What's new

Scientology explained

Frankly, I think your general assertions about religion and religious people are nonsense. Billions of human beings are religious. They're of all kinds. I'm a pretty traditional Christian myself — not a young-Earth-creationist Biblical literalist by any means, but a pretty average Anglican. I don't believe I fit the pattern you describe, and I don't believe I'm so unusual. In particular, my experience from knowing a lot of religious people quite well is that their beliefs about objectively tangible things are not really very relevant to them. Not infrequently they believe silly things about the actual world, or have poor understandings of their own faith's actual doctrines, because those things really don't matter that much in most people's lives. It's the outwardly intangible but inwardly real and important things, like courage versus depression or risk versus security, that make up most of people's religious experience.

Except in the literal sense of 'physically touchable', 'tangible' is not itself an objective property. Free jazz aficionados can be really passionate about something that I just don't get at all, and a mathematician can talk for hours about stuff that means nothing at all to most people. To the insiders, the experiences that others miss completely can be very real.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tangible
Full Definition of TANGIBLE

1
a : capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch : palpable
b : substantially real : material
2
: capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind <her grief was tangible>
3
: 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
[+]more
Origin of TANGIBLE

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

Synonyms
palpable, touchable
Antonyms
impalpable, intangible
[+]more
See Synonym Discussion at perceptible
 
Frankly, I think your general assertions about religion and religious people are nonsense. Billions of human beings are religious.
They're of all kinds. I'm a pretty traditional Christian myself — not a young-Earth-creationist Biblical literalist by any means, but a pretty average Anglican.
I don't believe I fit the pattern you describe, and I don't believe I'm so unusual. In particular, my experience from knowing a lot of religious people quite well is that their beliefs about objectively tangible things are not really very relevant to them.
Not infrequently they believe silly things about the actual world, or have poor understandings of their own faith's actual doctrines, because those things really don't matter that much in most people's lives. It's the outwardly intangible but inwardly real and important things, like courage versus depression or risk versus security, that make up most of people's religious experience.
Except in the literal sense of 'physically touchable', 'tangible' is not itself an objective property. Free jazz aficionados can be really passionate about something that I just don't get at all, and a mathematician can talk for hours about stuff that means nothing at all to most people. To the insiders, the experiences that others miss completely can be very real.

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

oneonewasaracecar

Gold Meritorious Patron
Frankly, I think your general assertions about religion and religious people are nonsense. Billions of human beings are religious. They're of all kinds. I'm a pretty traditional Christian myself — not a young-Earth-creationist Biblical literalist by any means, but a pretty average Anglican. I don't believe I fit the pattern you describe, and I don't believe I'm so unusual.
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.
In particular, my experience from knowing a lot of religious people quite well is that their beliefs about objectively tangible things are not really very relevant to them. Not infrequently they believe silly things about the actual world, or have poor understandings of their own faith's actual doctrines, because those things really don't matter that much in most people's lives.
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.
It's the outwardly intangible but inwardly real and important things, like courage versus depression or risk versus security, that make up most of people's religious experience.
That doesn't sound religious to me. It sounds like aspects of human well being. That I would place within the purview of psychology.
Except in the literal sense of 'physically touchable', 'tangible' is not itself an objective property. Free jazz aficionados can be really passionate about something that I just don't get at all, and a mathematician can talk for hours about stuff that means nothing at all to most people. To the insiders, the experiences that others miss completely can be very real.
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.
 

Cat's Squirrel

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.

I like that one. :)
 

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.....
 

Balthasar

Patron Meritorious
Back here I asked you some questions perhaps you missed on this quick moving thread:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?38001-Scientology-explained&p=995337&viewfull=1#post995337

I'd be very interested in your answers to those questions I circled below:

answers_zpse9b7f34e.jpg

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?
 

TrevAnon

Big List researcher
...

That aside, here is the thing. You said that if a licenced psychiatrist thinks you need ECT because of some disease for which ECT may help, and there are no other options that are good enough, I hope s/he gives it to you.
Typo I guess :biggrin:

...

The problem I see is that a psychiatrist whose speciality is to treat patients with electroshocks will not see "other options that are good enough". An auditor audits Scientology processes and an trained ECT specialist does electroshocks. Either one of them will see few, if any alternatives. Now we can argue about this and find examples where this doesn't apply but lets be realistic. That's how it works for the most part.

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? :)


...

As you said you would hope that the psychiatrist treats you with electroshock therapy under certain circumstances, you are giving consent to be therapeutically electroshocked and thus validating it as a suitable treatment (if doctor says so - I understood this one). As you are advocating it on yourself, I would assume that you would see electroshock treatment suitable for others as well like your friends, family and everybody found to have no other options.

Consequently it is fair to say, in context of opposing views of the topic where you have taken sides, that you are an electroshock treatment proponent.

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.

:carryon:
 

Leon-2

Patron Meritorious
Thank you.

You are conflating two things here and this is illustrative of our discrepancy regarding scientology.

The two things are
1) The piano
2) The teaching method/learning ability.

We can both criticize the method of teaching and still think the piano is both beautiful and real. We can know this because we can see and hear people play it and make beautiful music.

If we then separate out the teaching method/learning ability and assess the teacher and/or the student, we are able to do this by assessing the results of the teaching. We listen to the student play.

Where the analogy falls down is that scientology does not produce results that we can objectively judge externally. When you talked about the CCHs, your result was gaining a perceptual feeling. That is internal. As an outsider, I cannot evaluate your experience in the same way as you can evaluate it yourself.

Most of the argument on this thread has been over this point. What we are after is some sort of claim that scientology (as you see it) can make that can be observed and tested.

If it makes you more able, then exactly how does it make you more able? That can then be tested.


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.
 

Leon-2

Patron Meritorious
Hard Scientology, which promises objectively testable powers that it cannot deliver, is crap.

But maybe soft Scientology, as a vaguely defined discipline beyond Hubbard and his cult, is something like abstract art or free jazz. Many people will occasionally see or hear something nice in it, but most people find that so much of it just seems like an unpleasant mess, that the rare good bits are probably accidental. A few people are fans, or practitioners. They claim that there is very definitely good abstract art, or free jazz, as opposed to bad; that the good stuff is very good; that it just takes talent and years of practice to learn to appreciate the good stuff, or produce it. Heck, maybe it's like cigars, or certain liquors; an acquired taste.

Let's just face it. There are no objectively testable Scientology results; any benefits are subjective. So it's like art, or jazz, or cigars. Maybe some people are sophisticated experts who have worked their way to appreciate a glorious world that the rest of us miss. Or maybe those few are really just pitiful snobs who have pretended to see the Emperor's clothes for so long that they have successfully warped their own tastes, by learning to associate certain unpleasant sensations with a warm glow of superiority.

Who can even say which is which, you know? Almost everyone agrees that espresso and whiskey taste awful at first. Keep trying good examples, though, and you can really get to like them. Is it just because the side-effects of the caffeine and alcohol give the unpleasant tastes positive associations that compensate?

Most people find ancient Greek poetry baffling. It's all Greek. But some people learn Greek, and find some beautiful poems. On the other hand there are the guys who peer at grainy photos of the lunar surface until they can see alien artifacts. The only skill they've acquired is self-delusion.

As long as the objective superpowers promised by hard Scientology are off the table, every discussion I've ever heard about soft Scientology has been futile. For every argument of the form, "Soft Scientology must be crap because it has property X," I can think of something else which has property X, but is not crap at all. And for every argument of the form, "Soft Scientology must be great because it has property Y", I can think of something else which has property Y, but is crap.

If the topic is hard Scientology, then the argument was over at, "Show me a motherfucking Clear." If the topic is soft Scientology, there is no argument, either way. I know how I feel. But there is no disputing about tastes. Let's just give up, already.


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

Callooo Callay, Oh Frabjous Day!
 

Leon-2

Patron Meritorious
That is certainly the case with Leon. He has not explained scientology at all. He has not made a single tangible claim on it's behalf. He surely believes scientology can do tangible things, otherwise, why would he care so much about it?


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.
 

TrevAnon

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

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:
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
..
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.


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!



The-Little-Engine-That-Could.jpg



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."
 

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.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
You don't have to name what you do 'Leonology', but it's certainly not 'plain old Scientology' with all the <snipped the Squirreling, Tech Degrades, and other High Crimes>

'Plain old Scientology' was what Hubbard and the CoS created. It includes all of what you characterize as the "admin crap", the psychotic control methods, and Ethics Tech. THAT is 'plain old Scientology. It doesn't include any Tech developed by Mary Freeman or Pilot.

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

But for you to say that the CoS doesn't do Scientology is absurd. That would have been like Einstein asserting that "Issac Newton wasn't doing Physics".

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.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
..

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


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:

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
:soapbox:

Remember Claire that these days ECT is only recommended as a last ditch effort and with the patient's consent (at least it is in Oz), when all else has failed to produce a result. It does and has helped many and did nothing for others.

I guess we just can't leave people to sit and rot. I would also venture to guess that if a better treatment came up, psychiatrists would grab it with both hands, but as yet, there isn't. Scientology would never improve, because they are not looking to improve it. That sort of thing is prohibited.

This was not so in the past. My first wife was shocked at 13 years old at the behest of her parents (would have been early to mid 60s, still in the horror days of psychiatry). I think it was over her throwing a knife at her brother, but I don't really remember what she said and I'm not bothered with asking her again. She has some mental blocks and problems, but I think she always has had them and the shock treatment was done because of them, not a result of it.

In her case I think it was done as a method of getting control of her by her parents and the general attitude back then of how people should behave and children having a certain place. Especially for women and girls.

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.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
Oh, come on! The result of Hubbard's "Ethics Tech" is fear, guilt and obedience. It works!

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.
 

ILove2Lurk

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

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
...

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

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.
 
Top