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 www.exscn2.net.



Scientology is all bad

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by Veda, Aug 5, 2012.

View Users: View Users
  1. Panda Termint

    Panda Termint Cabal Of One

    Yes, indeed. "It's all in the mind!" :hysterical:
     
  2. Jquepublic

    Jquepublic Silver Meritorious Patron

    I see what happened now. I was talking about feelings, you responded as if I stated an opinion. From my end, I said such and such makes me feel creeped out and from that position, your reply read as "that's stupid". Hence my use of the term made wrong - I felt that my emotional reaction was negated by your statement of opinion.

    I was just bitching about something that bugs me and acknowledging that it stems from my own involvement with the cult. Having recognised that, contrary to Hubbard's assertions, doesn't make it go away. :confused2:
     
  3. Jquepublic

    Jquepublic Silver Meritorious Patron

    Love these analogies! :thumbsup: As a seasoned gamer, let me take the opportunity to suggest anyone currently engaged in RPing Scientology check out World of Warcraft. You'll only be asked to pay $15 a month and get way better loot! :coolwink:
     
  4. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    Well spotted!

    Since David Mayo uses the term "Release", which is much, much less than the original definition of Clear (Clear being "permanent" and release being temporary), I'd say my summation of that paragraph was accurate.

    But that's just my assessment.

    Bill
     
  5. Smilla

    Smilla Ordinary Human

    I'm quite happy with people inhabiting their subjective reality of choice. It gets to be a problem when people want others to believe that their subjective reality should be accepted by others.

    I had an imaginary friend when I was a kid, and my mother only told me a few years ago that he never existed.

    No problem.

    He existed for me, but not for anyone else.

    I'm comfortable with that.
     
  6. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    But you forget! The fz/indies are, as we speak, redefining everything you might poke fun at as ... something else.

    Their conception of Scientology is something different from anything illogical or stupid. They won't put it in writing and they won't tell you what it is (so you can't poke holes in it and laugh) but, trust me, it's "not like that" in the indie/fz Scientology. Their Scientology is "good" and "scientific". So stop making fun of their (hidden) belief system - that's "intolerant" and "bigoted".

    Bill
     
  7. Demented LRH

    Demented LRH Patron Meritorious

    Yes, you are correct -- they all apply Hubbard's Tech, I know it now. But at the time when I met a group of natural-born Clears I was a Scientologist. I tried to explain the contradiction between their existence and the material that I got from book 1, Volumes I and II of Dianetics Series. The only explanation I could come up with was the incompetent auditing.
     
  8. Demented LRH

    Demented LRH Patron Meritorious

    The Church all omnipotent, do not mess with them. Even if you are a Clear, they can punish you by reinstalling all your engrams.

    I read an article at OCMB saying that the the cult "can revoke the status of Clear". This applies even to the OTs. :happydance:
     
  9. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    Look, Mark, it's a given in these discussions of Hubbard™ Scientology that you will interrupt the discussion to claim that Baker™ Scientology is superior in every way and does not have any of the flaws of Hubbard™ Scientology. And, since the only thing we actually know about Baker™ Scientology is that "it isn't Hubbard™ Scientology", we'll just have to take your word for it.

    Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. Now we'll go back to discussing Hubbard™ Scientology.

    Bill
     
  10. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    Isn't it amazing? The Church of Scientology can cancel and revoke ALL of your "certificates". Isn't that sort of like taking away from you what you NEVER really had in the first place anyways? :duh:

    People who framed and put their "Clear cert" or "OT III cert" up on their wall always seemed weird to me. I would get a cert, and basically bury it in a drawer. I never attached much meaning to such absurdities. It was as if the Qual Division in Scientology would license the capabilities of your mind! :ohmy:

    Mmmm? So, if you are a "problems release", and have the "ability to spot the source of problems and make them vanish", when your cert is cancelled, you THEN LOSE the "ability"?

    :hysterical:

    In Scientology they "make sense" of this with the notion that a person cannot hold onto his or her gains if he or she is unethical. Thus, ANY person who gets his or her certs and awards cancelled MUST be "out-ethics", and THUS will, of course, "lose the gains and abilities".

    With all the various FIXED IDEAS of Scientology, once you accept them, it DOES make "logical sense". If one accepts all the nutty premises, then using logic, various conclusions seem to flow naturally. Of course the largest illogical thing of all was ACCEPTING THE NUTTY CLAIMS AND STATEMENTS of Hubbard in the first place. :omg:
     
  11. Jquepublic

    Jquepublic Silver Meritorious Patron

    I never framed any certs - I was presented with some that were already framed but those wound up taking space under the bed and eventually abandoned - but I framed my declare. :eyeroll:

    It was hard for me to come to terms with the fact that I'd spent years earning "credentials" that in no way carried over outside the confines of the cult. Nothing useful, nothing applicable to the job market, nothing worth listing on a resume. Wasted time. Except of course for the life lessons resulting from wasting said time. :yes:
     
  12. Caroline

    Caroline Patron Meritorious

    It's kind of like that. There are certain incidents, such as the ones Hubbard wrote about in HOM and in the OT 3 materials that Scientologists must accept and run exactly as given. If they don't, their cases are evaluated as "dub-in" or "bypassed" or "resistive," etc.

    The idea that auditors don't evaluate is BS. We'd evaluate like crazy. We were just not allowed to let on to the pc that we were evaluating them. You should read some of the back and forth between auditors and C/Ses in pc folders.

    By the time Scientologists get to OT 3, they must be in a case condition where they accept the Xenu story and the "reality" that their bodies are infested with BTs. If not, their C/Ses evaluate their cases as "bypassed" or "resistive."

    [1] GF #40: Green Form 40 is a prepared list that auditors use to detect the reasons for why cases are "resistive." Items on the list, which includes overts, evil purposes, drugs, former therapy before Scientology, and problems with lower grades, are "assessed" on the meter. Reading items are handled according to GF instructions.

    Hubbard called it a "key law" that "Reality is proportional to the amount of charge off" the case. (HCOB 2 November 1968 Case Supervisor Class VIII The Basic Processes)

    When beginning pcs don't find "real" incidents to run, the remedy is to purposely run them on imaginary incidents. (HCOB 16 January 1975 Past Life Remedies.) Pretty soon those incidents start looking perfectly real.

    So the idea technically is to keep running them on anything that will run, keep getting that TA action on the e-meter and pretty soon those Scientologists will be mocking up some real doozies to run, and they'll "know" they're perfectly real.

    There's nothing quite like getting told by your auditor that your needle is floating, when that engram erased or that BT blew. What a win!

    Actually, what auditors do constantly is misevaluate for their pcs; that is, they evaluate incorrectly. It is possible, no matter how rare, to receive evaluation (or non-misevaluation) from some psychotherapist or counselor. But it's only possible to get misevaluation from Scientology auditors, beginning with the evaluation that auditing is what their pcs need.

    Logically, there must be incorrect evaluations, i.e., misevaluations; otherwise all evaluations would be correct. If auditors actually did evaluate for their pcs and ended the endless misevaluation, they would tell them to stop looking to Hubbard and the Scientologists for their evaluations.
     
  13. R6Basic

    R6Basic Patron Meritorious

    Right now you can play World of Warcraft for free up to level 20! :thumbsup:

    And what's great about that game is, unlike Scn., the abilities obtained are real. :)
     
  14. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    I found this today:

    https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!msg/alt.religion.scientology/fnkH09otHa8/mdd5UrRHRLUJ
     
  15. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    ok, I get what you are saying. I also follow now what you say in your posts. You are very simple (basic) in stating your viewpoint. To a certain degree I do the same. :thumbsup:
     
  16. Infinite

    Infinite Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller

    One snippet from that great link . . .

    . . . there were two studies done, with the cooperation of L Ron Hubbard, at New York University. One found no substantiation for the existence of Engrams and the other found that there was no measurable increase in various abilities as claimed by Dianetics. Of course, Stacy is talking about Scientology and not Dianetics, but I think its worth mentioning the the two university clinical trials.
     
  17. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    Got it.

    I will offer this. A simple study to do.

    Somebody on drugs. Says he wants to get off it. Do a OCA test, IQ test. Get them off the drugs by whatever means. Re do the tests. See the tests raise by 20 IQ points.

    Now, at the same time, have somebody in the same sit, wants to get off drugs, have them do the purif, re test the IQ test and OCA.

    My guess, same results. That is their IQ and OCA will raise.

    So do the same with any other therapy for whatever.

    It's a PR world per Hubbard. :thumbsup:
     
  18. Gottabrain

    Gottabrain Guest

    Good find, Gib!

    There are some great comments in there. Did you do the OT levels? Do you know what Incident 1 is?

    Here is one of the comments:



    INCIDENT 4

    LOUD SNAP (Bones breaking)
    CHEVROLETS COME OUT
    BURN RUBBER
    FISHTAIL RIGHT
    DO U-TURN
    STALL
    FLAT TIRE (No motion)
    BLOWS HORN
    BLOWS MISCAVIGE
    CRASH


    :hysterical: :hysterical:

    And Bob Minton wrote a comment on that thread, too:

    Peter, could it be the remnants of your Scieno/Psych/CCHR phobias kicking in to
    cause you to make what I consider to be such an uninformed statements on the
    effects of psychtropic drugs? Pyschotropic drugs neither "scramble up the mind"
    or make someone "no longer troubled." No doubt Diane Richardson will educate us
    further. :)


    >Anyway, all I can say is that personally, my mind is much clearer since I
    >stopped auditing OT7. I'm afraid that the real road to freedom consists of
    >confronting your own problems, and doing things in the real world, and not
    >sitting around turning your mind into mush with a lot of screwball Science
    >Fiction.

    Amen!

    Bob Minton
     
  19. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    I'm grade 0. Wife ot8.
     
  20. Infinite

    Infinite Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller

    Heh!! Like being on drugs doesn't affect your IQ. Very clever. But carrying out a before and after IQ test under clinical conditions and with a double-blind (or whatever they're called) would be a very easy measure of the efficacy of the claims made for Auditing. From a therapeutic perspective, there's also the EQ vs IQ aspect which might be a more interesting avenue for research. The difficulty, of course, is getting anyone even interested in looking at Auditing since one of its very foundation pillars - the state of Clear - is such a nonsense. And then, of course, there's the Engrams which remain, as yet, an unproven concept. Of course, any such examination of Scientology remains an anethma to Scientologists whose "knowingness" does not extend to a formal test of it. I was interested to see both Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder go into detail on a recent M&M Show blog about why it was essential the subject remain classified as a religion. They know L Ron Hubbard dodged a bullet with that PR manoeuvre.