Scientology

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Does this cult scare the crap out of anybody else? It seriously frightens me to see how easy it is for someone to lose their ability to think logicly, merely by listening to these people. Scientology works like a virus, except it’s made of concepts and ideas, and it attacks your mind, turning it into something that spreads the same madness to other people.

For those of you that don’t know what Scientology is, it is (in my and most people’s opinion) a scam job run in a manner that’s so brilliant it’s scary.

This guy named L. Ron Hubbard, (a former SCIENCE FICTION writer) was quoted as saying, “Writing books at a penny per word is a terrible way to make a living. If you really wanted to make a million dollars, you should make your own religion.” Guess what he did next…just guess! He made his own fricking religion! It’s run in a brilliant/diabolical fashion that preys on people’s insecurities.

From day one you are basicly ‘brainwashed’ (and I know that it sounds impossible in this day and age, but IT HAPPENS). Even things as insane as what they believe can be taught in tiny bites. Baby steps in a way. You hear them talk about their views on the universe. You ready for this?

According to Scientology: An evil emperor named Xenu gathered all the overpopulated creatures of the galaxy and brought them to Earth, where he destroyed them with hydrogen bombs. Now humans are troubled by the spirits of these creatures that were killed.

Sounds like madness don’t it? Sounds like something, hmm…i dunno… a SCIENCE FICTION WRITER might come up with? But people believe this stuff, becuase their minds have been twisted by an organization that basicly specializes in twisting minds. Oh, and by the way, this costs thousands and thousands of dollars to be in. People get scammed out of their life savings and they do it willingly, like fricking lemmings or something. Another quote of our boy Hubbard, “If you really want to enslave people, tell them you’ll lead them to freedom…”

If you ever check into this stuff it’s pretty creepy. Makes you wonder how hard it would be to be turned into these people.

I’m not trying to be anti-religious or anything. I’m pretty agnostic myself. But seriously folks, this is a cult. It takes your money, tells you not to read newspapers becuase they’re evil, tells you to cut all ties with your family becuase if they dont accept Scientology then they’re evil, then when you have no more money, it basicly forgets about you.

Somebody say something about all this…

2

As G. K. Chesterton said, a man who doesn’t believe in God will believe in anything.

3

I agree. Scientology is completely absurd and yet we see people such as Tom Cruise and Jon Travolta completely enveloped in it. You would think that they would be intelligent enough to discern such nonsense. Well, it makes for good movies. Vanilla Sky was lightly based on the religious doctrines. I’d be interested to dig a little deeper and find out what’s the specifics are. I know it is based on Hubbard’s book, Dianetics.

Anybody got any links that pertain to the apologetics of Scientology?

4

I’m not so sure that celebrities like Tom Cruise and John Travolta are actually into it. It is known that they are members, but whose to say someone didn’t pay them to become members in order to promote scientology? Doesn’t mean they believe, or that they are devoted. Heck I would join Scientology if someone paid me. I just wouldn’t go to any meetings, do any of their traditions, I would just sign the papers that make me a member allowing others to see that I am a member. What do I care? Personally, I haven’t heard any real evidence for Tom Cruise and John Travolta being devoted, believing in, and following the ways of Scientology. Although, I too have heard that they are members.

What’s your take?

5

Just a quick refutation of your statement Magius. They don’t need the money. :smiley: In fact, it is my understanding that the religion can be very costly itself. That is why we see celebs involved b/c they can afford it.

Although, I still would be interested in hearing their opinion on the religion?

6

I havent read Dianetics but if its anything like Battlefield earth I could understand why people would become involved. BE was over 1000 pages and i read them all quickly. It folds out amazingly and it makes a great readnot a great movie But ive digressed.

While i know nothing about the rigors of scientology I can state: If we all did what celebritys did they wouldnt be celebrated. and vice versa if we did what celebritys do we wouldnt have the money to get out of the problems they can get out of.

7

Skeptic,
I don’t see how it is a refutation…how can you know that they don’t need the money. How is being an actor associated with not needing money? Don’t you think that is a bit of a naive view? Look at examples like, oh I can’t remember her name but she is the actress in Edward Scissorhands, she was caught stealing clothes, $5,000 worth, or how about Mike Tyson who had a very well known habit of going on $20 Mill shopping sprees EVERY weekend!! Not anymore, ofcourse, but he was known to when he was at the top of his game. I mean let’s face it, rich people need to keep the image up, and keeping the image up is expensive. Even when you are a millionaire. So let’s not be quick to judge; your argument fails to counter act mine, instead you say they don’t need the money. What a concept, in a world without greed you would be correct. But greed is most prolific in the lives of the rich who always want more regardless of their riches. It’s good to take a look at a situation from atleast a few angles before coming to a judgement.

What’s your take?

8

There is another possibility. During your initial enterance to the ‘religion’, you have to clense your mind by revealing many secret things about yourself, which are then written down into Scientology’s file on you. If you should try to leave Scientology you will be subject to the “Fair Game” policy, which sounds like a good thing at first. But the way that it really got it’s name is that, “If you try to leave, then you’re fair game”. This means that members of Scientology are allowed and encouraged by the church to use any means necessary to ‘help you’ to return to the fold. Including slander, vandalism, lies, deception, threats of pysical force as well as actual use of physical force. So it’s quite likely that at least some of the celebs caught up in it just don’t want some of their secrets splattered over the headlines.

9

it could kinda be like alota christians… i know alota people who consider themselves to be “christian” but they dont follow the bible, go to church or really follow through on anything the bible tries to teach. them stars could be alot like that for all we know

10

Frighter, I think it necessary to inform you that Christians are people who believe in the bible AND the way of the church, traditions, hail marys, etc, etc. Those who do not believe in the church and its ways, but believe in the bible are called Protestants.

11

I don’t mean to be rude in saying this but your statement is all wrong. It doesn’t make any sense.

Christians are those whom believe in the statutes of the Holy Catholic Church. Catholic meaning “Universal” in translation. This includes both “Roman Catholics” and “Protestants” alike. It seemed to me that you were inferring that Protestants are not christians. Both divisions of Christianity believe in the bible and the traditions of the church. They just have different traditions. Keep in mind that the protestants are called protestants b/c Martin Luther “protested” the beliefs of the Roman Catholic church, but that does not mean that they are ot Christians. Do they even have Christianity in Canada? Just kidding with you and I am not trying to be harsh but I just couldn’t let this statement slip my attention.

BTW, thanks for the reccomendation of the book by Nancy Hathaway. Sounds very interesting. I’ll check it out as soon as I finish my current Stephen Hawking book.

12

Frighter

You may be right, but I suspect that Scientology is too new and controversial (not to mention expensive) to inspire much complacency among its followers.

Magius

I second Skeptic. As your post stands, you are saying that Protestants are not Christians.

AG

As a kid, I asked my Father about Scientology. He waved a dismissive hand and said, “It is one of those Papa-knows-best deals.”

I never heard it said better.

13

Dictionary definition of protestant:
acceptance of the Bible as the sole source of revelation, in justification by faith alone

Dictionary definition of christian:
Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

Dictionary definition of Catholic:
A member of a Catholic church, especially a Roman Catholic

As far as I was taught, it was that Protestants are believers in the Holy Bible, but not the church. Christians are believers in the Holy Bible and the church. Reflecting on what the dictionary defines as protestant and christian I am left uncertain what to think. There appears to be a demarcation between the Bible and Jesus. But it appears to be similar to what I said. Ofcourse I am saying that Protestants are not Christians exactly, otherwise there wouldn’t be another name for it. I see what you are saying, and I think you may be right.

What’s your take?

14

I see you use dictionary.com as well. It’s easy to cut and paste the parts you like but it is very clearly stated that a protestant is a member of the christian church.

Prot·es·tant Pronunciation Key (prt-stnt)
n.
A member of a Western Christian church whose faith and practice are founded on the principles of the Reformation, especially in the acceptance of the Bible as the sole source of revelation, in justification by faith alone, and in the universal priesthood of all the believers.

cath·o·lic Pronunciation Key (kth-lk, kthlk)
adj.
Of broad or liberal scope; comprehensive
Including or concerning all humankind; universal
Catholic
Of or involving the Roman Catholic Church.
Of or relating to the universal Christian church.
Of or relating to the ancient undivided Christian church.
Of or relating to those churches that have claimed to be representatives of the ancient undivided church.

No problem though, just a misunderstanding of terms. Roman Catholics are often referred to as “Catholics” but all Christians are members of the “universal” or “catholic” church.
I read in one of your previous posts that St. Thomas Aquinas was one of your least liked philosophers. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but I just was curious as to what lead you to your opinion? as I do respect your opinion and wanted to know your reasoning.

15

Here are a few links that explain Scientology for anyone interested in joing the cult. :unamused:

http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/dianetics.html

http://www.dianetics-theevolutionofascience.org/

http://www.dianetics.org/dnhome.html

After reading so much, I almost feel compelled to join. :wink:

16

This is the site where I pretty much learned all I needed to know about Scientology.

Operation Clambake

I really don’t know how true their claims are and I can’t really confirm anything on the site, but I’d say that it’s definitely enough incentive to stay the hell away from Scientology.

17

Skeptic stated:

Yes I use dictionary.com, and no its not easy to cut and past parts I like, I dont make up the parts. Yes I cut out parts that helped me to emphasize the logic behind why I thought that protestants do not believe in the traditions and beliefs of the church. I based my argument on what I had learned, and not on what the dictionary had to say. What I did say about the definitions from dictionary.com was that I was left confused what to think. Luther protested against the church, from which Protestants were derived, so it makes logical sense to think that protestants didn’t believe in the churchs beliefs.

As you stated:

My statement does make sense if you think about it. Furthermore, its not ALL wrong, its partially wrong. I continue to be patient with what appears to me, you to be subtle mocking me. You obviously didnt consider my original statement since it is not ALL wrong. It does make sense, meaning it is a coherent sentence. The meanings of the words are apparently different, which I have confused, to what degree I have confused them is not clear to me, but what is clear is that there appears to be evidence that what I had believed was atleast partially correct, and atleast understandably confused…NOT all wrong. The above quote does contain “I don’t mean to be rude” but how serious were you since you didnt give my statement the time of day, furthermore, you tell me that it is easy to cut and paste from dictionary.com it appears the original statement was a preparation for you being rude.

.

18

I apologize Magius. It may have seemed rude but I did not mean it as an attack on your intelligence nor your integrity. I respect your opinion more than most on the board. I just felt that it was kind of sketchy that you left out half the difinition in your reply. Either way, I was not attacking you but your confidence in an ignorant statement. Again, I feel that you are definitely one of the more intelligent opinions on the board but everyone makes mistakes. No hard feelings. I’m sure that you will catch me on my errors as well in the future.

19

There is a third that was a little too confident, in one of the other threads you said “Just a quick refutation…” in reference to what I had said. I countered your post and you did not respond. If there is one thing I learned throughout my studies, it is that those people who have something constructive to say and care about the truth of matters are those who have realized that nothing can be QUICKLY refuted. To refute something means to truly understand that which is being refuted. First off, there is nothing we truly understand 100%, which is not the point here, but those who have much knowledge in any area will take time to refute a statement because they need to explain all the details.

Apparently you think there is confidence in my post that needs attacking. You are making a value judgement, furthermore, it shows your projection - which is evident from your posts, there is an obvious confidence behind your posts. There is no confidence behind my post. It is not confidence that makes me say “My TV is made by SONY” despite the fact that I am right. There would be confidence behind my post if I was to say “Given the statistics of the average persons income I am clear in assuming that I one of few people on this messaging board who has a TV made by SONY.” There is more than just the words Skeptic, there is context. Within the context of my posts, tell me if you sense a confidence behind what I am saying. Cause like I told you about the dictionary.com thing, my argument was focused on the confusion of what I had learned. My argument did not consist of focusing on the definitions of the words, I simply posted them so the debate could take a more focused and set path approach. With the definitions as our foundations for our talk. Yet, you didn’t view the context of the post itself, just looked at a point or two from my post and drew your conclusions.

There is no confidence behind the things I say because I am fully aware of my ignorance and the possibility of everything I think to be wrong. Many have trouble imagining this, but it is quite possible. For instance, when I tell people that there is no such thing as right and wrong, that it is just a human construction based on our own pleasures and pains that was then extended onto other things. Ie. We believe kicking a dog is wrong because it feels pain (we feel pain). No one would have a problem with someone kicking a concrete wall of their house. That’s how things stand now, but I am aware that there may be a day, hopefully later than sooner, where we will be monitored in all things we do and kicking the wall of your house may one day become illegal for whatever reason (Stranger things have happened). There is no point in having confidence in things that are in a constant state of flux. It is this confidence in views that hinders progression, the reason why people believed the earth to be square as long as they did, etc.

Moreover, you say “everyone makes mistakes…”. I choose not to see it like that. For me, I always try to make others understand by guiding them along not just by saying “NO! this is the right answer”, a different approach like “Well if that is so, what do you think it may mean in this situation…” and this gets them to realize that their thinking needs to be altered a little, but if I was just to say what they did was a mistake, the word mistake carrying a strong connotation that what you were doing is WRONG. But there is not clear, specific, clarification as to what was wrong, the person is left feeling everything was wrong. Throughout my experience, I have found that 99% of the time people are never completely wrong about something. Something within their statement has value, contains truth, and is a key to help them turn and unlock the door to the truth.

Lastly Skeptic stated:

sigh, listen Skeptic, this isn’t about catching you on your errors. It’s about developing thought. You tell me your view, I tell you mine, we find where we disagree and agree. We focus on the disagreements in a logical manner (given we are both rational beings) and explicate why we think each is right while giving constructive criticism and guidance to help the other understand, until both people understand each others view completely and either agree to disagree because of an unanalytic point present that cannot be clarified, or someone realizes their mistake and comes to a better understanding of their point. At the end, there is no concept of “Okay, now who was the one who came to understand the truth because he/she is the one who lost the conversation?”, there is no “one persons confidence out did the other”, there is no “I am in an argument with you and I want to just prove I’m right with no sense of reason, logic, understanding, and love of truth”.

I hope you understand what I mean…

What’s your take?

20

If you are referring to when you rebuttalled with the statement, “not all celebs are wealthy”, I felt no inclination to respond to that. Of course, not all celebs are wealthy. Take a look at “New Kids on the Block”. Most of the original group are now working blue collar jobs. There is nothing wrong with making a generalizaton of celebs being wealthy and I don’t think anyone would disagree. Especially, when referring to the celebs in context, Jon Travolta and Tom Cruise. They are both multi-millionaires. If you want me to look up there tax records, I will. :smiley:

First of all, there was confidence behind your original post to Frighter. To correct Frighter (which is what you were doing) took confidence in your statement. Also, I agree there was confidence in my post as well. The difference is, I am well informed on the subject and have reason to feel confident. As soon as I leave the Religion forum, you will notice my lack of confidence in posting. I am completely ignorant in Politics and Science but I am asking questions to increase my knowledge in the subjects.

I will admit that your second comment lacked confidence but I felt that you were trying to bend the definitions a bit. Maybe you weren’t but that is just what I picked up on. No big deal. There is nothing wrong with confidence when you know what you are talking about, but if you make a mistake then you must be ready to take the heat.

I have a Sony TV and I am on the low end of the income scale. :smiley: Trinitrons and Vegas rock!

I completely agree with you here but when we are talking about a certain issue that is based on human construction (i.e. christianity) we must adhere to the definitions by which humans have constructed it to be.

hmmm… I agree with you that definitions fluctuate but we must use the standard that applies in our present times. (unless, of course, we are discussing the future or the past) Lets suggest that we were talking about “christianity” for instance. You could reason that before Christ there was no “Christianity”, therefore “Christianity” means nothing. We must adhere to the definition in context. I think Imagistar and I had a similar disagreement but it was not on definition but context.

Really? So what were you doing when you were telling Frighter that his concept of a “christian” was wrong?

Doesn’t sound like a lack of confidence to me.

I agree and I think you and I would agree on a lot of things if we had a decent discussion. Just practice what you preach. You are always right there to point out someone else’s error but when it is your own, you have trouble accepting your mistake. Like I said before, I don’t question your intellect, integrity, logic, or overall goodness. You sound like a great person and I hope to get to know you better on this board. I suggest we cease this argument and concentrate on more important things, like debating philosophy. Do you agree? Friends?

Peace and love,