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

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
omething might change.

But Justinian is pretty well immersed in it all, and is extremely unlikely to be able to look at any of his beliefs or claims in anything approaching an objective manner. On the other hand, there may be lurkers reading this thread. Who knows, one of them may have thought at some time about trying Scientology, or may even have gone for the free introductory "mood test", or whatever they call it. If they read this thread, it'd be good for them to see the facts being presented by those arguing with Justinian and be able to observe his lack of objectivity, inability and unwillingness to engage on even slightly challenging topics, and utter inability to provide any science to back up the fundamental pseudo-scientific claims underpinning his faith. After reading this thread they'll be far less likely to become a Scientologist.
Click to expand...

And that is a very good thing. Thank you, Justinian
 
dafydd said:
How much would you charge me? $cientology charges quite a lot for their scam.
Click to expand...

I'm actually making a batch of boiled peanuts right now, that's why it was on my mind. For you? No charge.

If it were free, would it be any less a scam?
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Ah, but this is Scientology. Founded on scientifically-proven facts, according to L. Ron Hubbard. If that's true, then there should be scientific evidence, and the e-meter should come out of being tested scientifically by having all the qualities L. Ron Hubbard claims of it.

So, in this instance, we are talking about a scientific study. The e-meter isn't like a communion wafer, or whathaveyou. It's a piece of electronic apparatus which works on scientific principles and which, it is claimed, has a scientifically-proven effect. So belief and opinion are worthless. Science doesn't work on belief or opinion, it works via the scientific method.
Click to expand...

Except it is like a communion wafer which is just a bit of chemistry -- we very much understand about cooking and what constitutes a communion wafer. And we pretty much know what's going on with the emeter too. What's being argued about is the meaning of what's going on with each, not the material facts.
 
marplots said:
I'm actually making a batch of boiled peanuts right now, that's why it was on my mind. For you? No charge.

If it were free, would it be any less a scam?
Click to expand...

A scam always involves conning someone out of their money. If $cientology was free it would still be dangerous. It is not free so it is a scam. Can we stop now with the ''what if, let's pretend'' questions? Let's stick to the reality of $cientology please. Like the claims about engrams causing leukemia that Justinian is avoiding like the plague. What does that tell you about $cientologists?
 
dafydd said:
A total lack of scientific evidence. $cientology has never cured cancer. When my daughter was seven she was diagnosed with brain cancer and I took her to a good neurosurgeon, I didn't hook her up to an emeter and let some $cientology nut talk to her. Why are you bending over backwards to defend this wacko cult?
Click to expand...

Because they aren't any good at it.
 
marplots said:
Except it is like a communion wafer which is just a bit of chemistry -- we very much understand about cooking and what constitutes a communion wafer. And we pretty much know what's going on with the emeter too. What's being argued about is the meaning of what's going on with each, not the material facts.
Click to expand...
But material facts are claimed for the emeter, at least in the context of auditing. Nobody claims that taking communion, even from the Pope, has any material consequence worth mentioning.
 
Justinian2 said:
The bridge starts with Life Repair and progresses through twenty steps to clear. The courses give over half the gains.

If you don't know for certain that the Emeter works, then discussing even the first step - Life Repair - is folly. Discussing OT is absurd.

Every Scientologist knows with 100% certainty that the Emeter works in the application for which it was designed.

That's 100% certainty! There's no room for other opinions. Scientologists have a solid belief that the Emeter works.

If you don't believe in the Emeter, get a demonstration in Scientology.

A prerequsite for these discussions is a belief that the Emeter works. If you don't believe that the Emeter works, you won't believe in anything else, so why argue?
Click to expand...

So in order to discuss Scientology we have to first become Scientologists.
 
Justinian2 said:
It would be insane to discuss Scientology with anybody that doesn't believe that the emeter works.

It only takes moments for the Church of Scientology to give you a demonstration of the Emeter and an hour for an Introductory session. It is insane to discuss the emeter to anyone that won't avail himself of those opportunities. A demonstration is worth a thousand words to each person that wants to know.
Click to expand...

IOW you're here to sell auditing sessions.
 
marplots said:
What's being argued about is the meaning of what's going on with each, not the material facts.
Click to expand...

No. Do you really think a claim that Leukaemia can be cured by "Dianetics" as stated by Hubbard is not about material facts?
 
marplots said:
Because they aren't any good at it.
Click to expand...
It is often harder to defend a position that you claim to hold. Being a devils advocate can be much easier since you never really have to commit yourself to anything and nobody can get a handle on your core position, since you deny having one.
 
It seems that our clear OTs have turned tail and ran. Too may awkward questions that they couldn't answer.
 
shuttlt said:
It is often harder to defend a position that you claim to hold. Being a devils advocate can be much easier since you never really have to commit yourself to anything and nobody can get a handle on your core position, since you deny having one.
Click to expand...

Marplots, what is your opinion of Scientology?
 
Rrose Selavy said:
No. Do you really think a claim that Leukaemia can be cured by "Dianetics" as stated by Hubbard is not about material facts?
Click to expand...
One tactic would be for it to turn out that the word "cured" has a meaning in this context that is surprisingly difficult to pin down, or at least ends up meaning something non-testable. That's what homeopaths would do. There is also a completely different model of disease, so even "Leukaemia" may turn out to mean something different. These terms have to be nailed down.
 
shuttlt said:
That isn't really a fair comparison though. I might like boiled peanuts, you might prefer Surströmming, we're all good. Your preference doesn't diminish my enjoyment of peanuts. This misses something about religions though. Each religion makes claims that are incomparable with other religions. People who prefer peanuts to Surströmming don't generally believe that the Surströmming fanciers are wrong.
Click to expand...

In a sense, they do. They might rationally claim that you are not constituted in the manner required to enjoy Surströmming. (What the heck is that?)

If you want to reduce the claims of religion in general, and Scientology in particular to being like liking Surströmming. You enjoy it, I don't, but it doesn't matter because none of us actually believe we are making objective claims about the world, then fine, but I don't think that is actually what most of the religious people who come here actually believe.
Click to expand...

If it's an honest claim about the world, as we agreed, then they can do nothing else. It is no different than any other claim I make about the world, including the claim that scientific evidence is a reliable path to truth. I believe that just as strongly as someone else may believe that chanting and meditation is a better path.

If the fact that I could demonstrate it were enough, there would be no chanting going on.

Why then come to a sceptical forum?
Click to expand...

Probably not much different than why anyone comes here -- good discussions. I find it difficult to make nuanced arguments elsewhere. I dig the peeps that hang out here, they have good minds. Unlike other forums that take from me, this one gives back. I should mention I cannot prove that scientifically. :)


Generally if your beliefs are well founded Science will agree with them. If Science persistently disagrees with your beliefs you might want to take a step back and have a think about whether you are absolutely sure. I mean, if you thought the experiment would validate your beliefs, but it didn't, you are clearly wrong about your beliefs in some way, or the experiment would have worked... no?
Click to expand...

I agree, however I think we often assume that others see the terrain the same way we do. For example, I once was involved in a discussion about trimming a round, wooden half-shell to meet specifications. This was at a plant that manufactured shaped plywood. There were perhaps four involved in the discussion of how to get what we wanted, among them the shift supervisor.

I argued based on mathematics and was surprised to find the concept of pi and circumference foreign to my workmates. With math in hand, the problem was straightforward and the answer plain. They didn't buy into it and went with an iterative cut-a-little then measure, then repeat plan instead.

The lesson for me was that a tool loses its power when others don't trust it -- even when it gives the correct answer. And that's what's going on with our insistence on scientific experimentation. To the Scientologist's eyes, it isn't a trustworthy tool. A better tool, from their perspective is self discovery and reliance on authority (other people said it works and LRH has books).

If this is how they generally run their lives, how can I challenge it based on claiming I have a better tool? The problem is that their process yields the results they expect -- or the results can be "explained to fit."

It also gives good results when you realize how few people actually join up. I have seen estimates of only one in a hundred going past any initial training. With that in mind, I'd say the experiential, try it and see method is doing a fairly good job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom