anonycat?

[Bill]

Without any proof it is still "technically" possibly false as well. It's just a claim and it is neither true or false without proof. I think that is what he is saying though he didn't state it could still be false as well.

You worked it out that Scientology is false but there are some here that still havn't done that.

I believe it woud be the extreme lack of proof that brought you to that conclusion so lack of proof can serve as proof. But in truth, the lack of proof is still not absolute proof and maybe that is what he is saying.

Exactly so. And therein lies the trick that Scientologists rely on.

It is impossible to prove a negative. So critics can never technically establish that Hubbard's claims are lies.

On the other hand, we are forbidden, apparently, from demanding that Hubbard and Scientologists actually prove Hubbard's claims. Tens of thousands of failures and decades of failures must be ignored. At no time does the continuing failure to prove Hubbard's claims constitute enough.

And so Scientologists continue to claim all those wonderful things with never a bit of proof and we must never contradict them - it would be "bad thinking".

So let's all celebrate how "Scientology works!" Yep, that's not "bad thinking".

Bill

 

[beekay]

if the moderators would shift this to off topic and put it on a long leash please?

let the the players play awright?

okay AC, here's my opening statement:

AUDITING AND AUDITOR TRAINING are good things

i don't swing with CoS 'cause they pull rotten crap but the subject of dianetics has made it's bones and it's here to stay

ron was a man who produced many lasting works of genius and was a colorful sort of fellow

you can make your own brief opening statement or you can jump in guns blazing. it's your keyboard tiger, poke it as you will

I ought to read other members' posts here on this topic before I post, but as usual I'm pressed for time.

I wish I knew more about auditing and auditor training. I did some things with biofeedback on college, I'm not sure whether that counts for anything.
Auditing has always seemed to me like something that could be potentially beneficial if used correctly. I'll let it go at that.

LRH; If you're able to look at him objectively, and try to look past the deeds he's done, his track record so to speak, his accomplishments, his failures, his misdeeds... Put all that aside temporarily, and just view him as an individual.
... The guy really had his good days and his bad days, from what I've seen so far.
There were some times when it seems like he really strived to be fair and he saw the light. And then there were other times when he was a paranoid, antisocial megalomaniac.
This is just going by quotes and docs that I've been finding posted here.
Just from what I've seen it seems apparent to me that he was self medicating.

Scn/Dianetics in general; There are a lot of people in the world who are really full of crap. Their minds are filled with lies and superstition and they go through their entire life living a lie, a lie that they've lied to themselves and they continue to believe it til the day they die.
I have a feeling that LRH created Dianetics to break peoples' worldview/their stable datum and to attempt to put people on a different, more spiritual path by using a highly structured methodical system.
It sort of worked for some people. It worked better for some than others.

And all the while, since it's conception LRH struggled with himself, bouncing back and forth between being a buoyant, benevolent, enlightened guru and a paranoid megalomaniac dictator. As he attempted to cope with this machine that he'd somehow created, which he probably couldn't admit to himself, had become much larger than he was.

 

[freethinker]

The neat little trick that is most effective is the "can't discuss case, ask questions and must only rely on source." Without that in place people would figure out the scam pretty quickly and this board would have 100,000 members.

I tried asking OT's about being OT and what they could do and none of them would discuss it.

If they had it would become quickly apparent they had no special abilities.

That's the neat little package in my view.

Exactly so. And therein lies the trick that Scientologists rely on.

It is impossible to prove a negative. So critics can never technically establish that Hubbard's claims are lies.

On the other hand, we are forbidden, apparently, from demanding that Hubbard and Scientologists actually prove Hubbard's claims. Tens of thousands of failures and decades of failures must be ignored. At no time does the continuing failure to prove Hubbard's claims constitute enough.

And so Scientologists continue to claim all those wonderful things with never a bit of proof and we must never contradict them - it would be "bad thinking".

So let's all celebrate how "Scientology works!" Yep, that's not "bad thinking".

Bill

 

[Bill]

No, it's not juggling. It really is logic. Logic is merciless.

I'm not saying what you're saying I'm saying. You seem to have an extreme position, and to be assuming that everyone who disagrees with you must be taking an equally extreme position, only opposite. But that's not it at all. Your position is extreme. It's untenable. It's inconsistent and illogical. At least, the position you seem to me to hold is all those things. If I've mistaken your real position, then this discussion has a point.

You seem to me to want to equate unproven with false. I disagree, but I do not want to equate unproven with true.

My point is that it's a trivial consequence of actual logic, through the axiom of the excluded middle, that if unproven means false, then undisproven means true. So I'm certainly not saying that anything that isn't disproven must be assumed to be true. It's precisely my point that that statement is exactly equivalent to the one that you made, which I oppose. So my point is that both positions are logically untenable.

If something is unproven and undisproven, then nothing must be assumed about it. Anything may be assumed about it. The jury is out. All bets are fair. All positions are tenable.

You offered to accept the formula, for something unproven, "It's possibly true but unproven." Perhaps that might be okay, but then it seems to me to follow trivially, through the axiom of the excluded middle, that you have to say for anything not disproven that you can't call it false, but only call it "possibly false, but undisproven."

I would still say that it has to be wrong to call someone insane just for believing that something is true even though it's unproven. Consider Fermat's Last Theorem. Up until 1995, this was an unproven statement. It stood unproven for over 300 years. But it would be strange to say that the statement was ever false, because it has now been proven and is known to be true. I'd rather not say that it only became true in 1995. It's a statement about arithmetic and I don't remember arithmetic changing suddenly in 1995. Many fine mathematicians, from Fermat on, believed that the statement was true, before it was proven. I don't want to call them insane. They were fine mathematicians. And concerning this particular statement, in fact they were right. If you can be insane by being right, then maybe what we need is more insanity.

Now, all of the above is what's relevant for me, if someone tells me that they happen to believe something. If I can't disprove it, then I can't call them crazy for their belief. But if someone tries to tell me that I must believe something, then I'd agree with you: if they can't prove it, they've got no business telling me what to believe. It's precisely that to which I'm objecting, when I object to what I find to be your extreme position. You seem to be telling me I can't believe anything unless I can prove it. My point is that you can't prove that, so get off your high horse. But if all you really mean is that I can't tell you what to believe unless I can prove it, then in fact we agree.

First, let me be very clear. I am not telling anyone what to believe. Never did that. Please don't continue to pretend I ever did that.

Second, you are technically correct that something not proven remains just that: "unproven" - not true or false.

My only points are: 1) Hubbard and the Scientologists who claim the miracles from Scientology, Clear and OT, for instance, must prove these things. I don't understand why you think that isn't a requirement.
2) I contend that the fact that there have been tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people who applied Scientology and not one reached the promised states of Clear and OT - must be a factor in evaluating Hubbard's claims. We cannot and should not ignore the consistent and universal failures to reached those promised results. That isn't "illogical".

Do you contend that 60+ years of consistent and universal failure to prove those claims involving thousands and thousands of earnest practitioners has absolutely no bearing? We cannot factor that in? Do you contend that we must consider Hubbard's claims just as potentially valid today as the day he uttered them?

I'm not telling anyone what to think, but I object to the characterization of my opinion as "bad thinking", "illogical", etc.

Bill

 

[Commander Birdsong]

hey now!

well only three new pages today...

good, this thread is already loaded with material

if anyone is disappointed i didn't hit the reply with quote button on a post it's not overlooked. there are several unaddressed posts which will receive longer responses later. and many have only been glanced over, especially the crossflow posts. Student Of Trinity (father son and holy spirit or the site at alamogordo?) is particularly commended for his attempts to hone other posts wits, though we do have some posters who shouldn't be allowed to possess sharp objects...

awright...

lemme look at what we got...

 

[Commander Birdsong]

Right! That's why I inserted my commentary into this thread. In challenge of Adam's assertions that auditing doesn't work. I don't think claims that "no auditing works" are insane, just uninformed. That is the only reason I asked about his actual involvement in auditing/training, I wondered if his claims were based on actual experience rather than anecdotal testimony.

BTW, in both my opinion and experience, scientology doesn't ever do what Hubbard promised it would, never has and never will. That doesn't mean it doesn't do something! (An old joke revisited )
PS: Oops, sorry, I just caught up with everything written after the post I was responding to. I didn't realise the argument was already over!

scientology doesn't do anything

WE do things

and you could do much more than you have with your studies pandy

 

[Commander Birdsong]

Re: to Freethinker and Adam

Stupid fucks. oh I will defend auditing but i will not stand for capitalism pure seck

EDIT: this band is dutch


[video=youtube;jeLbaXYw5qU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeLbaXYw5qU&list=PLEAE9910190A280FA[/video]

"capitalism" has plus and minus; the real but not unadulterated virtue is free enterprise and anything very far in the direction of socialism is poisonous...

...in my humble opinion...

 

[Magoo]

If you are asserting something that you believe it is true, the burden of proof is on you. I believe your argument is that in some way training/processing will make life easier or make you better at things. I have asked many Scientologists before you:

• Tell me one thing that you have done with your life that you could not have done without Scientology?

Note that I said COULD not have done, not WOULD.

Good answer, Adam.
I would like to mention s/t to CB re his question, though.

For years and years (30) I honestly attributed ALL the qualities
that I, Tory, Had ....To Scientology and L Ron Hubbard.

As I was waking up in the last 10 years (while on their second to the top
level for 7 years, that did NOT work for myself or many others)...I began
to read self-improvement books, hoping to find *a* solution to my horrific
migraine headaches that tortured me. (Finally an OT 7 Internal Medicine
Doctor/who was 'public' realized ALL of we women who were having "physical problems or
emotional...not handled by auditing" were "middle of menopause" and the MEN
who were running our auditing/correcting of it---did not 'get' what this was.Thankfully
that ended my headache problem of 10 years!

Long story short---I realized ALL of the 'abilities' I had assigned to Scientology
were really things that had been built into me by my parents, way before
Scientology.

So "Tell me one thing that you have done with your life that you could not have done without Scientology?"
Live! Communicate~ Be Kind, Read, Understand bullies, Play many sports and be good at them, enjoy
people, life, animals, Party, friendly with others, able to laugh, excellent in sales (my Dad was in
sales), able to speak and be filmed (YT + Media Interviews)--my Dad was a broadcaster for NBC, my Mom filmed us
weekly and showed us the family photos every few weeks...the list is endless.

IF you are lurking and stuck in the "I can't leave Scientology because_____" THINK AGAIN.
Think HARD. Did you not have most if not ALL of the "Abilities" you claim are due to Scientology,
did you not in one way or another have them far before Scientology?

Granted, you may have buffed them up a bit while "in"....but don't just automatically agree without
looking.

That's my 2 cents.

My best,

Tory/Magoo~Your Local, friendly SP <<< See? Even that comes from years of
joy with my Mom, early on, and my Dad's courage and humor. The ONLY part that is "Scientology" is
their stupid declaring people "SP". BFD

 

[Commander Birdsong]

As I highlight in red, I agree. And hubbard did say in KSW 1965,

"that the only thing you can be upbraided for is no results".

He didn't say EP results, he said "no results". Hubbard left himself another out. And also at that time, Hubbard creates the attestation line, thereby making the PC responsible for his own results (EP) and the organization known as scientology gets off the hook. Doesn't this also put the PC in charge of his case?

And yep, 1965 when he stole all the good work of his research auditors & PC's at St. Hill (guinea pigs, I reckon), and soon to follow in a few short years, gets kicked out of Britain (St Hill), forms the Sea Org, makes hisself a Commodore of a fake Navy, travels to Africa, Corfu, gets kicked out from those places, all the while throwing peeps overboard, and dreaming up OT3. And also recording his thoughts in PL's, HCOB's and RJ's.

sugarplum, my "OT" ability is tiny compared to what theoretically might be but i have listed some notable results which are in the record book and get your fingers set to smack the button on those vomit smileys 'cause i will be holding forth about some of them...

and though small, seven ships, it was a real navy

 

[Commander Birdsong]

Good answer, Adam.
I would like to mention s/t to CB re his question, though.

For years and years (30) I honestly attributed ALL the qualities
that I, Tory, Had ....To Scientology and L Ron Hubbard.

As I was waking up in the last 10 years (while on their second to the top
level for 7 years, that did NOT work for myself or many others)...I began
to read self-improvement books, hoping to find *a* solution to my horrific
migraine headaches that tortured me. (Finally an OT 7 Internal Medicine
Doctor/who was 'public' realized ALL of we women who were having "physical problems or
emotional...not handled by auditing" were "middle of menopause" and the MEN
who were running our auditing/correcting of it---did not 'get' what this was.Thankfully
that ended my headache problem of 10 years!

Long story short---I realized ALL of the 'abilities' I had assigned to Scientology
were really things that had been built into me by my parents, way before
Scientology.

So "Tell me one thing that you have done with your life that you could not have done without Scientology?"
Live! Communicate~ Be Kind, Read, Understand bullies, Play many sports and be good at them, enjoy
people, life, animals, Party, friendly with others, able to laugh...the list is endless.

IF you are lurking and stuck in the "I can't leave Scientology because_____" THINK AGAIN.
Think HARD. Did you not have most if not ALL of the "Abilities" you claim are due to Scientology,
did you not in one way or another have them far before Scientology?

Granted, you may have buffed them up a bit while "in"....but don't just automatically agree without
looking.

That's my 2 cents.

My best,

Tory/Magoo~Your Local, friendly SP <<< See? Even that comes from years of
joy with my Mom, early on, and my Dad's courage. The ONLY part that is "Scientology" is
their stupid declaring people "SP". BFD

how come i don't hear the voice of jim backus when i read your posts?

 

[Commander Birdsong]

Birdie gets some results.

He doesn't get "no results"

And that is all I have to say.

you got lots more to say pro, con and other and even if you don't say it, i hope you'll keep reading gib...

 

[Magoo]

how come i don't hear the voice of jim backus when i read your posts?

Good one, CB. Do you know why I have the nick, Magoo?
I had given my Dad that nickname due to his tiny eyes, and his great sense of humor. He died when I was 22.

At 53 I shockingly woke up and suddenly was ALL alone. (This was in 2000---Net was new, one place to visit a few Scios--ARS--plus I was terrified of the Net due to watching what Nancy Many went through, and Bill Yaude telling me that was all due to "She reading the Internet"). So once I woke up----I could hear my Dad saying (re leaving) "DOOOOO IT!" His courage and strength meant/means a lot to me, so I always keep the memory of his spirit close. Also, he played for the Chicago Cardinals Quarterback...number was 44. Thus ToryMagoo44 (My YouTube account) Hope that helps!

Tory/Magoo

For those who don't know how Jim B is, here ya go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Backus

 

[Commander Birdsong]

Hmm... even if scientology did deliver everything Hubbard claimed for it I'd still think that it would be righteously upbraided for those other things I mentioned. The end does not justify the means.

purpose in an act is an aspect of discrimination in considering it's effects

in three and a half years on this board i have noticed no allusion to shiva...


a student is getting past the foothills when the vision of the shiva dance; the dance of creation and destruction appears in it's terrible divine glory

BOOM SHIVA!!!

hare hare ganga!

 

[Commander Birdsong]

A ways back on this thread I asked a question which no one actually addressed but several have inadvertantly answered this question for me.

Perhaps when I get done it will for you or at least give you a springboard in your own quest to the answer; if you had the same question.

I asked for a definiton of terms to clearly delineate what is meant by CO$ shit and tech.

Student of Trinity, Queenmab and Bill helped me sort this out for myself and even Claire had a hand in it.

Here goes.

When Bill is demanding his proof, he is demanding proof of a claim. I find that reasonable in respect to someone making a claim that he intends to act on to aquire the result plus he is paying for it. However it is not reasonable do demand proof for every claim made because not all claims will have an impact on the person receiving the claim.

If I say I have a stomach ache, it will have zero impact on Bill unless I work for him. But aside from all that I can never prove I have that stomach ache to Bill because he will never experience my stomach ache, so he has to take it on faith or say I am a faker.

I have concluded that CO$ shit/Scientology is a technology developed by Hubbard that made claims, had to be performed a certain way, had strict rules, cost a lot of money, couldn't be questioned and the auditing had a specific purpose with a specific result promised and cost far too many their sanity and dignity and some their lives.

The above is what I detest and many others as well and it should be challenged and stamped out.


Tech

If what is meant by tech is the actions of auditing where one person asks questions of another so they can sort some things out but don't expect a specific result, are not being charged large sums of money and this action helps them, then by all means go right ahead and audit your brains out.

But if you also include abilities regained, the person has to make some specific gain, your going to use the information against them, you are leading them on for your own purposes and you promise they will become superhuman or degraded then that shit needs to be stomped out as well.

That is my stance.

If you mean by tech, to be asked questions by someone you trust to sort some things out and neither of you expects more than that from the exchange then great


If you mean using Hubbards format and making promises and charging money and you don't truly give a shit about the person then that's crap, mind control, vested interest, dangerous and dishonest and i will stomp on that with a vengeance.

let me repeat this to underline it...

a sales pitch is a sales pitch is a sales whether you are selling a used car, a screenplay, a free ticket to aruba in a seat beside yours to a pretty girl, toothpaste or auditing and auditor training

the only CoS claim that matters is when they claim to sell a service do they deliver the service

 

[Magoo]

let me repeat this to underline it...

a sales pitch is a sales pitch is a sales whether you are selling a used car, a screenplay, a free ticket to aruba in a seat beside yours to a pretty girl, toothpaste or auditing and auditor training

the only CoS claim that matters is when they claim to sell a service do they deliver the service

Key word in that, esp for David Love now fighting their Tax exemption
is "SELL". (my bold and colored red for emphasis)

Thank you.

TLC

 

[Commander Birdsong]

I really don't know how many times I will be required to debunk this. I really don't understand why people keep putting words in my mouth no matter how many times I debunk it.

I have never said that Scientology does not produce some good results on some people. There are people here who swear that is my opinion, and it is not.

I have never said that there is nothing good in Scientology yet I am accused of having that opinion despite the fact that I have never said that.

But here we are again, you are claiming that these theoretical people on the fence will be upset because I'm saying ... all these things I have never said.

Maybe I should just give up and pretend I think that way, then I wouldn't have to get upset by people putting words in my mouth. "Yeah, whatever, I said that!"

All I am saying is that Hubbard's miraculous claims for his technology have never been proven and, as far as anyone can see, have never been achieved. That's it.

Period.

I understand that some people have had some good results from Scientology. That's true for me as well.

My saying "no releases, no clears and no OTs" means that and only that.

Period.

I'm done with ranting.

Bill

yeah...

they deliver good results. in the reality column you were down there where you were mostly oblivious to other realities and now you are up at the 4.0 level where you are eager to explore as many as you can and they invalidate and stomp all over other realities and pack you off to ethics cause you're PTS to the dali lama and the peruvian llama too; it's not the greatest gook for the greatest number of dynamic CoS executive gooks and if your nose ain't pressed on our grindstone we'll fair game yer ass bub...

 

[Commander Birdsong]

Please don't bring up "the cheese" with Panda. Very restimulative.

don't bring up cheese to monty python either...

 

[Commander Birdsong]

I ought to read other members' posts here on this topic before I post, but as usual I'm pressed for time.

I wish I knew more about auditing and auditor training. I did some things with biofeedback on college, I'm not sure whether that counts for anything.
Auditing has always seemed to me like something that could be potentially beneficial if used correctly. I'll let it go at that.

LRH; If you're able to look at him objectively, and try to look past the deeds he's done, his track record so to speak, his accomplishments, his failures, his misdeeds... Put all that aside temporarily, and just view him as an individual.
... The guy really had his good days and his bad days, from what I've seen so far.
There were some times when it seems like he really strived to be fair and he saw the light. And then there were other times when he was a paranoid, antisocial megalomaniac.
This is just going by quotes and docs that I've been finding posted here.
Just from what I've seen it seems apparent to me that he was self medicating.

Scn/Dianetics in general; There are a lot of people in the world who are really full of crap. Their minds are filled with lies and superstition and they go through their entire life living a lie, a lie that they've lied to themselves and they continue to believe it til the day they die.
I have a feeling that LRH created Dianetics to break peoples' worldview/their stable datum and to attempt to put people on a different, more spiritual path by using a highly structured methodical system.
It sort of worked for some people. It worked better for some than others.

And all the while, since it's conception LRH struggled with himself, bouncing back and forth between being a buoyant, benevolent, enlightened guru and a paranoid megalomaniac dictator. As he attempted to cope with this machine that he'd somehow created, which he probably couldn't admit to himself, had become much larger than he was.

i hope you spend some time with this thread beekay, the first fifty pages have some life to 'em


what auditing and training can do has basically three levels

therapeutic:

EEi and psychosomatic relief; improved behaviour...

"self help"

be more able driving the city bus, running your business, raising your family...


and...



raising into the metaphysical, the esoteric, the transcendent, the spiritual...


and in that last regard

MTC

 

[Magoo]

yeah...

they deliver good results. in the reality column you were down there where you were mostly oblivious to other realities and now you are up at the 4.0 level where you are eager to explore as many as you can and they invalidate and stomp all over other realities and pack you off to ethics cause you're PTS to the dali lama and the peruvian llama too; it's not the greatest gook for the greatest number of dynamic CoS executive gooks and if your nose ain't pressed on our grindstone we'll fair game yer ass bub...

Again, good one, CB!

One of THE things that helped me 'wake up' (along with realizing WHAT the "top Sekret OSA Int
Internet Mafia were *actually* doing, vs Yaude's to me)....was just what you wrote:
Scientologists' ENDLESS "Evalutations" of another. (Not all...but way too many).
They can and do size up another in about 15 seconds (at the most)..and just as Tommy Boy
said, "you're either "in" or you are OUT!"

They ARE one of THE most exclusive, petty, sick organizations I've ever known who get
far worse the higher on the "Bridge" they get.... and
was it a delight to finally FACE that and stop ing myself that they were all the holy, great
things Hubbard had pitched that got me to join. ("A world without crime....." etc)

Being Declared SP, for me, was THE "EP" Of $cientology.

In 2000 I happily said to OSA's
Fear Tactics, **forever**:G..............BYE!!!

Tory/Magoo

 

[Commander Birdsong]

Again, good one, CB!

One of THE things that helped me 'wake up' (along with realizing WHAT the "top Sekret OSA Int
Internet Mafia were *actually* doing, vs Yaude's to me)....was just what you wrote:
Scientologists' ENDLESS "Evalutations" of another. (Not all...but way too many).
They can and do size up another in about 15 seconds (at the most)..and just as Tommy Boy
said, "you're either "in" or you are OUT!"

They ARE one of THE most exclusive, petty, sick organizations I've ever known who get
far worse the higher on the "Bridge" they get.... and
was it a delight to finally FACE that and stop ing myself that they were all the holy, great
things Hubbard had pitched that got me to join. ("A world without crime....." etc)

Being Declared SP, for me, was THE "EP" Of $cientology.

In 2000 I happily said to OSA's
Fear Tactics, **forever**:G..............BYE!!!

Tory/Magoo

yeah tory...

i think it was coryden who mentioned the woman who told ron "you're like a cow who delivers a good bucket of milk and then kicks over the pail". they will get you up the COHE but they want the ability you gain leathered in THEIR harness

etc...