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

[dafydd]

You're coming down pretty hard on LRH.

With good reason.

http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/quotes-by-and-about-hubbard.htm

 

[hgc]

Maybe Justinian knows something you do not know?

Yes, in a sense. We all know things that other people don't know. But on the topic of the meanings of "postulate," we can go to the dictionary, and not rely on what we "know." Aren't Scilons really into that dictionary thing?

 

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Justinian2
1) Are you qualified?
2) Do you care if you're qualified or not?



With regard to #1, telling how your children turned out is worth something. I assume none of them are famous mass murderers or serial killers?

So you're claiming that you know Scientology is true because it has worked for you?

 

[dafydd]

So you're claiming that you know Scientology is true because it has worked for you?

Because of the placebo effect, no doubt.

 

[Justinian2]

What? These attempts at derailing the thread are becoming tiresome. What about Honest Ron's absurd claims about his war record? I can understand why you won't discuss it, but that lies at the heart of why $cientology is a fantasy and a scam.

You derailed me from this thread for a few days and before that six months. You've done more derailing than Lawrence of Arabia.

You have given some very vocal commentary about Scientology. You must have some credentials? You don't just bully religions without some idea of whether or not they are beneficial. Unless you just like being a bully...

What are your credentials? Why should we take you seriously?

A parent gives advice to their children. If a person's children are well adjusted, then that is a plus. If your child just drove his tractor over eight police cars, that is a double plus - judging by the comments left about that news story.

 

[The Dark Lord]

You derailed me from this thread for a few days and before that six months. You've done more derailing than Lawrence of Arabia.

You have given some very vocal commentary about Scientology. You must have some credentials? You don't just bully religions without some idea of whether or not they are beneficial. Unless you just like being a bully...

What are your credentials? Why should we take you seriously?

A parent gives advice to their children. If a person's children are well adjusted, then that is a plus. If your child just drove his tractor over eight police cars, that is a double plus - judging by the comments left about that news story.

Qualifications I have that allow me to know that your "religion" is a bunch of nonsense made up to scam people out of money:

1) I've read about your "religion" and its founder.
2) I am capable of rational thought.

 

[shuttlt]

Justinian, apologies for repeating the question. I don't want it to fall out of the discussion. Do you believe Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all correct about the divinity, or lack there of of Jesus, yes or no?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Maybe there are valid scientific studies.

If there aren't, then the whole of Scientology is built on one humongous lie. L. Ron Hubbard says, many times, that the things he is claiming is scientific fact.

I find it strange that someone who claims to have studied Scientology for as long as you has never thought to check the actual science which is the foundation of the whole thing. Do you know much about the scientific method? About what, in fact, science is?

What matters to me is that what Hubbard says correlates with what I know to be scientifically valid.

You've read Dianetics, I take it? In it, L. Ron Hubbard says that it's an established scientific fact that man's essential nature is good. How do you know this to be scientifically valid, if you've never even bothered to investigate the science that Hubbard claims is behind it?

New cars don't have scientific journals in which the papers test the claims made.

You don't think that cars are scientifically-tested? What, then, do you imagine the development process of a car to be?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

With regard to #1, telling how your children turned out is worth something. I assume none of them are famous mass murderers or serial killers?

That's a bit of an odd non-sequitur. Especially given that you'd already responded to the post that you quoted. What were you hoping to achieve with this latest post?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Incidentally, "bully" would be the wrong verb to apply to a religion. An individual cannot bully an organisation. "Oppress" or "discriminate against" would be better terms. They're probably equally emotionally-loaded which is, after all, why you chose to use "bully". You just need to be a bit better at what you're trying to do.

That's just some free, friendly advice.

 

[Myriad]

That was an 'interesting' analysis of an anecdotal story.

That's because it was a very "interesting" anecdotal story.

At first you appeared to be referring to an illustrative example (regarding postulates and Model T Fords and Buicks) that you quoted from Scientology literature. Then, suddenly, it became your own personal anecdote: your Buick has broken down, while your Ford vehicle has performed well, which you attribute to your own postulate. And yet, it seems very unlikely that you have ever postulated driving only Model T's, considering that that model was last produced in 1927.

How did that happen, that a conceptual example turned into a personal anecdote that is extremely unlikely to have occurred as stated (assuming you're not at least 95 years old)? Is that where all your personal anecdotes come from, like maybe the one about your ancestor who was captain of a class of ship that didn't exist during the American Revolution?

But of course, you know that while being a cause over MEST doesn't work except in the domain of the subjective, being a cause over words can be very powerful. By merely tapping keys or moving a pen around on paper, you can for all practical purposes alter the past, dictate the future, describe distant worlds, and bring into existence events that never happened. Provided, of course, that you can get people to believe those words.

And it doesn't work if you keep losing track of what kind of story you're making up.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

AlaskaBushPilot, I see what you mean about the Scientologists being between a rock and a hard place when trying to justify the use of the E-meter.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-meter

Exactly the right cases. I think there is still plenty of room for private civil lawsuits to bring Scientology down.

This is the short early history of Scientology, called Dianetics initially:

1949 Journal of the American Medical Association and the Amercian Journal of Psychiatry both flatly reject Dianetics papers submitted to them.

1950: "Dianetics" published in Astounding Science Fiction. The book comes out that same year and is a best-seller.

1951: New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners initiates proceedings against Hubbard's Foundation for teaching the practice of medicine without a license. Bankrupts the Foundation

1951: Dianetics is rebranded as a religion called "Scientology".

So right away Hubbard was in big trouble legally with Dianetics, and that would have been the end of it if he had not re-branded it as a religion. Despite that the FDA raided them in 1963 for the same thing: fraudulent medical device claims. So all the e-meters have to say on them that they are religious devices.

They lost the IRS religious exemption in '67 but got it back by having every Scientology member sue the IRS individually for the right to deduct their Scientology expenses on their tax returns. So here is another social cost of Scientology. My hobbies are not tax deductible. I could have written off three airplanes so far. They're for my spiritual health.

 

[The Dark Lord]

It is too bad that the IRS didn't have the balls to stand up to the CO$. It owed about a billion dollars in back taxes. I don't know if that would have been enough to kill the "church" but definitely would have hurt a lot.

 

[pakeha]

Maybe there are valid scientific studies. Maybe there are not. I don't care. What matters to me is that what Hubbard says correlates with what I know to be scientifically valid. ...

How can you not care?

Originally Posted by Justinian2
1) Are you qualified?
2) Do you care if you're qualified or not? ...

Are you qualified to know what is scientifically valid?

.... You don't just bully religions without some idea of whether or not they are beneficial. Unless you just like being a bully...

I see you haven't followed the cases we've posted up from ESK.

...

1951: New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners initiates proceedings against Hubbard's Foundation for teaching the practice of medicine without a license.
... all the e-meters have to say on them that they are religious devices. ...

Thanks for the summary, AlaskaBushPilot.

 

[AdMan]

Justinian, apologies for repeating the question. I don't want it to fall out of the discussion. Do you believe Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all correct about the divinity, or lack there of of Jesus, yes or no?

Bumping this question, because I'd also like to hear what Justinian's answer is, given his earlier posts.

 

[Krikkiter]

Maybe there are valid scientific studies. Maybe there are not. I don't care. What matters to me is that what Hubbard says correlates with what I know to be scientifically valid. <snip>

Astounding. How would anyone know anything is scientifically valid without scientific studies? This is seriously sig worthy. Interestingly, I know of no scientific studies that validate the supposed existence of Xenu, the Galactic Confederacy, Thetans, Suppressive Persons, Engrams OR the use of E-meters.

After no response from Justinian The Squirrel to my questions about the E-meter, I had a look around the net. Thanks to those who posted links to the patents, schematics etc.

Basically, $cientology claims that the E-meter measures things like human spirit, soul and psyche. Yes, very scientific indeed. We all know that it does no such thing and it is in fact incapable of doing anything of the sort.

The E-meter measures resistance to an electrical current. That's all it does and it does it really badly. Check out the internals of the Mark V:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHDMEBoOYXo

Not only does this version use cheap, inefficient parts it is actually downright dangerous.

The E-meter would be an interesting device if it could maybe, measure changes in electrical activity in the brain or heart - like an EEG or ECG - but it can't even do that, according to this:

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

The E-meter exhibits the classical frequency response of an underdamped single-pole low pass filter with a corner frequency of approximately 1.0 Hz. Other medical research (EEGs, EKGs, etc) show that bodily processes occur at frequencies several orders of magnitude higher than this. As such, the E-meter is an extremely poor diagnostic tool.​

You could possibly make the thing measure higher wavelengths but apparently the design of the needle as it is makes this impossible:

"Higher frequency response could be gained by reducing the rotational inertia of the needle - essentially reducing its mass at the tip, as well as reducing its overall length"

There are videos on YouTube that show people who aren't Scientologists using the unit with either no results or results that are just confusing and useless. A Scientologist will say that this is because these people aren't trained properly. Well, from what I've read, the "proper" Scientology procedure consists of repeating processes until a desired (or any!) result is registered! Very $cientific!

I was going to ask some tech people about the machine but decided against it. They would have just laughed at me and I know why. As Justinian says, it's a very simple [and useless] device.

 

[dafydd]

Qualifications I have that allow me to know that your "religion" is a bunch of nonsense made up to scam people out of money:

1) I've read about your "religion" and its founder.
2) I am capable of rational thought.

Ditto. You don't need to be an Einstein to know that $cientology is bunk.

 

[dafydd]

That's a bit of an odd non-sequitur. Especially given that you'd already responded to the post that you quoted. What were you hoping to achieve with this latest post?

"There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the Tone Scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the Tone Scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow." - L. Ron Hubbard, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, p. 170

"If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace. Peace is bought with an exchange of advantage, so make the advantage and then settle. Don't ever defend. Always attack. Don't ever do nothing. Unexpected attacks in the rear of the enemy's front ranks work best." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, "Department of Governmental Affairs", 15 Aug 1960

"People attack Scientology, I never forget it, always even the score. People attack auditors, or staff, or organisations, or me. I never forget until the slate is clear." - L. Ron Hubbard, MANUAL OF JUSTICE, 1959

 

[dafydd]

Exactly the right cases. I think there is still plenty of room for private civil lawsuits to bring Scientology down.

This is the short early history of Scientology, called Dianetics initially:

1949 Journal of the American Medical Association and the Amercian Journal of Psychiatry both flatly reject Dianetics papers submitted to them.

1950: "Dianetics" published in Astounding Science Fiction. The book comes out that same year and is a best-seller.

1951: New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners initiates proceedings against Hubbard's Foundation for teaching the practice of medicine without a license. Bankrupts the Foundation

1951: Dianetics is rebranded as a religion called "Scientology".

So right away Hubbard was in big trouble legally with Dianetics, and that would have been the end of it if he had not re-branded it as a religion. Despite that the FDA raided them in 1963 for the same thing: fraudulent medical device claims. So all the e-meters have to say on them that they are religious devices.

They lost the IRS religious exemption in '67 but got it back by having every Scientology member sue the IRS individually for the right to deduct their Scientology expenses on their tax returns. So here is another social cost of Scientology. My hobbies are not tax deductible. I could have written off three airplanes so far. They're for my spiritual health.

"Scientology...is not a religion." - L. Ron Hubbard, CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY, 1954, p. 251

 

[dafydd]

You derailed me from this thread for a few days and before that six months. You've done more derailing than Lawrence of Arabia.

You have given some very vocal commentary about Scientology. You must have some credentials? You don't just bully religions without some idea of whether or not they are beneficial. Unless you just like being a bully...

What are your credentials? Why should we take you seriously?

A parent gives advice to their children. If a person's children are well adjusted, then that is a plus. If your child just drove his tractor over eight police cars, that is a double plus - judging by the comments left about that news story.

Where is the scientific evidence for this gem of ignorance?

"Leukaemia is evidently psychosomatic in origin and at least eight cases of leukaemia had been treated successfully by Dianetics after medicine had traditionally given up. The source of leukaemia has been reported to be an engram containing the phrase 'It turns my blood to water.'" - L. Ron Hubbard, "Journal of Scientology," Issue 15-G, 1953