Like I said, some people are all in or all out. From true believer to true disbeliever. Those are the people who ruined scientology. Those are the David Miscaviges.I understand what you are saying and it's true. Most ex's have agreed that there are "nuggets" of ... "useful" stuff in Hubbard's crap. As you said, we wouldn't have stayed in as long as we did if there weren't.
Where I disagree with you, and other "independent" and fringe Scientologists is on the importance of these "nuggets". "Independent" Scientologists and fringe adherents like you believe that the "good nuggets" make Scientology and Hubbard important, valuable and historic. Some call Hubbard a "genius" and believe that these "nuggets" absolve Hubbard of all his evil actions.
Here is the bottom line: If these "nuggets" had any significant value we would see them being acknowledged and used in the real world. It has been 68 years for these "nuggets" to have leaked out and have proven themselves in the real world. Independents have been advocating this. The information and "tech" has been available. Individuals and groups have spun off from mainline Scientology to promote their various "nugget" beliefs.
68 years of using and pushing these "nuggets" to the real world and ... <crickets>.
It isn't my opinion or any ex's that is keeping the real world from using these "nuggets". It is because, in the real world, these "nuggets" have no value.
So, yes, you are a believer. You believe in things without actual, real world, evidence of their applicability and value.
I don't need to poll scientific consensus to know what is true or valuable for me. And there are all kinds of scientology ideas out there in the new age, without attribution of course. You've never heard of Eckhart Tolle? Werner Erhardt? Shakti Gawain? I paid a lot more attention decades ago, but I'm often hearing people express ideas that came right out of Scn. And even the popular term "hot button" comes right out of Scn, for God's sake.