Possibly he should study the techniques of the author of Dick and Jane.
The question wasn't whether Jesus was crazier than L. Ron Hubbard, it was which religion is crazier. Which religion is crazier from the perspective of believer gullibility? We all agree that Christianity doesn't make a lot of sense but the origins of the Jesus legend are shrouded in mystery. While equally nonsensical the origins of Scientology are absolutely clear. I believe you have to be crazier to believe in Scientology than Christianity.
Sam Harris had an interesting point in one of his talks. He said Mormonism (LDS) objectively had to be nuttier than mainstream Xianity, because it believes everything Xianity does, then adds more crazy shit. Jesus isn't just coming back some day as the mainstream Xians maintain, he is coming back to Missouri. [Good grief, of all places! :-) ] Just for instance.
So sometimes you can rank things on that scale. I'd be careful using this rule of thumb though, it's possible that Parent Religion A says "X" which is pretty nutso, but then Daughter Religion B says "No, not X, but rather Y" and it turns out Y makes more sense than X did.
Actually Wilson, I'm not clear that Scientology even qualifies as a religion, as, unless I missed something in my reading of it, there's no actual mention of a deity, which would file it under the heading of a psychotic philosophy, but not necessarily a religious one.
They get tax concessions, as a religious order. Evidently they fought for a while to achieve this, but they managed it in the end.
Well, folks (archaeopteryx excluded), despite the fact (and it IS a fact that philosophy and religion departments everywhere recognize Buddhism as a religion, archaeopteryx insists it's just a philosophy and that, to be a religion, it has to have a theistic deity. I don't think I'm misrepresenting him there. The thing is, Buddhism has rituals and a theory of the afterlife. Basically, all it lacks is a deity. As do other religions, by the way: Taoism and Confucianism.
I haven't the words, and I'm quite loquacious, to express my gratitude for being excluded from your company --
I think you mean Western religions. When it comes to Eastern religions where the goal is the ultimate extinction of the soul as it is absorbed into a spiritual singularity (The One) it is not so much fear of death as fear of having to live another life.
Children are not regarded as insane for believing in Santa Claus. But if, as adults, they transfer that belief to a delusion such as Christianity...
All religions are equally preposterous and, while believing in one doesn't necessarily mean you're legally or clinically insane, it is prima facie evidence that you are mentally deficient.
Particularly, Dale, when those officials in charge of defining the terms, "legally or clinically insane," may well themselves, be similarly legally or clinically insane.
This is sorta like asking which pile of poo smells worse. ;-)