanted to make a lot of money in life like it's a bad thing... isn't that something we all want?
The fact that he was also a science fiction author does not discredit works he wrote not as science fiction.

>>Society hasn't duped me into thinking anything, as I am not only and athiest, but also a homosexual. If society had any bearing on how I think, I wouldn't be gay and godless, so it's safe to assume that they haven't swayed me on this matter either.<<

You think that just because you're in minority positions on some issues you are therefore immune to being duped by society? Think again. I didn't say you were duped in every way, just that you were duped into labeling Scientology as fiction. This is evident in your lack of supporting evidence for your claim.

>><>

That's doubtful.<<

You doubting it does not discredit it in any way. I wish you were capable of backing up your claims with evidence.

>>You make a good point here. Scientology requires its members to pay enormous amounts of money in order to attain its concealed information. It's a money making scheme; not the truth. The only time you don't publicly extend information that is tied closely to religion is when you do not want it scrutinized without someone to lead your beliefs in a certain direction. Scientology is not only fiction, but it's a dangerous work of fiction.<<

Not all truth is cheap, especially deep, spiritual truth. It's not revealed to the public because it is information to be paid for. Much as a college education is. You can't get a doctorate for free, why should you be able to learn the deep spiritual truths of the universe for free?

Unfortunately, my opponent has been unable to bring up real criticisms of Scientology. As the instigator of the debate, it is his burden to provide evidence to back up his claims. I have rebutted all his statements. That's all I should have to do.

Especially since any supporting evidence for my side would be copyrighted information :>

I'm eager to see how the people vote on this one.
Debate Round No. 2
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Soup 9 years ago
Soup
I agree with mindjob. How are the poor people supposed to be saved? That is all.
Posted by LDer09 9 years ago
LDer09
Voting on a debate is not voting on what "you" believe. Its based on facts on the arguments. If people honestly believe that solo held up his side of the debate that's fine. But you must be on drugs to think that. He did not really stick to the topic and when he was on the topic he would say the founder of scientology is a science fiction author which makes his religion fiction. I do not agree with beem0r but he held up his side of the debate. Just because someone has nice shoes does not mean that you should vote for them when they can not even hold up their side. I think the people who are voting for Solo are most likely voting because they like his shoes (figurative language) I wouldn't want you guys to get confused.
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
Whether or not they have essential knowledge is irrelevant - my opponent's entire argument was "He writes science fiction, ergo it must be fiction." And yet, I lose the debate for taking the unpopular side. Not based on the arguments, but based on people's preexisting ideas.
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
After watching the Tom Cruise interview, it seems like they have essential knowledge. Their knowledge can apparently bring all sides together in all situations. It's so essential that Tom Cruise feels compelled to spread it around the world and has no tolerance for anyone who is just a "spectator" and not actively spreading the faux religion.

And saying that they don't have essential truth because we're fine by not having it is the same as saying that christianity doesn't have essential knowledge either because, personally, I'm fine not having it either. Yet, they claim to believe in their brand of made-up religion is absolutely crucial. They just suck money out of people without making you sign binding contracts that you won't divulge religious secrets or sue any other church members, unlike scientology.
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
Writing fiction does not limit one's ability to write non-fiction.
Seems the voters agree with you though, so I guess I can't complain too much.
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
I'm bummed, beemor. I thought the simple fact that L. Ron was a successful and publicly recognized fiction writer and the creator of Scientology was a valid point as to why Scientology is a work of fiction.
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
Unlike other religions, they don't believe that you will be tortured forever if you don't know the truth and get eternal bliss if you do. This is why they don't feel obligated to put it into the public realm.

Also, my opponent did not bring up any valid criticisms. You're voting based on what you think, not based on who won the debate.
Posted by Truth 9 years ago
Truth
I have actually done a bit of research on the subject for school. I say that Scientology is a work of fiction (like most modern religion). The part that troubles me about this religion in particular over others is that its confidentiality. If the religion had serious fundamental truths I feel they would be more open to them instead of having these strange, secretive "Operating Thetan" levels.
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
It's obviously not essential truth, since most of us live our lives without it. It's simply something truth that would be good to know. As a high level Operating Thetan, one can alter reality at will. I'd say that's something that shouldn't be put into the public domain.

Also, it's obvious that I'm not a Scientologist. However, my opponent did not show that it was a work of fiction, which was his job.
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
I just refused to vote. I don't think erroneous arguments should be voted for, even if they were said and organized better.

In addition to Harvard and Yale starting up graduate programs for free online, getting a doctorate is not essential knowledge to life. Scientology, as a supposed religion, is suppose to be offering such essential truth. But making people pay outrageous sums for this truth is just plain wrong and stupid.

Oh jesus, you mean I found another issue where I actually agree with solarman. Ugh. That pains me to say.
41 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
solobeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by Amveller 5 years ago
Amveller
solobeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
solobeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro simply asserted.
Vote Placed by EinShtoin 7 years ago
EinShtoin
solobeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
solobeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
solobeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
solobeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by solo 8 years ago
solo
solobeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by matthewleebrown14 8 years ago
matthewleebrown14
solobeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by JUDGE 8 years ago
JUDGE
solobeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30