Well there you go then. So why should one human’s story be any more important or believable than any other human’s story? If Paul could write letters or Matthew write a gospel, why can’t I? Or you? Something to consider.
The main difference is that, while you would think of all such writings as equally valid, I would see all such efforts as equally invalid.
So, L Ron Hubbard writing on Scientology, David Koresh writing on Branch Davidians, Fred Felps writing on Westboro Baptists Church, Joseph Smith on Mormonism… All equally believable to Paul, Matthew, Buddha, Mohammad, etc…?
If not, how do you discriminate between them?
Fair enough. But if there’s a particular story that works for you, that gets you through the dark night, surely that can’t be a bad thing. That’s essentially how I view all religions: stories to help get us through the dark night. I have no interest I heaven or hell or even guilt; the only thing that matters is how I live my life right now. If I’m kind to others, things tend to go better for me. The rest is details.
Ron Hubbard had a viable business plan and a cool auditing machine.
I wouldn’t call them all believable or valid, no. As with any other religious writing, I’d have to look at the message and the actions and see if I agree with the message being broadcast. There are some people for example who see Donald Trump as the Saviour of the World; I am not one of these people, because I do not see goodness in what he preaches nor what he practices. Same with David Koresh or Jim Jones or many other cult leaders, yet there are those who live and breathe the word of their particular saviour. That’s why religion is a very powerful and potentially very dangerous force in the universe. And whether or not God exists, religions certainly do.
Have you ever read NED for OTs? Toward the end of his life, the stuff started breaking down. Really, Incident II has all kinds of logical problems with it – Scientology doctrine ran afoul of Science because Hubbard was a pretty shit Sci-Fi writer. If Niven or Herbert or Ellison or even Heinlein had started a religion, we might have something really interesting and possibly worthwhile, but instead we have zombie clams.
People who claim that there is a being that they call God are lying, pure and simple. (Or they’re mentally incompetent. One or the other.) They don’t believe there’s a being that they call God. They may pretend (for whatever purpose) to believe it, but there is no basis (not “no rational basis”, just no basis) for belief.
Again, it depends how you define God. If I define God as Life itself, then your darn tootin’ there’s a rational basis for my belief in God. As far as the Invisible Man in the Sky, who’ll torture you for all eternity if you break one of his rules (because he loves you), then naw, I don’t believe in that.
On a side note, I’ve never understood why we call RC priests “Father,” since that’s the one thing they’re actually prohibited from becoming.
There is no “life”. We are all just avatars in a simulation of some sort. Hell, you might not even be real, AFAICT.
Are you really serious about that idea, or are you just jerking us around? Because it is soooooooo silly.
If I define Bigfoot as the grey squirrel, then there’s a rational basis for my belief in Bigfoot.
If I define FTL travel as Girl Scout Thin Mints, then there’s a rational basis for my belief in FTL travel.
If I define the tooth fairy as a shamisen plectrum, then there’s a rational basis for my belief in the tooth fairy.
If I define the invisible pink unicorn as aluminum foil, then there’s a rational basis for my belief in the invisible pink unicorn.
We might be a bunch of bald naked people in amniotic juice pods where the machines can use our brains to power their world.
Yeah, I suppose so. But the difference is, God IS defined in part of the bible as Love, and I see a strong correlation personally between Love and Life. I also see a correlation between God and Good, intentional or not, so I’ve always thought of being more like God as synonymous With being good. Certainly not the wipe out the Egyptian army kind of good, of course. So in short, nope, not meaning to yank your chain. Just sharing a personal word association.
I see a strong correlation between Life and Lunch, and while you may love what you dine on, what you dine on probably had very different feelings about you.
As for god being good, it sure fucks people up in disturbing ways. And it seems to be indiscriminate, fucking up genuinely nice people about as much as it does skanks. It is either wholly indifferent or a sadistic sociopath.
God is eating ass!
Your mileage may vary. Apparently.
It’s a little hard to square “God is Love” with “childhood leukemia.”
True enough. I don’t think life is meant to be lived without suffering and tribulation, however. Some of us have more than our fair share.
You’ve never watched amoeba porn then, have you?
I never mentioned two gender sex. Don’t be a prude, man. 
You should read Final Blackout some day. Hubbard’s AnLab scores in the early '40s were pretty high, and he wrote some good stuff for Unknown also.
And lots of shit - he was a hack writer, better than most. Better than very early Silverberg and Ellison for two.
Can’t blame him for figuring out taking the rubes would pay better than the pulps.
ETA: And he never was a hard science fiction writer.