For the record, I think non-members critical of the church are terrible when it comes to persuading anyone favorable toward Scientology. The extremes on both sides are just too . . . extreme. The critics charge forward metaphorically waving their arms going "Run! It's sinister and evil! Fear the threat! It's a cult where everything in it is just a deliberate scheme of brainwashing!" A critic not writing "Scientology" without replacing the S with a dollar sign makes them sound more bitter than sensible, like someone who must write "crapple" instead of "apple" because they hate apples. They come forward talking only about the most ridiculous aspects of the religion rather than the courses that make up most of a Scientologist's experience, talking endlessly about Hubbard and scandals of the church rather than how pseudoscientific auditing or the content of its courses are. It just. doesn't. come off. as level-headed. It's like the difference between a Libertarian using reasoned arguments to describe how government and various regulations are flawed and an anti-government ranter talking about how the government and various regulations are evil. The inability to refer to Scientology in a neutral way sometimes comes off the same
I'm saying this as someone who grew up in Scientology, is critical of Scientology most of the time and no longer counts himself as a Scientologist. Maybe it's just me but the extreme of negativity critics *need* to describe Scientology with comes off to me the same way as Scientology's need to make Psychiatry as evil as possible; it can't just be wrong and pseudoscientific, etc. It has to be actively evil and menacing and out to get you. It can't just be full of unsubstantiated non-science that can seem effective or legitimate at first like any alternative medicine or pseudo-therapy, but than falls apart on closer inspection, no it has to be so oooobviously retarded that it's genuinely insulting to anybody who might be considering it or taken in, because they must be so duuumb and laughably stupid to be taken in by something sooooo oooobviously outrageous.
But I assure you, like other magic tricks, or just tricks, Scientology DOES seem effective when you first get into it, and that apparent effectiveness is the reason people accept more outrageous claims (It seems to work, Hubbard must know what he's doing), and critics must understand and respect that it seems to work and explain why it seems to work or make sense to be convincing to those who start believing. You don't debunk alternative medicine without explaining the placebo effect, you don't debunk psychics or astrology without explaining the Forer effect, but I get the impression skeptics think they can debunk Scientology by explaining nothing about why people feel it works for them.
Even as an ex-Scientologist, I still find most criticism of Scientology totally unconvincing. It must be convincing to some people, otherwise it wouldn't be made, but I just don't see it. At all.
