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

marplots said:
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?
Click to expand...

Atheism is not an organized cult with bizarre beliefs. As for famous people who escape from the cult it is what they say about their experiences that counts, not the fact that they left.
 
Justinian2 said:
... 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. ...
Click to expand...

Sounds a bit like regging.
Do freezoners call us wogs, too?

Justinian2 said:
Nobody knows everything. The only morons are those that pretend to know or who offer opinions about subjects in which they are ignorant.
Click to expand...

You get flustered easily, Justinian.
How about answering my question about auditing files?


Justinian2 said:
...Scientology is different in that it combines therapy with basic dogma. When people started going past lives, Dianetics expanded and became the religion which we know as Scientology.
Click to expand...

Dogma?
Dogma based on visions of past lives?


Justinian2 said:
...Scientlogists also believe that you should "cause no harm". ...
Click to expand...

Fair game?


Justinian2 said:
...Scientology's official punishments are detailed in their Ethics book and Ethics policies.
Click to expand...

Would you quote them, please?
And the freezone punishments, too, so we may compare them.
 
Justinian2 said:
But I know that LRH has made statements about fair game etc.
Click to expand...

He's also made the statement that the claims laid out in Dianetics are scientifically-proven fact. Can you direct me towards the scientific journals in which the papers that test these claims are published?
 
Justinian2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then who or what are you praying to?
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
He's also made the statement that the claims laid out in Dianetics are scientifically-proven fact. Can you direct me towards the scientific journals in which the papers that test these claims are published?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it matters. We've already established that Dianetics, contrary to popular belief, is not the backbone of scientology. The backbone is actually past lives, although, not the past lives from 75 million years ago. It's very tough to keep up. Good thing the simple to use, yet hard to figure out e-meter is there to help.
 
Justinian2 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Postulate. Yet another perfectly useful word totally redefined for the purposes of mind-control by Hubbard.

Let me ask you a question -- If you have an MU with "postulate," and commence to word-clear it by using, say, the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition, will you find that it means prayer, in any of its definitions?

Thank you.
 
Filippo Lippi said:
I'm confused, I understood from an earlier thread that command of the English language was one of your superpowers
Click to expand...

If being clear means making threats and cheap jibes about the country I live in then I'm glad I'm not clear. I'm joking, of course, there is no such thing as clear, given that $cientology is based on Ron the Con's lies.
 
Justinian2 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Thank you for finally answering my question regarding what OT postulates are.

You haven't yet explained what converting an OT postulate into inspiration is, but I think I can fill in the rest. It means that you form an intention or wish ("postulate") for a change ("to be a cause over") in the real world ("MEST"), and instead of the change actually happening, you derive insight or ideas ("inspiration") by contemplating why it did not happen.

This is indeed an enlightened feat, one that can only be rivaled by, say, a seven year old who prays for a pony, and eventually comes away with the insight that neither God nor the universe will materialize a pony out of nothing for her, and that she should be more understanding of the sacrifices her parents make to provide her with what she does have, and that instead of praying for a pony she should be praying for richer parents. (Higher toned insights are more likely at a more mature age.)

Note that the Scientology version of this, "OT postulate into inspiration," only works if one starts with the assumption that you are specially empowered such that your wish (postulate) must and shall come true. Otherwise there is nothing to contemplate; if the answer to "what went wrong?" were "duh, wishes don't come true by thinking about them" (the actual correct answer), no further insight would be forthcoming. So the fiction that you are exercising or attempting to exercise actual OT powers over reality is necessary to achieve the mental benefits actually derived.

I think this is a good explanation for why you and other Scientologists find it necessary and appropriate to claim or imply, in the face of scientific knowledge to the contrary, common sense to the contrary, and decades of inability to actually demonstrate any such claim, that OT superpowers "like in the Matrix" are real. Do you agree, or do you have anything to correct or add?

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
Thank you for finally answering my question regarding what OT postulates are.

You haven't yet explained what converting an OT postulate into inspiration is, but I think I can fill in the rest. It means that you form an intention or wish ("postulate") for a change ("to be a cause over") in the real world ("MEST"), and instead of the change actually happening, you derive insight or ideas ("inspiration") by contemplating why it did not happen.

This is indeed an enlightened feat, one that can only be rivaled by, say, a seven year old who prays for a pony, and eventually comes away with the insight that neither God nor the universe will materialize a pony out of nothing for her, and that she should be more understanding of the sacrifices her parents make to provide her with what she does have, and that instead of praying for a pony she should be praying for richer parents. (Higher toned insights are more likely at a more mature age.)

Note that the Scientology version of this, "OT postulate into inspiration," only works if one starts with the assumption that you are specially empowered such that your wish (postulate) must and shall come true. Otherwise there is nothing to contemplate; if the answer to "what went wrong?" were "duh, wishes don't come true by thinking about them" (the actual correct answer), no further insight would be forthcoming. So the fiction that you are exercising or attempting to exercise actual OT powers over reality is necessary to achieve the mental benefits actually derived.

I think this is a good explanation for why you and other Scientologists find it necessary and appropriate to claim or imply, in the face of scientific knowledge to the contrary, common sense to the contrary, and decades of inability to actually demonstrate any such claim, that OT superpowers "like in the Matrix" are real. Do you agree, or do you have anything to correct or add?

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Certain OT drills have demonstrated that certain things are effected/affected by the OT postulate. The demonstrations give the OT a level of confidence that his postulates will stick and that his insights are good.

This quote is from http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part14/Chp50/pg1023.html

postulate: a conclusion, decision or resolution made by the individual himself to resolve a problem or to set a pattern for the future or to nullify a pattern of the past. For example, a person says, “I like Model T Fords. I am never going to drive another car.” Years later, no longer consciously aware of this postulate, he will wonder why he is having so much trouble with his Buick; it’s because he has made an earlier promise to himself. In order to change he has to change that postulate.
Click to expand...
 
Justinian2 said:
Certain OT drills have demonstrated that certain things are effected/affected by the OT postulate. The demonstrations give the OT a level of confidence that his postulates will stick and that his insights are good.

This quote is from http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part14/Chp50/pg1023.html
postulate: a conclusion, decision or resolution made by the individual himself to resolve a problem or to set a pattern for the future or to nullify a pattern of the past. For example, a person says, “I like Model T Fords. I am never going to drive another car.” Years later, no longer consciously aware of this postulate, he will wonder why he is having so much trouble with his Buick; it’s because he has made an earlier promise to himself. In order to change he has to change that postulate.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Unfortunately from this example it isn't absolutely unambiguous whether the troubles are conventional car troubles or involve something out of the ordinary. I mean, is it just that because of the postulate the car owner doesn't take care of this Buick, and so he has problems, or perhaps finds fault with it where none-exists? Or is it that the car genuinely has some kind of "evil eye" on it? Somehow your examples and explanations seem to hover on the border where you seem to be saying your postulate is able to have some kind of external influence without having to use your hands to exert that influence, and yet you don't quite absolutely rule that out.

Could you make it absolutely explicit please? Is some process going on, even if only sometimes, in the fulfillment of these postulates that falls outside conventional physics/biology? It would be really helpful if you could just say A or B, where
A = I claim it sometimes works by methods outside normal physics/biology
B = I do not claim it sometimes works by methods outside normal physics/biology

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Don't $cientologists ever look in dictionaries?



pos·tu·late
tr.v. pos·tu·lat·ed, pos·tu·lat·ing, pos·tu·lates
1. To make claim for; demand.
2. To assume or assert the truth, reality, or necessity of, especially as a basis of an argument.
3. To assume as a premise or axiom; take for granted.
 
shuttlt said:
Is some process going on, even if only sometimes, in the fulfillment of these postulates that falls outside conventional physics/biology?
Click to expand...

Nothing happens outside of conventional physics or biology, L. Ron Hubbard says explicitly in Dianetics that the claims he makes are scientifically proven.

On that subject, Justinian, can you direct me to the scientific journals in which the papers which test the claims made in Dianetics were published, please?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom