ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

Scientology explained

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by Leon-2, Jan 1, 2015.

  1. degraded being

    degraded being Sponsor
    Full Definition of TANGIBLE

    a : capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch : palpable
    b : substantially real : material
    : capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind <her grief was tangible>
    : capable of being appraised at an actual or approximate value <tangible assets>
    — tan·gi·bil·i·ty noun
    — tan·gi·ble·ness noun
    — tan·gi·bly adverb
    See tangible defined for English-language learners »
    See tangible defined for kids »
    Examples of TANGIBLE

    There is no tangible evidence to support her claim.
    Their sense of relief was almost tangible.
    These days, an environmentally conscious motorist can walk into a Toyota or Honda dealer and snap up an efficient gasoline-electric hybrid, but the omega point of green driving—the pollution-free hydrogen fuel cell vehicle—is so elusive that one wonders if it will ever become tangible. —Brad Lemley, Discover, October 2002
    Origin of TANGIBLE

    Late Latin tangibilis, from Latin tangere to touch
    First Known Use: 1589
    Related to TANGIBLE

    palpable, touchable
    impalpable, intangible
    See Synonym Discussion at perceptible
  2. degraded being

    degraded being Sponsor

    That sure is vague. Are you saying things like courage are religious? People's passion about things like music etc are religious?
  3. oneonewasaracecar

    oneonewasaracecar Gold Meritorious Patron

    What do you get when you cross an Anglican with a Mormon?

    Somebody who knocks at your door on Sunday for no particular reason.

    If you are an Anglican you fit on that scale on the agnostic end. What I have said applies to you only glancingly, because you are not overly religious.
    So they have a few beliefs that trespass on the territory of science, but they don't consider them important?

    You say these people believe in a message, which if true, would be the most important thing in the world, but they don't take it seriously because the message doesn't matter?

    None of these people are religious.
    That doesn't sound religious to me. It sounds like aspects of human well being. That I would place within the purview of psychology.
    Every time there is an earthquake, the religious know why. Not the geologists.

    Every time there is a flood, the religious know why. Not the climatologists.

    When a religious person is survives a tragedy by sheer luck, while other die, they thank God, not the law of averages.

    When a religious person is diagnosed with cancer, they sing praises to God, rather than the clinical researchers and oncologists.

    People that are very religious think like this. The degree to which this does not apply to you is the degree to which you are not religious.
  4. Cat's Squirrel

    Cat's Squirrel Gold Meritorious Patron

    I like that one. :)
  5. Lone Star

    Lone Star Crusader

    Cult Members Always Attack

    From Thomas Sheridan....

    Cult members attack because Cult Members know they are full of shit. The truth is self-evident and does not need to be 'defended' with slander, mass hysteria and virtual book burnings. The fanatic is only fanatical because of their convulsive insecurities.

    They are fanatics who can't deal with criticism/satire, and this is the primary reason why all cults run their smear campaigns, hate sites, book burnings and mass hysteria vendettas. Not so deep down inside, the cult member does not actually believe the bullshit they are spewing.

    If they did have sincere belief, they would not be bothered by criticism. There would be no siege mentality. As they would know their 'spiritual' beliefs were real. But they do not believe they are real, so they ATTACK psychotically anyone who calls them out. If they were genuinely secure in their belief package they wouldn't give a shit. It is really is that simple. Only insecurity breeds fanatics.....
  6. Balthasar

    Balthasar Patron Meritorious

    Type4 good Lord, I did answer you initual question fully but not your follow ups because I considered them completely irrelevant. If you want scientific proof/disproof of my methods then be good enough to get it yourself as I am not on your payroll.

    Again, you asked me what my treatment proposal for depression would be and you got my answer. That my method considered to be too simplicist by other posters is again irrelevant.

    I can sort out depressions of a close person (with my method) and there is not the slightest doubt about it. I am not a highly trained ex C/S and auditor like our Hoaxie but I am good in that kind of stuff. I can "read" people and have this since my early childhood. There is a specific kind of persons I can't "read" but I have adapted to that too.

    Again, no scientific proof whatsoever - just my bullshit if you want but then again, what does it matter?
  7. TrevAnon

    TrevAnon Big List researcher

    Typo I guess :biggrin:

    Yes, we can argue about this. A licenced psychiatrist / ECT specialist has taken an oath to not harm people. Given a case s/he will check if all other options have been tried. If the criteria for useing ETC have not been met s/he will not treat the patient with ECT him/herself and advise the patient against getting said treatment somewhere else. That would be the ethical thing to do.

    (Rhetorical) Question: will a Scientology auditor advise against using auditing and/or refuse to audit someone? :)

    Keyword: assume. And no, I don't have an opinion if ECT would be suitable for others. I don't know the criteria etc. etc.

    Other than this, what Bill said.

  8. Leon-2

    Leon-2 Patron Meritorious

    Yes I understand this fully. And I have said repeatedly that Scientology is not a science and cannot be tested scientifically. The betterment experienced through auditing is betterment in the opinion of the person having the auditing It is subjective. Only occasionally does one obtain changes that are at once apparent to outsiders.

    And I know that Hubs has made claims all over the place of all sorts of scientific validity and 'tested results' and so on. I also think those claims are bullshit AND NOTE ALSO: I am not here to PR Ron Hubbard. I'm here answering questions regarding the subject of Scientology and I do so from MY OWN VIEWPOINT. I tell the truth as it is true to me. I am not promoting the CofS nor LRH.
  9. Leon-2

    Leon-2 Patron Meritorious

    Well! Here we have something that both Hoaxie and me agree on.

    Callooo Callay, Oh Frabjous Day!
  10. Leon-2

    Leon-2 Patron Meritorious

    How can an improvement in one's ability to communicate ever be tangible?

    Or a greater sense of one's own self-worth?

    Or any of the other things people do gain here. These are subjective spiritual improvements and thus by definition are intangible.
  11. TrevAnon

    TrevAnon Big List researcher

    I happen to work at a secondary school in the Netherlands. I don't teach myself, but I am sure any good language teacher can tell you how this can be made tangible. :yes:
  12. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on


    Okay, now we are finally getting somewhere!

    So, Scientology's just subjective. Now I can finally understand the subject.

    As a matter of fact, now that you described it so clearly, I actually realize that I first encountered Ron's technology back when I was in the first grade!


    It's pretty much just a subjective process
    where the person keeps thinking the command:
    "I think I can, I think I can, I think I can..."

    The Scientologist can then use their own self determinism
    to fill in the blank with whatever they want, such as:
    "I think I can postulate, I think I can go exterior,
    I think I can pay for the next rundown that will
    finally handle the fact that whenever I give myself
    the subjective pep talk about 'thinking I can',
    nothing ever really happens in the real world."
  13. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    Personally, I think everyone should study logic, including the illogics - but especially Scientologists. If they would all study the illogics, they might stop using Hubbard's illogics to support their beliefs.
    A rather extensive list is here LogicalFallacies

    We have seen some of the true believers use the following illogics just in this thread alone.
    • strawman Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
    • ad hominem Attacking your opponent's character in an attempt to undermine their argument.
    • burden of proof Saying that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with others to disprove.
    • appeal to authority Saying that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.
    • black-or-white Where two alternative states are presented as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.
    • anecdotal Using personal experience or an isolated example instead of a valid argument.
    • red herring An attempt to divert the debate from the subject being debated.
    I noticed, with appeal to authority, that Scientologists will state as fact things which, on inspection, were only something claimed by Hubbard without any evidence of its truth. Scientologists do not question.

    Imagine what would happen if they knew these tactics were bogus and didn't use them. We might be able to have conversations.
  14. Terril park

    Terril park Sponsor

    Mary Freeman's first dynamic tech was gone over by Hubbard and he gave the go ahead for it to be taught to others.

    Not so. If you read Mike and Tony's funnies etc you'll see that their is virtually no auditor training occurring and case gain is now obtained
    by giving donations.
  15. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on


    I know and worked with Mary back in the day.

    QUESTION: If Mary's ETHICS TECH worked as you and, apparently, L. Ron Hubbard agreed, why then did she go down the dwindling spiral below the bottom of the Ethics Conditions and get declared by Ethics to be an SP?

    Seems to me that getting declared SP by Scientology Ethics is probably not something you want on your resume when you are promoting/selling yourself as an Ethics Officer.

    Oh, yes, Terril, I know. I know. I know. She wasn't declared SP by the "real" Scientology, because an SP took control over Scientology. Well, if that's true, it means that Mary's not alone, because it confirms that NOBODY in Scientology can get a result using Ethics tech! LOL
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2015
  16. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    Oh, come on! The result of Hubbard's "Ethics Tech" is fear, guilt and obedience. It works!
  17. Claire Swazey

    Claire Swazey Spokeshole, fence sitter

    Excellent post!

    I think psychiatry has indeed been used as a control mechanism, but then again, Scn even more so.

    ECT being more a last resort is due to inefficacy and problematic nature. Which supports my disagreement with Anonycat about it.

    I'd gotten into that particular topic in response to a post which stated that they always use anesthesia, no lasting damage. And I was thinking, oho! Not necessarily!

    I definitely wouldn't want to see ppl left without help. The cult does-they want to see all psychology and psychiatry abolished while doing nothing to help. So, of course I support psychological counseling and even meds! But I will never ever support or condone ECT. I'd recommend psychedelic experimental therapy over that.
  18. Claire Swazey

    Claire Swazey Spokeshole, fence sitter

    Mary Freeman, a Freezoner, had an ethics program she created. I heard good things about it. I know someone who did it and liked it.

    In general, though, in CofS, ethics is a nasty dark punitive scary fucking thing.
  19. ILove2Lurk

    ILove2Lurk Lisbeth Salander

    Since you mention it, what is this and where can I read about it?

    And please don't tell me it's only available on "Pay Per View." :no:

    I'm pretty leery of any "tech" that's not in the public domain at this stage of my life.
    If there's something in this world that can actually help people, it should be openly
    shared. God knows most people need a little help in life.

    Sir Issac Newton pushed out his Principia into the public domain, and so we have
    gravity and a better world. :coolwink:

    Inquisitively yours,
    View attachment 9119
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2015
  20. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on


    I believe you have discovered something to rival the invention of the ARC or KRC triangle!

    The FOG Triangle. Fear, Obedience & Guilt.

    It's virtually identical to ARC = Understanding, with one very minor difference.

    FOG = Misunderstanding.

    The more ethics tech that is applied, the FOGGIER the Scientologist gets, until one day they no longer understand themselves or their own life to the degree that they are running around doing amends projects for not standing and applauding the photograph of a dead con man.