Scientology abandoned by Hubbard's granddaughter & Miscavige's father

[Justinian2]

I don't understand the reference. Is the claim that Vicodin is a psychiatric drug?

I used the search function on that site (http://www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers/drug_warnings.php) and it wasn't listed under either vicodin or hydrocodone. If you have information that Holms was motivated in his attack by Vicodin, I would be interested in looking at it.

I drove 50,000 accident free miles while drunk in terms of percentage of blood alcohol before I was clear and OT. I've driven a million miles since being clear without alcohol, an accident or traffic violation. I don't believe that drugs make you irresponsible. However, they have been taken by many mass murderers as indicated by the link I gave you for http://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/.

 

[Myriad]

The massacre at the Colorado movie theater is an example of something that makes me angry. It would be an unhealthy sign to be unaffected by events at the movie theater or 911.

Maybe, but anger is usually far from the healthiest reaction. In the case of the movie theater massacre, who or what did you get angry at? The killer, who is probably mentally ill? Not everyone is understanding enough not to react to an attack with instinctive anger (just as an animal would), but it's sufficient to realize that such anger is useless; your anger has no effect on the killer, no benefit or value for the victims, and no use in society.

Misplaced anger at others -- the people of Colorado, for choosing via the democratic process to have laws that makes access to deadly weapons relatively easy; the founders of the state government, for enacting a system that permits that democratic process; the sellers of the weapons, for participating legally within that system -- would be even worse.

Skepticism could help you to reduce or eliminate such useless (at best) or harmful anger, by teaching you to examine how this anger arises (for instance, how your evolutionary origin contributes to the neural and social mechanisms that can drive you into it against your own will and interest) and to question its justifications, appropriateness, and usefulness.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Justinian2]

Maybe, but anger is usually far from the healthiest reaction. In the case of the movie theater massacre, who or what did you get angry at? The killer, who is probably mentally ill? Not everyone is understanding enough not to react to an attack with instinctive anger (just as an animal would), but it's sufficient to realize that such anger is useless; your anger has no effect on the killer, no benefit or value for the victims, and no use in society.

Misplaced anger at others -- the people of Colorado, for choosing via the democratic process to have laws that makes access to deadly weapons relatively easy; the founders of the state government, for enacting a system that permits that democratic process; the sellers of the weapons, for participating legally within that system -- would be even worse.

Skepticism could help you to reduce or eliminate such useless (at best) or harmful anger, by teaching you to examine how this anger arises (for instance, how your evolutionary origin contributes to the neural and social mechanisms that can drive you into it against your own will and interest) and to question its justifications, appropriateness, and usefulness.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Anger is normal. Displays of rage are not. A healthy person will channel his anger into a constructive path. An unhealthy person will not. Alternatively, an unhealthy person will feel nothing at all.

I see no value in skepticism. I see value in communication, but not skepticism. I also see no value in blind obedience to either God or government.

Skepticism, to me, enables bullies.

 

[Justinian2]

Maybe, but anger is usually far from the healthiest reaction. In the case of the movie theater massacre, who or what did you get angry at? The killer, who is probably mentally ill? Not everyone is understanding enough not to react to an attack with instinctive anger (just as an animal would), but it's sufficient to realize that such anger is useless; your anger has no effect on the killer, no benefit or value for the victims, and no use in society.

Misplaced anger at others -- the people of Colorado, for choosing via the democratic process to have laws that makes access to deadly weapons relatively easy; the founders of the state government, for enacting a system that permits that democratic process; the sellers of the weapons, for participating legally within that system -- would be even worse.
Skepticism could help you to reduce or eliminate such useless (at best) or harmful anger, by teaching you to examine how this anger arises (for instance, how your evolutionary origin contributes to the neural and social mechanisms that can drive you into it against your own will and interest) and to question its justifications, appropriateness, and usefulness.

Respectfully,
Myriad

I disagree with the highlighted paragraph. In fact I disagree with representative democracy. Some type of democracy is essential, but this type of democracy serves only the elite/the billionaires/the government.

I disagree also with allowing the sale of weapons that can fire multiple shots without reloading.

I disagree also with allowing the sale of weapons that can kill no matter where the bullet hits.

I also deplore this outrageous legal system and these outrageous laws.

Anybody with half a brain can design a better government (than any in the world) if encouraged to do so. Ok, the government and constitution of Peru seems pretty good.

 

[steve s]

Everybody's different. People are fat and thin, short and tall, talkative and quite, good and bad, happy and depressed, smart and ignorant.

It's true, however, that people aren't significantly different from many others to be worth a billion dollars or to be admired as stars.

But clears are supposed to have superhuman abilities that give them control over matter, energy, space, and time. You'd think that someone with such abilities would be able to avoid divorce, or the death of a child. The fact that they can't means they're no different than the rest of us ordinary mortals.

Steve S.

 

[Justinian2]

But clears are supposed to have superhuman abilities that give them control over matter, energy, space, and time. You'd think that someone with such abilities would be able to avoid divorce, or the death of a child. The fact that they can't means they're no different than the rest of us ordinary mortals.

Steve S.

You think that only super humans have control over matter, energy, space, and time? You don't? Hmmm. You need auditing if you think you don't.

No different than the rest of us ordinary mortals? Hmmm. You need auditing if you think we are all the same and that nobody's better than anybody else. Even among the middle 50% (in terms of wealth) there are ENORMOUS differences in ability. However, I don't think that that there is any difference in ability between a billionaire and a Mensan or graduate of a top university or top graduate of an average university. Sometimes there isn't even any difference between some in the top sports leagues and some in a lower league.

There are HUGE differences between the ability of people. Some may excel in a musical instrument, some may excel in a sport, some may excel in a language. People are hugely different. There are greater differences between people you believe to be normal than between some of the normal and some billionaires/CEOs/politicians.

 

[Twiler]

Every group/country/religion of size is guilty of something.

So scientology is comparable to many religions while also being the best path to perfection. Does not compute.

 

[Twiler]

I disagree with the highlighted paragraph. In fact I disagree with representative democracy. Some type of democracy is essential, but this type of democracy serves only the elite/the billionaires/the government.

I disagree also with allowing the sale of weapons that can fire multiple shots without reloading.

I disagree also with allowing the sale of weapons that can kill no matter where the bullet hits.

I also deplore this outrageous legal system and these outrageous laws.

Anybody with half a brain can design a better government (than any in the world) if encouraged to do so. Ok, the government and constitution of Peru seems pretty good.

Quick, someone encourage him to do so! (I'm on ignore)

 

[Myriad]

I disagree with the highlighted paragraph. In fact I disagree with representative democracy. Some type of democracy is essential, but this type of democracy serves only the elite/the billionaires/the government.

I disagree also with allowing the sale of weapons that can fire multiple shots without reloading.

I disagree also with allowing the sale of weapons that can kill no matter where the bullet hits.

I also deplore this outrageous legal system and these outrageous laws.

Anybody with half a brain can design a better government (than any in the world) if encouraged to do so. Ok, the government and constitution of Peru seems pretty good.

It's irrelevant whether you agree with them or not. (There is a politics forum here, where such opinions might be relevant.) If you disagree, you are free to move to Colorado and vote for change (or otherwise participate in the political system up to and including running for office). I'm afraid that if the only thing that would satisfy you is to have your own unilaterally decided system of government installed in place of the present system, then you will need to conquer Colorado and probably the U.S first.

What I'm talking about is your anger about such things. We were talking about anger and you brought up your disagreement; am I to infer that your disagreement causes you anger? If so, that's a serious problem (though a common enough one, to be sure) that will cause you (and likely others) unnecessary misery. If Scientology techniques have not cured you of it, you might try skepticism instead.

Any progress on finding those examples of people harmed by skeptical bullying or nasty skeptical criticism?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Myriad]

So scientology is comparable to many religions while also being the best path to perfection. Does not compute.

To be fair, Scientology is far from the only system of practice that over-promises in that regard.

The dialog usually goes like this:

A: "Join ______! Our disciples learn total mastery over their own mind, body, and will; the secrets of unfailingly successful personal relationships; life-changing techniques that guarantee material success; and a complete understanding of the true nature of the physical world that even physicists haven't learned yet."

B: "Excellent! I'm really eager to stop smoking, fix my marriage, get a better job, and be able to repair my own car."

A: "Whoa, whoa... hold on there, let's be reasonable and not expect miracles!"

The problem is, some promoters don't say that last line. Instead they say, "No problem! Make the check out to..."

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Justinian2]

Quick, someone encourage him to do so! (I'm on ignore)

I'm sure better governments have been designed.

Old Christopher was hardly the first to "discover" American in 1492. Thousands came before him.

Just because a man does something doesn't mean that it is accepted or known by society.

 

[Justinian2]

It's irrelevant whether you agree with them or not. (There is a politics forum here, where such opinions might be relevant.) If you disagree, you are free to move to Colorado and vote for change (or otherwise participate in the political system up to and including running for office). I'm afraid that if the only thing that would satisfy you is to have your own unilaterally decided system of government installed in place of the present system, then you will need to conquer Colorado and probably the U.S first.

What I'm talking about is your anger about such things. We were talking about anger and you brought up your disagreement; am I to infer that your disagreement causes you anger? If so, that's a serious problem (though a common enough one, to be sure) that will cause you (and likely others) unnecessary misery. If Scientology techniques have not cured you of it, you might try skepticism instead.

Any progress on finding those examples of people harmed by skeptical bullying or nasty skeptical criticism?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Respectfully,
Myriad

Disagreement doesn't cause me anger because I think differences are good. I'm not obsessed with stamping out differences as are many angry people.
My effort is to find agreement. Actually agreement is not so difficult these days. What is difficult is getting people to either leave this overgrown cult (society) and start in a new and different direction or to work towards meaningful change.

None of the proposals made by Republicans or Democrats will work. The politicians design for a telephone system would be a regulated telegraph system or tin cans with string between them. It makes me angry enough to post a few articles in various places and to write letters to the polecaticians (polecat + politician) and then I move to my happy place.

 

[marplots]

Any progress on finding those examples of people harmed by skeptical bullying or nasty skeptical criticism?

Nancy Grace comes to mind. Are you familiar with the suicides attributed to her?

Just to save time, I'll post the most common objection to my example. "But that's not skepticism!"

Indeed. Just as the Inquisition wasn't really Catholicism and the whacky funeral protestors aren't really Christians. No true skeptic.

I would point out the bullying she uses is in reaction to disbelief of anecdotal evidence and sometimes a demand for further evidence. Sound familiar?

 

[Halfcentaur]

The massacre at the Colorado movie theater is an example of something that makes me angry. It would be an unhealthy sign to be unaffected by events at the movie theater or 911.

Likewise it would be unhealthy to have long term continuous hostility directed at innocent people.

Your remark shows signs of hostility. Why are you so stressed out?

Is it possible for people to think you sound insane and that your beliefs sound like something out of a cult to the point they see you as a absurd without being themselves bullies, flawed, or generally subversive people?

What do you think of the Heaven's Gate group for instance?

 

[Halfcentaur]

I drove 50,000 accident free miles while drunk in terms of percentage of blood alcohol before I was clear and OT. I've driven a million miles since being clear without alcohol, an accident or traffic violation. I don't believe that drugs make you irresponsible. However, they have been taken by many mass murderers as indicated by the link I gave you for http://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/.

I would guess most of them also had eggs for breakfast and masturbated. Do you think pointing this out implies correlation?

 

[Twiler]

I'm sure better governments have been designed.

Old Christopher was hardly the first to "discover" American in 1492. Thousands came before him.

Just because a man does something doesn't mean that it is accepted or known by society.

Wait, I'm not on ignore? This changes everything!

What systems of government would work better than our current forms?

 

[tsig]

Every group/country/religion of size is guilty of something.

I thought that auditing was supposed to sort out these kind of people. If it can't what's the purpose of auditing?


Saying "others do it too' isn't much of a defense.

 

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Any progress on finding those examples of people harmed by skeptical bullying or nasty skeptical criticism?

Nancy Grace comes to mind. Are you familiar with the suicides attributed to her?

Just to save time, I'll post the most common objection to my example. "But that's not skepticism!"

Indeed. Just as the Inquisition wasn't really Catholicism and the whacky funeral protestors aren't really Christians. No true skeptic.

I would point out the bullying she uses is in reaction to disbelief of anecdotal evidence and sometimes a demand for further evidence. Sound familiar?

This Nancy Grace?

Born Nancy Ann Grace
October 23, 1959 (age 52)
Macon, Georgia, United States
Education Valdosta State University
Mercer University (BA, JD)
New York University (LLM)
Occupation Political commentator, television personality, former prosecutor
Years active 1996–present
Notable credit(s) Closing Arguments anchor (1996–2007)
Nancy Grace anchor (2005–present)
Religion Christian

 

[Myriad]

Nancy Grace comes to mind. Are you familiar with the suicides attributed to her?

Just to save time, I'll post the most common objection to my example. "But that's not skepticism!"

Indeed. Just as the Inquisition wasn't really Catholicism and the whacky funeral protestors aren't really Christians. No true skeptic.

I would point out the bullying she uses is in reaction to disbelief of anecdotal evidence and sometimes a demand for further evidence. Sound familiar?

If sometimes not believing anecdotal evidence or demanding more evidence when insufficient evidence is shown makes one a skeptic, then I suppose all of the ills of the world can be attributed to skeptics because no one believes everything they're told. But by the same token, sometimes holding a metal cylinder makes one a Scientologist, and I understand that 99% of all rapists and murderers fit that description. So, is that your position or would you prefer to answer the question seriously?

If the latter, then please offer evidence that Nancy Grace is a skeptic. Skeptic's organization events she's spoken at or attended, skeptical books she's written, skeptical blogs or message boards she comments on, articles in skeptics' publications? Words such as "skeptic" in a biography of her, anywhere?

The Inquisition was supported by the Catholic Church (the predominant Christian organization of its time) and the whacky funeral protesters identify themselves as Christians (the worlds "Baptist Church" are a clue) though many Christians do indeed hold the position that the WBC wackos do not practice Christianity. Overall, though, there's no question that Christians, like Scientologists, have done a lot of harm over the years. I was asking about skeptics, not Christians or Scientologists.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[marplots]

If sometimes not believing anecdotal evidence or demanding more evidence when insufficient evidence is shown makes one a skeptic, then I suppose all of the ills of the world can be attributed to skeptics because no one believes everything they're told. But by the same token, sometimes holding a metal cylinder makes one a Scientologist, and I understand that 99% of all rapists and murderers fit that description. So, is that your position or would you prefer to answer the question seriously?

If the latter, then please offer evidence that Nancy Grace is a skeptic. Skeptic's organization events she's spoken at or attended, skeptical books she's written, skeptical blogs or message boards she comments on, articles in skeptics' publications? Words such as "skeptic" in a biography of her, anywhere?

The Inquisition was supported by the Catholic Church (the predominant Christian organization of its time) and the whacky funeral protesters identify themselves as Christians (the worlds "Baptist Church" are a clue) though many Christians do indeed hold the position that the WBC wackos do not practice Christianity. Overall, though, there's no question that Christians, like Scientologists, have done a lot of harm over the years. I was asking about skeptics, not Christians or Scientologists.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Yes, I see. I should have asked for clarification. I see that under the definition I have to meet, I am not a skeptic. I do post at JREF, but I understand one doesn't have to declare oneself to be a skeptic to do so. I have no standing in the skeptic community, no blog, or any following or celebrity. But, using this more constricted notion of what you meant, I'll still see what I can come up with. Would Anonymous's attack on Scientology fall under the "bullying by a skeptical organization" label? Or do they get a pass, since they appear to only be skeptical of Scientology? But if that's the case, then how are we to tell if criticism here in the JREF is based on a skeptical stance or simply an artifact of people disagreeing? I hope you see the problem I'm having.


The request was to find an example of bullying from a skeptic or harm, correct?

On a hunch, I'll offer the recent kerfuffle about misogyny in the skeptical ranks as bullying. Since bullying is in the eyes of the perceived victim, I don't see why skepticism, especially in it's conversations with Christians, wouldn't be seen as a bully sometimes.

The harm part is rather an easy one, as long as it is general harm and harm in the service of truth isn't ruled out. For example, anything we do to debunk a charlatan making a living at her craft would constitute financial harm to that person. This too shouldn't be surprising, since each side of a binary stance, regardless of truth value, would tend to harm the other side.

But perhaps you meant physical harm? That would be harder to pull out of my rectum on an off beat.