Scientology

Does anyone want to talk about Scientology?

;)

[no one in particular]

Why, are you in need of an audit?

[c4ts]

Look who's back.

Originally posted by c4ts
Look who's back.

Look, Who's back!

c4ts, are you l33t?

Anyway, I read a book on Scientology. Some of it made sense, and some of it didn't. Hey, I am honest.

-Who

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Whodini


c4ts, are you l33t?



4$ 4L\/\/4YZ

P|-|33R /\/\Y L337 5K!LLZ

But seriously, Scientology disgusts me. They moved into Ybor City recently and now you can't walk the streets without being solicited for an audit. Ugh.

Check my leet skills, I can freestyle rap, YO

uh huh, my shiz is funky
chunky
funky
I already said that, I'm elite
my troll technique, can't be beat
with a stick, by any skepdick
or skepchick, who opens my thread with a click
WORD!

With a name like Ybor, they deserve what they get.

Every time you walk "the street" you get asked? Or have you heard this from somewhere? Or.. ?

Next thing you know, people like you will want to make it illegal for religions to buy property and ask other people if they would like to join their religion.

Nah, you wouldn't do that, would you?
;)

-Who

[Yahweh]

From what I know of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard created it to show how easy it was for people follow a religion. Scientology numbers around 800,000.

This is what Beliefnet has to tell me about scientology:

Numbers: 800,000

Founder: Scientology was founded in 1952 by L. Ron Hubbard, an American science fiction writer and author of the best-selling book "Dianetics" (1950), which launched a popular self-enhancement movement out of which the Church of Scientology emerged.

Main Tenets: The name Scientology means "knowing how to know," and it maintains that it "constitutes man's first real application of scientific methodology to spiritual questions." Scientology asserts it is not merely a belief system but a mode of action, and it has a complicated vocabulary of its own. Its basic postulate is that experience, in this or in previous lives, is recorded in the brain as a series of "engrams." These engrams are revived and reinforced by recurring similar situations and always cause inappropriate and self-defeating behavior. One's goal of Scientology is to "process" or clear these engrams and become more self-determining. By erasing these accretions from one's present and past lives, one releases the essential, spiritual self or soul called the "thetan." Scientology has ministers who perform some religious rites and sacraments, but their main function is individual counseling. Scientology is tightly organized from the top down, with a close-knit inner circle and many highly committed adherents, including such celebrities as John Travolta and Tom Cruise. The church has impressive property holdings as well as a history of conflict with the U.S. and British governments.

Main Sacred Text: L. Ron Hubbard's best-selling book "Dianetics" is probably the closest thing to sacred scriptures for the Church of Scientology

I have also heard that Nicole Kidman was a former Scientologist but dropped out. One thing I do like about Scientology is that it teaches 'self betterment' in a highly organized way. One thing I do not like about it is how it allows normal people to drop down to the stupidity neccessary to fully believe in Scientology. Oh well, Scientologists have every right to believe what they want just as much as Christians or people who think they are Vampires.

[Astroglide]

There should be more than enough information at: http://www.xenu.net/

to satisfy any questions you have about Scientology.

To summarize: it is a scam, and a dangerous one at that.

I've always thought the celebrity angle was stupid. It always gets brought up with Scientology as some example of their supposed feeding off the rich celebritites.

There are celebrities in other religions.
There are celebrities that are secular humanists.

So...

-Who

[ebola]

Whodini wrote:

I've always thought the celebrity angle was stupid. It always gets brought up with Scientology as some example of their supposed feeding off the rich celebritites.


I agree that the celebrity angle is stupid. Celebrities represent a group of people who are generally wealthy enough not to be bled completely dry by these parasites. It is definitely more pertinent to focus on the average working stiffs who could never afford this indoctrination, yet beg, borrow, steal, and sell themselves to the church for one billion years to pay the fees for various self improvement programs of, at best, dubious value.

Eric

[Yahweh]

If I was a celebrity, I would buy my own church. Something very big and Romanesque. I would name the chuch "Temple Of Yahweh". When you walk inside it'll be like a TGI Fridays... just a whole bunch of crazy crap all over the walls... I would have a yoda doll, street signs with funny messages like "Ped X", I would have one of those bagless vacuums attached to the roof (with the intention that it'll drop down and break open like a pinata). My church would be awesome. It would be a combination Bar & Confessional. By that I mean people would have fun drinking the pina colatas or whatever they want and then later on they can come and confess their sins. Then, about a month later they realize they have been scammed. I will have videotaped all the confessions and play them every hour on the hour. Ha Ha. Losers. Seriously, scientology is bad.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Whodini

Anyway, I read a book on Scientology. Some of it made sense, and some of it didn't. Hey, I am honest.
-Who
What part made sense?

Suppose I said: I read a book on the Mafia. Some of it made sense, and some of it didn't. Wouldn't you wonder what the hell I was talking about?

Good try at playing innocent, Whodini. But only a practicing scientologist would defend this monstrosity with the fervor you have. Although I suppose it is possible that you are merely argumentative and astoundingly naive and thus are defending it merely because we attack it, I don't find that believable. Not even you could be that naive.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Is this my opportunity to learn what shiz means?

~~ Paul

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by Whodini
Anyway, I read a book on Scientology. Some of it made sense, and some of it didn't. Hey, I am honest.

-Who What book? Just curious.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Whodini


Anyway, I read a book on Scientology. Some of it made sense, and some of it didn't. Hey, I am honest.

-Who

Must mean Dianetics - "The Modern Science of Mental Health".

BTW, which sentence made sense - I must have missed it. ;)

Here is another good link;
http://skepdic.com/dianetic.html

Barkhorn.

Originally posted by Yahzi

Good try at playing innocent, Whodini. But only a practicing scientologist would defend this monstrosity with the fervor you have. Although I suppose it is possible that you are merely argumentative and astoundingly naive and thus are defending it merely because we attack it, I don't find that believable. Not even you could be that naive.

Now introducting Skepticism, Version 2.0!

Benefits:

-learn to attack the argument, not the person
-rely less and less on the words "quack" and "woo-woo"
-actually do your own research
-learn to not confuse the message with the messenger
-master science not debunkery
-get valuable suggestions for clothing choices
-advice for armchair refurbishing

Time for an upgrade?

-Who

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Is this my opportunity to learn what shiz means?

~~ Paul


Only if you will promise to use it in a freestyle, Pauly C, the G, atheist or pagan, worships Sagan, not literally, loves debunking biblically, anything mythically or woo-woo, shiz is like doo-doo, word to your mother. :)

-Who

Originally posted by Aoidoi
What book? Just curious.

Well apparently Barkhorn1x, the all-knowing mind-reading says that I read Dianetics (which I didn't).

If he/she would have actually asked me, like you did, that would have been more effective. But instead he/she used his/her skeptical powers to imput what I actually read! In debunkery-speak, so that he/she can understand: STRAWMAN.

Thank you, Aoidoi, for actually asking me.

I actually read parts (not the whole book) of Clear Body, Clear Mind. What pages, I don't know, I just glanced through it, reading here and there. Sorry, I wasn't taking detailed notes.

-Who

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Whodini

I actually read parts (not the whole book) of Clear Body, Clear Mind. What pages, I don't know, I just glanced through it, reading here and there. Sorry, I wasn't taking detailed notes.
-Who
So you want me to be all professional and precise about debating, and yet not only did you read the wrong book, you didn't even read the whole thing.

I think the definition of "armchair philosophy" is glancing through a derivative work, and then making an assertion about that philosophy.

Why don't you try reading the actual, core book of the system, and then perhaps do a little research on the web about that book and what other people had to say about it? (Hint: I have) Then maybe you would be in a position to discuss the issue.

Until then, you are hardly in a position to complain about our level of research.

What incredible freaking hubris - to think that idly flipping through a random book would allow you to pretend as if you had knowledge of a subject.

The only mystery here is why you aren't on my ignore list. I could swear I put you there. I'll try again.

[Aoidoi]

http://www.clearbodyclearmind.com/

(it's got a website!)

Anyway, from the little bit on there:"One would be hard put to find someone in the present-day civilization who is not affected by this fact. The vast majority of the public is subjected every day to the intake of food preservatives and other chemical poisons including atmospheric poisons, pesticides and the like. Added to this are the pain pills, tranquilizers and other medical drugs used and prescribed by doctors. And we have as well the widespread use of marijuana, LSD, angel dust and other street drugs which contribute heavily to the scene.Most of what I got out of this page was pretty much "drugs are bad." I assume the book has more in it. :)

Just curious, is L. Ron's grammar normally that suspect, or is it just my admittedly negative view of the man coloring my reading?

"Even medicinal drugs such as diet pills, codeine, novocaine and others have gone into 'restim' [restimulation] years after they were taken and had supposedly been eliminated from the body.Only thing I've heard of this happening with is LSD. Anybody know if this is accurate with any of the other stuff mentioned?

I guess the whole point is to sell this "purification" thing... anybody know what that amounts to? This seems like pretty easily tested stuff (like the mystical ohm-meter Scientologists use in auditing, for instance).

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Whodini


Well apparently Barkhorn1x, the all-knowing mind-reading says that I read Dianetics (which I didn't).

Well you should have - if you want to post about Scientology - as your OP stated. :rolleyes:

If he/she would have actually asked me, like you did, that would have been more effective. But instead he/she used his/her skeptical powers to imput what I actually read! In debunkery-speak, so that he/she can understand: STRAWMAN.

I made an assumption based on your opening post - and second post. I was wrong. There, feel better now?

I actually read parts (not the whole book) of Clear Body, Clear Mind. What pages, I don't know, I just glanced through it, reading here and there. Sorry, I wasn't taking detailed notes.

Turns out that I don't have an opinion on this book as I have not read it. However, your admission of "just glancing through" is telling. Do you always post in such an unfocused manner??

So what do you want to discuss;
1. Scientology?
2. Nutrition self help books?
3. L. Ron Hubbard?
4. Other?

Do tell,
Barkhorn.

"So you want me to be all professional and precise about debating, and yet not only did you read the wrong book, you didn't even read the whole thing."

The first part is a strawman.

Read the wrong book? What the hell are you babbling about?

"What incredible freaking hubris - to think that idly flipping through a random book would allow you to pretend as if you had knowledge of a subject."

The emperor of Morondumb bestows upon you his highest medal. I simply said that I read parts of a Scientology book and found some stuff to be true. That is it. The rest, is your invention.

"The only mystery here is why you aren't on my ignore list. I could swear I put you there. I'll try again."

Try harder, because you've said that before. Perhaps read the FAQ on how to do that. It appears you really aren't interested in discussion. :rolleyes:

-Who

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Whodini
Does anyone want to talk about Scientology?

;)

Nope...:p

Well you should have - if you want to post about Scientology - as your OP stated. :rolleyes:

Barkhorn, you said "Must mean Dianetics". You didn't ask what I read, you just assumed. You were wrong. Now you tell me that I should have read Dianetics.

I made an assumption based on your opening post - and second post. I was wrong. There, feel better now?

It is you who should feel better because you aren't obviosuly arguing a straw-book argument anymore.

Do you always post in such an unfocused manner??

Yes, ask Diogenes, thaiboxerken, jj, BillHoyt or anyone else who responds to me. They'll tell you that I post in an unfocused manner.


So what do you want to discuss;
1. Scientology?
2. Nutrition self help books?
3. L. Ron Hubbard?
4. Other?


Sure, how about 1. I'm interested in hearing about why people think Scientology is bad, without resorting to xenu.net or testimonials. That is, besides xenu.net or testimonials, what is ones' evidence for saying Scientology is bad?

And despite some mental giants, me asking this questions doesn't in any way make me a Scientologist. :rolleyes:

-Who

[WooBot]

The basic device used in "auditing", the "E-meter", is demonstrably a phony device. Would you consider that as good negative evidence, given that it plays a large role in Scientology?

An aside: Did Mr. Randi ever follow up on the deconstruction of the E-meter he obtained? I don't recall seeing a follow-up after the original announcement that he had obtained one.

[Peter Soderqvist]

L Ron Hubbard was a borrower without any own originality, as a rule of thumb; what is good in Scientology is not something new, and what is new in scientology is seldom-good stuff! The E-meter is a simple psycho-galvanometer, which measuring the changes, of electrical charges in your skin, and the E-meter is quite stupid! Because it cannot differentiate between imagined happenings, and authentic memories! The first mentioning about the psycho- galvanometer, I know about, is in the book Science and Sanity 1933, by Alfred Korzybski This is link I found on Internet about the Psycho-galvanometer, the link is not reviewed by me!
http://www.trans4mind.com/psychotechnics/

Korzybskian General Semantics vs. Scientology
http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/jk8.htm

A note to Whodini, this is not a link to Operation Clambake! ;)

[Fade]

What principles in Scientology do you find "true" ?

And when you say "true" do you mean "You like" or do you mean "practical?"

If you mean the first, then just know that the entirety of western Psychologists disagrees with you.

If you mean the latter, than that means you are a dangerous psychopath.

[Checkmite]

The E-Meter is a Wheatstone Bridge circuit - it's an open circuit that is closed when a person comes into contact with the two "leads", using the surface of the skin as a conductor. The same principle is used in a new McDonald's happy meal toy I've seen lately - it's a plastic fish, designed so that if two people touch certain spots on the fish and then touch their skin together in some way, a light comes on in the fish (wow, what they can't do these days...).

The principle is also used in the formerly-popular "touch" lamps of the late 80's. The only difference is that in the E-meter, instead of a "light" coming on, there is a meter which measures how well your skin happens to be conducting the electricity - many factors decide this: relative humidity, body temperature, sweat, or oil on the skin. Scientology claims that the E-meter actually measures brain states, a claim that has been proven false.

[Peter Soderqvist]

TO WHODINI


Whodini wrote partly 06-09-2003 10:11 PM: Sure, how about 1. I'm interested in hearing about why people think Scientology is bad, without resorting to xenu.net or testimonials. That is, besides xenu.net or testimonials, what is ones' evidence for saying Scientology is bad?


Soderqvist1: Scientology is bad because they indoctrinate both their own members and public that all criticism regarding scientology is false, because the critical persons have low moral and ethical standards! They interrogate their members with the E-meter on a regular basis if they have critical thoughts about Scientology! They doesn't promote investigations about both sides of the story, because they cannot survive under such condition, Operation Clambake links to CoS home side, and exposes Scientology for what it is, but the CoS doesn't link back! Why? As I have already pointed out, they cannot survive a critical scrutiny!

Scientology Pledge to Mankind
The detractors of Scientology know full well that it is a proven, effective and workable system for freeing mankind from spiritual bondage. That is why they attack. They fear that they will somehow be threatened by a society, which is more ethical, productive and humane through the influence of Scientology and Scientologists. Thus when we expand, to that degree we are attacked. http://www.scientology.org/wis/wiseng/38/38-idx.htm

Soderqvist1: That is, besides http://www.scientology.org/ or testimonials, what is ones' evidence for saying Scientology is good? ;)

[Peter Soderqvist]

My Philosophy By L Ron Hubbard
Blinded with injured optic nerves, and lame with physical injuries to hip and back, at the end of World War II, I faced an almost nonexistent future. My service record states: “This officer has no neurotic or psychotic tendencies of any kind whatsoever,” but it also states “permanently disabled physically.” And so there came a further blow . . . I was abandoned by family and friends as a supposedly hopeless cripple and a probable burden upon them for the rest of my days. I yet worked my way back to fitness and strength in less than two years, using only what I know and could determine about man and his relationship to the universe.

I had no one to help me; what I had to know I had to find out. And it’s quite a trick studying when you cannot see. I became used to being told it was all impossible, that there was no way, no hope. Yet I came to see again and walk again, and I built an entirely new life. It is a happy life, a busy one and I hope a useful one. My only moments of sadness are those which come when bigoted men tell others all is bad and there is no route anywhere, no hope anywhere, nothing but sadness and sameness and desolation, and that every effort to help others is false. I know it is not true. So my own philosophy is that one should share what wisdom he has, one should help others
http://www.ronthephilosopher.org/Page84.htm

L Ron Hubbard The Founder of Scientology!
With peace restored at war’s end, Mr. Hubbard immediately set out to further test the workability of his breakthroughs. This was intensive research. For subjects he selected people from all walks of life–in Hollywood, where he worked with actors and writers; Savannah, Georgia, where he helped deeply disturbed inmates in a mental hospital; and in Washington, DC, New York City, New Jersey, Pasadena, Los Angeles and Seattle. In all, he personally helped over four hundred individuals before 1950, with spectacular results. And he used the same procedures to cure injuries and wounds he himself had received, fully recovering his health by 1949.
http://www.scientology.org/wis/wiseng/wis1-3/wis3_1t.htm

[Peter Soderqvist]

1984 Superior court of Los Angeles Judge Breckenridge
The organization over the years with its "Fair Game" doctrine has harassed and abused those persons not in the Church whom it perceives as enemies. The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and the bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder LRH. The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background, and achievements. The writings and documents in evidence additionally reflect his egoism, greed, avarice, lust for power, and vindictiveness and aggressiveness against persons perceived by him to be disloyal or hostile.

At the same time it appears that he is charismatic and highly capable of motivating, organizing, controlling, manipulating, and inspiring his adherents. He has been referred to during this trial as a "genius," a "revered person," a man who was "viewed by his followers with awe." Obviously, he is and has been a very complex person, and that complexity is further reflected in his alter ego, the Church of Scientology. Notwithstanding protestations to the contrary, this court is satisfied that LRH runs the Church in all ways through the Sea Organization, his role of Commodore, and the Commodore's Messengers. (3 see exhibit K Flag Order 3729). He has, of course, chosen to go into "seclusion," but he maintains contact and control through the top messengers. Seclusion has its light and dark side too. It adds to his mystique, and yet shields him from accountability and subpoena or service of summons.http://www.planetkc.com/sloth/sci/breck.html

1984 High court of London Justice Latey
The Founder, L. Ron Hubbard, To promote himself and the cult he has made these among other false claims: That he was a much decorated war hero. He was not. That he commanded a corvette squadron. He did not. That he was awarded the Purple Heart, a gallantry decoration for those wounded in action. He was not wounded and was not decorated. That he was crippled and blinded in the war and cured himself with Dianetics techniques. He was not crippled and was not blinded. That he was sent by U.S. Naval Intelligence to break up a black magic ring in California. He was not. He was himself a member of that occult group and practiced ritual sexual magic in it. That he was a graduate of George Washington University and an atomic physicist. The facts are that he completed only one year of college and failed the one course in nuclear physics in which he enrolled. There is no dispute about any of this. The evidence is unchallenged. Hubbard has described himself as "Dr. Hubbard". The only doctorate he has held is a self-bestowed "doctorate" in Scientology.

What happens to the Money?
Mr. Armstrong is in a better position than most to know where the money goes. His evidence, together with other evidence, shows that much of it goes into the pocket of Hubbard and he has described how it is "laundered".

Mr. Hubbard went into hiding in 1980. Attempts have been made to secure his attendance at various hearings in the Courts of the United States. They have all failed because be cannot be found and served. The evidence is clear and conclusive: Mr. Hubbard is a charlatan and worse as are his wife Mary Sue Hubbard (she has been convicted of criminal offences in the United States in connection with Scientology and imprisoned) and the clique at the top privy to the Cult's activities.
http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/audit/latey.html

1984 Scientology Pledge to Mankind about the two court verdicts.
“We have been subjected to illegal heresy trials in two countries before prejudiced and malinformed judges who are not qualified or inclined to perceive the truth.
http://www.scientology.org/wis/wiseng/38/38-idx.htm

Soderqvist1: The CoS are engaged in empty rhetoric to say the least, because they have not pointed out any flaws in the court verdicts. It is quite obvious why CoS 's lawyers couldn't defend the church in the child custody case in the high court of London as linked earlier by me! As Justice Latey has said, there is no dispute about any of this; the evidence is unchallenged!

[ebola]

Whodini wrote:

Anyway, I read a book on Scientology. Some of it made sense, and some of it didn't.


Which parts made sense, and which did not?

Eric

[aggle_rithm]

My wife worked for the Church of Scientology for a short time, about sixteen years ago.

She was hired as the human resources manager, with no experience or training. She had to sign a five-year contract promising to pay back the "church" for her training if she quit (I later found that this was a VERY short contract, Scientology-wise).

She asked them repeatedly how much she was going to be paid, but they only told her she would make forty "units" a week. They wouldn't tell her how much a "unit" was, only that it varied based on how much profit they took in that week (what kind of church talks about "profit"?).

Finally, she drug it out of them that, on a very good week, she could expect to make as much as forty dollars. This for a fifty-hour work week. She quit, and luckily, they didn't come after her to reimburse them for her training. They did try to talk her into some auditing, which she fortunately declined.

The spookiest thing about the whole affair was that they showed all the employees an office that L. Ron Hubbard used when he visited the local center. It was taped off, and no one was allowed inside. They said the L. Ron Hubbard would always answer mail sent to him, and encouraged them to write him. What's so spooky about that? Well, at the time, L. Ron Hubbard was quite dead.... :eek:

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by ebola


Which parts made sense, and which did not?

Eric

I started to read Dianetics. The part that made the most sense to me was the copyright page. After that, he kind of lost me.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Whodini
[i]

Sure, how about 1. I'm interested in hearing about why people think Scientology is bad, without resorting to xenu.net or testimonials. That is, besides xenu.net or testimonials, what is ones' evidence for saying Scientology is bad?

-Who

The thing about Scientology is that there is just SOOOO much evidence of its inherent "WooWooness" that is hard to think of anything that one could say to support it - really.

Barkhorn.

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by aggle_rithm


The spookiest thing about the whole affair was that they showed all the employees an office that L. Ron Hubbard used when he visited the local center. It was taped off, and no one was allowed inside. They said the L. Ron Hubbard would always answer mail sent to him, and encouraged them to write him. What's so spooky about that? Well, at the time, L. Ron Hubbard was quite dead.... :eek:

From what I have read online, they have rooms for Hubbard all over. I am not sure if they are in every Org or Scientology building, but they are common from what I understand. I haven't heard about Hubbard still answering his mail!

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x


The thing about Scientology is that there is just SOOOO much evidence of its inherent "WooWooness" that is hard to think of anything that one could say to support it - really.

Barkhorn.

You can also go directly to the Scientology site, plenty of stuff there.

Check out how Hubbard explains the mind, with the analytical and reactive mind.

read this (http://www.scientology.org/en_US/religion/description/dianetics/pg003.html)

from that link

L. Ron Hubbard discovered that the mind has two very distinct parts. One of these — that part which one consciously uses and is aware of — is called the analytical mind. This is the portion of the mind which thinks, observes data, remembers it and resolves problems. It has standard memory banks which contain mental image pictures, and uses the data in these banks to make decisions that promote survival.

I'd like to know how Hubbard came about learning of these distinct parts? How did he find out that the analytical mind remembers and has "standard memory banks"?


However, two things appear to be — but are not — recorded in the standard banks: painful emotion and physical pain.

And Hubbard came to this knowledge how?

When a person is “unconscious,” the reactive mind exactly records all the perceptions of that incident, including what happens or is said around the person.

Again a question that is begging to be asked is how Mr. Hubbard found all this stuff out?

[LeFevre]

http://www.scientology.org/en_US/religion/bridge/pg005.html



that is a link to the bridge to total freedom, have a look.

[ebola]

aggle-

I know, I know, I know...

I am simply trying to get some straight answers from Whodini about Scientology. It is about like trying to climb a greased pole. I think he is dodging me. I just want to know which parts Whodini thinks make sense.

Eric

Originally posted by ebola
aggle-

I know, I know, I know...

I am simply trying to get some straight answers from Whodini about Scientology. It is about like trying to climb a greased pole. I think he is dodging me. I just want to know which parts Whodini thinks make sense.

Eric

Um, it has only been barely a day since I posted and since you asked me.

Sorry I can't respond instantaneously.

-Who

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by LeFevre
http://www.scientology.org/en_US/religion/bridge/pg005.html



that is a link to the bridge to total freedom, have a look.

That's a bunch of classess - and a whole bunch of opportunities to make $$$.:eek:

No wonder Scientology targets celebrities - who else can even afford this stuff???

Barkhorn.

"And when you say "true" do you mean "You like" or do you mean "practical?""

You like.

"If you mean the first, then just know that the entirety of western Psychologists disagrees with you."

So? Western Psychologists have some nutty ideas too.

"If you mean the latter, than that means you are a dangerous psychopath."

Ad hom. I just asked for links to non Xenu.com whatever sites and non-testimonials because I was curious how people are forming their opinions. And I got some. Thanks.

-Who

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Whodini
[iI was curious how people are forming their opinions. And I got some. Thanks.

-Who

Did you read the link I provided you near the top of this thread??

Bob Carroll does a nice job of describing the psuedoscientific underpinnings of "Scientology". LeFevre reiterated some of the same points. Does this trouble you at all??

Barkhorn.

[ebola]

Whodini wrote:

Anyway, I read a book on Scientology. Some of it made sense, and some of it didn't.


Which parts made sense, and which did not?

Eric

Originally posted by ebola


Which parts made sense, and which did not?

Eric

ebola, I'm not sure at the moment because I don't have that book. I was flipping through it at the library for about 10 minutes.

-Who

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x


Did you read the link I provided you near the top of this thread??

Bob Carroll does a nice job of describing the psuedoscientific underpinnings of "Scientology". LeFevre reiterated some of the same points. Does this trouble you at all??

Barkhorn.


Yes I read the link.

And no, it doesn't trouble me at all. Why would it exactly?

I did enjoy reading the articles though and found them very interesting and informative.

-Who

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x

No wonder Scientology targets celebrities - who else can even afford this stuff???

Barkhorn.

Semi-strawman. One doesn't need to spend tons and tons of money to practice that religion.

-Who

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Whodini


Semi-strawman. One doesn't need to spend tons and tons of money to practice that religion.

-Who

Yea - and this from the guy who flipped through a book for 10 minutes one time. :rolleyes:

Tell me - no tell us all - do your posts ever contain substance?? Or, are you just content to point out fallicies of logic, both real and imagined?

I would like to know so I may determine how much more time I care to waste in this thread.

Barkhorn.

I admit, from the start, that I flipped through the book for 10 minutes. I was honest about what I did. I didn't take notes, and I didn't read it for more than that. I just recall parts of what I read making sense. Sorry I can't be more specific.

"Tell me - no tell us all - do your posts ever contain substance??"

Ad hom.

Like I said, one doesn't need to spend tons of money to practice Scientology. However, people always focus on the money issue. Does anyone have any statistics on the incomes of Scientologists? (then look at the same statistics, but with some celebrities removed, so we can get the income of the 'average' Scientologist).

I'd hypothesize that their incomes would not be statistically different (ie. not be greater than) non-Scientologists, but I don't know. This is what I'd like to get information on, you know, so one can investigate things, you know, skeptically.

We'll let the data tell the story, not the other way around (ie. not from the more militant skeptic sites or from disgruntled testimonials).

-Who

[ebola]

Whodini,

Let me see if I have this straight. Your entire defense of Scientology is based on scanning a book in a library for ten minutes. There is not even one thing that sticks in your mind as making sense. You have seen ( on another thread ) the costs associated with practicing this "faith". You even admitted there that you would not spend the money that way. Does it bother you even slightly that the only discernable reason that Scientology is a religion ( instead of crackpot, New Age, feel-good, "self help" ) is the US Tax Code, which does not tax churches? I believe that people are free to practice their folly as much as the next guy, but I have to draw the line when a "church", which is supposedly there for the good of its congregants, greedily drives them to financial ruin. How, precisely, is this beneficial?

Eric

"Your entire defense of Scientology is based on scanning a book in a library for ten minutes."

No you don't have it right. :) I'm not defending Scientology, as you put it. I am saying a tiny portion of what I've read makes sense.

"There is not even one thing that sticks in your mind as making sense."

I'll go back to the library tomorrow and try to find those parts.

"I believe that people are free to practice their folly as much as the next guy, but I have to draw the line when a "church", which is supposedly there for the good of its congregants, greedily drives them to financial ruin. How, precisely, is this beneficial?"

I agree with some of what you said, but most of it is a strawman. Unless you...

-can tell us all the number of Scientologists or former Scientologists who are in 'financial ruin'.

-Who

[LeFevre]

You can sign over your next billion years, though from what I understand these folks aren't at the top of the list for classes and auditing like paying people are in Scientology. That makes sense, if you are paying you get up front.

[Fade]

Originally posted by Whodini


Semi-strawman. One doesn't need to spend tons and tons of money to practice that religion.

-Who

Absolutely false. If you want to progress in the organization, you must spend tens of thousands of dollars. There are no stay-at-home Scientologists. You have to be audited. You have to pay for the manuals. When you get to the point of being an OT, you have to take very expensive classes.

You ignorant goob.

[reprise]

Originally posted by LeFevre
You can sign over your next billion years, though from what I understand these folks aren't at the top of the list for classes and auditing like paying people are in Scientology. That makes sense, if you are paying you get up front.

Daily study sessions are compulsory for Sea Org members, although whether an individual member gets mostly tech or mostly auditing is determined by the org. While the services provided by the org to people on staff are kept on the books as a debt for a period of time, I'm not aware of the org taking legal action to collect that debt should members leave the org before the debt is discharged (in fact it used to be against policy to pursue the money).

Having said that, I have a number of friends who've spent well over $AUD30,000 to reach their OT levels, and these were people on very average incomes - the pressure to move up the bridge as fast as possible and to use any available finances in order to do so is enormous.

[Fade]

Also, Whodini,

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD PLEASE SEARCH FOR "LOGICAL FALLACIES" AND READ UP ON WHAT THEY ACTUALLY ARE, RATHER THAN WHAT YOU ASSUME THEM TO BE BASED UPON YOUR PAST EXPERIENCE WITH PEOPLE USING THOSE TERMS.

"I hate you and you smell" is NOT AN AD HOMINEM.

Originally posted by Fade

Absolutely false. If you want to progress in the organization, you must spend tens of thousands of dollars. There are no stay-at-home Scientologists. You have to be audited. You have to pay for the manuals. When you get to the point of being an OT, you have to take very expensive classes.

You ignorant goob.

Ad hom.

"Progress in the organization" is different, I'd say, from progress in the religion.

-Who

[reprise]

Originally posted by Whodini


Semi-strawman. One doesn't need to spend tons and tons of money to practice that religion.

-Who

I think you might be failing to distinguish between dianetics and Scientology here. Book One auditing (dianetics) can certainly be applied very cheaply. The techniques aren't particularly complex and most people who've seen a Book One auditing session would find it very similar to many other forms of therapy practised in the mainstream community.

Scientology, on the other hand, requires substantial financial or other consideration in exchange for the provision of its tech. Someone who is a dianetic clear is only just beginning their progression through the more expensive services which Scientology offers.

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by reprise



Having said that, I have a number of friends who've spent well over $AUD30,000 to reach their OT levels, and these were people on very average incomes - the pressure to move up the bridge as fast as possible and to use any available finances in order to do so is enormous.

I think that is where alot of people get (really) upset at Scientology. People of average income (I'd think) probably make up the vast majority of Scientology.

These are the people who are hurt most by the prices to go up the bridge to total freedom, at least hurt financially.



by Whodini

I agree with some of what you said, but most of it is a strawman. Unless you...

-can tell us all the number of Scientologists or former Scientologists who are in 'financial ruin'.

I think a better way, or easier, would be to find out how much things like the e-meter, the auditing, the different classes, cost. I am not sure where to find out how much auditing costs or e-meters cost, but I know that you would like links or info from non anti-Scientology sites.

If we could find out, from a good source, how much it costs to go a little bit down the bridge to total freedom I think that would give us a decent idea for how much it would cost a person of average income to get started on that bridge.


edited to change Whodini's name, I spelled it Whodinio

[Fade]

Originally posted by Whodini


Ad hom.

"Progress in the organization" is different, I'd say, from progress in the religion.

-Who

Where is the ad hominem? Huh? I am looking at my own post. There are no ad hominems.

EDUCATE YOURSELF.

Also, if you had bothered to read up on scientology, the religion IS the organization. Progressing in them is mutual. The only way to progress is to get audited, to go to classes, and to spend money. There are no other ways.

FIND A WEBSITE THAT EXPLAINS THE WORDS YOU ARE USING, YOU AREN'T USING THEM CORRECTLY.

[reprise]

I think a better way, or easier, would be to find out how much things like the e-meter, the auditing, the different classes, cost.

When I was a Scientologist, there was no standard pricing at our org. Two people purchasing precisely the same service could be - and often were - charged totally different prices.

"EDUCATE YOURSELF."

Ad hom.

May I have another?

"The only way to progress is to get audited, to go to classes, and to spend money. There are no other ways."

Yeah, what about reading books, attending lectures, thinking about things, studying other religions, and stuff?

"FIND A WEBSITE THAT EXPLAINS THE WORDS YOU ARE USING, YOU AREN'T USING THEM CORRECTLY."

Ad all caps.

-Who

[reprise]

Yeah, what about reading books, attending lectures, thinking about things, studying other religions, and stuff?

None of those things will help you progress up the bridge. The only way you can do that is purchasing services from an org with either your cash or your labour.

Originally posted by reprise


None of those things will help you progress up the bridge. The only way you can do that is purchasing services from an org with either your cash or your labour.

Could you point to sources that say that that is the only way as you claim?

-Who

[Fade]

Ad hom.

YOU CONTINUE TO USE THIS WORD IMPROPERLY.

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."


YOU HAVE BEEN EDUCATED. IMMEDIATELY CEASE USING THIS WORD IMPROPERLY.

This public service has been brought to you by the PEOPLE FOR MAKING WHODINI LESS IGNORANT.

[reprise]

All the prices given on this page (http://www.rehabilitatenz.co.nz/pages/books-course-prices.html) are in New Zealand dollars.

If you click the links at the very bottom of the page, you'll get an idea of just how many products and services are offered for sale by the various sections within the org.

Edited to add link to basic course prices (http://www.rehabilitatenz.co.nz/pages/basic-course-prices.html). The prices for the advanced courses are considerably higher.

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by Whodini


Could you point to sources that say that that is the only way as you claim?

-Who
Look at the Bridge to Total Freedom I linked from the Scientology.org site. On that they have where you can go to get this or that class. The upper OT levels you can only take at their Org in Clearwater.


To get up the bridge you have to follow the tech that Hubbard discovered (according to Scientologists, and wouldn't you expect them to think that way Whodini? If they didn't, then why are they Scientologists?)

[reprise]

Originally posted by Whodini


Could you point to sources that say that that is the only way as you claim?

-Who

You could always phone your local org, as you won't accept as "sources" websites which are critical of Scientology or the experiences of people who've actually been Scientologists. If you do find someone offering you the products of Scientology for free, I'm sure your local org would love to know about it as Scientology has gone to extraordinary lengths to trademarks and copyright its products and materials in order to prevent them being published or distributed by anyone else.

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by reprise


You could always phone your local org, as you won't accept as "sources" websites which are critical of Scientology or the experiences of people who've actually been Scientologists. If you do find someone offering you the products of Scientology for free, I'm sure your local org would love to know about it as Scientology has gone to extraordinary lengths to trademarks and copyright its products and materials in order to prevent them being published or distributed by anyone else.

Scientology's want to copyright and trademark their books, tape, etc. has helped uncover some of the things about Scientology tech.

From judicial records when Scientology would take someone or some group to court, we have gotten a glance at some of the things within Scientology.

[T'ai Chi]

What about this hypothetical: someone reads a Scientology books, likes the philosophy, and considers themselves a Scientologist.

True / False?

They've spent little or no money.

-Who

[reprise]

A reasonably up to date list of trademarks (http://www.lronhubbard.org/tmnotice.htm) owned by the Church of Scientology or its offshoots.

Notably absent from the list is the Cult Awareness Network, which is now operated by the Church of Scientology.

[T'ai Chi]

I use ad hom to also mean attacking a person, so really the first part of the definition that you use.

'This public service has been brought to you by the PEOPLE FOR MAKING WHODINI LESS IGNORANT."

Ad annoying.

-Who

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
What about this hypothetical: someone reads a Scientology books, likes the philosophy, and considers themselves a Scientologist.

True / False?

They've spent little or no money.

-Who

Whaaaa? Are you Whodini? :eek:

If someone reads a Scientology book, likes the philosophy, and considers themselves a Scientologist, then I would think that person would contact their local Org and get started up the Bridge to Total Freedom. If you don't, and you still consider yourself a Scientologist, that is confusing to me. Why would a Scientologist not want to achieve the level of Clear and continue up the Bridge?

If one considers themself a Scientologist and doesnt do auditing, or take classes to improve themselves, or go through the plan that Hubbard laid out, how does that person know that they aren't using squirreled tech? That is why Hubbard's tech (in the view of Scientology) MUST be followed to the letter (the "new" tech is a different discussion all together).

[reprise]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
What about this hypothetical: someone reads a Scientology books, likes the philosophy, and considers themselves a Scientologist.

True / False?

They've spent little or no money.

-Who

Such a person would not be considered a Scientologist by the org itself as auditing and tech training are essential requirements of being a Scientologist.

You could read the basics about the lower OT levels online (they are out there), but it doesn't mean that the org would acknowledge you as an OT. As far as Scientology goes, you attain a certain status within the org when the org says you've attained it - it can't be conferred on you by anyone else, whether it's the status of Dianetic Clear or OT VIII.

LeFevre, doh, yeah, I goofed and used the wrong account to post that message.

Hey, I wanted a sock-puppet too. Many people had one and I felt left out.

I PM'd hal to have the T'ai Chi account deleted in any case.

-Who

[JoxterTheMighty]

As a former scientology victim I declare scientology a sham and total waste of money! L Ron Hubbard was an evil man and total jacka$$!!!

-Joxter-

P.S. I am drunk right now but scientology is still a sham!!!!!!

Regarding costs:

"Q: Does it cost a lot to be a member of the Church and take services?

A: No.
The training delivered by Churches of Scientology could be compared to taking a course in a school or similar facility. Four years at a typical university would cost between $30,000 and $40,000; four years at a top university would run between $80,000 and $90,000 or even more. And those figures do not include additional costs such as books and supplies.
"

That was from the FAQ on their webpage.

-Who

[reprise]

Originally posted by Whodini
Regarding costs:

"Q: Does it cost a lot to be a member of the Church and take services?

A: No.
The training delivered by Churches of Scientology could be compared to taking a course in a school or similar facility. Four years at a typical university would cost between $30,000 and $40,000; four years at a top university would run between $80,000 and $90,000 or even more. And those figures do not include additional costs such as books and supplies.
"

That was from the FAQ on their webpage.

-Who

Four years and $30,000 to $40,000 at a university would leave you holding a recognised degree. $30,000 to $40,000 spent on Scientology services would leave you with what, precisely?

I agree that personally I'd rather have a degree from a university. Unfortunately, that is irrelevant. We are talking about the costs in $, not all the possible opportunity costs.

-Who

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by reprise


Four years and $30,000 to $40,000 at a university would leave you holding a recognised degree. $30,000 to $40,000 spent on Scientology services would leave you with what, precisely?

Spiritual gain? This is my opinion, but saying that at a low you would spend around 7500 a year (and probably a bit more, add in the e-meter and books. . .) isn't alot of money is off. That's a smeg load for a good number of people. How much would it cost for a married couple? With a child or children?

[reprise]

Who, I know people who've been Scientologists for over 20 years and they are still taking courses. There's always another purif or rundown you can take - and you'll definitely be "encouraged" to do so. In that respect, the CoS could be compared to organisations such as Landmark, or to people like Anthony Robbins - there's always one more book, course, or seminar they can sell you.

[LeFevre]

They have levels that arent out yet, check out the Bridge.

OT IX to OT XV are not yet released. So NO ONE is even close to being done, even if they are people who have been in since the mid '50s.

[reprise]

Originally posted by LeFevre
Spiritual gain? This is my opinion, but saying that at a low you would spend around 7500 a year (and probably a bit more, add in the e-meter and books. . .) isn't alot of money is off. That's a smeg load for a good number of people. How much would it cost for a married couple? With a child or children?

Over the past decade, Australia has become a nation in which counselling and tutoring is regarded as a part of everyday life, so it isn't that difficult to sell people on the idea of paying for auditing or paying for courses which are outside of the mainstream as it once was. Just look at all the other "life enhancement", "life coaching", or "heal your life" courses and seminars which are out there these days and suddenly the idea of people paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for Scientology services doesn't seem so outrageous.

I suspect that it was spectacularly easy to sell auditing in the US in the early days of Dianetics, as that was the same period during which people regarded it as absolutely normal to see a therapist every week, week in week out for, years.

FWIW, I've taught every one of my children the Scientology study tech (a BIG no-no, delivering verbal tech is a total violation of the rules of Scientology). I have done so because the study tech does work.

I know plenty of former Scientologists who still use the TRs in everyday life.

But the fact that some of the low level tech works and still remains valuable in the lives of those who have left the church doesn't legitimise ALL of the church's teachings and practises.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Whodini
Regarding costs:

"Q: Does it cost a lot to be a member of the Church and take services?

A: No.
The training delivered by Churches of Scientology could be compared to taking a course in a school or similar facility. Four years at a typical university would cost between $30,000 and $40,000; four years at a top university would run between $80,000 and $90,000 or even more. And those figures do not include additional costs such as books and supplies.
"

That was from the FAQ on their webpage.

-Who

$80,000 to $90,000 - or even $30,000 to $40,000 is a lot of money. The FAQ starts with a question about whether Scientology costs a lot of money, and ends up talking about how much college costs. Isn't the evasion here painfully obvious?

Originally posted by LeFevre

Spiritual gain? This is my opinion, but saying that at a low you would spend around 7500 a year (and probably a bit more, add in the e-meter and books. . .) isn't alot of money is off. That's a smeg load for a good number of people. How much would it cost for a married couple? With a child or children?

I don't know, but how much would college cost for a couple and their children?

And do they have to pay all at once, or in installments?

-Who

[reprise]

I'm curious, Who, as to why you're unwilling to accept at face value anything published on Operation Clambake or any of the other websites which are critical of Scientology but you're willing to accept at face value what is published by the Church of Scientology itself.

[Peter Soderqvist]

TO WHODINI

Originally posted by Whodini
Regarding costs:

"Q: Does it cost a lot to be a member of the Church and take services?

A: No.
The training delivered by Churches of Scientology could be compared to taking a course in a school or similar facility. Four years at a typical university would cost between $30,000 and $40,000; four years at a top university would run between $80,000 and $90,000 or even more. And those figures do not include additional costs such as books and supplies.
"

That was from the FAQ on their webpage.

-Who

Soderqvist1: the costs because of university studying is sustainable, since a PhD can make his living because of that, but scientologists in average cannot do so, therefore, they often end up with financial problems as pointed out earlier here, and it follows from that, that Scientology is too expensive for ordinary people!

[ebola]

I wrote:

"I believe that people are free to practice their folly as much as the next guy, but I have to draw the line when a "church", which is supposedly there for the good of its congregants, greedily drives them to financial ruin. How, precisely, is this beneficial?"

Whodini replied:

I agree with some of what you said, but most of it is a strawman.





Whodini then posted, from the Co$ website:

Regarding costs:

"Q: Does it cost a lot to be a member of the Church and take services?

A: No.
The training delivered by Churches of Scientology could be compared to taking a course in a school or similar facility. Four years at a typical university would cost between $30,000 and $40,000; four years at a top university would run between $80,000 and $90,000 or even more. And those figures do not include additional costs such as books and supplies."


JKorosi is quite correct. The evasion is painfully obvious. This is an apples to oranges comparison. It compares receiving a useful undergraduate degree in four years to receiving a lifetime of "training" with no improvement in employability. It then insidiously eases a mark into believing that $7,500 to $10,000 per year is actually quite reasonable, compared to the $20,000 to $25,000 per year that some people pay to attend college. It also misleads the gullible into thinking that the instruction may actually end after four years. The training delivered by Co$ should NOT be compared to taking courses at a university.

Given a married couple whose gross income is $40,000 per year and who drops $15,000 to $20,000 per year on this scam, then financial ruin is almost a foregone conclusion. Do I have statistics on how many Scientologists or former Scientologists have declared bankruptcy? I doubt the government keeps statistics based on "religion". Do I have any doubt that the burden heaped upon the unwary makes it far more difficult to make ends meet? NO.

There are quite a few people here who do make strawman arguments; there are also a number who yell "strawman" at the arguments they cannot counter. Again, how is the financial distress of Co$ adherents beneficial?

Eric

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by JoxterTheMighty
As a former scientology victim I declare scientology a sham and total waste of money! L Ron Hubbard was an evil man and total jacka$$!!!

-Joxter-

P.S. I am drunk right now but scientology is still a sham!!!!!!

As a former Scientology victim myself (I watched clips of Battlefield Earth) I agree!

Scientology costs $15-20,000 a year? Catholicism's a bargain then because no-one monitors how much you put inside the offertry envelope... Perhaps we could compile a chart and see which religion is the best buy? :)

[ebola]

Billy, Joxter, reprise,

How much does it actually cost? If it is not too embarassing, how much did you spend over what period of time?

Eric

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by BillyTK


As a former Scientology victim myself (I watched clips of Battlefield Earth) I agree!

Scientology costs $15-20,000 a year? Catholicism's a bargain then because no-one monitors how much you put inside the offertry envelope... Perhaps we could compile a chart and see which religion is the best buy? :)

If the Church of Scientology merely wanted you to tithe, that would be a bargain, especially if you worked for them. 10% of squat is diddly-squat.

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by ebola





Given a married couple whose gross income is $40,000 per year and who drops $15,000 to $20,000 per year on this scam, then financial ruin is almost a foregone conclusion. Do I have statistics on how many Scientologists or former Scientologists have declared bankruptcy? I doubt the government keeps statistics based on "religion". Do I have any doubt that the burden heaped upon the unwary makes it far more difficult to make ends meet? NO.


Eric [/QUOTE]

Can anyone name a financially successful Scientologist who became successful AFTER he joined the church? (L. Ron and other leaders of the church don't count.)

...is that the sound of crickets I hear?

[HarryKeogh]

i had a family member who was an executive director of a scientology church in new york.

i was there many times. i took courses and received auditing. the basic courses are simple self-help stuff similiar to the stuff youll find in any barnes and noble self-help section. the auditing was boring and tiring. i never had one of those "breakthroughs" that everyone else was talking about. i had to feign excitement during auditing because you couldnt end a session on a downnote and i wanted to get the hell out of there. some sessions lasted several hours of answering the same question over and over again.

everyone who worked there seemed miserable. they were all broke because they were paid a pittance for working 60 hour weeks. it was sad.

thanks to the internet we can now see those courses at the top of the "bridge" that otherwise we wouldnt have access to until one were to spend tens of thousands of dollars on courses and auditing.

as said earlier in this thread www.xenu.net is the best resource for seeing how crazy scientology (and L.Ron Hubbard) is.

[JoxterTheMighty]

Originally posted by ebola
Billy, Joxter, reprise,

How much does it actually cost? If it is not too embarassing, how much did you spend over what period of time?

Eric

Luckilly they only got a couple hundred out of me before I wised up to thier cock and bull story. It was pre-internet days so I didnt have the ability to Google the subject but some good friends talked me out of going any deeper.

I actually have to thank Scientology for one thing though, they started me down the road to becoming a serious skeptic. I left the church just to end up with scientology, that sucked! I am still kicking myself for that one :P

-Joxter-

Originally posted by reprise
I'm curious, Who, as to why you're unwilling to accept at face value anything published on Operation Clambake or any of the other websites which are critical of Scientology but you're willing to accept at face value what is published by the Church of Scientology itself.


I don't accept it, I just put it out there so people could get the other side of the argument.

-Who

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist
TO WHODINI
a PhD can make his living because of that, but scientologists in average cannot do so, therefore, they often end up with financial problems as pointed out earlier here, and it follows from that, that Scientology is too expensive for ordinary people!

Do you have any statistics which show that 'scientologists in average cannot [make a living]'?

Do you have any statistics which show that scientologists 'often end up with financial problems'?

-Who

"The evasion is painfully obvious. This is an apples to oranges comparison."

We are comparing costs in dollar amounts, not anything else.

"Given a married couple whose gross income is $40,000 per year and who drops $15,000 to $20,000 per year on this scam,"

Oh please, show me the statistics that show that an average person spends 15000-20000 per year on scientology.

"Do I have statistics on how many Scientologists or former Scientologists have declared bankruptcy?"

No, you obviously do not, yet feel free to continue pulling numbers and hypothetical families from the ether.

-Who

[ebola]

I wrote:

"The evasion is painfully obvious. This is an apples to oranges comparison."

Whodini replied:

We are comparing costs in dollar amounts, not anything else.


Wrong. According to your own quote from the Co$ website:

The training delivered by Churches of Scientology could be compared to taking a course in a school or similar facility. Four years at a typical university would cost between $30,000 and $40,000; four years at a top university would run between $80,000 and $90,000 or even more. And those figures do not include additional costs such as books and supplies."

The comparison is intended to make people think of Scientology as an education. It clearly is not. It is intended to make the costs of Scientology seem reasonable. They are not.



I wrote:

"Given a married couple whose gross income is $40,000 per year and who drops $15,000 to $20,000 per year on this scam,"

Whodini replied:

Oh please, show me the statistics that show that an average person spends 15000-20000 per year on scientology.


The average person will not spend $15,000 to $20,000 per year on Scientology. Based on a post from
this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6437&perpage=40&pagenumber=2) , JKorosi posted approximate costs associated with Co$ membership. In case you have forgotten:



Course - required intensives - cost of intensives - total cost
========== ========== =========
Life Repair 2 x 12.5 hr $5,600 $11,200
Purification RD ----------- $2,560 $2,560
TRs & Objectives 2 x 12.5 hr $5,600 $11,200
Scn Drug Rundown 2 x 12.5 hr $5,600 $11,200
ARC Straightwire 2 x 12.5 hr $5,600 $11,200
Grade 0 3 x 12.5 hr $5,600 $16,800
Grade 1 2 x 12.5 hr $5,600 $11,200
Grade 2 2 x 12.5 hr $5,600 $11,200
Grade 3 2 x 12.5 hr $5,600 $11,200
Grade 4 2 x 12.5 hr $5,600 $11,200
New Era Dianetics 3 x 12.5 hr $5,600 $16,800
Clear Certainty RD 1 x 5 hr $2,800 $2,800

SUB-TOTAL TO CLEAR $128,560

*Solo Course Part 1 ----------- $3,200 $3,200
*OT Preparations 2 x 12.5 hr $3,300 $6,600
*Solo Course Part 2 ----------- $1,900 $1,900
*OT Eligibility 2 x 12.5 hr $3,300 $6,600
*OT I ----------- $2,000 $2,000
*OT II ----------- $3,800 $3,800
*OT III ----------- $6,500 $6,500
OT IV ?2 x 12.5 hr $6,500 $13,000
OT V 4 x 12.5 hr $7,400 $29,600
OT VI set-ups 2 x 12.5 hr $9,250 $18,500
OT VI ----------- $12,800 $12,800
Pledge Intensive 1 x 12.5 hr $9,250 $9,250
OT VII ----------- $3,500 $3,500
OT VII C/Sing
(per year) over 2 years $3,200 $6,400
OT VIII ----------- $10,000 $10,000
OT VIII auditing ?2 x 12.5 hr $7,400 $14,800

TOTAL BILL FROM RAW MEAT TO OT VIII $277,010


As you can see $7,500 to $10,000 per year PER PERSON is not out of line, making the cost $15,000 to $20,000 PER COUPLE.



I wrote:

"Do I have statistics on how many Scientologists or former Scientologists have declared bankruptcy?"

Whodini replied:

No, you obviously do not, yet feel free to continue pulling numbers and hypothetical families from the ether.


I feel I have adequately dealt with the accusation of pulling numbers out of the ether. Hypothetically speaking, as a "church" which is known to have adherents, somebody aside from Tom Cruise and John Travolta must be practicing this "faith". Perhaps they are well off. Perhaps not. Perhaps they are married. Perhaps not. Perhaps they have children. Perhaps not. Earlier in this thread I agreed that it was silly to consider celebrities, because most would be able to afford this. I am, as you suggested, considering the average working stiff who, for whatever reason, suddenly decides that devoting his life to Scientology is a good idea. I don't know what the average US family makes in a year, but if both parents have been suckered into this, they are dropping some serious coin which could be better spent elsewhere.

Eric

"Wrong. According to your own quote form the Co$ website:"

I don't know what Co$ is. Can you be mature and type the name as it actually is? Franko? Is this some tactic like typing Christian as Xian or Xpian or something?

"JKorosi posted approximate costs associated with Co$ membership."

He posted costs for various things (and didn't post others, nor mention that some things are cheap or no cost), yes, but not the costs per year, or per person, or per lifetime, so who really knows how to interpret these costs. Compare them to the cost for a case of beer?

I still haven't seen any data showing that an average Scientology person is in financial ruin, etc.

"if both parents have been suckered into this, they are dropping some serious coin which could be better spent elsewhere."

Fortunately, that is your opinion. "Better spent" is your opinion, and obviously there are others that disagree. Personally, I'd spend my money on things like family and school, however, I'd still rather see your statistics than your opinions. All those people paying money to play baseball. They'd be better off spending their money to play basketball, duh!

I enjoy people who post lots and lots from the Xenu Clambake site. Here are some winners from that site.

http://www.xenu.net/archive/photoalbum/propaganda/
http://www.xenu.net/archive/1984/
http://www.xenu.net/archive/image_edit/

Does this mean all the information on Clambake is wrong or misleading? No. Does it make me question the site though? Um, yeah.

-Who

[ebola]

Whodini wrote:

Franko?



Nice ad hom. You may have noticed that I have refrained from this tactic. I think I have displayed a high level of maturity here. Co$ is the Church of $cientology.



Whodini wrote:

He posted costs for various things (and didn't post others, nor mention that some things are cheap or no cost), yes, but not the costs per year, or per person, or per lifetime, so who really knows how to interpret these costs. Compare them to the cost for a case of beer?



You take the total cost ( $277,000 being a little low, since it does not consider being required to repeat anything ) and divide it by the number of years spent in the activity. In this case, $300,000 divided by 40 years is $7,500.



Whodini wrote:

Fortunately, that is your opinion. "Better spent" is your opinion, and obviously there are others that disagree. Personally, I'd spend my money on things like family and school, however, I'd still rather see your statistics than your opinions. All those people paying money to play baseball. They'd be better off spending their money to play basketball, duh!



As I mentioned in the other thread ( and you agreed ):



Speaking just for myself, I would rather have the car and the house. A comfortable retirement would be nice too, as would a college education for my children. $300k invested over forty years can easily amount to $1.5M to $2M.



Somehow, self help courses really just don't compare.

Eric

"I think I have displayed a high level of maturity here. Co$ is the Church of $cientology."

So maturity means to use silly altered names in place of the real names? Ok..

"You take the total cost ( $277,000 being a little low, since it does not consider being required to repeat anything ) and divide it by the number of years spent in the activity. In this case, $300,000 divided by 40 years is $7,500."

Not each person has $ spent 300,000. You'd need to look more at an average value I'd say, and also the variation in those values. You are just taking a total cost and dividing it by 40 years and presenting that resulting number like it is meaningful. I'd say that is a candidate for BillHoyt's logic prize.

"Somehow, self help courses really just don't compare."

That is your opinion, which you are entitled to,

-Who

aggle,

"Can anyone name a financially successful Scientologist who became successful AFTER he joined the church? (L. Ron and other leaders of the church don't count.)
...is that the sound of crickets I hear?"

Note quite. I'm sure you could ask some of these people:

http://on-line.scientology.org/

Most likely though, you won't.

-Who

[reprise]

Originally posted by ebola
Billy, Joxter, reprise,

How much does it actually cost? If it is not too embarassing, how much did you spend over what period of time?

Eric

As I was a Sea Org member, I didn't have to pay money for services I received. Somewhere on the books of AOSH ANZO will be an account detailing how much I still owe to the org for those services. Should I ever wish to rejoin the church, that "debt" will become active again.

One couple I know who were both Sea Org members spent $50,000 on services and products in addition to those for which, as staff members, they were not required to pay cash to attain their OT levels - and neither of them is a high level OT (he's OTIII and he's OTIV).

[LeFevre]

Whodini, in the thread, "If it's okay for Hal then.....?" You posted this

Originally posted by Whodini


But isn't it hurting its members because they are believing falsehoods?

-Who

IIRC in the past you have argued that if individual Scientologists get some benifit, or perceived benifit, isn't that ok for that person?

If I am wrong and I am remembering wrongly, I apologise. But if that is one of your concerns, then I think you can understand why many of the people who speak out against Scientology, past members and non-members of Scientology, do what they do.

Some of the tech in Scientology can be useful. But from the get go, there are so many questions about how Hubbard came to his discoveries, what method he used. Many of Scientologies teachings seem to be pulled out of the air by Hubbard, leading me to believe similarly to what I quoted you writing, isn't believing in falsehoods hurting the members of Scientology?

What about practices of Scientology? Like declaring Suppressive Persons? This is a type of shunning that not only can hurt Scientology members, but can also hurt the relationships of family members who are not Scientologists.


What about the e-meter? How did they test to find out that an e-meter can detect "engrams"? From what I have read online from anti-Scientology sites (so you may not accept this) back when Hubbard started off with his Dianetics, he was using the auditing with the e-meter as a type of psychological treatment. This, from what I understand and agree could be completely wrong, is one of the reasons Scientology became a religion. Hubbard's Dianetic groups were giving medical treatments without a licence, but when they became a religion, the e-meter and auditing became something similar to a confessional.

All of these things, the e-meter working, it finding engrams, the way Hubbard claimed the mind worked with the reactive and analytical mind, and so much more, are things simply accepted.

I have not come across one study Hubbard did or had done. Most of it is accepted a priori.

IMO that is very dangerous thinking.

Ok, thanks. I see your view and I'll think about it some more.

-Who

[reprise]

I don't think that anyone would argue against the right of individuals to believe in the crap taught in the OT levels - however bizarre that stuff might be it's no more intrinsically fanciful than the teachings of more mainstream religions (although the basic doctrines of mainstream religions are usually publicly available for little or no cost to anyone who asks for them and so potential converts are at least aware of what they are being asked to believe).

The utter ruthlessness with which Scientology treats anyone perceived to be its enemy is probably responsible for more of the condemnation it attracts that any of its other practises.

Although I'd become quite ambivalent about Scientology by the time I left, the major reason I left when I did was because I realised just what a dangerous weapon my "whole of life" history would be if the church ever chose to use it against other people in my life - and I'd seen enough of life in the SO to know that the church would use that information if it ever believed doing so would discredit any future critic of Scientology (myself included). So I simply (well, not so simply) left rather than provide the church with that information.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Whodini
"JKorosi posted approximate costs associated with Co$ membership."

He posted costs for various things (and didn't post others, nor mention that some things are cheap or no cost

That's true, I left a lot of things out.

However, no matter how inexpensive those little omitted things are, the final cost can only get higher.

[Peter Soderqvist]

Whodini like attention, don't feed the troll!

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by ebola
Billy, Joxter, reprise,

How much does it actually cost? If it is not too embarassing, how much did you spend over what period of time?

Eric

Apologise--my claim to be a victim of scientology is spurious--I simply saw a chance to throw out a cheap jibe about the film "Battlefield Earth" (based on the book by L Ron Hubbard, and which starred and was produced by "famous" scientologist John Travolta). :)

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by Whodini
aggle,

"Can anyone name a financially successful Scientologist who became successful AFTER he joined the church? (L. Ron and other leaders of the church don't count.)
...is that the sound of crickets I hear?"

Note quite. I'm sure you could ask some of these people:

http://on-line.scientology.org/

Most likely though, you won't.

-Who

I...don't think so. Life is hard enough without voluntarily subjecting yourself to Scientologists.

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist
Whodini like attention, don't feed the troll!

Oh, and you're doing a skepterriffic job there Peter! :rolleyes:

And aggle, that is what I thought. You ask for a list of people, yet perhaps you are too lazy to actually explore that list. Gee, maybe you don't want to explore the actual issue? Nah, couldn't be...

To answer your question, Yes, someone can name 'financially successful Scientologist[s] who became successful AFTER [they] joined the church', so I'm not exactly sure what the cricket sound is you are hearing.

-Who

[Akots]

Whodini, do you believe scientology is a legitimate philosophy or religion?

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Akots
Whodini, do you believe scientology is a legitimate philosophy or religion?

A VERY good question. To amplify - ...and if so, what SPECIFICALLY about it made you come to this conclusion??

Barkhorn.

Originally posted by Akots
Whodini, do you believe scientology is a legitimate philosophy or religion?

Oh hey, don't forget Peter and Aggle who completely avoided my questions, then made excuses.

What do you mean by 'legitimate'? Does it work for everybody? No. Does it work for some? Yes.

Do I endorse it? No. Do I not endorse it? Only the bad stuff.

-Who

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by Whodini


Oh hey, don't forget Peter and Aggle who completely avoided my questions, then made excuses.



Um... what was the question?

What do you mean by 'legitimate'? Does it work for everybody? No. Does it work for some? Yes.



I agree. Those who collect the profits benefit greatly from Scientology.

[ebola]

Whodini wrote:

So maturity means to use silly altered names in place of the real names? Ok..



Maturity includes addressing each argument instead of screaming "strawman" at the ones you cannot answer. Maturity includes not derailing a discussion by raising questions ( like my maturity ) not germane to the discussion. Maturity includes refraining from ad hom attacks when you are confronted with your own words. And Co$ is an acceptable skeptical shorthand for Scientology. After all, it IS all about the money.



Whodini wrote:

Not each person has $ spent 300,000.



True. Many people have wised up and left.



Whodini wrote:

You are just taking a total cost and dividing it by 40 years and presenting that resulting number like it is meaningful.



The money certainly is meaningful to the people parting with it. It is also meaningful to the Sea Org. It is you who maintains that this can be done inexpensively. I noticed that one of your sock puppet's interests is math. Have your sock puppet explain to you what an estimate is. Then apply for BillHoyt's logic prize.

As I mentioned in the other thread ( and you agreed ):



Speaking just for myself, I would rather have the car and the house. A comfortable retirement would be nice too, as would a college education for my children. $300k invested over forty years can easily amount to $1.5M to $2M.




Somehow, self help courses really just don't compare.



Whodini replied:

That is your opinion, which you are entitled to,



As you said here (www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6437&perpage=40&pagenumber=2) , it is your opinion too.

Eric

Originally posted by aggle_rithm
I agree. Those who collect the profits benefit greatly from Scientology.

And it obviously apparently benefits those who don't collect profits.

Did you forget about that page I sent you? Are you still denying that they exist (because you don't want your hypothesis to burst like a bubble)?

Some benefit.

You have been schooled, courtesy of

-Who

[ebola]

Whodini,

Your entire last post is a feeble attempt to get me to focus on anything other than Scientology. I can only think that this is because your position has become untenable, and the continued defense of these parasites impossible. If you wish to address my arguments, do so. If not, quit wasting bandwidth.

Eric

[LeFevre]

Whodini, are you or have you been a Scientologist?

I ask this because you have written that you skimmed through a book of Scientology for about 10 min. From that statement I thought you really knew very little about Scientology. But elsewhere I have seen you write about how the Fair Game Policy has been gone for years.

I am only curious and I understand if you don't want to answer or take offence to me asking.

I am a bit confused from some of your postings. Some of them lead me to think that you are mostly unaware of Scientology, but then other posts lead me to think differently.

[reprise]

LeFevre, Who is technically correct about the Fair Game policy having been officially rescinded. The Church can produce reams of paper showing the specific orders relating to the repeal of the Fair Game policy and the dismantling of the Guardians Office.

Of course some of the directives under which the Office of Special Affairs operates just happen to be identical to those under which the GO operated, even if they have been given new titles.

A link you might find interesting (http://www.lermanet.com/cos/rvy/OSAisGO.html)

Originally posted by ebola
Whodini,

Your entire last post is a feeble attempt to get me to focus on anything other than Scientology. I can only think that this is because your position has become untenable, and the continued defense of these parasites impossible. If you wish to address my arguments, do so. If not, quit wasting bandwidth.

Eric

ebola, do you have real statistics yet?

-Who

"Whodini, are you or have you been a Scientologist?"

No.

"I ask this because you have written that you skimmed through a book of Scientology for about 10 min. From that statement I thought you really knew very little about Scientology. But elsewhere I have seen you write about how the Fair Game Policy has been gone for years."

I have read parts of other books, and read pro and con webpages relating to Scientology, so I do know a little about it, but ultimately 2nd and 3rd source information.

-Who

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by Whodini
"Whodini, are you or have you been a Scientologist?"

No.


me either


"I ask this because you have written that you skimmed through a book of Scientology for about 10 min. From that statement I thought you really knew very little about Scientology. But elsewhere I have seen you write about how the Fair Game Policy has been gone for years."

I have read parts of other books, and read pro and con webpages relating to Scientology, so I do know a little about it, but ultimately 2nd and 3rd source information.

-Who

Same here.

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by Whodini
Ok, thanks. I see your view and I'll think about it some more.

-Who

I am curious as to any thoughts you have, and I would appreciate it if you shared them.

Understanding is a great thing IMO, and I am glad that you see (at least) where I am comming from.

Thanks

[UnrepentantSinner]

LeFevre, I didn't know you were a Scientologist. Haven't you been paying attention. I mean Xenu for Ed's sake!!! Of course you living at the Celebrity Centre explains to me how you can have such long hair and chat in PalTalk until all hours of the night.

If I make it down your way, I'll try and schedule a deprogramming.

[Peter Soderqvist]

Originally posted by Whodini


Oh, and you're doing a skepterriffic job there Peter! :rolleyes:

And aggle, that is what I thought. You ask for a list of people, yet perhaps you are too lazy to actually explore that list. Gee, maybe you don't want to explore the actual issue? Nah, couldn't be...

To answer your question, Yes, someone can name 'financially successful Scientologist[s] who became successful AFTER [they] joined the church', so I'm not exactly sure what the cricket sound is you are hearing.

-Who

I am an old ex-scientologist, I have attested to the state of clear, and have done many courses! It was even a Police investigation here in the mid 80s, because of unpaid loans, approximately about 8 million dollars (63 million Swedish Kronor), some 200 hundred scientologists was involved, ("close to all members in our church"), and was thus investigated by the police, and two missions from the Sea Org was here too because of that, so I know what I am talking about, all scientologists I know about here in Sweden have problems with unpaid loans, because they have only ordinary jobs together with huge amount of loans. So when I am reading and talking with posters at Operation Clambake, that this pattern is very common, I have no reason to believe that they are lying to me. Btw why should they? I can attest nowadays to that scientology is the virus of the mind!

[ebola]

Whodini,

The blanket apology thread in Banter went to the second page so fast I almost didn't see it. I could have comported myself better as well. Checking the times, my last post and the apology are one minute apart ( Beat ya! Beat ya! ). If you like, I can ignore the last post addressed to me on this thread.

Eric

[reprise]

Just out of interest, how many posters to this thread are aware that the Church of Scientology launched legal action under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act against Google, in an attempt to prevent links to sites critical of Scientology coming up in Google searches?

Google's response to the lawsuits was one of the best pieces of legal nose-thumbing I've seen in a long time (the Church is really out of their depth in the age of the internet).

Edited to add link to Scientology's latest DMCA notice to Google, filed June 11, 2003 (http://chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=668).

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by Whodini




You have been schooled, courtesy of

-Who

I've been schooled before. This isn't it.

I suspect this "schooling" is of even less value than auditing.

Originally posted by aggle_rithm

I've been schooled before. This isn't it.
I suspect this "schooling" is of even less value than auditing.

LOL.

You don't think auditing is important? I'm reporting you to the IRS.

-Who

[corplinx]

I am fully open to scientology being legit. I merely require them to open their financial records, the cost of all church activities, a full refund guarantee signed and notarized and allows me to recoup my funds for _any_ reason, and finally a written contract allowing me to freely discuss church teachings before I try the church out.

I am sure the offer will be made to any day now.

Originally posted by corplinx
I am fully open to scientology being legit. I merely require them to open their financial records, the cost of all church activities, a full refund guarantee signed and notarized and allows me to recoup my funds for _any_ reason, and finally a written contract allowing me to freely discuss church teachings before I try the church out.

I am sure the offer will be made to any day now.

Oh please. Do you require those things of every church? Every company? Ask CSICOP to reveal all of their records and ask for a money-back policy, etc.

Get real!

-Who

[Ladewig]

Ask CSICOP to reveal all of their records and ask for a money-back policy, etc.

1. CSICOP does not offer life improvements in exchange for considerable sums of money.

2. Church of Scientology had for a long time offered a money-back guarantee . Members who tried to excercise the guarantee found it very difficult to receive their money back. Many went to court and discovered that the Scientologists have very capable lawyers.

3. The Church also claimed that very, very few people ever asked for the money back.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Whodini


Oh please. Do you require those things of every church? Every company? Ask CSICOP to reveal all of their records and ask for a money-back policy, etc.

Get real!

-Who

Was I argueing with you? Awfully defensive ther bucko.

Originally posted by corplinx

Was I argueing with you? Awfully defensive ther bucko.

I'm always argumentative when someone posts something as bizarre as what you posted :) :

Can you show me even one big business that will show you their financial records?

-Who

[Ladewig]

Can you show me even one big business that will show you their financial records?


You are being disingenuous. All the posters in this thread know that Scientology claims to be a religion and as such is granted non-profit status. What big business will or won't do is irrelevant. If the Church makes claims like you can have your money back if you are not satisfied, but almost no one is ever disatisfied enough to ask for the money; then asking the Church to back up those claims with financial records is not inappropriate.

"You are being disingenuous."

No.

If someone wants a business to reveal to them all their financial records, then they are maroons.

-Who

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Whodini
"You are being disingenuous."

No.

If someone wants a business to reveal to them all their financial records, then they are maroons.

-Who

Or stockholders. Some businesses even have them posted on their web sites.

[ebola]

Whodini wrote:

Can you show me even one big business that will show you their financial records?


I can show you five hundred. The SEC requires all publicly traded companies with more than a token number of shareholders to make their financial statements public. Some may be inaccurate or fraudulent ( Enron, WorldCom, et al. ), but an annual financial report is the law. Every company in the S&P 500 falls into this category. Every one.

Eric

[thaiboxerken]

Scientology, a religion founded by L. Ron Hubbard a sci-fi writer. It's a cult. They've killed a few of their own by refusing to let them get medical treatment, food, water and general care. Brainwashing is a key part of getting the Scientologists power over their followers. They get money and labor from the followers to further the church. They have a very harsh policy towards people that criticise them. They have passed laws to try to keep people from criticising them.

This cult should be deemed dangerous and outlawed.

[Ladewig]

Every company in the S&P 500 falls into this category. Every one.

Publicly-traded companies reveal their financials because the law requires it. There are virtually no privately-held companies that reveal that information. But the point is that churches with nothing to hide do reveal that information and if Scientology does want to be considered a church and insists that it has nothing to hide, then it should reveal its records. It doesn't reveal its records for the reasons that Thaiboxen listed in the previous post.

"L. Ron Hubbard a sci-fi writer"

By Arthur C. Clarke, a sci-fi writer. By Isaac Asimov, a sci-fi writer.

"It's a cult."

Interesting opinion.

"They've killed a few of their own by refusing to let them get medical treatment, food, water and general care."

But there is no real proof of that as far as I know.

-Who

[LeFevre]

Whodini, have you heard of Lisa McPherson? If so, would you only accept info about this death from Scientology sites? I am not sure about other Scientology deaths, but Lisa McPherson's death has many strange things surrounding it.


Is there or has there ever been a group that you would consider a cult?

[ebola]

Ladewig,

I agree.

Eric

[thaiboxerken]

http://www.lisamcpherson.org/

http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=slv1&ei=UTF-8&p=Lisa+McPherson

http://www.planetkc.com/sloth/sci/religion.money.faq.html

You can read all about this former scientologist yourself. Oh, the last link is all about Hubbard's motivation for starting his own religion.

Since your posts are very much nonsensical, this is about as much dialog I will attempt to have with you.

"Whodini, have you heard of Lisa McPherson? If so, would you only accept info about this death from Scientology sites? I am not sure about other Scientology deaths, but Lisa McPherson's death has many strange things surrounding it. "

I've heard of her, and is is horrible that she died. However, I haven't seen much clear, unbiased writing on exactly what happened.

I've also heard that criminal charges were dropped.

"Is there or has there ever been a group that you would consider a cult?"

I don't know. I'm sure there are some, but I'd have to sit down and think about it.

-Who

[reprise]

FWIW, the "to get rich...start a religion" quote is one which many disaffected Scientologists - myself included - have been trying to verify for years. To date, I'm not aware of anybody having been able to do so satisfactorily - in fact, each time the story is retold it seems that different sci-fi authors were supposed to have been present when the statement was made.

[corplinx]

From the level of critical thinking and scientologist apology we have seen from Whodini, I think we can all conclude that he must be John Travolta.

John, just because your movie career is in the crapper doesn't mean you have to spend your time in internet forums.

PS: I thought you sucked in Grease

Originally posted by reprise
FWIW, the "to get rich...start a religion" quote is one which many disaffected Scientologists - myself included - have been trying to verify for years. To date, I'm not aware of anybody having been able to do so satisfactorily - in fact, each time the story is retold it seems that different sci-fi authors were supposed to have been present when the statement was made.

Exactly, it is all rumors from what I can objectively tell, yet pseudoskeptical scoffer Overdumb armchair oozers ;) repeat it like it is a certain fact.

-Who

Dats funny.


-Who

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by corplinx
From the level of critical thinking and scientologist apology we have seen from Whodini, I think we can all conclude that he must be John Travolta.

John, just because your movie career is in the crapper doesn't mean you have to spend your time in internet forums.

PS: I thought you sucked in Grease

I doubt he's John T, but you are correct otherwise.

I'm thinking Whodini will defend and apologize for any cult, from christianity to scientology, falun-dafa to hinduism.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Whodini
"I'm thinking"...

...pretend skeptics.

-Who

ad hom!!!! :p :p


Barkhorn.

[thaiboxerken]

Hahha! The "other side" is rather ignorant of reality. Scientology is nonsense, many have come forward from this cult and told people how it really is. Scientology has used "fair game" tactics and other such violent methods to stop people from criticising their cult. They use legal means to stop their critics. They hide their documents, copyright their "bibles" and keep very secretive in their activities. These are the facts. They are a cult.

Go and join the cult, if you'd like to experience it for yourself. Kiss your money goodbye when you do.

[Ossai]

Whodini
If someone wants a business to reveal to them all their financial records, then they are maroons. If it is a publicly traded business, then yes asking for their financial records is a valid request. In fact you don't even have to be a stockholder.

But there is no real proof of that as far as I know. That's because you haven't looked hard enough.
Operation Clambake (http://www.xenu.net)

thaiboxerken
This cult should be deemed dangerous and outlawed. I agree completely!

Ossai

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by corplinx
From the level of critical thinking and scientologist apology we have seen from Whodini, I think we can all conclude that he must be John Travolta.



Stewpid humans! ;)

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by Whodini
"I'm thinking"...

No you're not.

..." Whodini will defend and apologize for any cult, from christianity to scientology, falun-dafa to hinduism."

Strawman.

I've never said anything about Falun-Dafa, nor Hinduism, and haven't "defended" Christianity or Scientology. I've only presented the other side of the story, one that is passed over all too quickly by pretend skeptics.

-Who

May I hear you thoughts on Scientology? I would rather hear your thoughts than have you try and make some balance by presenting the other side. Some skeptics may pass over it all too quickly, but for those who have looked at that other side (pro Scientology sites) would you mind sharing any conclusions or thoughts you have on this subject? I think some of those too quick skeptics maybe could see a different view on this topic.


I would also appreciate your thoughts on this question I asked a bit ago


Is there or has there ever been a group that you would consider a cult?

[reprise]

I'd just like to know what those of you who have never been Scientologists but who have posted to this thread think that the basic beliefs of Scientology are, because there is only one essential belief in Scientology and it has not been posted in this thread so far.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by reprise
...there is only one essential belief in Scientology and it has not been posted in this thread so far.

Please don't keep us in suspense!

Get it out there man!

Barkhorn.

Originally posted by reprise
I'd just like to know what those of you who have never been Scientologists but who have posted to this thread think that the basic beliefs of Scientology are, because there is only one essential belief in Scientology and it has not been posted in this thread so far.

Oh why am I sensing a post to a xenu.net page... :rolleyes:


-Who

[Beleth]

Originally posted by reprise
I'd just like to know what those of you who have never been Scientologists but who have posted to this thread think that the basic beliefs of Scientology are, because there is only one essential belief in Scientology and it has not been posted in this thread so far. According to BeliefNet:

"[Scientology's] basic postulate is that experience, in this or in previous lives, is recorded in the brain as a series of 'engrams.' These engrams are revived and reinforced by recurring similar situations and always cause inappropriate and self-defeating behavior. One's goal of Scientology is to "process" or clear these engrams and become more self-determining. By erasing these accretions from one's present and past lives, one releases the essential, spiritual self or soul called the 'thetan.'"

http://www.beliefnet.com/index/index_10042.html



Is that what you were looking for?

[Denise]

Originally posted by reprise
I'd just like to know what those of you who have never been Scientologists but who have posted to this thread think that the basic beliefs of Scientology are, because there is only one essential belief in Scientology and it has not been posted in this thread so far.

Only one? I suppose it is the practice of finding out for yourself. It seems that in the upper levels a lot of self auditing is done and they believe that something becomes true through self discovery. Unlike many ahem religions.

Oops, I was wrong on the business thing. :(

All, I am satisfied with the whole Scientology thing. I think my knowledge is now a nice mix of the content on xenu.net and religioustolerance.org, along with MANY anecdotes.

The truth is somewhere in there.

Thanks!

-Who

[fredcarr]

I think my knowledge is now a nice mix of the content on xenu.net and religioustolerance.org, along with MANY anecdotes.

Wouldn't it make sense to give the subject itself a good look as well. Even only studying 10 percent would be significant in being able to have a semi-informed opinion on the subject. (Of course 10 percent of the works of Scientology would mean you had to read close to a million words and listen to approx. 300 hours of lectures by Ron.)

Sincerely,

Fred

PS "Yes I am a Scientologist."

[Zygar]

Wouldn't it make sense to give the subject itself a good look as well. Even only studying 10 percent would be significant in being able to have a semi-informed opinion on the subject. (Of course 10 percent of the works of Scientology would mean you had to read close to a million words and listen to approx. 300 hours of lectures by Ron.)

Sincerely,

Fred

PS "Yes I am a Scientologist."

What is it with the thread necromancers lately?

[Ducky]

Wouldn't it make sense to give the subject itself a good look as well. Even only studying 10 percent would be significant in being able to have a semi-informed opinion on the subject. (Of course 10 percent of the works of Scientology would mean you had to read close to a million words and listen to approx. 300 hours of lectures by Ron.)

Sincerely,

Fred

PS "Yes I am a Scientologist."

Sea org got you googling old threads to do battle with suppressives? I hope you're not planning to target the JREF the same way Alt.Religion.SCientology was. (http://www.lermanet.com/cos/toryonosa.htm) (note the same pattern of conduct and patter of handlings to contain criticism and outrage are taking place on both the factnet.org chat boards AND the www.xenu.net chatrooms.. read and learn... see http://www.lermanet2.com/osa/osawhoiswho.htm.) How else would you get around the version of net-nanny the Co$ tells followers to use? (http://www.xenu.net/archive/events/censorship/)

You do realize this thread is 3 years old? I doubt anyone that posted in it originally still watches it.


ETA: Just to check, is this you too? (http://www.getreligion.org/?p=1462)

[Kochanski]

Wouldn't it make sense to give the subject itself a good look as well. Even only studying 10 percent would be significant in being able to have a semi-informed opinion on the subject. (Of course 10 percent of the works of Scientology would mean you had to read close to a million words and listen to approx. 300 hours of lectures by Ron.)

Sincerely,

Fred

PS "Yes I am a Scientologist."

Well, Fred, why don't you enlighten us here? Give a few words from L. Ron. Prove us wrong. Oops, that won't work will it Fred, the Co$ doesn't give out their scripture for free. You have to pay for it. It is considered "proprietary" information.

Personally, I think that is the sole redeeming factor of the Co$, we won't ever have to be preached at and have to listen to L. Ron's looney notions.

[fredcarr]

Back in the day I was quite the fan of Randi being an amateur magician and all. Thought I'd check his site out and saw the usual nasty things being said about me so decided I'd put my two cents in. I saw a couple posts asking for commentary by a real Scientologist.

People want to be rude then I won't bother answering questions. If you assume you know everything there is to know about the subject then I'll have nothing to add to the discussion as well. But if you would sincerely like to ask some questions then I'd be more than happy to reply with my take on things.


Sincerely,

Fred

PS "Lots of the scriptures are available for free on the net. If you can't afford a book then I'll be happy to send one to anyone that really wants it. You could go to a library as well. In fact most of the Scientology churches have libraries as well that you may use. Some will even let you check books and lectures out.

I doubt that it was the intent of the poster above to come to any sort of understanding. Seemed like a put down to me. Are all so-called skeptics this rude?"


PPS "Yep thats me."

[athon]

Fine then. We'll start with something arbitrary and random; e-meters.

Scientifically describe how the e-meter stress test works with references to peer-reviewed papers.

Athon

[fredcarr]

I don't know of any references to peer -reviewed papers in regards to the e-meter and how it works. Heck - I don't know of any peer-reviewed papers having to do with Scientology at all.

I guess you would have to learn how to use it yourself to see if it works.

Fred

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Back in the day I was quite the fan of Randi being an amateur magician and all. Thought I'd check his site out and saw the usual nasty things being said about me so decided I'd put my two cents in. I saw a couple posts asking for commentary by a real Scientologist.

People want to be rude then I won't bother answering questions. If you assume you know everything there is to know about the subject then I'll have nothing to add to the discussion as well. But if you would sincerely like to ask some questions then I'd be more than happy to reply with my take on things.


Sincerely,

Fred

PS "Lots of the scriptures are available for free on the net. If you can't afford a book then I'll be happy to send one to anyone that really wants it. You could go to a library as well. In fact most of the Scientology churches have libraries as well that you may use. Some will even let you check books and lectures out.

I doubt that it was the intent of the poster above to come to any sort of understanding. Seemed like a put down to me. Are all so-called skeptics this rude?"


PPS "Yep thats me."

OK. Just produce a "clear" with the abilities that ELRon described as being produced by following the principles in Dianetics.

[fredcarr]

Like with a magic wand and top hat?

(j/k - I'm pretty sure you don't expect me to "produce" a clear. You could try to produce one yourself using the principles in Dianetics. I'm curious if you have tried.);)

Fred

[jimtron]

I don't know of any references to peer -reviewed papers in regards to the e-meter and how it works. Heck - I don't know of any peer-reviewed papers having to do with Scientology at all.

I guess you would have to learn how to use it yourself to see if it works.

Fred

From an early edition of Dianetics:

Dianetics is an exact science and its application is on the order of, but simpler than, engineering. Its axioms should not be confused with theories since they demonstrably exist as natural laws hitherto undiscovered.

This is not theory. This is scientific fact. It is strictly test-tube. The engram contains the percept of a shut-down analyzer; when it is restimulated the engram puts that datum back into force in some degree.

There is a shut-down datum in every engram. Therefore, every time an engram is restimulated, even though physical pain has not been received by the body, some analytical power turns off, the organ or organs which are the analyzer are fused out of circuit in some degree.
This is highly important to an understanding of the mechanics of aberration. It is a scientific fact, susceptible of proof, and it never varies.


Eyesight, when the stage of glasses is entered (not because of glasses), is deteriorating on the psycho-somatic principle. And this observation is about as irresponsible as a statement that when apples fall out of trees they usually obey gravity. One of the incidental things which happen to a clear is that his eyesight, if it had been bad as an aberree, generally improves markedly, and with some slight attention will recover optimum perception in time. (Far from an optician's argument against dianetics, this assures rather good business, for clears have been known, at treatment's end, to have to buy, in rapid succession, five pairs of glasses to compensate adjusting eyesight; and many aberrees, cleared late in life, settle down ocularly at a maximum a little under optimum.)

Since Dianetics is a science, surely that means that independent parties can replicate Hubbard's research, and examine his lab notes. And it's a simple task to measure improved eyesight.

As far as I know, there is no credible independent party who has verified any of Hubbard's discoveries. Science requires this. And independent verification of engrams and imporved IQ and eyesight etc, would go a long way in shutting up critics, and promoting Hubbard's teachings.

So why doesn't the Church do this?

[fredcarr]

Jimtron - I'll attempt to answer this as you were polite at the very least.

I'll have to assume when you mention lab notes that you are referring to his written and recorded lectures that he made. This is a pretty comprehensive set of "notes" to say the least. Covering close to three thousand recorded lectures and approx ten million written words.

(By the way the subject of "notes" is a running joke through many of his lectures.)

Anyone is free to study this material and apply it and see what kind of results he gets with it. In my opinion most Scientologists, myself included, were pretty independent researchers of the subject to start out with.

Personally, I don't know who a credible independent party would be that would be satisfying to skeptics and critics. Long ago we stopped worrying about proving the subject to anyone as anyone can prove it to his own satisfaction if he cares to put in the work. Ron mentions this briefly in a couple places.

I know I don't want my church to spend a penny on so-called independent verification. I think it would be very expensive to say the least. In my experience critics are very hard to convince.

I just tell people to learn it for themselves and apply it and see for themselves if it works or not.

Thats the long answer. I suppose if an independent group wanted to spend the money to do some before and after testing we would let them. I think some of this work was done in the early fifties but since a number of the attacks we were experiencing had their roots in other issues than "we needed to prove our claims" it was a futile gesture. Just my opinion...


Fred

[jimtron]

In my opinion most Scientologists, myself included, were pretty independent researchers of the subject to start out with.Fred: Thanks for your response. In terms of the scientific method, a Scientologist wouldn't be an independent researcher. Just like a drug manufacturer wouldn't be independent in vouching for a drug they make. If a drug maker makes claims for a drug, I'd like to see their tests and research, but much more importantly, I'd like to see an uninterested party do clinical trials.

It's OK if the Church can't afford these tests, because the Church is impartial anyway. Are there notes from Hubbard that discuss in detail the science of engrams? Because after half a century, if engrams exist, and they are a scientific, not a religious phenomenon (which I believe Hubbard stated in Dianetics), it seems to me it would be fairly simple to prove the existence of engrams.

Or what about demonstrating OT powers? That wouldn't cost anything, would it? If some advanced OTs went on TV and demonstrated their super powers, I think that would silence many critics and promote clearing of the planet.

Actually, I'm curious to hear, specifically, what powers OTs have that no non-OTs have, if any.


I just tell people to learn it for themselves and apply it and see for themselves if it works or not.That's fine, but if Dianetics is a science, it can be proven objectively.

[Ladewig]

I know I don't want my church to spend a penny on so-called independent verification. I think it would be very expensive to say the least. In my experience critics are very hard to convince.

You consider such a process expensive. Would you ballpark a figure for what you think an independent test showing eyesight improvement might cost?

As for critics being hard to convince, do you really believe that if independent studies showing positive results for Scientology's claims were published in the Journal of American Medical Association, Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine then the critics would still not be convinced?

The site auditing.org describes operating thetan as "knowing and willing cause over life, thought, matter, energy, space and time." Is that an accurate definition? What does it mean?

Is the church against all psychotheraputic drugs including anti-depressents, anti-seizure, and anti-psychotics?

[Moochie]

$cientology a science? Give me a break!

It's nothing more than an agglomeration of New Age fads cherry picked from Freud on down, practiced by morons upon a hapless public.

It's no more a "church" than the Mickey Mouse Club.

The danger lies in that idiots are evoking powerful emotions in people who've been promised the world. When the penny finally drops, cataclysmic events sometimes can and do follow.

These morons ought to be shut down -- they exemplify the worst form of MLM.

M.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Like with a magic wand and top hat?

(j/k - I'm pretty sure you don't expect me to "produce" a clear. You could try to produce one yourself using the principles in Dianetics. I'm curious if you have tried.);)

Fred

OK. So you want to play stupid word games.

The "church" has sold millions of copies of Dianetics. ELRon Himself claimed that he had, by using its principles, produced a number of "clears". Identify one person, just one, who has any of the abilties that a "clear" supposedly has.

And I have read the stupid book, btw.

[fredcarr]

Fred: Thanks for your response. In terms of the scientific method, a Scientologist wouldn't be an independent researcher. Just like a drug manufacturer wouldn't be independent in vouching for a drug they make. If a drug maker makes claims for a drug, I'd like to see their tests and research, but much more importantly, I'd like to see an uninterested party do clinical trials.

It's OK if the Church can't afford these tests, because the Church is impartial anyway. Are there notes from Hubbard that discuss in detail the science of engrams? Because after half a century, if engrams exist, and they are a scientific, not a religious phenomenon (which I believe Hubbard stated in Dianetics), it seems to me it would be fairly simple to prove the existence of engrams.

Or what about demonstrating OT powers? That wouldn't cost anything, would it? If some advanced OTs went on TV and demonstrated their super powers, I think that would silence many critics and promote clearing of the planet.

Actually, I'm curious to hear, specifically, what powers OTs have that no non-OTs have, if any.

That's fine, but if Dianetics is a science, it can be proven objectively.
__________________
“I think it’s clear that we are safe, safer, but not really yet safe..." -- Condoleezza Rice


I understand the point about independent researchers. The drug companies are a great example of biased research masquerading as independent. WHo would pay for the independent research though?

It's fairly simple to prove the existence of engrams. Ron discusses this in an early lecture and said he wouldn't ever do it again. (It involved a couple doctors knocking out two patients and adminstering various pains and pressures to their unconscious bodies while uttering all kinds of inanities while doing so.) It was quite damaging to their psyches and took a lot of work to undo the damage done by the docs. Ron said, "Never again!"

The whole "prove it to others" thing isn't something we are interested in doing. If a person can't read a book, learn some principles and apply them himself to see if they work or not then I'm afraid having him/her read a study by some experts (or independent researchers) probably won't convince him either. I could be wrong about this. Look how many people have bought into the whole chemical imbalance theory as if it were holy writ. I suppose if we had an extra billion dollars a year we could push out a similar PR campaign with lots of studies by docs, etc.

I guess I just disagree that "proving" things really changes peoples minds. In the final analysis they have to find out for themselves. (For the most part.)

I sure hate to retype things that have already been covered in the public works of Mr. Hubbard. But he does answer these questions in his public lectures 56 - 62 called the Congresses. Specifically in regards to what our aims and intentions are to our fellow man. It is not to overwhelm him with some magic tricks but to help him be more civilized toward his fellow man.

(Talk about condensing a few million words into a single sentence!)

Helping a person be a better father to his children, getting criminals to be honest, helping stem the tide of drug addiction, eliminating illiteracy, etc. These are the things we wish to do and can do. More importantly they are things that others can do as well. It doesn't matter if someone is a "Scientologist" or not. Should they desire to learn some of it's principles and apply them to make this a world a better place then that person will find out for himself the "truthfulness" of said information.

Scientology simply means wisdom, It is here for anyone to pick up and learn. We could care or less about doing parlor tricks.

Fred

[fredcarr]

You consider such a process expensive. Would you ballpark a figure for what you think an independent test showing eyesight improvement might cost?


I have no idea. How many cases would it take to convince you? What are the time frames we are talking about? How much counseling would need to be delivered? What about control groups? What about other therapies to improve eyesight?

I don't really know what independent research companies charge.

Learn some of its principles and apply them. See what happens...much cheaper.


As for critics being hard to convince, do you really believe that if independent studies showing positive results for Scientology's claims were published in the Journal of American Medical Association, Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine then the critics would still not be convinced?


Yes.


The site auditing.org describes operating thetan as "knowing and willing cause over life, thought, matter, energy, space and time." Is that an accurate definition? What does it mean?


Yes. What does it mean? Pretty much what it says. For a more in depth explanation on the subject there are close to a thousand lectures on just this; What "Operating Thetan" means, why its important, how to get there, why one isn't there, etc. (Lots of info on this.)


Is the church against all psychotheraputic drugs including anti-depressents, anti-seizure, and anti-psychotics?

In short - yes. (Disclaimer - Not sure about the anti-seizure drugs though.) There aren't any Scientologists that take them to my knowledge.

Fred

[fredcarr]

OK. So you want to play stupid word games.

The "church" has sold millions of copies of Dianetics. ELRon Himself claimed that he had, by using its principles, produced a number of "clears". Identify one person, just one, who has any of the abilties that a "clear" supposedly has.

And I have read the stupid book, btw.

Sorry - Didn't mean to upset you by playing words games. I was trying to be light hearted about "producing" a clear. You do know that Randi was a magician and escape artist at one time, thus my reference to magic hats and wands.

On a more serious note it's not my place to identify a Clear for your inspection. There may be a Clear that would be willing to submit to your demands but it would be incredible rude of me to go around and ask one to.
Have you tried going to a local church and asking to speak to a Clear? A word of advice...be polite. People tend to be more tolerant when treated with a certain degree of respect. (Still it's a pretty rude thing to ask for. I can see it now. You, "So you are clear - prove it!" Clear, "Why?" You, "Because Ron made these claims and you have to prove it to me or I won't believe it!" Clear, "Fine with me if you don't, see ya."

The point is we (Scientologists) don't care if you believe it or not. I've never tried to convince any of the hundreds of people I have helped that anything I've learned from Mr. Hubbard is true. I'm not going to now.

I'm curious, since you read the "stupid book", have you sat down and audited anyone? If so what happened?

Fred

[fredcarr]

$cientology a science? Give me a break!

It's nothing more than an agglomeration of New Age fads cherry picked from Freud on down, practiced by morons upon a hapless public.

It's no more a "church" than the Mickey Mouse Club.

The danger lies in that idiots are evoking powerful emotions in people who've been promised the world. When the penny finally drops, cataclysmic events sometimes can and do follow.

These morons ought to be shut down -- they exemplify the worst form of MLM.

M.

Interesting - Am I a "moron" or a "hapless public"?

Rhetorical question, don't bother answering. My wife would say I'm a moron for posting on threads like these:)

Fred

[Ladewig]

I have no idea. How many cases would it take to convince you? What are the time frames we are talking about? How much counseling would need to be delivered? What about control groups? What about other therapies to improve eyesight?

I don't really know what independent research companies charge.

Learn some of its principles and apply them. See what happens...much cheaper.

Yes, much cheaper and much less effective in determining efficacy.

A very insightful scientist, Richard Feynman, once pointed out "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that."

I'll admit that I have a bias against Scientology's claims. I'll admit that I may not be as open-minded as I should be if I were to test the claims on myself. Similarly, you may not be as open minded as you should be in testing the claims because you have a strong belief in Scientology's principles. Therefore the best way to test these claims is to perform a double-blind experiment - that way no bias can be introduced into the process.


Yes. What does it mean? Pretty much what it says.

To make up new definitions of words and refuse to clarify statements does little to progress the discussion.


For a more in depth explanation on the subject there are close to a thousand lectures on just this; What "Operating Thetan" means, why its important, how to get there, why one isn't there, etc. (Lots of info on this.)

So you won't clarify that definition for us. Thanks anyway.

[Walk The Line]

It looks like Victoria Beckham is going to star in Tom Cruise's movie about Scientology:

The 32-year-old - who made her first attempt at acting in the 1997 Spice Girls movie Spice World - will play the bride of an alien leader called a thetan, which Scientologists claim is an immortal spiritual being, present in all humans.


http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20951470-5001026,00.html


Does this mean that if the movie gets panned, the critics will be sued by the Church of Scientology, as a means of getting them to shut up?

[Moochie]

Interesting - Am I a "moron" or a "hapless public"?

Have your "auditor" tell you.

Rhetorical question, don't bother answering. My wife would say I'm a moron for posting on threads like these:)

Fred

Your wife would be correct.

M.

[HarryKeogh]

It looks like Victoria Beckham is going to star in Tom Cruise's movie about Scientology:



http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20951470-5001026,00.html


Does this mean that if the movie gets panned, the critics will be sued by the Church of Scientology, as a means of getting them to shut up?

I saw that story earlier today and I'm wondering if they got their facts straight. The whole alien thing is top-secret, upper level Scientology stuff (not so top-secret thanks to the internet) and I don't know if they would reveal that info the the public via a movie.

I'm wondering if maybe it's just a Scientology educational video and not a feature film?

[Moochie]

I'm wondering if maybe it's just a Scientology educational video and not a feature film?


Major question right there.

M.

[HarryKeogh]

Major question right there.

M.

actually, instead of educational I should have said "indoctrination"

[Walk The Line]

I'm wondering if maybe it's just a Scientology educational video and not a feature film?

If that's the case, it would seem weird to me to get a big name star like Madame Beckham to be in an educational video. But who knows, maybe Tom only wants the best educational videos for Scientology.

I was thinking that he was trying to pull off a "Passion of the Christ" type movie for Scientology since the article mentioned that he tried to get backing from major studios. But I suppose we'll find out eventually.

[fredcarr]

Strange that I have less credibility than the media. Always cracks me up to see people discuss rumours as if they were the gospel.

I'll admit that I have a bias against Scientology's claims. I'll admit that I may not be as open-minded as I should be if I were to test the claims on myself. Similarly, you may not be as open minded as you should be in testing the claims because you have a strong belief in Scientology's principles. Therefore the best way to test these claims is to perform a double-blind experiment - that way no bias can be introduced into the process.

Actually I don't have a strong belief in Scientology. I have beliefs as a Christian but Scientology is not a religion built around faith or beliefs.

I'm interested in how a double blind experiment would be set up to "prove" some of Scientology's principles?

So you won't clarify that definition for us. Thanks anyway.

Sorry, I just don't want to rewrite all that has been said on it. I'm afraid if I am too brief then the full meaning will not be conveyed. And if I'm too wordy...well you get the idea.

Though I am willing to answer questions sopmetimes its better to just refer the person to the source materials and let them decide what it means. We aren't real big on personal opinions being passed off as this is what Ron meant. We rather have someone look it over and decide for himself.

I could recommend several books and/or lectures that would do a far better job of covering some of the data on this subject than I ever could. (besides I'm lazy:))

Fred


PS "Moochie - are your posts the typical representation of goodmanners on this board?"

[adler]

About how silly it is? How many theatons [spel?] that I have? I wish to remain in ignorance about this.

[ponderingturtle]

Actually I don't have a strong belief in Scientology. I have beliefs as a Christian but Scientology is not a religion built around faith or beliefs.


Yes it was built on testable scientific principles, until they realised that if tested they would be shown to be wrong, then went the religion route to avoid taxes.

I'm interested in how a double blind experiment would be set up to "prove" some of Scientology's principles?

Have a clear bring someone back from the dead, demonstrate their telekinesis, or any of the other abilities that they have. Do this under the proper controls and they could get a million dollars for themselves or anything they wanted to give it to.

[Deus Ex Machina]

Wouldn't it make sense to give the subject itself a good look as well. Even only studying 10 percent would be significant in being able to have a semi-informed opinion on the subject. (Of course 10 percent of the works of Scientology would mean you had to read close to a million words and listen to approx. 300 hours of lectures by Ron.)

Sincerely,

Fred

PS "Yes I am a Scientologist."

why bother? You can sum up Hubbard and his regard for the "truth" just by reading his bloviating "My Philosophy". In that he states he was "crippled and blinded" - all you need do is check his Naval record and you will find out - he was lying.

If the man could not avoid lying like a rug in his puff pr about "philosophy" it doesn't say much the veracity of anything he wrote or said.

[fredcarr]

Have a clear bring someone back from the dead, demonstrate their telekinesis, or any of the other abilities that they have. Do this under the proper controls and they could get a million dollars for themselves or anything they wanted to give it to.


Comments like this are why I suggest someone actually does some studying of a subject first before being scornful of it. The book Dianetics is pretty clear (no pun intended) on what a constitutes a Clear. (There are also many lectures by Ron on the subject.) I don't ever remember reading anywhere that these are abilities a Clear is supposed to have.

Fred

[KingMerv00]

Have a clear bring someone back from the dead, demonstrate their telekinesis, or any of the other abilities that they have. Do this under the proper controls and they could get a million dollars for themselves or anything they wanted to give it to.

Weren't there nuclear bombs detonated on the Hawaiian islands about 70,000,000 years ago? Surely there is a way to use the half life of Uranium/Plutonium to test that?

[Darth Rotor]

Scientology simply means wisdom, It is here for anyone to pick up and learn. We could care or less about doing parlor tricks.

Fred
But Fred, there's a million dollars in it. ;)

DR

[Moochie]

PS "Moochie - are your posts the typical representation of goodmanners on this board?"

Only when it comes to outright quackery.

M.

[fredcarr]

I rather enjoyed his article "My Philosophy." (Had to look up the word "bloviating.") I'm not sure how you got that impression but I think you missed the point of the article. In rereading the article I am sure you missed the central theme or are ignoring it.

By the way, where did you get the report from that he wasn't injured in WWII?

Adler - I can respect your desire to remain in ignorance. There are many things I do not know and currently have no desire to know about. I find it a mark of true wisdom to know that one is ignorant about something and willing to state it thus. (No sarcasm intended.)

Fred

[Deus Ex Machina]

Sorry - Didn't mean to upset you by playing words games. I was trying to be light hearted about "producing" a clear. You do know that Randi was a magician and escape artist at one time, thus my reference to magic hats and wands.

On a more serious note it's not my place to identify a Clear for your inspection. There may be a Clear that would be willing to submit to your demands but it would be incredible rude of me to go around and ask one to.
Have you tried going to a local church and asking to speak to a Clear? A word of advice...be polite. People tend to be more tolerant when treated with a certain degree of respect. (Still it's a pretty rude thing to ask for. I can see it now. You, "So you are clear - prove it!" Clear, "Why?" You, "Because Ron made these claims and you have to prove it to me or I won't believe it!" Clear, "Fine with me if you don't, see ya."


ah, the usual rubbish.

If you wish to promote Dianetcs as being anything other than the product of a wannabe conman then demonstrating proof of it would be a good idea.

According to Hubbard "Clears" have perfect recall. Should be relatively easy to test.

According to Hubbard "clears" live longer. As the subject has been around for 56 years some demographic checking may give some good results. Wait! Has the "church" done any?

Oops, no.

Alternatively you could just link to the "research". Well, you could if he had actually done any.


The point is we (Scientologists) don't care if you believe it or not.


that's excellent news - perhaps you will all sit down and shut up then instead of pushing crap like the "purification rundown" or "study dreck".

[Deus Ex Machina]

I rather enjoyed his article "My Philosophy." (Had to look up the word "bloviating.") I'm not sure how you got that impression but I think you missed the point of the article. In rereading the article I am sure you missed the central theme or are ignoring it.

By the way, where did you get the report from that he wasn't injured in WWII?

Try reading his naval records - available on "ron the war hero" try googling it.

He wasn't injured. The only thing he suffered from was a) an ulcer b) conjunctivitis and c) reportedly a dose of the clap.

Let me ask you something Fred - have you ever actually LOOKED at HUbbard's naval record?

[Moochie]

Getting into the Christmas spirit...

http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A164678

M.

[ponderingturtle]

Weren't there nuclear bombs detonated on the Hawaiian islands about 70,000,000 years ago? Surely there is a way to use the half life of Uranium/Plutonium to test that?


You will first have to find a part of Hawai that is 70,000,000 years old.

[fredcarr]

Wow! - Pretty nasty site to try to have a civil conversation.

that's excellent news - perhaps you will all sit down and shut up then instead of pushing crap like the "purification rundown" or "study dreck".

Who is "you all"? I didn't bring the Purification program up nor Ron's discoveries on study on this thread. Where did you get the idea that it is crap/dreck? Have you ready "Clear Body Clear Mind", "Basic Study Manual", "Grammar and Communication." or any of the numerous references on the subject not to mention his lectures?

Fred

PS "I don't mind people having a difference of opinion but you might be more polite about it. Just a thought."

[fredcarr]

Re: "Ron - the War Hero" I have seen that site. Its not the only data available. Do you use only negative data in your research? Is that where you got your data from?

Fred

[ponderingturtle]

Re: "Ron - the War Hero" I have seen that site. Its not the only data available. Do you use only negative data in your research? Is that where you got your data from?

Fred

So why should we not beleive offical navy records? You are making claims about what he did, show your evidence.

[jimtron]

I'm interested in how a double blind experiment would be set up to "prove" some of Scientology's principles?Here's a test that anyone could do at home, for next to nothing. All that is required is a breathalyzer (http://safetyfirstdmk.stores.yahoo.net/keychainbrea.html) ($30) and some booze.

From Essentialauditing.org: (http://www.essentialauditing.org/page14.htm)
How to Make a Person Sober

There is an interesting use of Locational Processing as a way to make a person sober. It can make a drunk person sober in a very few minutes. As society currently has no technology for handling the drunk, who is an embarrassment to his family, his friends and often to himself, this process has social value and may serve as a line of cooperation and assistance to the police.
As far as I know, nothing but time can make a drunk person sober. So if this is true, I believe that this would be evidence that auditing works.

We rather have someone look it over and decide for himself.Would this apply to psychiatry too--let someone try it and decide for themselves? In my opinion, when someone calls something science (like when a drug company makes a claim about a pill, or when Hubbard calls Dianetics a science), then it must stand up to scrutiny, and must be verified by uninterested parties to be "proven."

The point is we (Scientologists) don't care if you believe it or not. I've never tried to convince any of the hundreds of people I have helped that anything I've learned from Mr. Hubbard is true.I would think it would be in the interest of proponents of Scientology, to convince people. Because many if not most non-Scientologists, rightly or wrongly, believe it to be ineffective psuedoscience, if not dangerous (I'm pretty sure this could be proven, and in fact the Church itself once took a poll in Florida that found most people in the area had a negative opinion of the Church. They used this to try and get a court case held in a different area.).

Also, the goal of Scientology (if I'm not mistaken) is to clear the planet. That would necessitate signing up more Church members, wouldn't it?

IIRC, Hubbard called the existence of engrams scientific. I've read Dianetics, and several other of Hubbard's books on Dianetics and Scientology. I don't remember him specifying exactly how to "see" or otherwise positively acknowledge the presence of engrams in a scientific way. If the Church of Scientology could give instructions so that a scientist or independent party could verify the existence of engrams, that would be good evidence that Dianetics really is a science, and it would convince at least some of the many people who believe Dianetics to be a psuedo-science.

AFAIK, not a single discovery by Hubbard has been independently verified by a credible, independent party. Those that take science seriously require independent verification. So it doesn't look good to have scientific discoveries, as great as the invention of fire and the wheel (according to an early edition of Dianetics), that fifty years later have not been proven by anyone outside the Church.

I would think it would be very beneficial to the Church to help the scientific community verify Hubbards many scientific discoveries.

[Ladewig]

PS "I don't mind people having a difference of opinion but you might be more polite about it. Just a thought."


Just as your official church policy believes that critics of Scientology can be treated with contempt, many, not all, skeptics believe that people who make money peddling flimflam can be treated with contempt.

Things such as having each Scientology center keep an office available in case Mr. Hubbard (who died in 1986) walks in unannounced and pretending that an ohm-meter can measure attributes of one's soul are neither stranger than the teachings of other churches nor by themselves flimflam. However, charging money to teach people that they will eventually be able to bend the laws of physics and telling mentally ill people that with if they purchase enough auditing and classes they will no longer need their medications is flimflam.

[Kochanski]

PS "Lots of the scriptures are available for free on the net. If you can't afford a book then I'll be happy to send one to anyone that really wants it. You could go to a library as well. In fact most of the Scientology churches have libraries as well that you may use. Some will even let you check books and lectures out.

I doubt that it was the intent of the poster above to come to any sort of understanding. Seemed like a put down to me. Are all so-called skeptics this rude?"


Aw, come on Fred, can't you quote a little of the marvelous scripture that has you believing so strongly that you devote much time and funds to reading it, learning it and selling it to others?

Not looking to read it, not looking to get put on a mailing list for any Co$ drek, I just want you to prove me wrong and quote some scripture for me.

Show us skeptics that the Co$ just isn't a big ole MLM selling "self-improvement-cum-enlightenment". Prove to us it ain't the scam we think it is, hiding behind the wonderful tax-free rubrics of "church" and "religion".

Quote some scripture, Fred, prove us wrong.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

. . . .

I'm curious, since you read the "stupid book", have you sat down and audited anyone? If so what happened?

Fred

No. But I did find it less believable than Typewriter in the Sky and not as well written.

[athon]

Jimtron - I'll attempt to answer this as you were polite at the very least.

I'll have to assume when you mention lab notes that you are referring to his written and recorded lectures that he made. This is a pretty comprehensive set of "notes" to say the least. Covering close to three thousand recorded lectures and approx ten million written words.

(By the way the subject of "notes" is a running joke through many of his lectures.)

Anyone is free to study this material and apply it and see what kind of results he gets with it. In my opinion most Scientologists, myself included, were pretty independent researchers of the subject to start out with.

Personally, I don't know who a credible independent party would be that would be satisfying to skeptics and critics. Long ago we stopped worrying about proving the subject to anyone as anyone can prove it to his own satisfaction if he cares to put in the work. Ron mentions this briefly in a couple places.

I know I don't want my church to spend a penny on so-called independent verification. I think it would be very expensive to say the least. In my experience critics are very hard to convince.

I just tell people to learn it for themselves and apply it and see for themselves if it works or not.

Thats the long answer. I suppose if an independent group wanted to spend the money to do some before and after testing we would let them. I think some of this work was done in the early fifties but since a number of the attacks we were experiencing had their roots in other issues than "we needed to prove our claims" it was a futile gesture. Just my opinion...


Fred


Fred, this is the central problem, though. I've been told this by the Scientology 'evangelists' in the mall, and now by you. The attitude is that 'we know it works because we've seen it work, and we don't need any independent source to tell us otherwise'.

It doesn't work. Science is based on the very premise that we can be fooled.

The e-meter, for instance, is a device that relies on the electrical conductivity between your hand and the cylinders. Small variations in this due to the changing contact between the hands and the metal changes the needle. This is then matched post-hoc with the questions in the stress test... and you are told it is due to emotional energy.

If this is argued with, we are told 'we are all entitled to our own opinions'.

Maybe, but we aren't entitled to our own facts. Either it works as Scientology says, or it does not. There is no two ways. Science is a way of addressing the truth as independent from the opinion.

Now, we have a dilemma. If you are here to simply sprout the 'it's your opinion' line, then you have no wish to share in enlightening debate. In which case, we are all wasting our time.

Closing your eyes and following the philosophy that a person who personally experiences a phenomenum cannot be fooled by it is senseless and naive. Unfortunately, if this is your key belief, then no amount of discussion will help you see where Scientology is wrong.

Athon