Assuming that the Raelians DID NOT clone a human baby last week, why do you think they made that assertion?

If we consider :
1- the fact that the Raelians are a cult based on a big hoax.
2- the difficulty of cloning a human (presently even cloning most mammals is still impossible)
we can assume that they lie. Maybe they don't but presently they have to proove that the clone is real - they have declined this possibility. I think that if the clone was real they would everything to prove it.

Do you know the Raelians, Tent ?
It's a french cult created in the 70's by Claude Vorilhon, who claims to have been abducted by aliens and chosen by them to create a new religion and tell the "truth" to mankind.
"Rael", as he now calls himself, is a typical guru, using his power upon raelians to get power and money.
He has been developing an interest for cloning techniques for many years, since his theory is that mankind was created 23000 years ago by aliens using similar techniques.

So anyone can make up any nonsense theory and take advantage of it to abuse people and get loads of money, and it's up to us to prove they are wrong ? Claude Vorhilon is a crook. If you defend him, you're very naive !

Automobile, television and so on are human inventions. They could look like science-fiction at a time and be created later. A totally nonsensic theory of origin will remain false forever. And this one relies on nothing else than Vorilhon's claims. He has nothing to support it. It is in contradiction with everything science told us about prehistory, genetics, evolution and astronomy. For exemple he is claiming that the "Elohims" came from a planet 1 light year away from earth, but there is no star at this distance of the sun !

I am open-minded, but I don't buy that kind of cynical theory. People like Vorilhon, Hubbard or Von Daniken are just talentless science-fiction writers who have found a way of making money with stories so stereotyped no one would dare publish them as fiction ! Crooks, they are, but clever ones - who rely on human credulity to make money.

I doubt you really know much about Rael, because if it was the case you would not even be discussing this. Check this english speaking site (there are much more complete ones in french, though)
http://skepdic.com/raelian.html

It certainly seems like nonsense to me, but then again so does the virgin mary & purgatory.

What is a Cult except an up and coming mainstream religion? You take the set of roman catholic beliefs and scale down their membership & the Pope looks no different than that crazy Rael guy.

If it works for them then great - good for them.

Originally posted by DrewM
It certainly seems like nonsense to me, but then again so does the virgin mary & purgatory.

What is a Cult except an up and coming mainstream religion? You take the set of roman catholic beliefs and scale down their membership & the Pope looks no different than that crazy Rael guy.


There are a few things about cults that make them differ from religions. It is not a question of what they believe in - even if in the case of Rael it is quite easy to question their beliefs since they have an irrelevant pseudo scientific basis. But I agree that the beliefs of any religion can be questioned, so that is not the point.
I would rather look at two things :
- is there manipulation of people's mind by (and in the interest of) a small group or a "guru" ?
- is it possible for people inside the "religion" to have freedom of speech and to criticise the leaders ?

Totalitarian thought and manipulation of adepts are the most relevant criterias to define a cult. They are used by many associations of cult's victims defense.
I agree that using that definition, some parts of the catholic Church could be assimilated to cults, like the Opus Dei. The same with extremists groups of other big religions. And also some non religious groups with a charismatic leader and fanatic followers (like many nazi or communist groups). But religions like Christianism, Islam or Buddhism as a whole are not totalitarian organisations. They contain many opinions, sometimes conflicting.