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

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
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?
Click to expand...
That doesn't rule out them being proven, but not known to conventional science. Anyway, I think for the purposes of this discussion, it would be better for the answer to come from Justinian.
 
Actually, this "proven" thing, suddenly reminded me of the Book of Mormon again. A bunch of witnesses signed statements saying they had "seen" the original reformed Egyptian metal plates that their prophet had dug up. Later at least one of them explained that they hadn't in fact seen them with their mortal eyes, but as some kind of spiritual vision. I wonder whether it is something similar here where it is scientifically proven by faith, or some such?
 
shuttlt said:
That doesn't rule out them being proven, but not known to conventional science..
Click to expand...

How can they be proven? Honest Ron said he used Dianetics to cure his war wounds. He was not wounded, therefore he could not have used Dianetics to cure said wounds.
 
marplots said:
It's getting harder to come up with any useful counters to the culty-Scientology story, especially since I've been reading (still!) some of the links given out here. However, I've had one eye out for "true claims" and think I've found a couple.

Here are two things Scientology does that shouldn't be too hard to prove as "working as intended to produce real-world results."

The first is using lawyers to sue people into submission.

The second is the policy of disconnecting from troublemakers to keep others from voicing dissent and criticism.
Click to expand...

Good points, and worth repeating. And for quite a while, they worked.

The first point works quite well in the USA, where a lawsuit costs a ton (quite literally), and you can sue an adversary into bankruptcy. In most of the rest of the world, it doesn't work that way. When the internet connected individuals around the world in instant speed, mid/end-90s, and anti-Scientology sites sprung up around the world, Scientology tried the same tactics in, e.g., various European countries and failed utterly.

The second point has worked for a long time too. But it is failing now too. That is a more recent phenomenon - but then, I haven't quite closely followed Scientology in the last ten years (I followed it closely when Scientology sued Spain and Dutch ISPs, as well as when Scientology lawyer Helena Kobrin tried to remove the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology). Whether it is that Scientology internal politics have become so much more repressive, or that there's now so much critical material out there for anyone to peruse, but the last few years so many Scientologists have jumped ship (and gone to the press) that it's clear that that policy doesn't work anymore either. Still, it's amazing when you read the story of John Brousseau with how crap Scientologists put up before they escape.
 
dafydd said:
How can they be proven? Honest Ron said he used Dianetics to cure his war wounds. He was not wounded, therefore he could not have used Dianetics to cure said wounds.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming LRH went back in time and altered history?

That would be an amazing power to have.
 
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.
Click to expand...


Well, yeah. But all of those "certain things" that are influenced directly by the OT postulate are subjective aspects of the OT's own mind, correct?

So, if you're having trouble with your Buick because of a counterproductive postulate of only ever driving driving Model T's, the effect might be having a less responsible attitude about maintaining the Buick properly, or simply overreacting emotionally to Buick problems, leading to (in the first case) having more problems or (in the second case) simply feeling more dissatisfaction with the Buick for no good reason.

The OT's postulate doesn't magically affect the functioning of the automobile directly, like increasing or decreasing carbon buildup on the cylinder heads or changing the rate of oxidation of the radiator tubing. That would be silly.

Is that a reasonably accurate assessment? What would you amend or add, to make it more accurate?

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Last edited:
Christian Klippel said:
They do. However, the only reason for that is so that they can make up their very own definition of the word as far away from it's original meaning as possible.

That's why they sound so funny.

Greetings,

Chris
Click to expand...

They do, don't they? I wonder if they realize how they sound to people who haven't been brainwashed by the cult.
 
dafydd said:
The wink smilie would have sufficed. ;)
Click to expand...

Thank you. ;)

If anything, my point about LRH time travel is how you can use new and exciting woo to repair difficulties with traditional woo.

My two favorite patches being:
"That's the way God wanted it."
and time travel.
 
Myriad said:
Well, yeah. But all of those "certain things" that are influenced directly by the OT postulate are subjective aspects of the OT's own mind, correct?

So, if you're having trouble with your Buick because of a counterproductive postulate of only ever driving driving Model T's, the effect might be having a less responsible attitude about maintaining the Buick properly, or simply overreacting emotionally to Buick problems, leading to (in the first case) having more problems or (in the second case) simply feeling more dissatisfaction with the Buick for no good reason.

The OT's postulate doesn't magically affect the functioning of the automobile directly, like increasing or decreasing carbon buildup on the cylinder heads or changing the rate of oxidation of the radiator tubing. That would be silly.

Is that a reasonably accurate assessment? What would you amend or add, to make it more accurate?

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

It's all coincidence, of course, but my Buick just blew up. The engine failed and the replacement cost will be $5000 for a rebuilt engine. It has nothing to do with the fact my Ford is Ford tough and has been 129000 miles with no problems.

My postulate was to get another Ford, not a Buick. I never liked GM cars.

I think LRH's idea would have held more credance if my original dislike for the car company caused me to drive the Buick without oil, or something like that. But I did not. I treated the car with ARC/love.

It's all coincidence, of course, but my Buick just blew up. But the mechanic didn't like fixing the supercharger and liked having my wife bring it in for repairs. He did it! It was my mechanic's evil postulate!

Just kidding. Not totally serious.

Actually Obama did it. It was his fault! Or did Bush do it?

This quote is from http://www.whatisscientology.org

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...
 
Last edited:
Justinian2 said:
It's all coincidence, of course, but my Buick just blew up. The engine failed and the replacement cost will be $5000 for a rebuilt engine. It has nothing to do with the fact my Ford is Ford tough and has been 129000 miles with no problems.

My postulate was to get another Ford, not a Buick. I never liked GM cars.

I think LRH's idea would have held more credance if my original dislike for the car company caused me to drive the Buick without oil, or something like that. But I did not. I treated the car with ARC/love.

It's all coincidence, of course, but my Buick just blew up. But the mechanic didn't like fixing the supercharger and liked having my wife bring it in for repairs. He did it! It was my mechanic's evil postulate!

Just kidding. Not totally serious.

Actually Obama did it. It was his fault! Or did Bush do it?
Click to expand...

I'm glad you realize that.
 
DuvalHMFIC said:
I'm glad you realize that.
Click to expand...

Your postulate is that it is a coincidence.
Your postulate is that postulates don't work.

My postulate is that you will think my postulates happened by coincidence.
My postulate is that you will think my postulates have a natural explaination.

So, in a way, we both postulate that your 'third eye' remains blind.
 
Justinian2 said:
It's all coincidence, of course, but my Buick just blew up. The engine failed and the replacement cost will be $5000 for a rebuilt engine. It has nothing to do with the fact my Ford is Ford tough and has been 129000 miles with no problems.

My postulate was to get another Ford, not a Buick. I never liked GM cars.

I think LRH's idea would have held more credance if my original dislike for the car company caused me to drive the Buick without oil, or something like that. But I did not. I treated the car with ARC/love.

It's all coincidence, of course, but my Buick just blew up. But the mechanic didn't like fixing the supercharger and liked having my wife bring it in for repairs. He did it! It was my mechanic's evil postulate!

Just kidding. Not totally serious.

Actually Obama did it. It was his fault! Or did Bush do it?

This quote is from http://www.whatisscientology.org
Click to expand...


Those are the only explanations you can think of? Either your OT superpowers went off half-cocked, or it was only coincidence?

Did the possibility not even occur to you that you just bought a crappy car? That ordinary material cause and effect, rather than supernatural phenomena (Buick thetans?), or no discernable cause at all, made your Buick break down?

Oh, and:

my Ford is Ford tough
Click to expand...


It appears Ford's advertising agencies have achieved more control over your consciousness than you have. (Hearing slogans repeated over and over again can have that effect on people, if they haven't been trained to resist it.) Auditor to Aisle 3 for clean-up, stat!

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Justinian2 said:
Your postulate is that it is a coincidence.
Your postulate is that postulates don't work.

My postulate is that you will think my postulates happened by coincidence.
My postulate is that you will think my postulates have a natural explaination.

So, in a way, we both postulate that your 'third eye' remains blind.
Click to expand...

That's nice.

Can you direct me to the scientific journals in which the papers which test the claims made in Dianetics were published, please?
 
Justinian2 said:
Your postulate is that it is a coincidence.
Your postulate is that postulates don't work.

My postulate is that you will think my postulates happened by coincidence.
My postulate is that you will think my postulates have a natural explaination.

So, in a way, we both postulate that your 'third eye' remains blind.
Click to expand...

Do you mean the pineal gland?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom