anonycat?

[Gib]

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!

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.

 

[Panda Termint]

Thanks. Of course Hubbard was, as often, quite incorrect in his assessment of things which scientology might be (and is) upbraided for. It really has little to do with "no results" and a whole lot to do with fraud, crime, scam, abuse, inflicted harm... etc (ie: a whole litany of "reprehensibles").

 

[Gib]

Well, of course. Anecdotal "evidence" isn't worth spit no matter what is said.

But then your statement edges into

"shifting the burden of proof"

. It isn't up to anyone to prove that Scientology technology doesn't do what Hubbard promised. That's not just silly, it's stupid. The burden of proof for any and all of Hubbard's claims lies solely with Hubbard and any of his followers who continue to make the same claims. Period.

When Hubbard and his followers fail to prove his claims, his claims may be rightfully be considered false. That's the way logic and science works. One would not logically consider unproven claims to be true - that is insane.

Bill

I'll be blunt,

Hubbard shifted the "burden of proof", to the person receiving auditing by creating the Attestation line in scientology during the 1965 time period. It's in the Opening Pandora's Box tread as explained by Roger B, Alan, Mystic, etc..

The PC attests to having gotten the gains after a auditing rundown such as Grade 0, or Grade 1, and so on. While Hubbard gives his EP's in the grade chart, it's the PC who attests.

And Hubbard gives himself another out, by then saying it's a high crime to false attest. The perfect trap for a person who got some gains, some results, but not the EP.

 

[Gib]

Thanks. Of course Hubbard was, as often, quite incorrect in his assessment of things which scientology might be (and is) upbraided for. It really has little to do with "no results" and a whole lot to do with fraud, crime, scam, abuse, inflicted harm... etc (ie: a whole litany of "reprehensibles").

I disagree & agree Panda, it has everything to do with getting some results (the only thing you can be upbraided for is getting no results), that's the cheese. Don't you think?

The sentence "the only thing you can be upbraided for is no results" means you got some results. You did, you got some wins, some insight into looking into your past, one used some of hubbards ideas to get a win, which were just restated ideas of others. That's the trap.

 

[Gib]

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

Birdie gets some results.

He doesn't get "no results"

And that is all I have to say.

 

[Panda Termint]

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.

 

[freethinker]

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.

I'm not so much claiming that people don't really believe that auditing helped or had some positive effect. The thing is, that beyond a general sense of wellbeing that counseling can provide if done by a skilled practitioner LRH promised that auditing could cure all sorts of conditions and give practitioners all kinds of wondrous abilities and expanded intellect. THOSE are the things that I care about and such claims require scientific evaluation if they are to be taken seriously.

This would be like a traditional talk therapist who's clients report unquantifiable positive results like less stress, or more at peace or something . But claiming that in addition to those positive effects, her therapy also cures schizophrenia. Well, it's not incumbent upon her to prove the general well being claims scientifically we all understand the subjective nature of those claims, but the schizophrenia claim MUST be verified scientifically for her to be able to responsibly subject anyone to her treatment.

 

[Bill]

You do a disservice to those lurkers who are on the fence, wanting to get out, but part of them feeling that they benefit from Scientology. This type of lurker might very well shut out as completely biased someone whose only message is, "look at how horrible it is, there's nothing good there, only the insane could possibly believe they have good experiences with Scientology."

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

 

[Lone Star]

I disagree & agree Panda, it has everything to do with getting some results (the only thing you can be upbraided for is getting no results), that's the cheese. Don't you think?

The sentence "the only thing you can be upbraided for is no results" means you got some results. You did, you got some wins, some insight into looking into your past, one used some of hubbards ideas to get a win, which were just restated ideas of others. That's the trap.

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

 

[Panda Termint]

Lol, I love cheese! Traps, not so much!

 

[Lone Star]

Lol, I love cheese! Traps, not so much!

Noted

 

[SweetnessandLight]

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

 

[AnonKat]

[video=youtube;WVZlCDp-o5c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVZlCDp-o5c[/video]

 

[slobeck]

If science is so great, why are so many scientists miserable?

OMG. You mean science, as a practice, failed as promised to make scientists happy? Oh wait. Science never promised any such thing.

Or do you mean to say that is science were great, all scientists would be happy?

Hey, so if art is so great, why are so many artists use drugs and commit suicide? Oh, right art is great in spite of the fact that so many artists suffer serious depression.

 

[BardoThodol]

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

Mia culpa. Didn't know your complete position, but then again, as I spend only minutes on esmb a day, I can't read and assimilate everything everyone writes and can't attribute who thinks what to particular authors. i only respond in a general way to specific posts.

Thank you for the clarification.

As for theoretical people, we are mostly theoretical to one another here on message boards, forming ideas from bits and pieces of information, said or implied.

I do know that from reading other message boards/blogs that some who are coming out of Scientology visit this board and walk away quickly because "there's so much anger and hatred." And that's how esmb is positioned by some Indies.

I believe many posters feel someone is "putting words into their mouth" when sometimes it's merely a personal response to what is said. Not everything here is sequitur. Nor is it that way in the rest of our lives. None of us has the space nor time to write every nuanced thought that supports why we think what we do. We leave out parts. Others fill in those parts, often in ways we would not, which makes it seem they've misunderstood our wonderful train of thought.

Sometimes we learn from those unexpected additions. Sometimes we just scoff. Or something else.

I doubt that you're done with ranting. Scientology deserves a continuous rant. And I appreciate your efforts to dismantle the damn thing even when we're at disagreement over subheadings.

Of all the things I've told my wife, my favorite is, "Honey, you know I'll do anything for you--I just might not do it very well."

We all want this "church" that uses society's laws to protect it's criminal acts to receive its due. There's a lot of wrongs that have to be righted.

 

[BardoThodol]

OMG. You mean science, as a practice, failed as promised to make scientists happy? Oh wait. Science never promised any such thing.

Or do you mean to say that is science were great, all scientists would be happy?

Hey, so if art is so great, why are so many artists use drugs and commit suicide? Oh, right art is great in spite of the fact that so many artists suffer serious depression.

Dadgumit, you caught me for being a lazy thinker. I'm gonna have to just write and write and write every possible exception and possibility in every post to avoid such lapses.

Let me think. I could cover this subject in ...uh, carry the 3...multiply by...oh, hell, just about a million pages.

Bet that would get a lot of TLDNR's.

The libraries of earth are full of debate over this. Books and books and books. And now with all the multi-media.

How does one find happiness?

You are correct. Art does not guarantee happiness for its practitioners. Lots of suicides with artists.

So, maybe, if I understand you, we should have nothing to do with art.

And because science doesn't promise happiness, I should turn off my a/c and wallow in my sweat.

Such profound thinking just gives me a headache. I like my art. I like my a/c. I like being lazy.

Doesn't matter what profession a person has, the common principle to happiness is the willingness and ability to find that joy in whatever you're doing or experiencing.

There was a famous man (I'm too lazy to look him up, and my memory just won't dislodge his name) who found himself in the German concentration camps and learned that even in those most cruel circumstances he could find joy. Your circumstances do not dictate your responses, nor your feelings. Your environment does not dictate how you feel.

Nor do your occupation or areas of interest.

Each of us has various quotients of intelligence in myriad areas. We all have different levels of emotional intelligence, and some people can find happiness where others cannot. Just as some people can sit down with a mathematical puzzle and solve it with a glance, while others can't understand it even when it is patiently explained.

You could be a genius in art and science and still be miserable, or you could be just an average Joe and still be fantastically happy.

Of course, there's that ignorance is bliss bromide, so you can point out that some very stupid people seem to be very happy.

That might well be me.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

snippety snip

I do know that from reading other message boards/blogs that some who are coming out of Scientology visit this board and walk away quickly because "there's so much anger and hatred." And that's how esmb is positioned by some Indies.

LOL! Theres a lot more 'anger and hatred' just under the surface within the cofs.

I sometimes think that some people expect us to still 'behave like scientologists' in order to accommodate Indies or people on the way out of the cofs ... by that I mean 'ack' each other and search for agreement via "ARC" but I won't be doing that any time soon because it's cultic and unnatural and I'm not a scientologist.

I don't see much anger and hate here at all, ESMB is (mainly) filled with honesty, passion and laughter.

...

Posted by Bardo

Of all the things I've told my wife, my favorite is, "Honey, you know I'll do anything for you--I just might not do it very well."

That's lovely.

 

[BardoThodol]

LOL! Theres a lot more 'anger and hatred' just under the surface within the cofs.

I sometimes think that some people expect us to still 'behave like scientologists' in order to accommodate Indies or people on the way out of the cofs ... by that I mean 'ack' each other and search for agreement via "ARC" but I won't be doing that any time soon because it's cultic and unnatural and I'm not a scientologist.

I don't see much anger and hate here at all, ESMB is (mainly) filled with honesty, passion and laughter.




That's lovely.

No, I don't see all that much anger and hatred here either. Mostly people just hanging out, sharing and having a good time.

As for anger, if you can't get mad around your friends you probably don't have friends.

There actually are things in life that deserve our contempt and anger. Without those feelings we wouldn't be complete.

Then again, a cake recipe might call for salt, but two cups would make a lousy cake.

 

[Bill]

But this is bizarre. You want to introduce new logical axioms that only apply for the specific case of Scientology? If you're willing to do that, it seems unnecessarily complicated to take these assumptions about who has the burden of proof. They're not self-consistent in general, but if all you want to do is deny Scientology, why not just drop them in favor of immediately assuming that Scientology is false, and be done with it?

I thought you were trying to argue that Scientology is false, based on assumptions that are generally valid. I was pointing out that you haven't actually done that, because your claims about burdens of proof that make unproven claims automatically false don't make sense as being generally valid. You appealed to logic, but logic doesn't do what you want. If all you really want to do is make special claims that only apply to Scientology, why mention logic?

I'm arguing with you precisely because I think Scientology is bad. I am not trying to find a leg for Scientologists to stand on. But I think it only helps smart people stay trapped in Scientology if they hear arguments against Scientology that are really bad.

I do understand your point that, without proof in either direction, a claim is "technically" still "possibly true".

I don't think this "technical" definition helps people in evaluating Scientology.

This means that any claim made by anyone must be considered "possibly true" - no matter what.

This means that there is no responsibility on anyone to actually prove their claims. They must be considered "possibly true" forever.

We must ignore all the failed attempts to prove the claims true. Tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands who have attempted and failed to reach the "Clear" and "OT" that Hubbard promised by applying his "tech" must be ignored and we must continue to say "possibly true".

Decades of these failures must be ignored. We must never think "these claims are false" but only "these claims are possibly true".

And, in your theoretically "perfect world", that's correct. I got it.

And I have only this to say: "Hubbard's claims that his 'tech' will produce Clears and OTs ARE FALSE. He lied. It is 'possibly true' that a state like 'OT' is attainable, but Scientology does not produce such a state."

Sorry, I just can't agree that Hubbard's claims are "possibly true". Not any more.

I'm definitely not perfect - I'm just pragmatic.

Bill

 

[freethinker]

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.

I do understand your point that, without proof in either direction, a claim is "technically" still "possibly true".
Bill