Scientology

[HazyRigby]

Okay. So I figured that since I've read the Bible to learn more about those kinds of religious folks, I should start expanding my horizons. Become an equal-opportunity debater, so to speak. So I bought Dianetics. (I know, I know, but bear with me.)

What an incredible load of crispy crap. I thought that I knew all there was to know about pseudo-scientific bullshit, but I now know a new low. What's the attraction for people in this "religion"? I don't get it. :huh:

Do intelligent people actually fall for that?!

[HaysooChreesto!]

Sorry to tell you but you've wasted your money. A few years ago I had the same idea that you just had. I should know what they're about and whatnot so I'll buy a book and educate myself.
I forget the name of the Scientology book I bought, but I never made it past the 25th page or so. Complete and utter shit. The Old Testament is cerebral, well paced, and fascinating beyond description when compared to the waste of a tree that was my Scientology book.

I don't like the idea of throwing books away. But I urge you to contribute to the rise of garbage in your local landfill now.

[The Nose]

I haven't read any Hubbard yet but it's on my to-do list. However, I will get it for free from my local library (same place I got the Koran and The Book of Mormon). That way, I'll a)save money and b) get my own file in the PATRIOT act archives.

[whichphilosophy]

Okay. So I figured that since I've read the Bible to learn more about those kinds of religious folks, I should start expanding my horizons. Become an equal-opportunity debater, so to speak. So I bought Dianetics. (I know, I know, but bear with me.)

What an incredible load of crispy crap. I thought that I knew all there was to know about pseudo-scientific bullshit, but I now know a new low. What's the attraction for people in this "religion"? I don't get it. :huh:

Do intelligent people actually fall for that?!


I did some courses intermittently between 1973 and 1985/6

Before you think I am being patronising by saying that you did not understand the book (Dianetics), I looked through the book and found some things recently that I was not fully aware of.The full Dianetics back up study information and research data fills tens of thousands of pages tapes etc and millions of words. The book was a condensed handbook at the time it was written. So the research and reasoning is included in these. It will take me a lifetime to read these and not getting any younger.

Leaving out for a moment whether it is right or wrong sensible or stupid to do this subject, the book is actually a practical guide (ie handbook) Just reading it won't always make that much sense to many readers.

I do find on some of the anti websites (and I'ver read through these from time to time) that they even get the subject back to front.

The subject requires hours of study and then practice drills and then application.

Do intelligent fall for it. Well considering that I deal in legal contracting, and techical issues (though a non-engineer) Dianetics courses require more precision to "get it right."

I didn't start through Dianetics, as I was too dumb at the time to understand the book anyway.

Dummys (like I am at times) will not make much headway unless they are able to study and then use what they learn. Having said that there are pre requisite courses that "teach the person how to study."

Though I never made it to the state of "Clear" I did raise my level of intelligence from a dyslectic trainee manager of supermarkets to being able to hold my own against lawyers whether for contractual disputes or matters of employee compensation/injury and contractual requirements (Hong Kong).

There are some who claim that we cannot increase our IQ for instance. This is not factual. To test the subject I did a MENSA test and didn't pass (around 1974) with an above average score but insufficient. Then a few years later took a test and did pass.

If someone does not believe that, then that's fine as one never expects anyone to take anything face value. However why just attract idiots who are not intellilgent. They will not be able to afford the courses.

Unfortunately it is difficult to discuss the subject on the forums, since many of the replies are just pastings of hostile websites but no specific points. That is to say how can one reply to 1,500 articles at once even though I've seen most of them (as many stem from a few earlier ones).

Since I am an honoured guest on the website I have included the details of "my past life" in my profile.

Since I am not an active member, and couldn't care less if someone wants the subject, because why try and convince someone in a subject they can only find out for themselves.

As for claims that most people are less likely to get "ill" I would agree but that is from personal experience.

As for claims of increased income. That's pretty normal. A few colleagues of mine who were at the time not earning much, ie university drop outs, some even uneducated, are now ranging from very well off to millionaires. So I guess that's why they can pay for the courses.

IIf I really cared about convincing someone about the subject being of benefit, then you would be amazed such an ugly person like me can attract a beautiful much younger wife.

[whichphilosophy]

Still its better than reading the whole book and saying it a load of garbage. My record for throwing away a book on modern medicine was the first paragraph.

Mind you its like reading an instruction manual. If you just read it, it would make sense unless you apply and follow the procedures. :wave:

Sorry to tell you but you've wasted your money. A few years ago I had the same idea that you just had. I should know what they're about and whatnot so I'll buy a book and educate myself.
I forget the name of the Scientology book I bought, but I never made it past the 25th page or so. Complete and utter shit. The Old Testament is cerebral, well paced, and fascinating beyond description when compared to the waste of a tree that was my Scientology book.

I don't like the idea of throwing books away. But I urge you to contribute to the rise of garbage in your local landfill now.

[Avatar]

IIf I really cared about convincing someone about the subject being of benefit, then you would be amazed such an ugly person like me can attract a beautiful much younger wife.

That may have more to do with attitude and self confidence than Scientoligy.

The book is the "bible" for Scientology, which calls itself a science, a Church and a religion. Hubbard tells the reader that dianetics "...contains a therapeutic technique with which can be treated all inorganic mental ills and all organic psycho-somatic ills, with assurance of complete cure...." He claims that he has discovered the "single source of mental derangement" (Hubbard, 6). However, in a disclaimer on the frontispiece of the book, we are told that "Scientology and its sub-study, Dianetics, as practiced by the Church...does not wish to accept individuals who desire treatment of physical illness or insanity but refers these to qualified specialists of other organizations who deal in these matters." The disclaimer seems clearly to have been a protective mechanism against lawsuits for practicing medicine without a license; for, the author repeatedly insists that dianetics can cure just about anything which ails you. He also repeatedly insists that dianetics is a science. Yet, just about anyone familiar with scientific texts will be able to tell from the first few pages of Dianetics that the text is no scientific work and the author no scientist. Dianetics is a classic example of a pseudoscience.

On page 5 of Dianetics, Hubbard asserts that a science of mind must find "a single source of all insanities, psychoses, neuroses, compulsions, repressions and social derangements." Such a science, he claims, must provide "Invariant scientific evidence as to the basic nature and functional background of the human mind." And, this science, he says, must understand the "cause and cure of all psycho-somatic ills...." Yet, he also claims that it would be unreasonable to expect a science of mind to be able to find a single source of all insanities, since some are caused by "malformed, deleted or pathologically injured brains or nervous systems" and some are caused by doctors. Undaunted by this apparent contradiction, he goes on to say that this science of mind "would have to rank, in experimental precision, with physics and chemistry." He then tells us that dianetics is "...an organized science of thought built on definite axioms: statements of natural laws on the order of those of the physical sciences" (Hubbard, 6).

There are broad hints that this so-called science of the mind isn't a science at all in the claim that dianetics is built on "definite axioms" and in his a priori notion that a science of mind must find a single source of mental and psychosomatic ills. Sciences aren't built on axioms and they don't claim a priori knowledge of the number of causal mechanisms which must exist for any phenomena. A real science is built on tentative proposals to account for observed phenomena. Scientific knowledge of causes, including how many kinds there are, is a matter of discovery not stipulation. Also, scientists generally respect logic and would have difficulty saying with a straight face that this new science must show that there is a single source of all insanities except for those insanities that are caused by other sources.

[Rational BAC]

Pro and con Scientology.---------Neato. Bring it on.

I know only enough about Scientology to think that it seems to be the worst kind of cultish indoctrination.

The E-meter is a stupid ohmeter. A Simpson 260 can read fairly accurately resistance through a human body. Big frigging deal.

Only a fool would believe any of that crap.

But I could be wrong--------

[whichphilosophy]

That may have more to do with attitude and self confidence than Scientoligy.

The book is the "bible" for Scientology, which calls itself a science, a Church and a religion. Hubbard tells the reader that dianetics "...contains a therapeutic technique with which can be treated all inorganic mental ills and all organic psycho-somatic ills, with assurance of complete cure...." He claims that he has discovered the "single source of mental derangement" (Hubbard, 6). However, in a disclaimer on the frontispiece of the book, we are told that "Scientology and its sub-study, Dianetics, as practiced by the Church...does not wish to accept individuals who desire treatment of physical illness or insanity but refers these to qualified specialists of other organizations who deal in these matters." The disclaimer seems clearly to have been a protective mechanism against lawsuits for practicing medicine without a license; for, the author repeatedly insists that dianetics can cure just about anything which ails you. He also repeatedly insists that dianetics is a science. Yet, just about anyone familiar with scientific texts will be able to tell from the first few pages of Dianetics that the text is no scientific work and the author no scientist. Dianetics is a classic example of a pseudoscience.

On page 5 of Dianetics, Hubbard asserts that a science of mind must find "a single source of all insanities, psychoses, neuroses, compulsions, repressions and social derangements." Such a science, he claims, must provide "Invariant scientific evidence as to the basic nature and functional background of the human mind." And, this science, he says, must understand the "cause and cure of all psycho-somatic ills...." Yet, he also claims that it would be unreasonable to expect a science of mind to be able to find a single source of all insanities, since some are caused by "malformed, deleted or pathologically injured brains or nervous systems" and some are caused by doctors. Undaunted by this apparent contradiction, he goes on to say that this science of mind "would have to rank, in experimental precision, with physics and chemistry." He then tells us that dianetics is "...an organized science of thought built on definite axioms: statements of natural laws on the order of those of the physical sciences" (Hubbard, 6).

There are broad hints that this so-called science of the mind isn't a science at all in the claim that dianetics is built on "definite axioms" and in his a priori notion that a science of mind must find a single source of mental and psychosomatic ills. Sciences aren't built on axioms and they don't claim a priori knowledge of the number of causal mechanisms which must exist for any phenomena. A real science is built on tentative proposals to account for observed phenomena. Scientific knowledge of causes, including how many kinds there are, is a matter of discovery not stipulation. Also, scientists generally respect logic and would have difficulty saying with a straight face that this new science must show that there is a single source of all insanities except for those insanities that are caused by other sources.

First I think an excellent write up for what you see written. I think you can see why the legal definitions were tied up with lawyers for some years and there.

Some years ago during the Sir John Foster report on Scientology, he wrote that he was at times confused. He was told by Scientology that they don't cure any illnessses, yet he had received thousands of letters saying they were cured of illnesses.

If someone is sick, see a doctor. There is a theory though not that widely held by the medical profession that most illnesses are in fact psychosomatic. An easy example could be heart diseases being caused by stress and not just junk food (especially when we see others living on junk food and seemingly very healthy).

So I suppose in vague terms if we can seek to rid a person of those aspects that affect their disposition to get (psychosomatic illnesses) then we can have healthier people.

Another aspect of treatment is detoxification. Sounds like spending so many hours in a sauna (taking breaks every few minutes) to remove toxins and swallowing vitamins and fluids. There is some debate about this and there are now some favourable studies on this, though I haven't seen much yet in the peer journals. There are articles for and against. It's up to the person to decide to do this or not.

I am convinced from personal experience that there is a single source of irrationalities/insanities etc. However it would be stupid to assume everyone should just take this from my say so.

There is a little footnote attributing this to Freud's research on the sub concious mind. There is a slight connection there.

[whichphilosophy]

Pro and con Scientology.---------Neato. Bring it on.

I know only enough about Scientology to think that it seems to be the worst kind of cultish indoctrination.

The E-meter is a stupid ohmeter. A Simpson 260 can read fairly accurately resistance through a human body. Big frigging deal.

Only a fool would believe any of that crap.

But I could be wrong--------

As someone who has to deal with people a lot and be able to read them, your point "I could be wrong" is in fact in my view (nothing to do with Dianetics etc) is a good trait as none of us are perfect in any form of knowledge.

As for the e-meter the concept is very simple, sure like a Whetstone Bridge or something.

You could always ask for a "pinch test"
If you're holding the cans correctly (there is a simple procedure) without squeezing them or varying the pressure, and someone pinches your arm, a certain read will appear as you react. Then you will be asked to think of being pinched just then and a very similar (sometimes almost identical) read will appear on the dial. As the question is repeated a few times, the needle action on the dial will gradually diminish.

Now I'm not an "advanced user" and haven't used one since 1985.

There's another test where the person using the meter (has to be trained for it) will be able to find out your date of birth or a number you have written.

All of this is good fun of course.

These tests (which are also part of the E-Meter Learner's process) are just to show that it reacts on thought. A pressure gauge for instance will tell you the pressure but not do anything else.

[KathyG]

What an incredible load of crispy crap.

K :rolling: :notworthy

[Philippe*]

Okay. So I figured that since I've read the Bible to learn more about those kinds of religious folks, I should start expanding my horizons. Become an equal-opportunity debater, so to speak. So I bought Dianetics. (I know, I know, but bear with me.)

What an incredible load of crispy crap. I thought that I knew all there was to know about pseudo-scientific bullshit, but I now know a new low. What's the attraction for people in this "religion"? I don't get it. :huh:

Do intelligent people actually fall for that?!

The same, recently I have bought this book but a second-hand one on-line, he he, I don't intend to give money directly to Scientology. I have not read yet, but I find their famous test and what I have already read rather crappy. Ron Hubbard looks more like a guy that picked here and there skilfully to build a religion that the "creative genius" they seem to worship. And there are loads of testimonies of ex-adepts.

Philippe

[Eldarion Lathria]

"Dear Ron,

You win. Money follows.

Murray."

"Bob,

Send Ron the money.

Murray"

Eldarion Lathria

[Cynthia of Syracuse]

Scientology really falls under the purview of NARP, so off it goes.

[lenrek]

There was a previous discussion regarding Scientology. Anyone may want to check it out:

Scientology, what is it? (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=80717)

[whichphilosophy]

"Dear Ron,

You win. Money follows.

Murray."

"Bob,

Send Ron the money.

Murray"

Eldarion Lathria

It would be pointless sending Ron Hubbard any money because he died several years ago :Cheeky:

[whichphilosophy]

The same, recently I have bought this book but a second-hand one on-line, he he, I don't intend to give money directly to Scientology. I have not read yet, but I find their famous test and what I have already read rather crappy. Ron Hubbard looks more like a guy that picked here and there skilfully to build a religion that the "creative genius" they seem to worship. And there are loads of testimonies of ex-adepts.

Philippe

As an ex member for several years (and still did not get around to returning when I decided to) I know some who left but during their membership most of them were pretty fanatical at the time. As in any religion politics or in life fanatics tend to distort and over emphasise issues to the point one can hardly recognise them.

Even when I left I was not going to lie and say I gained nothing or the terrible things that happened were nothing more then a rude remark or an arguement. In fact I was probarbly the worst culprit at times.


I don't mean to be rude, but what's the point of spending your money on books from an author whose earlier ones were you feel of no use. :Cheeky: I will add however that these books are really manuals rather than just for reading. I find this a lot. A person has books in house by Ron Hubbard but says they aren't any use. Why buy more than one?

Any book on philosophy or religion worth is salt must surely only be as valuable to the degree it can be applied.

[Darwin Redux]

Okay. So I figured that since I've read the Bible to learn more about those kinds of religious folks, I should start expanding my horizons. Become an equal-opportunity debater, so to speak. So I bought Dianetics. (I know, I know, but bear with me.)

What an incredible load of crispy crap. I thought that I knew all there was to know about pseudo-scientific bullshit, but I now know a new low. What's the attraction for people in this "religion"? I don't get it. :huh:

Do intelligent people actually fall for that?!

I would recommend reading "Bare-faced Messiah" by Russell Miller. I read it after I read Dianetics. Not only was it easier to read, but at 390 pages (as opposed to Dianetics' 676 pages) it was shorter too. L. Ron Hubbard was one crafty schuckster...

[Philippe*]

As an ex member for several years (and still did not get around to returning when I decided to) I know some who left but during their membership most of them were pretty fanatical at the time. As in any religion politics or in life fanatics tend to distort and over emphasise issues to the point one can hardly recognise them.

Even when I left I was not going to lie and say I gained nothing or the terrible things that happened were nothing more then a rude remark or an arguement. In fact I was probarbly the worst culprit at times.


I don't mean to be rude, but what's the point of spending your money on books from an author whose earlier ones were you feel of no use. :Cheeky: I will add however that these books are really manuals rather than just for reading. I find this a lot. A person has books in house by Ron Hubbard but says they aren't any use. Why buy more than one?

Any book on philosophy or religion worth is salt must surely only be as valuable to the degree it can be applied.

Actually I am just curious, I have only done their test and read a website, I have done kind of investigations in plenty of spiritualities or religious movements, I am myself fond of spirituality especially the yogic indian one, and even what I find crappy can interest me in order for example to better understand the world, myself and the human mind !

Philippe

[Julius]

The book is the "bible" for Scientology, which calls itself a science, a Church and a religion.
Actually, there is a difference between Scientology and Dianetics; and it should be remembered that the book Dianetics has remained unedited throughout all its editions. It contains errors, as the Church would probably admit to you if you rang them up and asked. Hubbard wished to avoid the fate of many other religions by keeping his texts in their original forms--including any errors. Thus, people could not argue later over what he had written and what someone else had altered.

Dianetics concerns itself with bodily illness and mental illness. There is nothing religious about it. However, as Hubbard progressed, the religion of Scientology evolved out of Dianetics since those principles did not explain all the data.
Hubbard tells the reader that dianetics "...contains a therapeutic technique with which can be treated all inorganic mental ills and all organic psycho-somatic ills, with assurance of complete cure...." He claims that he has discovered the "single source of mental derangement" (Hubbard, 6). However, in a disclaimer on the frontispiece of the book, we are told that "Scientology and its sub-study, Dianetics, as practiced by the Church...does not wish to accept individuals who desire treatment of physical illness or insanity but refers these to qualified specialists of other organizations who deal in these matters."
It would be rather difficult to explain in one post. I doubt I could anyway, not if you've read the book and disagree with it. My question is, do they get results? I've seen results in other people I knew, so I'd say yes.
The disclaimer seems clearly to have been a protective mechanism against lawsuits for practicing medicine without a license; for, the author repeatedly insists that dianetics can cure just about anything which ails you. He also repeatedly insists that dianetics is a science. Yet, just about anyone familiar with scientific texts will be able to tell from the first few pages of Dianetics that the text is no scientific work and the author no scientist. Dianetics is a classic example of a pseudoscience.
The question is, "Does it work?" I used to know several Scientologists, have read several of their books, but took only one course myself. I consider myself a Christian--but I would have to say it works from what I observed.

They do have good reasons not to accept certain people and they still do not. One is the danger of lawsuits. Mentally ill people and people currently sick are usually what the Church calls PTS--they should not be accepted until they are no longer PTS (potential trouble source).
On page 5 of Dianetics, Hubbard asserts that a science of mind must find "a single source of all insanities, psychoses, neuroses, compulsions, repressions and social derangements." Such a science, he claims, must provide "Invariant scientific evidence as to the basic nature and functional background of the human mind." And, this science, he says, must understand the "cause and cure of all psycho-somatic ills...." Yet, he also claims that it would be unreasonable to expect a science of mind to be able to find a single source of all insanities, since some are caused by "malformed, deleted or pathologically injured brains or nervous systems" and some are caused by doctors. Undaunted by this apparent contradiction, he goes on to say that this science of mind "would have to rank, in experimental precision, with physics and chemistry." He then tells us that dianetics is "...an organized science of thought built on definite axioms: statements of natural laws on the order of those of the physical sciences" (Hubbard, 6).
There, he just named most of the problems which the Church of Scientology would not take on, even today. Someone with an injured brain should not go expecting any results. Someone with a history of mental illness would probably not be accepted, either, for any processing.
There are broad hints that this so-called science of the mind isn't a science at all in the claim that dianetics is built on "definite axioms" and in his a priori notion that a science of mind must find a single source of mental and psychosomatic ills. Sciences aren't built on axioms and they don't claim a priori knowledge of the number of causal mechanisms which must exist for any phenomena.
Science operates with the testing of hypotheses. This is what Hubbard did. If a hypothesis worked, he took it as axiomatically true. What's unscientific about that? Most of what we call science still remains theoretical, not 100% proved.
A real science is built on tentative proposals to account for observed phenomena.
True enough, and if they seem to work, we accept them as true although we have not yet proved them conclusively. They remain axioms. The theory of evolution is not demonstrated to be true, but consists of axioms which are reasonable.
Scientific knowledge of causes, including how many kinds there are, is a matter of discovery not stipulation. Also, scientists generally respect logic and would have difficulty saying with a straight face that this new science must show that there is a single source of all insanities except for those insanities that are caused by other sources.
Yes, and the book Dianetics was fairly accurate in stating its axioms if you ask me. I think his definition of "theta" is a bit off in that book; but it was a beginning book. While it may surprise you to find that insanities share one source, that does not make it impossible. After all, gravity explains a lot, too. If a law is true, I would expect it to explain a lot. The book Dianetics is not my favorite of their books, I will say; I would recommend Scientology: Fundamentals of Thought.

[Proxima Centauri]

Scientology looks silly to me.Operation Clambake (http://www.xenu.net/)has plenty of reasons why we shouldn’t trust what Scientologists try and tell us.

[whichphilosophy]

Actually I am just curious, I have only done their test and read a website, I have done kind of investigations in plenty of spiritualities or religious movements, I am myself fond of spirituality especially the yogic indian one, and even what I find crappy can interest me in order for example to better understand the world, myself and the human mind !

Philippe

I can only say that a key to self discovery is knowing what you genuinly see regardless of what anyone else says. Some of the early Eastern concepts in religion did of course cross into science.

There is nothing in science to disprove or prove spirituality so it is really an individual thing. Of course there are books out there. I choose those that map a path and are applicable.

Science can teach us practical knowledge and spritual education in my view (and it is up to anyone if they believe or disbelieve) uncovers the hidden knowledge that we have.

[whichphilosophy]

Scientology looks silly to me.Operation Clambake (http://www.xenu.net/)has plenty of reasons why we shouldn’t trust what Scientologists try and tell us.


Do you have any specifics. This is rather generalised. I get this from time to time. In most cases the persons don't understand what the articles are about. One or two I do admit are unintelligible.

Really there are about 1,500 articles in Operation Clambake. It's rather like showing someone a file of 20 boxes and saying here this is why.

I've actually read through many of these articles and know the background of these. Still anything goes even if it was discredited years ago.

With a legal background (not a lawyer) in science or justice there is the burdon of proof.

[whichphilosophy]

Actually, there is a difference between Scientology and Dianetics; and it should be remembered that the book Dianetics has remained unedited throughout all its editions. It contains errors, as the Church would probably admit to you if you rang them up and asked. Hubbard wished to avoid the fate of many other religions by keeping his texts in their original forms--including any errors. Thus, people could not argue later over what he had written and what someone else had altered.

Dianetics concerns itself with bodily illness and mental illness. There is nothing religious about it. However, as Hubbard progressed, the religion of Scientology evolved out of Dianetics since those principles did not explain all the data.

It would be rather difficult to explain in one post. I doubt I could anyway, not if you've read the book and disagree with it. My question is, do they get results? I've seen results in other people I knew, so I'd say yes.

The question is, "Does it work?" I used to know several Scientologists, have read several of their books, but took only one course myself. I consider myself a Christian--but I would have to say it works from what I observed.

They do have good reasons not to accept certain people and they still do not. One is the danger of lawsuits. Mentally ill people and people currently sick are usually what the Church calls PTS--they should not be accepted until they are no longer PTS (potential trouble source).

There, he just named most of the problems which the Church of Scientology would not take on, even today. Someone with an injured brain should not go expecting any results. Someone with a history of mental illness would probably not be accepted, either, for any processing.

Science operates with the testing of hypotheses. This is what Hubbard did. If a hypothesis worked, he took it as axiomatically true. What's unscientific about that? Most of what we call science still remains theoretical, not 100% proved.

True enough, and if they seem to work, we accept them as true although we have not yet proved them conclusively. They remain axioms. The theory of evolution is not demonstrated to be true, but consists of axioms which are reasonable.

Yes, and the book Dianetics was fairly accurate in stating its axioms if you ask me. I think his definition of "theta" is a bit off in that book; but it was a beginning book. While it may surprise you to find that insanities share one source, that does not make it impossible. After all, gravity explains a lot, too. If a law is true, I would expect it to explain a lot. The book Dianetics is not my favorite of their books, I will say; I would recommend Scientology: Fundamentals of Thought.

Having received the auditing I would say that the forms of insanity, etc would from experience stem from one source. It is hard to grasp of course, and impossible to believe outright I suppose without experience in this.

Dianetics is really a sort of snapshot of the subject and pretty condensed. The total works fills tens of thousands of pages. I did have the count somewhere.

It does get the results and the application is now geared as I understand to more thorough accuracy of study and application and observation.

[Philippe*]

I can only say that a key to self discovery is knowing what you genuinly see regardless of what anyone else says. Some of the early Eastern concepts in religion did of course cross into science.

There is nothing in science to disprove or prove spirituality so it is really an individual thing. Of course there are books out there. I choose those that map a path and are applicable.

Science can teach us practical knowledge and spritual education in my view (and it is up to anyone if they believe or disbelieve) uncovers the hidden knowledge that we have.

I am all for the statement “Know thyself, and thou shall know the Universe and the Gods.� beyond any rigid religious dogma. It is off-topic but for those interested in self knowledge from a free spiritual point of view, I recommand Jiddhu Krishnamurti http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/index.asp

Philippe

[whichphilosophy]

I am all for the statement “Know thyself, and thou shall know the Universe and the Gods.� beyond any rigid religious dogma. It is off-topic but for those interested in self knowledge from a free spiritual point of view, I recommand Jiddhu Krishnamurti http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/index.asp

Philippe

What's good about most modern countries and the USA is we have relative freedom to explore different avenues.

What you say is absoloutely true, however, Know thyself.....

One may argue what was lacking was a precise methodology of getting there. However as for individual awareness and the process of self discovery this is the result of the methodology and not the methodology itself.

That is to say by learning procedures in an academic method we gain (or regain our inherent knowledge).

You might say this is where scientific methodology to discover religion of sorts. I am sure this must sound confusing to some because it is a new concept. Sounds okay for a person working in engineering, contractual and legal matters (Yawn to some).

But of course who am I to judge if someone chooses a road that leads them to spiritual freedom or awareness, or to atheism since we can only judge by actions rather than by beliefs.

[whichphilosophy]

I would recommend reading "Bare-faced Messiah" by Russell Miller. I read it after I read Dianetics. Not only was it easier to read, but at 390 pages (as opposed to Dianetics' 676 pages) it was shorter too. L. Ron Hubbard was one crafty schuckster...

What we have here is a comparision between critics and some anecdotes verses a handbook on the subject.

Russel Miller's book didn't contain anything new drawing quite a bit from a book by Cyril Vosper etc.

Leaving out whether the book was factual or not, the data from this held little water when attempts were made to use this against the organisation.

The other thing I find even though not highly technically trained in the subject, in the 1970s is the errors in definition of the technical application of the subject, means such books are an unreliable source, right or wrong.

It should be noted that much of this information as written in these books were once in the court system but found easily defeasible as lacked scientific and medical evidence plus burdon of proof. The same went for the allegations etc.

Thus we can conclude that these books bear no merit due to the gathering of fruit from a few poisionous trees.

[Proxima Centauri]

Do you have any specifics. This is rather generalised. I get this from time to time. In most cases the persons don't understand what the articles are about. One or two I do admit are unintelligible.

Really there are about 1,500 articles in Operation Clambake. It's rather like showing someone a file of 20 boxes and saying here this is why.

I've actually read through many of these articles and know the background of these. Still anything goes even if it was discredited years ago.

With a legal background (not a lawyer) in science or justice there is the burdon of proof.
The Anderson Report CHAPTER 16, THE PRECLEAR'S PROGRESS ( http://www.xenu.net/archive/audit/ar16.html)
The Anderson Report, CHAPTER 15, PROCUREMENT AND DISSEMINATION (http://www.xenu.net/archive/audit/ar15.html)
Operation Clambake present: what is Scientology? ( http://www.xenu.net/roland-intro.html)
The above are good places to start. You say they’ve been discredited. Scientologists would say that wouldn’t they? Well I don’t believe they have. I certainly wouldn’t risk getting involved with a group where there are so many serious criticisms. Its too dangerous.

[whichphilosophy]

The Anderson Report CHAPTER 16, THE PRECLEAR'S PROGRESS ( http://www.xenu.net/archive/audit/ar16.html)
The Anderson Report, CHAPTER 15, PROCUREMENT AND DISSEMINATION (http://www.xenu.net/archive/audit/ar15.html)
Operation Clambake present: what is Scientology? ( http://www.xenu.net/roland-intro.html)
The above are good places to start. You say they’ve been discredited. Scientologists would say that wouldn’t they? Well I don’t believe they have. I certainly wouldn’t risk getting involved with a group where there are so many serious criticisms. Its too dangerous.


The Anderson Report was discredited in effect by the John Foster Report in 1971 where he found no evidence to support the allegations.

The Foster report (HSMO bookshops) concluded that there was no evidence behind the accusations leveled against the organisation, nor was the aliens ban imposed in the UK in the 1960s.

For several years the government could not find any evidence to support this ban and eventually lifted it as it had no burdon of proof.


In the early 1970s I had clipping passed to me about the Deputy leader of the Australian opposition party apologising for the Anderson report due to its bias. Due to moving around a lot I don't have this clip at hand. Anyway I mentioned this because this was one of the first things I saw when I did some courses.

When the C of S issued a lawsuit against the enquiry the local government rapidly passed a law in retrospect (just about the first in the commonwealth if my memory serves correct) forbidding law suits to be issued against Anderson or those who testified.


One such suit was when some psychiatrists introduced someone to "try some auditing" for the enquiry. It was found this patient was a person with a history of mental disorders and was not driven mad as they were mad anyway.

The organisation does not accept mentally ill people for processing.

As for Operation Clambake, again it is showing a lot of conjecture opinion as well as discredited anecdotes.

Now the basis behind the accusations of criminal organisation boils down to 12 members being jailed for theft of government documents. Ironically they could have obtained these under the Freedom of Information Act through the court system.

Regardless of views on the subject there is nothing of credit in the Anderson Report. It still gets circulated. The principals and practices are not longer banned, due to the fact there was no evidence to support this ban.

The article by Roland is simply statements and that's it. One cannot convict a person in a court of law.

Again another article that misdefines Dianetics therapy. Actually it is confusing it with psychoanalysis. This is written by a person who used to be a member. He either misunderstood what he read or he simply wasn't truthful. I think it is the latter.

In a Nutshell is basically opinion but nothing in concrete fact
The Harm it does Opinion
Ethics. Opinion plus it misdefines Ethics
Brainwashing Bites Back Incorrect the book was a book about Brainwashing techniques used by various agencies in the US. It's not used in any courses other than a reference.
I won't go through the rest

Now you have some boring data on copyright law and disputes. This is not crminal it is civil.

What is basically here is an anti- sort of propaganda sheet. However its a bit of a paper tiger. Not even original.

He doesn't seem to like Muslims or Christians either, and he should be careful what he says about them on his weblogs as the C of S have been noting his statements. You can always ask them for the copies of it.

So I would say if you were anti Scn don't pick him as a running mate.

[But]

I only read a bit in Dianetics once a couple of years ago, and I must say I was truly astounded by the sheer amount and quality of pure, unadulterated, military grade horseshit contained therein.

To answer the OP, I think it is widely known that they try to attract people with psychological problems, make them do tests that tell them basically that they absolutely need this stuff, get them hooked on it and leech their money.

They start with pretty mild nonsense that contains some trivial exercises and guidelines that are actually useful, and slowly add more of the hardcore bullshit until you spend shitloads of money to become some kind of super-ghost with the e-meter and that crap.

This combined with the American "if it makes money, it's good" attitude, makes a pretty powerful, successful, greedy cult. Scientology is everything the deconverted ex-fundies among us despise about religion, amplified and compressed into a solid block of crap.

And now I'm waiting for whichphilosophy to return to the stage and use the standard CoS method of dealing with critics, which is burying them under a pile of bullshit.

[whichphilosophy]

I only read a bit in Dianetics once a couple of years ago, and I must say I was truly astounded by the sheer amount and quality of pure, unadulterated, military grade horseshit contained therein.

To answer the OP, I think it is widely known that they try to attract people with psychological problems, make them do tests that tell them basically that they absolutely need this stuff, get them hooked on it and leech their money.

They start with pretty mild nonsense that contains some trivial exercises and guidelines that are actually useful, and slowly add more of the hardcore bullshit until you spend shitloads of money to become some kind of super-ghost with the e-meter and that crap.

This combined with the American "if it makes money, it's good" attitude, makes a pretty powerful, successful, greedy cult. Scientology is everything the deconverted ex-fundies among us despise about religion, amplified and compressed into a solid block of crap.

And now I'm waiting for whichphilosophy to return to the stage and use the standard CoS method of dealing with critics, which is burying them under a pile of bullshit.


Hello, long time no speak.
Actually dealing with lawyers a lot I tend to use the legal method burdon of proof etc, opinion, assumption, heresay verses fact and event etc. In what some think as a boring job dealing with contracts at times etc, one has to look at these to have any substance.


You've read a bit of a book and then formed a conclusion on it. Nonetheless if someone found no use for doing the subject they would be wasting their money of course. Mind you, your better than those who read the whole book cover to cover and a couple of others and say they disliked them. Seems a waste of time and money.

As you did intimate it's a sort of hand book for application. Really for those who want to site on their rears and intellectualize life (I must admit sounds a bit like me a lot) this is not the book. I'm not on commission here, but this is a hand book of application.

One has to use it precisely to see if it works. That is to say take a scientific approach.

Actually the best way to deal with those who are hypercritical is sometimes to play back what they say generally. Nowadays the C of S homes in on their weblogs which is legal as these are chat rooms. Nothing wrong with that if one finds these people cannot keep their mouths shut and attack race, and religion.

The other thing is that when a fundamentalist in religion, fanatic for want of a better word leaves a religion they become fanatically against it. This is simply more that they cannot see in black and white. The persons "beliefs" may change but the person did not change.

In your comments you're using a lot of assumption rather than fact but there's nothing wrong in having beliefs and opinions and imagination. Why not it's a free society as long as we are not shooting people or something or inciting the same.

[But]

Nonetheless if someone found no use for doing the subject they would be wasting their money of course. Mind you, your better than those who read the whole book cover to cover and a couple of others and say they disliked them. Seems a waste of time and money.


Well, even if they don't swallow the crap, they gave some of their bucks to the "Church". They didn't get anything out of it, the CoS did.


As you did intimate it's a sort of hand book for application. Really for those who want to site on their rears and intellectualize life (I must admit sounds a bit like me a lot) this is not the book. I'm not on commission here, but this is a hand book of application.

One has to use it precisely to see if it works. That is to say take a scientific approach.


Well, I could do it. My critical thinking is pretty hard to bypass, so there shouldn't be a problem. Other, more unstable, persons risk being severely brainwashed if they swallow too much of it.


Actually the best way to deal with those who are hypercritical is sometimes to play back what they say generally. Nowadays the C of S homes in on their weblogs which is legal as these are chat rooms. Nothing wrong with that if one finds these people cannot keep their mouths shut and attack race, and religion.


As we know, the CoS uses pretty much everything they can to make any critic's life a misery. We know that already.


The other thing is that when a fundamentalist in religion, fanatic for want of a better word leaves a religion they become fanatically against it. This is simply more that they cannot see in black and white. The persons "beliefs" may change but the person did not change.


No, the difference is that the ex-fundy or Scientologist experienced firsthand the brainwashing and realizes what it has done to him. He wants to warn other people not to fall for it.


In your comments you're using a lot of assumption rather than fact but there's nothing wrong in having beliefs and opinions and imagination. Why not it's a free society as long as we are not shooting people or something or inciting the same.

Yes, yes, yes. I think you didn't answer my points about the "Church"'s modus operandi of silencing critics and covering them with lawsuits. I gave you lots of links and the only thing you did was hand-wave them away. I want to remind you of the parody film that they succeeded in getting censored.

Remember what Goebbels said? Repeat the same bullshit over and over again, eventually it becomes the truth.

[whichphilosophy]

Well, even if they don't swallow the crap, they gave some of their bucks to the "Church". They didn't get anything out of it, the CoS did. .

So for them it would be waste of money, like I said. :wave:


Well, I could do it. My critical thinking is pretty hard to bypass, so there shouldn't be a problem. Other, more unstable, persons risk being severely brainwashed if they swallow too much of it. .

But why waste your time and money you’ve already presumed know what the subject is about anyway. I think you are critical of the perceived concept of the subject but not the subject itself.

As we know, the CoS uses pretty much everything they can to make any critic's life a misery. We know that already. .

I don’t think exposing a bomb maker who started firing his gun at people (jailed in Canada after fleeing Canada) people who like whacking others, and some made profound racist remarks, or some fanatic chatting with the KKK (just after 9/11) on methods how to eliminate Muslims is such a bad thing. One does not have to go far to do this. They discredit themselves with their misbehavior. They only incriminate themselves with their “loose tongues� represented by using a mouse.

If the person is a dangerous criminal to others and sometimes to themselves so what? And this is on very specific points.
One does not have to go far to find out these things. They spew on the chat lines.
Someone who just doesn’t like the subject or disinterest has a right to be, but as long as they respect the views of others. There are so many diverse views nowadays we have choices hereYes/No?? :Cheeky:

No, the difference is that the ex-fundy or Scientologist experienced firsthand the brainwashing and realizes what it has done to him. He wants to warn other people not to fall for it. .

Actually from my own first hand experience they were once fanatically pushing it (and probably kicked out for altering the methodology of technical application etc) and end up fanatically against it. A couple of good friends were like this. One became an extreme evangelist. This happens in all walks of life.
Yes, yes, yes. I think you didn't answer my points about the "Church"'s modus operandi of silencing critics and covering them with lawsuits. I gave you lots of links and the only thing you did was hand-wave them away. I want to remind you of the parody film that they succeeded in getting censored. .

Now you're making me laugh again. You showed sometime ago references from one of your sites, to what you called law suits, “criminal activity etc� and most were mainly just things like copyright cases (yawn) etc. Do you remember one example of criminal activity turned out to be a lawyer being fined US$17.000 for filing a frivolous lawsuit? Big deal, but sure there have been responsive lawsuits.

The site sponsors shove a lot of garbage in for padding because I know most people don’t actually read it. They are so gullible they get excited when they just look at the overall appearance laced with the usual ranting and ad homenims.

No doubt this fanatical drum thumping does excite various extremists while confusing others.

Free speech is one thing, libel and slander are another in law.
I only cover Contract law in the Oil and Gas industries, (I’m not a court lawyer by the way but someone who deals with legal matters from time to time).

I am not sure of the basis of the case but whether defamation by implication was argued here. That is to say defamatory intimations based on already discredited data etc., or portraying individuals in a grossly distorted manner to the extent it gives a false and untrue picture. Maybe I’ll try and get the court records on the internet some time. This will tell me (though tediously having to comb through the manuscript to forage for information).
.[/QUOTE]

Remember what Goebbels said? Repeat the same bullshit over and over again, eventually it becomes the truth. .

Is it not you who keeps repeating himself, but it hasn’t made what you say isn’t getting any truer. :wave:

[Proxima Centauri]

Well here’s another reason why I think Scientology is stupid. (http://www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/xenuleaf.htm)
:rolling:
Whichphilosophy will probably say it’s discredited. Anything that attacks Scientology Whichphilosophy says is discredited.

I’m sorry for Whichphilosophy. I'm laughing at Xenu not Whichphilosophy.
Here’s how they stopped him thinking straight about Scientology. (http://www.xenu.net/archive/infopack/7.htm)

Its sad people are in that mess. :crying:

[But]

But why waste your time and money you’ve already presumed know what the subject is about anyway. I think you are critical of the perceived concept of the subject but not the subject itself.


I try to gather information about a subject before I go off on tangents. What we have here is the CoS, which says Dianetics and whatnot is great for you (big surprise!) and people that have left the "Church", who say it is dangerous bullshit. So I pick up a copy of Dianetics and see that it is pretty much total bullshit. So I tend to rather believe the ex-Scientologists.


I don’t think exposing a bomb maker who started firing his gun at people (jailed in Canada after fleeing Canada) people who like whacking others, and some made profound racist remarks, or some fanatic chatting with the KKK (just after 9/11) on methods how to eliminate Muslims is such a bad thing. One does not have to go far to do this. They discredit themselves with their misbehavior. They only incriminate themselves with their “loose tongues� represented by using a mouse.


The old smear again. Like the German government were called nazis for warning people about Scientology and not granting it legal status as a church. My ass.


If the person is a dangerous criminal to others and sometimes to themselves so what? And this is on very specific points.
One does not have to go far to find out these things. They spew on the chat lines.
Someone who just doesn’t like the subject or disinterest has a right to be, but as long as they respect the views of others. There are so many diverse views nowadays we have choices hereYes/No?? :Cheeky:


Oh shit, more smear.


Now you're making me laugh again. You showed sometime ago references from one of your sites, to what you called law suits, “criminal activity etc� and most were mainly just things like copyright cases (yawn) etc. Do you remember one example of criminal activity turned out to be a lawyer being fined US$17.000 for filing a frivolous lawsuit? Big deal, but sure there have been responsive lawsuits.


No, I mean things like exploiting copyright law to the hilt. They did so when someone made fun of their Xenu overlord, so they covered him with a copyright lawsuit. Or the other case where they tried to shut down a Usenet forum. (I prepare for more handwaving). It's just that the "Church"'s top 3 priorities are, listed in descending order, 1. money, 2. money and 3. money. If they feel some of their money is in danger, they go into maximum attack mode. They are not alone with this behavior, but it is pretty conspicuous for an organization that calls itself a "Church".


The site sponsors shove a lot of garbage in for padding because I know most people don’t actually read it. They are so gullible they get excited when they just look at the overall appearance laced with the usual ranting and ad homenims.


Oh, now you've got me, the site's mighty sponsors. As opposed to the poor Church of Scientology, that has more lawyers than other companies have employees.


No doubt this fanatical drum thumping does excite various extremists while confusing others.


I think it serves well as a warning exercise to those who consider joining organizations like this. As you said, the people who leave there tend to be aggressively against the Church. The question should be, what has made them that way? Big question.


Free speech is one thing, libel and slander are another in law.
I only cover Contract law in the Oil and Gas industries, (I’m not a court lawyer by the way but someone who deals with legal matters from time to time).

I am not sure of the basis of the case but whether defamation by implication was argued here. That is to say defamatory intimations based on already discredited data etc., or portraying individuals in a grossly distorted manner to the extent it gives a false and untrue picture. Maybe I’ll try and get the court records on the internet some time. This will tell me (though tediously having to comb through the manuscript to forage for information).
.

Big surprise again, the lawyers actually do something for their money? Although I guess they wrote up the double amount of hours and went bang a hooker instead :)


Is it not you who keeps repeating himself, but it hasn’t made what you say isn’t getting any truer. :wave:

I don't know. I try to address the always same smear that comes out the rear, although in a different way each time. It would be much too boring for me, at least I'm entertained formulating my responses as opposed to being entertained by your well-thought-out and varied posts.

Have a nice day.

[whichphilosophy]

Well here’s another reason why I think Scientology is stupid. (http://www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/xenuleaf.htm)
:rolling:
Whichphilosophy will probably say it’s discredited. Anything that attacks Scientology Whichphilosophy says is discredited.

I’m sorry for Whichphilosophy. I'm laughing at Xenu not Whichphilosophy.
Here’s how they stopped him thinking straight about Scientology. (http://www.xenu.net/archive/infopack/7.htm)

Its sad people are in that mess. :crying:


So you've posted a bunch of quotes and articles that you've cut and pasted so what to you expect. It's just as bad as posting a whole website and saying ..what about that then.

You start with a usual out of context quotation referring to a particular point of how despots past and present have controlled people. Read paragraphs of the book without interpretation in its actual context and refernence would consult a clear understanding.

Here the writer (Thought Control) has already shot themselves in the foot.

The fact that this statement is quoted out of context, to give a false impression actually brings home the meaning and is demonstative of a weak arguement.

Actually I'm not even interested in proving the subject works.

Sorry, I don't see your words but I see the words of others, passed to others and eventually copied by yourself.

Sure you could quote a certain book.

Sorry Nil out of 10 for original viewpoint
Nil out of 10 for originality.

Ok I'll give you 5 out of 10 for feeling sorry for me how's that?
And for internet parrotry 10 out of 10. :jump:

I'm sure your better than that.

[Proxima Centauri]

Thanks for telling me you’re sure I’m better than that. If I quote Operation Clambake (http://www.xenu.net/) I’m called unoriginal. Ebonmuse gives personal experiences (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2108482#post2108482)and that’s called anecdotal. Incidentally Ebonmuse is a graduate student and should know the scientific method.
When anybody criticizes Scientology Whichphilosophy finds some reason to fault the criticism. What you, Whichphilosophy write is just as anecdotal/unoriginal as what we write. Critics of Scientology are required to avoid anecdotal or unoriginal material. Whichphilosophy isn’t? Please be more consistent, Whichphilosophy. I’m sure you’re capable of more consistent thinking.
Operation Clambake’s Discussion Forum has plenty of ‘anecdotal’ evidence against Scientology and I find it credible. Operation Clambake Message Board. ( http://discus.xenu.net/cgi-bin/discus/discus.cgi)Loads more ‘anecdotal’ evidence here.

[whichphilosophy]

Thanks for telling me you’re sure I’m better than that. If I quote Operation Clambake (http://www.xenu.net/) I’m called unoriginal. Ebonmuse gives personal experiences (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2108482#post2108482)and that’s called anecdotal. Incidentally Ebonmuse is a graduate student and should know the scientific method.
When anybody criticizes Scientology Whichphilosophy finds some reason to fault the criticism. What you, Whichphilosophy write is just as anecdotal/unoriginal as what we write. Critics of Scientology are required to avoid anecdotal or unoriginal material. Whichphilosophy isn’t? Please be more consistent, Whichphilosophy. I’m sure you’re capable of more consistent thinking.
Operation Clambake’s Discussion Forum has plenty of ‘anecdotal’ evidence against Scientology and I find it credible. Operation Clambake Message Board. ( http://discus.xenu.net/cgi-bin/discus/discus.cgi)Loads more ‘anecdotal’ evidence here.


Ebonmuse is an exceptionally talented writer and his writing is actually very interesting as it is easy to follow. However we can all have thoughts of what something may be. However it is clear the only thoughts people have is what they cut and paste.

To be honest I preferred the points I received on Traditional Chinese Medicine like from a patent lawyer on some points.

No I tend to quote the historical results of these what happened. On other postings I have quoted documents etc.

The Clambake messageboard is really nothing new and it seems to be a sold source for cutting and pasting. Rather than make a point I don't see the point of cutting and pasting and saying , Here's all you need to know.

Yesterday on another thread a person's source was google with 6,500 referneces under the heading with the comment pick one.

To be honest if someone has fixed ideas or is definitely convinced something is bad, why try to change their view even if they quoted something that was discredited in a court 24 years or so ago. However some will believe the accusations only. There again I think there is a bit of this in all of us.

In my own work I have been proven wrong in some cases now and again when assessing the suitability of a company.

I guess this is part of the world in which we live in.

As for his experience hardly harrowing as some claim? If you look at any article where a reporter goes in and does a story, they end up just quoting some old articles and giving a non-descript view of things but both are not showing any smoking gun so to speak, and so what if people believe there is life on other planets, or there could have been.

[whichphilosophy]

I try to gather information about a subject before I go off on tangents. What we have here is the CoS, which says Dianetics and what not is great for you (big surprise!) and people that have left the "Church", who say it is dangerous bullshit. So I pick up a copy of Dianetics and see that it is pretty much total bullshit. So I tend to rather believe the ex-Scientologists. .
No you have a fixed opinion and then try to support it with generalized web dumps.
From what I have I had no intention to convince you of anything but was seeking objectiveness on your part, i.e. your reasoning behind the viewpoint. There is nothing
Quote:

My quote: I don’t think exposing a bomb maker who started firing his gun at people (jailed in Canada after fleeing Canada) people who like whacking others, and some made profound racist remarks, or some fanatic chatting with the KKK (just after 9/11) on methods how to eliminate Muslims is such a bad thing. One does not have to go far to do this. They discredit themselves with their misbehavior. They only incriminate themselves with their “loose tongues� represented by using a mouse. I don’t think exposing a bomb maker who started firing his gun at people (jailed in Canada after fleeing Canada) people who like whacking others, and some made profound racist remarks, or some fanatic chatting with the KKK (just after 9/11) on methods how to eliminate Muslims is such a bad thing. One does not have to go far to do this. They discredit themselves with their misbehavior. They only incriminate themselves with their “loose tongues� represented by using a mouse.

You said hereThe old smear again. Like the German government were called Nazis for warning people about Scientology and not granting it legal status as a church. My ass.

Oh shit, more smear. .

Let’s take a legal definition of smear To stain or attempt to destroy the reputation of; to vilify: This is close to the dictionary definition.
You seem to have the problem with the specific statements about criminal activities in law.
Really it’s only right to mention of the actual acts of a rabid Klansman, an arsonist, a bomb maker, a psychopath or others of their ilk who after causing a danger to others is hardly a bad thing.
They cannot see in shades other than black and white and cannot easily perceive what is in front of them as they are in fact fighting imaginary enemies.
They still had choices how to deal with their problems. I can understand the frustration these people had when their articles, actions and other methods bore no fruit but this is no reason to turn to violence and possible homicide.
The problems in Germany are pretty much on the decline. After 10 years or investigations it failed to come up with anything relating to the organization despite the head of its investigation being biased and then censured over taking a payment of US$30,000.00 this was the court ruling not my statement. Go blame the court..
The definition of the German government reintroducing measures of the 1930s under Hitler gave precedence to state it was veering in that direction and using Nazi policies of watchlists, secretly calling employers to demote or dismiss people it does not like, trying to operate a filtering system where a person has to declare their religious or political affiliations etc are a leaf out of history during the Nazi era. The use of Nazi was never therefore overturned by any court.
Well if you don’t like the way society acts then that is up to you. Like I said the ones referred to discredited themselves with their own words and actions. So I guess it’s okay to be racist on the chat lines and then present a social front in public.
I asked you for indefeasible proof of criminal activities and you gave me a fine for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

, I mean things like exploiting copyright law to the hilt. They did so when someone made fun of their Xenu overlord, so they covered him with a copyright lawsuit. Or the other case where they tried to shut down a Usenet forum. (I prepare for more handwaving). It's just that the "Church"'s top 3 priorities are, listed in descending order, 1. money, 2. money and 3. money. If they feel some of their money is in danger, they go into maximum attack mode. They are not alone with this behavior, but it is pretty conspicuous for an organization that calls itself a "Church"..
They were well within the copyright laws of course in this matter. If someone steals writings from a novelist and then displays it without permission in their own publications then this is infringement. However as the current laws stand it is not so straightforward in practice. Now you’ve misquoted part of a misquoted quote.
, My quote you mentioned The site sponsors shove a lot of garbage in for padding because I know most people don’t actually read it. They are so gullible they get excited when they just look at the overall appearance laced with the usual ranting and ad homonyms.

Oh, now you've got me, the site's mighty sponsors. As opposed to the poor Church of Scientology, that has more lawyers than other companies have employees.
The point was not to do with sponsorship but to do with the content. That is to say when one actually analyses it there is virtually nothing there. In Chinese it’s a Paper Tiger.
On this topic Eli Lily and some of the pharmaceuticals may have more. One stands a better chance suing a drug company. ".
Again you swayed off topic. The topic was how the websites inflate the amount of quotes and articles.
The topic of Eli Lily could be on another topic.

I think it serves well as a warning exercise to those who consider joining organizations like this. As you said, the people who leave there tend to be aggressively against the Church. The question should be, what has made them that way? Big question.
Well considering you produced no burden of proof why something is dangerous, nor the point that those who leave are against. Most people are level headed no matter what the situation. The majority are not anti anything.
Big surprise again, the lawyers actually do something for their money? Although I guess they wrote up the double amount of hours and went bang a hooker instead
You lead further on to my point about presumption before the fact. Such statements passed around have led to more statements of this sort. Some hope to pass such things around (though this is a new one).
Any reason for presumption that lawyers charge their time for sex with prostitutes?


I don't know. I try to address the always same smear that comes out the rear, although in a different way each time. It would be much too boring for me, at least I'm entertained formulating my responses as opposed to being entertained by your well-thought-out and varied posts.

Have a nice day.
Like I said mentioning exposed criminal activity is hardly smearing someone is it. I give credit to the likws of gun toting fanatics or arsonists which your comments intimate you are going downhill fast. People can have entirely different philosophies but these irrational people act out of desperation from imaginary battles which are occasionally booted up with the remarks from others that suit their liking.
Take care now, and behave yourself.

[easychair]

[QUOTE=HazyRigby]Okay. So I figured that since I've read the Bible to learn more about those kinds of religious folks, I should start expanding my horizons. Become an equal-opportunity debater, so to speak. So I bought Dianetics. (I know, I know, but bear with me.)

What an incredible load of crispy crap. I thought that I knew all there was to know about pseudo-scientific bullshit, but I now know a new low. What's the attraction for people in this "religion"? I don't get it. :huh:

Do intelligent people actually fall for that?![

Neurotic people fall for it. But I have to admit, L. Ron Hubbard sure knows how to sell snake oil.

I wonder if IRS is still after him.

[whichphilosophy]

[QUOTE=HazyRigby]Okay. So I figured that since I've read the Bible to learn more about those kinds of religious folks, I should start expanding my horizons. Become an equal-opportunity debater, so to speak. So I bought Dianetics. (I know, I know, but bear with me.)

What an incredible load of crispy crap. I thought that I knew all there was to know about pseudo-scientific bullshit, but I now know a new low. What's the attraction for people in this "religion"? I don't get it. :huh:

Do intelligent people actually fall for that?![

Neurotic people fall for it. But I have to admit, L. Ron Hubbard sure knows how to sell snake oil.

I wonder if IRS is still after him.

You have failed to quantify your opinion.
The bible does not tell you about the subject religion Scientology because it is not Christianity. Nor does it tell you say about Buddhism, Hinduism and other non Abrahamic Faiths. It does tell you something about Islam but not on why it came about.

Let me quote you.
What an incredible load of crispy crap. I thought that I knew all there was to know about pseudo-scientific bullshit, but I now know a new low. What's the attraction for people in this "religion"? I don't get it. :huh:

Let me be blunt, this is unintelligible and does not constitute any argument and is just meaningless. Sorry.

You never stated what the Old Low and the New Low are so this means no sense.

I have no doubt that you are probably well educated. However if you are to be a debater you should at least present a list of points that are clear and back up data that can consult a persons intellect and from the viewpoint of reasoning, How does one argue for or against some meaningless buzzwords that one can find on the internet.

Sure, in a room of fanatics one can win a debate with such poor presentation, hence it is not a debate but just some drum thumping.

For instance the same model in a debate about the rights of afro-Americans or Jewish citizens in the local Chapter of the Klu Klux Klan then your style of fanatical generalities will constitute a brilliant debater. But this would just be mere entertainment value to excite a bunch of local yokels into frenzy. Just throw up a few ad homonyms a few popular catchwords. However in a free society this just doesn’t cut it.

I would suggest that you read Science and Skepticism. There are a lot of brilliant presentations on the basis of sequential information. It’s always interesting to see how they pay such attention to specifics and quantify their statements. Some of the subjects there are much about my level, thus its good to learn something.

Are/Is the IRS still after him?

Assuming “him� means L Ron Hubbard, can I stress that in legal terms a person who has been deceased now for quite a few years cannot be legally asked to send in tax returns on personal income. Of course they do tend to send in tax demands on dead people only because they have not been informed.

Sorry, I’m not against any beliefs for or against what I believe in, nor against race, culture, creed etc. I am just against sincere ignorance and profound stupidity.

If you are still at college and studying debating skills I would suggest you ask for more coaching on preparation or your money back.

[But]

whichphilosophy, please fix your quotes next time. Your posts are a pain in the ass to read.

[But]

No you have a fixed opinion and then try to support it with generalized web dumps.
From what I have I had no intention to convince you of anything but was seeking objectiveness on your part, i.e. your reasoning behind the viewpoint. There is nothing


1. Scientology says their stuff is great for you.

2. People that have left Scientology say it is dangerous bullshit.

3. I see for myself and notice it is bullshit.

Which part don't you understand?


Let’s take a legal definition of smear To stain or attempt to destroy the reputation of; to vilify: This is close to the dictionary definition.
You seem to have the problem with the specific statements about criminal activities in law.
Really it’s only right to mention of the actual acts of a rabid Klansman, an arsonist, a bomb maker, a psychopath or others of their ilk who after causing a danger to others is hardly a bad thing.
They cannot see in shades other than black and white and cannot easily perceive what is in front of them as they are in fact fighting imaginary enemies.


Okay. I don't see the point you're trying to make here. It's pretty much broad, meaningless statements strung together.


They still had choices how to deal with their problems. I can understand the frustration these people had when their articles, actions and other methods bore no fruit but this is no reason to turn to violence and possible homicide.


Excuse me, but er.. what the flying fuck are you ranting on about?



The definition of the German government reintroducing measures of the 1930s under Hitler gave precedence to state it was veering in that direction and using Nazi policies of watchlists, secretly calling employers to demote or dismiss people it does not like, trying to operate a filtering system where a person has to declare their religious or political affiliations etc are a leaf out of history during the Nazi era. The use of Nazi was never therefore overturned by any court.


The nazi smear again. I could try to lie now and say I didn't see that coming, but ah well.

:rolling:

Just one question: what are you smoking?



Well if you don’t like the way society acts then that is up to you. Like I said the ones referred to discredited themselves with their own words and actions. So I guess it’s okay to be racist on the chat lines and then present a social front in public.
I asked you for indefeasible proof of criminal activities and you gave me a fine for filing a frivolous lawsuit.


No one is talking about criminal activities in this thread (except you), if you didn't notice. The topic is how people can actually fall for this bullshit.


They were well within the copyright laws of course in this matter. If someone steals writings from a novelist and then displays it without permission in their own publications then this is infringement. However as the current laws stand it is not so straightforward in practice. Now you’ve misquoted part of a misquoted quote.


No one would have acted the way they did. They just did it because they could and because they didn't like their bullshit exposed in public. They wanted it to remain super-secret expensive stuff that you have to pay shitloads of money to read.


Again you swayed off topic. The topic was how the websites inflate the amount of quotes and articles.


Hahaha. My ass. Wrong again, buddy. Read the OP again and see what the topic was. You are "swaying off topic".


Well considering you produced no burden of proof why something is dangerous, nor the point that those who leave are against. Most people are level headed no matter what the situation. The majority are not anti anything.


Yes, I know that most people don't give a shit about anything until it bites them in the ass. No need to explain that.


You lead further on to my point about presumption before the fact. Such statements passed around have led to more statements of this sort. Some hope to pass such things around (though this is a new one).
Any reason for presumption that lawyers charge their time for sex with prostitutes?


Dude, it was a joke. Humor. Get it?
On second thought, I guess it was in one of the engrams they removed in your brain.


Like I said mentioning exposed criminal activity is hardly smearing someone is it.


Slow down there. What criminal activity? Huh?


I give credit to the likws of gun toting fanatics or arsonists which your comments intimate you are going downhill fast. People can have entirely different philosophies but these irrational people act out of desperation from imaginary battles which are occasionally booted up with the remarks from others that suit their liking.
Take care now, and behave yourself.

Oh I see, now you're smearing ME because you don't like what I'm saying. Mind you, I'm not saying that it's criminal or whatnot per se, I'm just arguing that it is military grade horseshit that is waiting to be swallowed by unsuspecting minds.
(This is a hint for you to get back on topic, by the way.)

[whichphilosophy]

whichphilosophy, please fix your quotes next time. Your posts are a pain in the ass to read.

My apologies.

[But]

My apologies.

If it's important for the point you're trying to make, you can nest quotes like this:





something



to this I say: blah



It's far easier to read.

[RevDahlia]

It's funny. Practicing Scientology is supposed to improve one's communication skills -- this is one of its big selling points. I've known lots and LOTS of Scientologists (grew up in Los Angeles, it comes with the territory) and to a man they've all been hopeless at communicating with anyone but other Scientologists. The more involved people get with Scientology, the less intelligible they become -- all that weird made-up jargon! All those acronyms! When I was working in Hollywood, I could always tell who was a Scientologist within five minutes of meeting them. The less sense they made, the higher the OT level.

whichphilosophy, I don't intend to be mean, but you're no exception. Your posts -- particularly the last couple in this thread -- are really difficult to understand. If Scientology can do what it claims, I'd expect more from someone with over a decade of courses under their belt.

(And yes, I know. "Anecdotal.")

[whichphilosophy]

If it's important for the point you're trying to make, you can nest quotes like this:

It's far easier to read.

:wave: I'll reply later to your earlier longer e-mail. The subject went a bit off track a little.

[whichphilosophy]

It's funny. Practicing Scientology is supposed to improve one's communication skills -- this is one of its big selling points. I've known lots and LOTS of Scientologists (grew up in Los Angeles, it comes with the territory) and to a man they've all been hopeless at communicating with anyone but other Scientologists. The more involved people get with Scientology, the less intelligible they become -- all that weird made-up jargon! All those acronyms! When I was working in Hollywood, I could always tell who was a Scientologist within five minutes of meeting them. The less sense they made, the higher the OT level.

whichphilosophy, I don't intend to be mean, but you're no exception. Your posts -- particularly the last couple in this thread -- are really difficult to understand. If Scientology can do what it claims, I'd expect more from someone with over a decade of courses under their belt.

(And yes, I know. "Anecdotal.")


I would not use Anecdotal. I will use from your personal observation and analysis and not from hearsay.. This carries more weight than those who have been simply cutting and pasting others comments.

I work here in China for a major Chinese company as Western consultant of sorts. In meetings the staff often go into short discussions amongst themselves so I have a slight inkling what it is like. I am slowly learing Chinese however and can now confuse the taxi drivers of Beijing.

There are quite a few definitions unique to the subject matter that one finds in texts books and are used. Just like any subject it has its own nomenclature that is not readily found in other subjects.

I haven't been in anything like a Scientology community since the 1980s. However even when active I rarely used terminology where there were several people working who were non members. This would lead to confusions and misunderstandings. If there are several members there, they should at least remember if there are any colleagues who are not “members� and they should then take the time to ensure the others understand what is being said.

If the terminology is not known to the listener this is unintelligible. Also I think it may appear to cut people off and can create misunderstandings.

Considering part of my work involves legal, safety and quality control, it would have been a disaster if I used terms which people did not understand.

As for the thread. Your telling me, it’s gone way off a bit. Alarm Clock Pizza introduced points from another thread and since they were not originally on this thread. Not blaming him by the way. Just call it bad communication. He introduced some old point.

The basis of any disagreements I am having is not their views on the subject but the fact in most but yours and partially one other have been purely

I’m taking this subject up again after so many years off. However I will not make it for this March.

Why don’t you raise this point with these people in Hollywood next time you are in a discussion. Ask them to state this in layman’s language.

[whichphilosophy]

1. Scientology says their stuff is great for you.

2. People that have left Scientology say it is dangerous bullshit.

3. I see for myself and notice it is bullshit.

Which part don't you understand?

First of all you are generalising and it is up to you what you believe. It's a relatively free society we live in here so we all have opinions and beliefs. Opinions and beliefs of course do not constitute fact.


You raised some parts of previous posts and actually some out of context as you misinterpreted the reply reading them later. I think the old posts

And rightly so the RevDahlia did have a point. That was a constructive point from the perspective given.

As for criminal activity, don't you remember you quoted an example of Scientology criminal activity in Germany as a man convicted after threatening to kill someone on a Saturday night?

Anyway. It's best to leave the old threads unless a whole concept is introduced. In the science & skeptisim there are some very constructive comments on various topics.

Regards,

[But]

Okay, whichphilosophy, so what is your answer to the OP?

How come people believe this nonsense?

(You'll get a cookie if you point out that this is a loaded question)

[King Rat]

Do intelligent people actually fall for that?!

No, only people like Cruise and Travolta.

[whichphilosophy]

Okay, whichphilosophy, so what is your answer to the OP?

How come people believe this nonsense?

(You'll get a cookie if you point out that this is a loaded question)

Like I said in the first instance everyone has their own beliefs. As long as are respecting the views of others who are working towards a better environment.

I am not sure what you mean by "people" as this generalised.
Someone who does not understand it will think that it is nonesense.

EXAMPLE
Also what is "nonesense." I would look like a fool if I said physics is nonesense just because I don't understand quantum physics very well.
I may have some misconceptions. Media write ups are not always exactly how the scientists would like them written.

However if I were to be ignorant and a fantical bible thumper who is also a member of the Klan I would probarbly say Science was nonesense.

One the other hand it is fair to comment that when we have not experienced something for ourselves it is incomprehensable. This affects all of us.

Can we judge only from our own experience and on an a posteriori basis and not adopt the impressions of others? We can certainly seek this form of rationality

Where's my cookie. ~ Actually the question is quite valid. So maybe I owe you a cookie. In fact why not stick a photo on your profile then I can say your not as dumb as you look.

[whichphilosophy]

No, only people like Cruise and Travolta.

A priori

So prior to admission to courses one has obtain proof they're a complete imbecile apart from the aforesaid stars.

[King Rat]

That is one way to look at it.

[Prester John]

Tell me its not true that Xenu has enslaved the Human race with his evil psychic influence.

I personally don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[Xoxarle]

I can't get over the notion that a rag-tag flotilla of reconditioned ships once sailed the Mediterranean under the command of a "Commodore", looking for his getaway spaceship hidden in one of the smaller and more remote islands. The inexperienced crew completely under the thrall of this bullying, overweight, red-faced, florrid, wheezing and nasty individual, surrounded by a coterie of young girls in short skirts who ran errands and enforced his orders. A strange Lord Of The Flies hierarchical society at sea, where young and old miscreants were dressed in grey overalls as punishment, fed starvation rations and made to do dangerous and menial work, and were subjected to bizarre punishment rituals in port where they lined up and were thrown overboard, to the astonishment of locals. This Commodore plotting to infiltrate the IRS, plotting to covertly establish a bridgehead on the Florida Gulf Coast, dreaming of power and influence and and end to the harrassment from European governments and tax agencies.

I mean, you couldn't make this stuff up, even if you did have a particular pulp sci-fi writer's talent for wildly improbable flights of fancy. Someone really should make a movie about it. John Travolta perhaps?

[whichphilosophy]

Tell me its not true that Xenu has enslaved the Human race with his evil psychic influence.

I personally don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Whatever, but I've never seen such a loud denial from some individuals who say its meaningless.

Call it a belief of sorts, and quoted out of context. So what?

Perhaps true freedom is freedom from oneself and I refer to all of us. We don't live in a perfect world.

So should we just people alone ywhat they believe.

[whichphilosophy]

That is one way to look at it.
I better resign from Mensa then. Any Idea where I can apply for DENSA?
I've always wondered how imbeciles can increase their earnings and pay for more courses.

Even better though if anyone sees me next to my wife, they will wonder how an ugly monstrosity can have such an attractive spouse. Shhhh- those strange courses he did years ago. So see it works.

[whichphilosophy]

I can't get over the notion that a rag-tag flotilla of reconditioned ships once sailed the Mediterranean under the command of a "Commodore", looking for his getaway spaceship hidden in one of the smaller and more remote islands. The inexperienced crew completely under the thrall of this bullying, overweight, red-faced, florrid, wheezing and nasty individual, surrounded by a coterie of young girls in short skirts who ran errands and enforced his orders. A strange Lord Of The Flies hierarchical society at sea, where young and old miscreants were dressed in grey overalls as punishment, fed starvation rations and made to do dangerous and menial work, and were subjected to bizarre punishment rituals in port where they lined up and were thrown overboard, to the astonishment of locals. This Commodore plotting to infiltrate the IRS, plotting to covertly establish a bridgehead on the Florida Gulf Coast, dreaming of power and influence and and end to the harrassment from European governments and tax agencies.

I mean, you couldn't make this stuff up, even if you did have a particular pulp sci-fi writer's talent for wildly improbable flights of fancy. Someone really should make a movie about it. John Travolta perhaps?

Is that from personal knowledge or is Russel Miller via Cyril Vosper doing a Ventriloquist act. Your mixing distortion with imagination here and there is one point that is true but also distorted out of context. So its difficult to really discuss the points.

Just my pedantic attitude in dealing with legal issues (not a lawyer) so I tend to look for burdon of proof. One thing is for sure. One person does something out of line and everyone does it.



One thing for certain.

[Xoxarle]

Amazing how some people find it easier to believe in unpredictable alien Galactic Overlords than predictable human demagogues.

Miller's work is footnoted and based upon written testimony of those who were actually on the ships and witnessed LRH's bizarre behaviour first-hand, and mountains of Scientology documents unearthed by researchers with the intention of actually embellishing LRH's legendary status, and not discrediting it.

Preface (http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/preface.htm)

[King Rat]

I better resign from Mensa then. Any Idea where I can apply for DENSA?Ah, an IQ fetishist.
I've always wondered how imbeciles can increase their earnings and pay for more courses.

You and me both chief, there must not be a correlation.

Even better though if anyone sees me next to my wife, they will wonder how an ugly monstrosity can have such an attractive spouse. Shhhh- those strange courses he did years ago. So see it works.

I'm impressed by the size of your statistical pool.

[whichphilosophy]

Sorry to tell you but you've wasted your money. A few years ago I had the same idea that you just had. I should know what they're about and whatnot so I'll buy a book and educate myself.
I forget the name of the Scientology book I bought, but I never made it past the 25th page or so. Complete and utter shit. The Old Testament is cerebral, well paced, and fascinating beyond description when compared to the waste of a tree that was my Scientology book.

I don't like the idea of throwing books away. But I urge you to contribute to the rise of garbage in your local landfill now.

The advice is a bit late since I commenced the courses in the 70s but not through a book.

I have enough credit since money was not the problem but time became the problem. The latter is something that is harder to control at times.

I think you didn't understand the book you read, so it would be meaningless to you. The books are basically manuals rather then read and enjoy, so without practical the book's meaning will be reduced.
The research writing behind these is pretty daunting.

Given the rise in income etc better physical health in my own view the investment in the courses vs a 4X increase in income over a short period was a good investment in ourselves.

Not bad for someone who's advance was slow. Others who persisted to study and use the materials did much better.

We invest in the stock exchange etc but don't invest in ourselves.

[whichphilosophy]

Ah, an IQ fetishist. .

Shh the secrets out. Actually on one of the other threads, comparing IQs is like comparing pecker sizes.

It doesn't make a person a better person, but just a possibility to be able to resolve problems better.

You and me both chief, there must not be a correlation.
So we're both alive.

So we have something in common. I told my Chinese colleagues 90% of my skills can be performed by a monkey and the other 10%... I'm still learning.

I'm impressed by the size of your statistical pool.
So I guess if someone is ugly do and not a millionaire do the course.

If you're in Beijing any time I'll buy you a drink. (Don't worry I won't sneak you on a mailing list).

[whichphilosophy]

Amazing how some people find it easier to believe in unpredictable alien Galactic Overlords than predictable human demagogues.

Miller's work is footnoted and based upon written testimony of those who were actually on the ships and witnessed LRH's bizarre behaviour first-hand, and mountains of Scientology documents unearthed by researchers with the intention of actually embellishing LRH's legendary status, and not discrediting it.

Preface (http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/preface.htm)

Too bad for the main researcher involved who was later caught on video tape (authorised by the LAPD) openly conspiring to plant falsified documents into a Los Angeles Organisation and stating one does not have to prove, one just has to accuse. This is on police record so one does not have to believe the C of S count on this.

The same person is also facing contempt charges in the USA for breaking a court agreement.

The actual evidence bore no merit when it was used to oppose the organisation's application for legal status.

A writer can of course relay opinions, but as the book is supporting one arguement it will not necessarily highlight the opposing one.

Most important, lack of burdon of proof but nonetheless it makes excellent booksales.

[Xoxarle]

The book does not rely on testimony from any one individual. It builds a complete picture of a colorful spinner of yarns, an embellisher, someone influenced by the writings of Aleister Crowley. It methodically torpedoes all the false propaganda and fanciful tales about his early life, which the "Church" so jealously guards, and lays out the more mundane and less prosaic reality.

It was written by a respected biographer, with no axe to grind, who was hounded persistently and illegally, using the familiar cult tactics (proscribed by L. Ron himself) of defamation, wild accusations, and trivial lawsuits. Tactics we've seen time and time again when journalists attempt to pierce the veil (see Time Magazine cover story, see UK Channel 4 documentary, etc. etc.)

That this person could have somehow unlocked the secrets of the universe, or the mind, is absurd in the extreme. Apply Ockham's Razor, consider the subject, and you have a clear case of imagination run wild.

You come across as someone who were duped by the organization, and were subsequently embarrassed to discover the ridiculous pulp science-fiction hokum underpinning the inner circle beliefs. It's not anything to be ashamed of - many people have. OTO, if you believe in Xenu, and thetans, and intergalactic war, and miraculous powers of self-healing and perfect recall, please set me straight.

[Jillian]

In response to the OP, Scientology seems to be no sillier than any other religion out there.

This, I think, is more of an observation of the utter silliness of Christianity than it is an absolution from silliness for Scientology.

I'd say more, but the souls of evil dead aliens who possess me are now making me run to the store and buy ice cream. :D

(Yes, Scientology is incredibly silly, and yes, otherwise smart people fall for it.)

[whichphilosophy]

The book does not rely on testimony from any one individual. It builds a complete picture of a colorful spinner of yarns, an embellisher, someone influenced by the writings of Aleister Crowley. It methodically torpedoes all the false propaganda and fanciful tales about his early life, which the "Church" so jealously guards, and lays out the more mundane and less prosaic reality.

It was written by a respected biographer, with no axe to grind, who was hounded persistently and illegally, using the familiar cult tactics (proscribed by L. Ron himself) of defamation, wild accusations, and trivial lawsuits. Tactics we've seen time and time again when journalists attempt to pierce the veil (see Time Magazine cover story, see UK Channel 4 documentary, etc. etc.)

That this person could have somehow unlocked the secrets of the universe, or the mind, is absurd in the extreme. Apply Ockham's Razor, consider the subject, and you have a clear case of imagination run wild.

You come across as someone who were duped by the organization, and were subsequently embarrassed to discover the ridiculous pulp science-fiction hokum underpinning the inner circle beliefs. It's not anything to be ashamed of - many people have. OTO, if you believe in Xenu, and thetans, and intergalactic war, and miraculous powers of self-healing and perfect recall, please set me straight.

Do you have a point to say the subject is bad? No of course not
Why was this written in the last few years, because one cannot defame the dead. Hence old articles once retracted are now included.

Hardly any of the stuff written is actually new.

I have yet to see any smoking gun. There just isn't one. How do you think the subject gained its current status in the USA and the German goverment employees involved in leading recent investigations made a fool of themselves.

The answer is simple, the sources lacked specifics and bore no merit.

Are you not getting carried away by your own imagination about what people do in this subject. I've been there you know, so you can't kid me.

Like I said Where's the Beef

[whichphilosophy]

In response to the OP, Scientology seems to be no sillier than any other religion out there.

This, I think, is more of an observation of the utter silliness of Christianity than it is an absolution from silliness for Scientology.

I'd say more, but the souls of evil dead aliens who possess me are now making me run to the store and buy ice cream. :D

(Yes, Scientology is incredibly silly, and yes, otherwise smart people fall for it.)

So I guess it is a religion then.

Have you tried Ben and Jerry's Coconut Icecream for NY USA?
When I was in the UK it sold out in the local stores, but then disappeared.

[Dark Knight Bob]

Tell me then.

What exactly would it take to convince you that scientology had no or at least very little actual substance to it. (as in the methods were flawed and the philosophy based on false pretenses)

Surely you'll accept that any theory worth having is possible to be flasified in some way or another.

[Prester John]

Whatever, but I've never seen such a loud denial from some individuals who say its meaningless.

Call it a belief of sorts, and quoted out of context. So what?

Perhaps true freedom is freedom from oneself and I refer to all of us. We don't live in a perfect world.

So should we just people alone ywhat they believe.

How much do you have to pay to learn about Xenu?

No - stupid unfounded beliefs should be ridiculed. Money grabbing cults should be outed. Just my opinion.

[whichphilosophy]

Tell me then.

What exactly would it take to convince you that scientology had no or at least very little actual substance to it. (as in the methods were flawed and the philosophy based on false pretenses)

Surely you'll accept that any theory worth having is possible to be flasified in some way or another.

How does one unring a bell? Imagine the bell did not ring?

Having gained the benefits how do you want one to answer. If the methods and philosophy work when applied exactly why try to fix them or discard them?

As for convincing others something works. One can suggest and offer, but if the person is not interested they shouldn't bother because it would be unreasonable for them to base their actions on another's say so, but only on their uninterrupted observation, study and application. :wave:

Regards

[whichphilosophy]

How much do you have to pay to learn about Xenu?

No - stupid unfounded beliefs should be ridiculed. Money grabbing cults should be outed. Just my opinion.

Actually I paid for the upper levels some years ago, but my butt's been in China for some time. Money's not the problem.

Surely one can spend their money on what they want.

So who is to judge what an unfounded belief is and what a founded belief is. Some will say that all religions and beliefs are unfounded. The prime example was Pol Pot of course.

You're an eloquent writer (on the other posts) and history will show what happens when beliefs as such are unfavourable. And it would be true to say the established religions the Church etc in their past were the culprits of such things in no small way.

What do wonder however is who is more obsessed by Xenu, me or those ranting about it (not inferring you by the way but you seem to be drawn into this a little bit).

[Prester John]

Surely one can spend their money on what they want.



So would you like to buy a bridge? Should i be allowed to sell non existant bridges to people? Its their choice after all, they can spend their money on what they want.

I'm not obsessed with Xenu, more shocked that anyone takes it seriously, but money is a serious business.

anyway

peace

PJ

[Godless Wonder]

The prime example was Pol Pot of course. Yes everyone reads the books of the famous atheist philosopher Pol Pot. And Hitler is the model Christian. :rolleyes:

[RED DAVE]

To whichphilosophy:

Do you believe there once existed an entity named Xenu? Yes or no?

Do you believe that this planet was once named Teegeeack? Yes or no?

Please give straightforward answers to these simple questions.

RED DAVE

[whichphilosophy]

Yes everyone reads the books of the famous atheist philosopher Pol Pot. And Hitler is the model Christian. :rolleyes:

True.

[whichphilosophy]

To whichphilosophy:

Do you believe there once existed an entity named Xenu? Yes or no?

Do you believe that this planet was once named Teegeeack? Yes or no?

Please give straightforward answers to these simple questions.

RED DAVE

When I get round to the courses I may let you know.

If I think aspects the past (and including the perception of past lives according our our own experience of this) can be addressed then yes.

To bad some of this stuff was dumped on the net, since it will make it more difficult to discover such things independantly.

Yet if this sort of thing is feasable, I am sure this is. From ones own experience in discovering and confronting a hidden past in our own perceptions thus addressing the source of problems of course. Even a psychotherapist s

So why the obsession with this? Normally people just discard things they think are pointless. Yet there were one or two people parading the streets in fancy dress. Is this a really strong protest of denial.

[RED DAVE]

To whichphilosophy:

Do you believe there once existed an entity named Xenu? Yes or no?

Do you believe that this planet was once named Teegeeack? Yes or no?

Your answers are evasive. Please give straightforward answers to these simple questions. Just yes or no. We can discuss your answers in subsequent posts.

RED DAVE

[Xoxarle]

You paid for this stuff whichphilosophy? Priceless.

Money is where this nasty cult diverges from orthodox religion. It is genuinely the only thing being worshipped, and mocks the phoney IRS granted status.

Imagine a Xtian church charging substantial sums of money to gradually reveal Biblical doctrine, with each successive course costing more crippling sums, yet promising to reveal more significant data.

Imagine a Xtian church promising literal superhuman powers to devotees who have completed the more expensive courses.

Imagine a Xtian church which kept inventing new and even more expensive courses, to the discomfiture of those who previously thought they had reached the pinnacle.

Imagine a Xtian church which actively courts famous and rich people, by pandering to them with separate "worship" facilities.

If LRH really was the self-styled benefactor of humanity his absurd publicity machine would like to project, he would have made a gift of his knowledge for the benefit of humanity. No, he was just another huckster after a quick buck, who found out there were more gullible and vunerable people out there than he ever could have imagined.

[Godless Wonder]

So why the obsession with this? Normally people just discard things they think are pointless. Yet there were one or two people parading the streets in fancy dress. Is this a really strong protest of denial.

Weak. We get the same crap from Christians. "If you think it's so dumb, why do you argue about it, why don't you just walk away?"

Because it is so dumb.

[Nice Squirrel]

Weak. We get the same crap from Christians. "If you think it's so dumb, why do you argue about it, why don't you just walk away?"

Because it is so dumb.

Like the fake moon landing. You become more engrossed at why in the face of overwhelming evidence poeple still believe.

[King Rat]

I like comparing it to finding a coprolite. Fascinating, despite that it is just a turd.

[Dark Knight Bob]

How does one unring a bell? Imagine the bell did not ring?

Having gained the benefits how do you want one to answer. If the methods and philosophy work when applied exactly why try to fix them or discard them?

As for convincing others something works. One can suggest and offer, but if the person is not interested they shouldn't bother because it would be unreasonable for them to base their actions on another's say so, but only on their uninterrupted observation, study and application. :wave:

Regards

You haven't answered the question. If something is a scientific theory it has to be possible to falsify it. So i'll ask again. What would it take to falsify your theory of scientolgy.

If it cannot be falsified then it is classed as a belief not a science. If you want to admit that then fine but instead of vague avoidant answers pick one or the other.

[whichphilosophy]

You haven't answered the question. If something is a scientific theory it has to be possible to falsify it. So i'll ask again. What would it take to falsify your theory of scientolgy.

If it cannot be falsified then it is classed as a belief not a science. If you want to admit that then fine but instead of vague avoidant answers pick one or the other.

I think I may not have answered your point clearly.

It is not a scientific theory it is a scientific application. A scientific theory is not necessary about something that has an application and methodology that works.

If a surgeon performs an operation then that is a scientific application. Sure improvements can be made.

If someone has a theory about relativity that is a theory (and an excellent one at that by the way)

The subject therefore is an applied science. Why waste time with theorising as we have done for 50,000 years and going around, when there is something one can use and apply. Sure we can theorise in our labs and armchairs about many things but this is not what we are dealing with and not the purpose of someone wanting to do the subject.

If we drop an apple on the floor then we know it falls. We can of course have theories as to the causes of gravity but as it exists in the physical universe.

This is acceptable to me. Hence I use the subject and it's probarbly why nonetheless doctors, scientists engineers as well as uneducated bumkins like me have done these courses.