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

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

When people started going past lives, Dianetics expanded and became the religion which we know as Scientology.

Cool. In Dianetics, L. Ron Hubbard says that the claims he makes in that book are scientific fact. Can you direct me towards the scientific journals in which the papers which test those claims are published, please?

 

[elbe]

Scientology doesn't attack other religions. In fact, Scientology shares basic beliefs with all other religions. Christianity espouses "Love thy neighbor". Scientology maintains that "Love is the greatest power". I think all religions share similar concepts.

Scientology tends not to advertise itself as a different religion than, say, christianity because it would be harder to get the christians to come in and take their little test (speaking of which, did anyone ever find out what clapping had to do with anything? Or am I the only one who remembers that?). It's fully "compatible" with your current religion because it isn't a religion, it's a way to bilk money from you.

 

[shuttlt]

Scientology doesn't attack other religions. In fact, Scientology shares basic beliefs with all other religions. Christianity espouses "Love thy neighbor". Scientology maintains that "Love is the greatest power". I think all religions share similar concepts.

But those aren't really things that are "true of false" are they? Anyway, it's not as if "love is the greatest power" is something that all religions would agree on, is it? I'm pretty sure Christianity is more keen on this doctrinally than Islam and Judaism, say. Are they wrong? Christians believe Christ was the son of God, Jews, Muslims, etc don't. Muslims believe Mohammad was God's prophet, Christians and Jews, etc.. don't. Are you claiming that all these things are simultaneously true and false, or do you believe that most religions are wrong about most of their dogma? I don't see another possibility other than pretending the issue doesn't exist.

 

[Justinian2]

But those aren't really things that are "true of false" are they? Anyway, it's not as if "love is the greatest power" is something that all religions would agree on, is it? I'm pretty sure Christianity is more keen on this doctrinally than Islam and Judaism, say. Are they wrong? Christians believe Christ was the son of God, Jews, Muslims, etc don't. Muslims believe Mohammad was God's prophet, Christians and Jews, etc.. don't. Are you claiming that all these things are simultaneously true and false, or do you believe that most religions are wrong about most of their dogma? I don't see another possibility other than pretending the issue doesn't exist.

Religions believe in prayer. Scientologists call their prayers 'postulates' and they are addressed to no god. Never the less, the Scientology prayer/postulates, like other religions, have a fervent hope that the prayer/postulate comes true.

Scientlogists also believe that you should "cause no harm". In fact, this is listed as a characteristic of the social personality.

Some of society's belief that you should punish your enemies has crept into all religions even though not religious dogma.

 

[dafydd]

Some of society's belief that you should punish your enemies has crept into all religions even though not religious dogma.

Ron Hubbard believed in punishing his enemies.

 

[Krikkiter]

You don't want to know how the Emeter works. What you want to know is how the human body works. What you want to know is why the skin resistance changes.

I've seen what the electrical impulses at the end of nerves look like. The nerves emit short duration pulses. I don't know if these pulses are the source of the movements seen on the Emeter or not. Long term movements that might be caused by sweat or drying skin are ignored.

It is probably an unsatisfying route to explore how the skin changes resistance as the scientific explaination isn't there and since long term changes in resistance are ignored. Most people gain 100% certaintainty in the Emeter by seeing it demonstrated at the Church of Scientology either as a demonstration or as an introductory session. Introductory sessions used to cost only $25.

It's folly to explain what can be so easily demonstrated.

No. You say it works. Show me evidence that it works. Not an insistence that I'm asking the wrong question; not a change of subject; not a referral to a demonstration or a hand wave. You've made the claim that it works. Evidence please.

If you really think there's anything to learn by looking at the schematic, then follow this link:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/E-Meter/

It's a simple device.

Do you know what the device does and how it does it? Can you explain to me, in your own words what the device does and how it does it?

 

[dafydd]

Religions believe in prayer. Scientologists call their prayers 'postulates' and they are addressed to no god. Never the less, the Scientology prayer/postulates, like other religions, have a fervent hope that the prayer/postulate comes true.

Totally ineffectual then. You may as well put some chicken bones under your pillow. Nevertheless is one word, by the way. Even a moron like me knows that.

 

[shuttlt]

Religions believe in prayer. Scientologists call their prayers 'postulates' and they are addressed to no god. Never the less, the Scientology prayer/postulates, like other religions, have a fervent hope that the prayer/postulate comes true.

Do all religions have prayer? Anyway, it's beside the point. The fact that you can find a couple of things that kind of look vaguely equivalent (apart from the things that are different - i.e. they are praying TO something, and I gather you aren't) across quite a few religions isn't the point. It doesn't make Christians believe in Mohammed, Muslims believe Christ was the Son of God, or Hindus believe there is only one God.

Scientlogists also believe that you should "cause no harm". In fact, this is listed as a characteristic of the social personality.

I imagine it is rather more complicated that that. Are Scientologists pacifists? The devil is in how you define "harm".

Some of society's belief that you should punish your enemies has crept into all religions even though not religious dogma.

In quite a few religions, God is supposed to have explicitly said that people should punish their enemies. How is this creeping in?

Do you, or don't you believe that most religions are wrong about an aweful lot of what they believe? If you don't, could you tell me how Islam can be right about the status of Jesus at the same time as Christians being right about him, and at the same time as Jews being right about him... and the same for Mohammad?

 

[dafydd]

Do you, or don't you believe that most religions are wrong about an aweful lot of what they believe? If you don't, could you tell me how Islam can be right about the status of Jesus at the same time as Christians being right about him, and at the same time as Jews being right about him... and the same for Mohammad?

Easy peasy. All religions are fantasies, including $cientology, which is based on a lie about curing non-existent war wounds.

 

[Justinian2]

Ron Hubbard believed in punishing his enemies.

Punishing bodies is VERY low on his tone scale.

But I know that LRH has made statements about fair game etc. I don't believe in punishing my enemies, but if an enemy gets hurt while I am defending myself from his attack, I am not disappointed.

My only punishment while in non-Miscavige Scientology was to drill and practice. Or I might be sent to Ethics to talk to the EO (Ethics Officer) and go through the steps necessary to normalize my condition.

Scientology's official punishments are detailed in their Ethics book and Ethics policies.

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

Scientlogists also believe that you should "cause no harm". In fact, this is listed as a characteristic of the social personality.

Then why was LRH so obsessed with causing harm to his detractors? He wrote many papers thousands of pages, weighing a few pounds, about how to do just that.

 

[Justinian2]

Totally ineffectual then. You may as well put some chicken bones under your pillow. Nevertheless is one word, by the way. Even a moron like me knows that.

We agree.

Thanks for the correction. Nevertheless is one word.

 

[dafydd]

Punishing bodies is VERY low on his tone scale.

But I know that LRH has made statements about fair game etc. I don't believe in punishing my enemies, but if an enemy gets hurt while I am defending myself from his attack, I am not disappointed.

My only punishment while in non-Miscavige Scientology was to drill and practice. Or I might be sent to Ethics to talk to the EO (Ethics Officer) and go through the steps necessary to normalize my condition.

Scientology's official punishments are detailed in their Ethics book and Ethics policies.

Sounds like the Nazi party. No such thing as a tone scale.

 

[dafydd]

Then why was LRH so obsessed with causing harm to his detractors? He wrote many papers thousands of pages, weighing a few pounds, about how to do just that.

It's always fascinating to see somebody trying to defend the indefensible.

 

[dafydd]

We agree.

Thanks for the correction. Nevertheless is one word.

If I'm a moron, then what does that make you? I knew it was one word, you didn't.

 

[Garrette]

It's just a skin galvanometer with extra dials to "tweak" the results.

Honestly, though, you'd probably get a better idea of what someone's thinking just watching their face (which I assume they do anyways but claim it's their little toy). It's not like it's completely useless, but it's hardly the be-all end-all tool scientologists claim it to be. Isn't the first rule in tool use knowing your tools; what they can and can't be used for?

It is likely useful in a way similar to that in which polygraphs are useful: Those who think it will work, or who are nervous or anxious for any reason, can be talked into something beneficial to the interviewer's intent. This is separate from any actual functionality of the physical device; both are similar to the cold or warm reading of a willing believer who visits an alleged psychic.

 

[marplots]

We agree.

Thanks for the correction. Nevertheless is one word.

Not always. For example, here's a good rule for choosing knowledge: "Never the less take, always the more."

Let's play pedant tag.

 

[dafydd]

Let's play pedant tag.

A very good suggestion. We've left the topic of the thread far behind, so what the hell?

 

[shuttlt]

Let's play pedant tag.

Never the less, shouldn't that be "pedant's tag"? You can't go wrong if you throw an apostrophe into a conversation about pedantry, I always say.

 

[marplots]

Never the less, shouldn't that be "pedant's tag"? You can't go wrong if you throw an apostrophe into a conversation about pedantry, I always say.

You win.

To get back to the OP, I have a little beef with it. I read it as implying that the people who quit Scientology are newsworthy, and their defection supports the notion that Scientology is bogus.

If you accept that as at least part of the argument, I'd like to point out a logical flaw. It works like this:

When someone disagrees with me about Scientology, they are nuts. When that person then changes their stance, they are sane. But it's the same person doing the evaluation. In this case, someone who was a dedicated follower (OK, that's assumed, but likely) for many years jumps ship -- how can I put more credence in the defection than in the fact that they joined up in the first place? Shouldn't they be tainted in the same way a traitor would be, or an adulterer when either asks you to trust them?

I saw a thread recently about an atheist who defected to Christianity. Should that person be held as an exemplar because they were well versed in atheism?

I admit I'm imputing a bit into the OP, but I think I'm not far off the "gotcha" mindset. I've felt it myself when someone deserted the Christian team and joined mine. It felt like justification when logically it shouldn't.