What do you think of Scientology?

Justinian2

Banned
J
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
2,804
I don't mean the CHURCH OF Scientology. I mean SCIENTOLOGY, the philosophy/Religion.

We don't confuse Christianity with the Roman Catholic church, so let's not confuse Scientology with the Church of Scientology.

The problem with the CoS (Church of Scientology) is that it has some sales techniques that are similar to the sales Techniques of Timeshare sales. While both have good products, one wonders if paying the product is worth the big prices. Both Timeshare salespeople and Scientology salespeople assert that you can't put a price on happiness and that 'investing' in each is a great investment. However, have you ever tried to sell a timeshare deed? It's almost worthless. Have you ever tried to sell your Scientology training to an employer? That attempt will not be successful.

As a Lifelong Scientologist, all but one year spent outside of the Co$, I have found more to be cynical about in the non-Scientology world than in the world at large. As a degreed engineer I find only disagreement with the world at large and not with Scientology.

As a Scientologist I find no fault with dieties, spirits, the turn the other cheek attitude of Christ or the concept of a life after this one. Scientology isn't so dissimilar with Christianity of Buddhism. Scientology is just audacious enough to believe that with people helping other people, the goals of other religions can be attained on earth.

I believe that about 50% of the people have Scientology's Anti-Social Personality Characteristics whereas LRH claimed only 20% (called PTS people or Potential Trouble Sources) did. He claimed that 2.5% were real SPs. I differ with LRH in that I believe that these SPs are MORE than covertly hostile and are actually covert death lovers.

Anyway, what do you think of Scientology? Do you consider yourself a SP (Suppressive Person)?
 
Last edited:
Frankly, your post is full of so many terms that have meaning only inside Scientology, I doubt most people will be able to follow it.

Whatever the original concept of people auditing each other was, Scientology has long ago become nothing other than a cult of worship of L. Ron Hubbard. His increasingly paranoid writings and obsessive reorganizations made Scientology a dangerous hole down which money and lives are thrown for no good reason.

I cannot find a redeeming aspect in the entire mess. And, of course, the current leader is dangerously unbalanced. Or did the Musical Chairs episode not happen?
 
Some of the role playing in "auditing" may have some value, I don't know. I bought some of the books and took a good look at some of the beginner's concepts in Scientology and found it quite fascinating, in a way.

However, it seems nothing more than a psuedo-science cult using fraud to sell itself as an alternative to psychiatry after further research.
 
Complete bunk that has ruined many lives.

Show me a "clear" or an "OT" that can demonstrate the claimed end phenomenon and then we'll discuss it.
 
I think it is all made up pseudoscience written by a megalomanic SF writer. I support that assertion by pointing out the utter lack of peer reviewed studies, our knowledge of how their meters work, and their denial of proven science and medicine.
 
Loss Leader said:
Frankly, your post is full of so many terms that have meaning only inside Scientology, I doubt most people will be able to follow it.

Whatever the original concept of people auditing each other was, Scientology has long ago become nothing other than a cult of worship of L. Ron Hubbard. His increasingly paranoid writings and obsessive reorganizations made Scientology a dangerous hole down which money and lives are thrown for no good reason.

I cannot find a redeeming aspect in the entire mess. And, of course, the current leader is dangerously unbalanced. Or did the Musical Chairs episode not happen?
Click to expand...

I am oviously not going to defend the Co$. I am talking about Scientology.

The cult I found most dangerous is government. They are the fundamental enforcers of the belief system known for punishment (revenge and taxation) and sacrifice (war).

As for your opinions about Scientology, without any fact or quotes, they are as worth as much as most mere opinions uttered by an unknown person.
 
You asked "what do you think of Scientology" but you didn't want people's mere opinions?
 
Justinian2 said:
I am oviously not going to defend the Co$. I am talking about Scientology.

The cult I found most dangerous is government. They are the fundamental enforcers of the belief system known for punishment (revenge and taxation) and sacrifice (war).

As for your opinions about Scientology, without any fact or quotes, they are as worth as much as most mere opinions uttered by an unknown person.
Click to expand...
And yet you sought our opinions.

My own opinion is that Scientology makes mainstream religions look downright reasonable...
 
Manopolus said:
Some of the role playing in "auditing" may have some value, I don't know. I bought some of the books and took a good look at some of the beginner's concepts in Scientology and found it quite fascinating, in a way.

However, it seems nothing more than a psuedo-science cult using fraud to sell itself as an alternative to psychiatry after further research.
Click to expand...


em·pir·i·cal
   [em-pir-i-kuhl] Show IPA

adjective
1.
derived from or guided by experience or experiment.

2.
depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.

3.
provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't call it a pseudo scientific cult. I would call it a philosophy that is empirical. Do you feel better after auditing? Did auditing make your cold go away? Did your life improve after auditing? Those are empirical results.
 
Justinian2 said:
I wouldn't call it a pseudo scientific cult. I would call it a philosophy that is empirical. Do you feel better after auditing? Did auditing make your cold go away? Did your life improve after auditing? Those are empirical results.
Click to expand...

No, they're not. They're anecdotes. Anecdotes aren't evidence, and aren't empirical.
 
Metullus said:
And yet you sought our opinions.

My own opinion is that Scientology makes mainstream religions look downright reasonable...
Click to expand...

I can't argue with that as it is too large a topic for one post. Pick a point to illustrate what you mean.
 
Justinian2 said:
So we have a disagreement on the meaning of the words anecdote and empirical?
Click to expand...
Your descriptions are of how medicine used to be done - you know, when we did trepanning, bleeding, burning, all that jazz. Plenty of people got better after those treatments, after all.
 
What do I think about Scientology?

On the rare occasions I think about it at all, I think it's a recently-made-up religion based on some hilariously silly science fiction. I read occasional stories about suggestible young people being drawn in and turning their backs on family and friends, which makes me think it's creepy. I have no knowledge of nor interest in what scientologists actually do.

That's about all.

PS Do I consider myself an SP? No, I don't. Possibly because I don't know what that is. Probably something to do with dead aliens, but I don't really care.
 
Last edited:
Justinian2 said:
So we have a disagreement on the meaning of the words anecdote and empirical?
Click to expand...

It seems that disagreement about the meanings of words is a common problem between Scientologists and the rest of us. I know that the Scientology indoctrination process is real big on getting people to "agree" with Hubbard's interpretation of things, but you're not going to get much of that agreement around here, I suspect.
 
Trent Wray said:
Trolling. Feel better ?
Click to expand...

Be Fishers of Men – Not of Fish (John 21:1-17).

I'm a fisher of men. Just because you don't believe in what a poster says doesn't mean that person is a troll.

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".
Click to expand...

Are you saying that Scientology makes you upset?
 
hgc said:
It seems that disagreement about the meanings of words is a common problem between Scientologists and the rest of us. I know that the Scientology indoctrination process is real big on getting people to "agree" with Hubbard's interpretation of things, but you're not going to get much of that agreement around here, I suspect.
Click to expand...

The truth is really facts about which everybody agrees. If you quote the dictionary definitions of anecdote and empirical, I'm sure we will both agree on the definitions.
 
Last edited:
Justinian2 said:
I am oviously not going to defend the Co$. I am talking about Scientology.
Click to expand...

Pffft. Pretending Scientology has nothing to do with L. Ron Hubbard.

The cult I found most dangerous is government. They are the fundamental enforcers of the belief system known for punishment (revenge and taxation) and sacrifice (war).
Click to expand...

Diversion.

As for your opinions about Scientology, without any fact or quotes, they are as worth as much as most mere opinions uttered by an unknown person.
Click to expand...


One of the most destructive things about Scientology is training people to be relentlessly manipulative. You will have no friends, family, or quarter to turn to because of how unreasonable you are.

You start off saying we have to talk about Scientology without reference to CoS, which is the entire basis of it, and then complain we didn't make reference to CoS material.

It turns people into the likes of you, and that is a tragic waste of human potential.
 
Justinian2 said:
The truth is really facts about which everybody agrees. If you quote the dictionary definitions of anecdote and empirical, I'm sure we will both agree on the definitions.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm not going to [scn speak]word clear my misunderstoods[/scn speak] with you.

The truth is not subject to level of agreement. If it were, then it would be true for Scientologists that, for instance, Hubbard was a nuclear physicist. That "fact" is just as untrue for Scientologists as it is for everyone else who's ever considered the idea. It's just that Scientologists believe it anyway -- because they "agree" to it.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
What do I think about Scientology?

On the rare occasions I think about it at all, I think it's a recently-made-up religion based on some hilariously silly science fiction. I read occasional stories about suggestible young people being drawn in and turning their backs on family and friends, which makes me think it's creepy. I have no knowledge of nor interest in what scientologists actually do.

That's about all.

PS Do I consider myself an SP? No, I don't. Possibly because I don't know what that is. Probably something to do with dead aliens, but I don't really care.
Click to expand...


This council was called in May, 381, by Emperor Theodosius, to provide for a Catholic succession in the patriarchal See of Constantinople, to confirm the Nicene Faith, to reconcile the semi-Arians with the Church, and to put an end to the Macedonian heresy.
Click to expand...

You prefer the religions that were made up long ago?

I believe in much of what religion teaches, but not exactly. I don't usually forgive, but I will forget. I don't believe that revenge, or the plotting of revenge, does the soul any good. What do the courts do, but plot revenge and punishment? Do you worship the cult in which you are immersed?
 
"I'd like to have a discussion in which I limit everything you might say, but do it in a way that each limit I impose contradicts the limits I propose, so that in the end you will have no choice but to fall silent, which I will take for tacit agreement."
 
hgc said:
Sorry, I'm not going to [scn speak]word clear my misunderstoods[/scn speak] with you.

The truth is not subject to level of agreement. If it were, then it would be true for Scientologists that, for instance, Hubbard was a nuclear physicist. That "fact" is just as untrue for Scientologists as it is for everyone else who's ever considered the idea. It's just that Scientologists believe it anyway -- because they "agree" to it.
Click to expand...

Of the zillions of words written by LRH, the fact that he was a nuclear physicist or not was never important to me. I was after the ideas that he taught that I felt would help.

LRH taught with concepts that would cause the reader to think of events in his (the reader's) own life. In that way, by stimulating the knowledge within your own mind, you (the reader) will learn. The clergy, Christ and the Bible do pretty much the same.
 
I think Scientology is as silly as every other made up religion, which is to say, all of them.

381415_2124932895395_1608083613_317.jpg
 
Justinian2 said:
Of the zillions of words written by LRH, the fact that he was a nuclear physicist or not was never important to me. I was after the ideas that he taught that I felt would help.

LRH taught with concepts that would cause the reader to think of events in his (the reader's) own life. In that way, by stimulating the knowledge within your own mind, you (the reader) will learn. The clergy, Christ and the Bible do pretty much the same.
Click to expand...

Are you not troubled that Hubbard habitually lied about his educational qualifications, about his military history and injuries, about how many wives he had, about everything under the sun ... because you can relate his drivel to your own life just like you can with other religions? Good for you.
 
slingblade said:
"I'd like to have a discussion in which I limit everything you might say, but do it in a way that each limit I impose contradicts the limits I propose, so that in the end you will have no choice but to fall silent, which I will take for tacit agreement."
Click to expand...

Who said that?

It's silly to disagree with another because you are each using a different part of the definition of a word. Bare is not the same as bear.

A discussion cannot even ascend to the next level without agreement about the words that the two communicators are using. School was supposed to overcome problem of poor communication.
 
Justinian2 said:
Be Fishers of Men – Not of Fish (John 21:1-17).

I'm a fisher of men. Just because you don't believe in what a poster says doesn't mean that person is a troll.

Are you saying that Scientology makes you upset?
Click to expand...
I didn't say Scientology makes me upset ... apart from knowing it's related to Tom Cruise jumping up and down, and Travolta dressing up like he's going to a comic con I KNOW ALMOST NOTHING ABOUT IT. I have no feeling about it one way or another, because I'm ignorant of it.

Are you hoping it does make me upset ? If so ... see again what trolling means.

I'm saying you are trolling, because your thread is misleading. You ask what people's opinion of scientology is, only to disrespectfully discredit it. Therefore, it's rather clear I think that (using your analogy) you are looking for fish to fillet for yourself, not to "catch and introduce to scientology". You are looking to reinforce your own notions by looking for certain responses from others to do so (trolling), somewhat masking your agenda as though you are open to discussion.

See below for another explanation of what I just said.

Also, you still didn't answer my question as to whether or not you felt better posting this thread and then crapping on some of the participants. Do you ? I asked because I genuinely wanted to know your answer :)

slingblade said:
"I'd like to have a discussion in which I limit everything you might say, but do it in a way that each limit I impose contradicts the limits I propose, so that in the end you will have no choice but to fall silent, which I will take for tacit agreement."
Click to expand...
i.e. trolling to reinforce their own notions.
 
Justinian2 said:
A discussion cannot even ascend to the next level without agreement about the words that the two communicators are using. School was supposed to overcome problem of poor communication.
Click to expand...

Yrreg seems to have a similar opinion. Now he's back posting, perhaps you'd find it worthwhile to discuss this topic with him?
 
Justinian2 said:
Who said that?

It's silly to disagree with another because you are each using a different part of the definition of a word. Bare is not the same as bear.

A discussion cannot even ascend to the next level without agreement about the words that the two communicators are using. School was supposed to overcome problem of poor communication.
Click to expand...

And yet here you are.
 
Justinian2 said:
It's silly to disagree with another because you are each using a different part of the definition of a word. Bare is not the same as bear.
Click to expand...

You're going to have a lot of trouble lecturing intelligent people about the meanings of words and stuff if you think that bare and bear are the same word, just because they're homonyms.
 
Justinian2 said:
Be Fishers of Men – Not of Fish (John 21:1-17).

I'm a fisher of men. Just because you don't believe in what a poster says doesn't mean that person is a troll.
Click to expand...
What is also a bit entertaining, is that you are missing the irony in what you said right here about not trolling, yet claim you are doing in that you are fishing for something and treating men as fish.

From the wiki that you, yourself quoted from (bolding mine):

The verb troll originates from Old French troller, a hunting term. The noun troll comes from the Old Norse word for a mythological monster.[7]
In modern English usage, the verb troll is a fishing technique of slowly dragging a lure or baited hook from a moving boat.[8] The word evokes the trolls of Scandinavian folklore and children's tales, where they are often creatures bent on mischief and wickedness.
Click to expand...
Denial at work.
 
hgc said:
Are you not troubled that Hubbard habitually lied about his educational qualifications, about his military history and injuries, about how many wives he had, about everything under the sun ... because you can relate his drivel to your own life just like you can with other religions? Good for you.
Click to expand...

Of the thousands of pages he wrote, those things consisted of a paragraph or two.

Would you interrupt a discussion to ask the speaker about a pimple?

Did you ever stop a college lecture in front of a hundred other students to ask the professor about his pimple or his ugly tie or nerdy shoes?

Scientology would define you as an SP if you made a mountain out of a molehill like that.

Ya, our politicians do crap like that too. It's unfortunate because it is actually trolling; it derails the important political discussions to a sex scandal or some such thing. I want to hear our politicians discussing jobs, the economy, the law and other pertinent stuff.

LRH mentioned something about the R2-45 experimentation technique once too. The joke was that death will exteriorize a person.

War has exteriorized many.
 
Last edited:
Trent Wray said:
What is also a bit entertaining, is that you are missing the irony in what you said right here about not trolling, yet claim you are doing in that you are fishing for something and treating men as fish.

From the wiki that you, yourself quoted from (bolding mine):

Denial at work.
Click to expand...

Staying on topic is not trolling. I started this thread.

Interupting a lecture to ask a question about the professor's ugly tie is trolling. Asking a relevent question that disagrees with the professor's lecture is not trolling.

A troll is fishing for a purely emotional response. Emotion that is elicited by a discussion is NOT trolling.

It's a fact of life that people are emotional creatures and can become emotional over anything, especially politics and religion.
 
Last edited:
Justinian2 said:
Who said that?

It's silly to disagree with another because you are each using a different part of the definition of a word. Bare is not the same as bear.

A discussion cannot even ascend to the next level without agreement about the words that the two communicators are using. School was supposed to overcome problem of poor communication.
Click to expand...

You seem somewhat enturbulated.

Maybe you should grasp a couple of tin cans connected to an ohm meter and have someone shout at you for a few hours.

The only advantage that Scientology has over any other religion is, that as a 20th Century invention, the paper trail is so complete that when we laugh at it we have all the objective evidence to show that it deserves to be laughed at.

Xenu loves you send money.
 
Oh. And.

Show us a Clear -- one with all the wonderful abilities LRon claims they have.
 
fishbait said:
Complete bunk that has ruined many lives.

Show me a "clear" or an "OT" that can demonstrate the claimed end phenomenon and then we'll discuss it.
Click to expand...
This. It's utter nonsense made up by a third-rate science fiction writer and pathological liar with delusions of grandeur as a money making scam.


Justinian2 said:
So we have a disagreement on the meaning of the words anecdote and empirical?
Click to expand...
Not really. You're just using the terms wrongly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom