Could an evidence-based "scientific religion" work?
- Thread starter suspiciousperson
- Start date
guanoloco
As-Wased
I try not to think about Ron and oral in the same thought
How about Oral Roberts, then?
Gib
Crusader
When I was on staff, I can't tell exactly how many letters I wrote to CF, thousands. The stable datum is "outflow = inflow".
The inflow I got from the thousands of letter I hand wrote was about less than .01%. LOL
It's quite unbelievable the amount of effort I produced to support this bullshit organization. And others who have done the same.
Udarnik
Gold Meritorious Patron
I try not to think about Ron and oral in the same thought
Then don't read about Ron and Jack Parsons. Though Ron was better looking in the 40s and 50s than the greaseball he became, the stuff they got up to buggers (NOT beggars) description. Sometimes I wish I could go back in time and see for myself if the reports are true, then I say to myself: "what is once seen, can't be unseen".
Udarnik
Gold Meritorious Patron
Is this the period where he was working with Parsons on the Moonchild? Was that his day gig while he was whining to the VA about indigestion and flat feet? This is the one part of his bio that I've never heard much about - why in the blue fuck was he posing as a swami? Was this his first foray into religion? And who the fuck would trust a red-haired swami in a turban? (Or am I imagining that I once saw a photo of him in a turban from this era?)
Commander Birdsong
Crusader
How about Oral Roberts, then?
when i first was studying the subject i often hung out at the legendary blue unicorn coffeehouse nd a boho pal there dismissed dianetics as "oral roberts for the literate"
Anonycat
Crusader
His 'swami' thing was never verified as true, and he probably just made that up. There is zero evidence, and no one remembers it but him.
Commander Birdsong
Crusader
that one is probably true, it fits well with what he was doing and how. crowley was big with turbans you know
Anonycat
Crusader
Until there is one bit of evidence, I will think he lied. I know you don't go the same way as I, when it comes to Hubbard. Also, he can't have it both ways - to present the first Clear (hoax) and then later say there were earlier ones, who of course cannot be named or verified. Of course, he still could not locate a Clear. Lie upon lie. What else is new? David Mayo was also a first Clear. A veritable smorgasbord of first Clears!
But back to science ... and away from shock-absorber brains and other nonsense ...
[video=youtube;JB7jSFeVz1U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB7jSFeVz1U[/video]
Commander Birdsong
Crusader
lol!
your attitude reminds me of the critic who said of lillian hellman "every word she ever wrote was a lie including 'and' and 'the'"
yes, my course is different from your own. CoS abuses are tragic but i know well personally much of the work produced by ron and his colleagues is brilliant. i derived immense personal benefit from the study and have given such to others. a prime example of the former was from 1980 when i was shrinkwrapped by the psychs, slipping their grasp i hobbled blindly to a friend who ran a mission and simple 2WC between trained auditors let me climb out of HELL. and of the latter, i have given some account of what i was ble to do for my lifelong best friend in the weeks his wife, son, sister and i gave him 24/7 TLC as he died of cancer
Anonycat
Crusader
The closest that I can come to a response to that right now, is that I fear our relationship here will be compromised if I get into:
1) Mental Health.
2) How much you got out of Hubbard documents.
Intentionally on my part, I have chosen to avoid those two hot topics of yours. I have not engaged with you about that. I have read those posts of yours many times. So - our history of never debating in a way that I do, is something I'm going to maintain.
Unless you think it would be somehow useful and positive.
Commander Birdsong
Crusader
i think it is well known on this board that i will engage in dialogue with anyone who wishes to do so and as well entirely respect any posters right to ignore me
i do at times post writing which can be construed as having the tone of "throwing down the gauntlet" but i do not impugn the mettle of any who will not pick it up
it is fun to lock horns a bit if you or any want to give it a go...
p.s. i don't make any claim to being in possession of anyone's standard of "mental health"
i do at times post writing which can be construed as having the tone of "throwing down the gauntlet" but i do not impugn the mettle of any who will not pick it up
it is fun to lock horns a bit if you or any want to give it a go...
p.s. i don't make any claim to being in possession of anyone's standard of "mental health"
Gib
Crusader
I am well aware of the "cheese" you promote. Afterall, the "cheese" you promote was developed by Alan, gordan, John, and probably others I forget at the moment.
Anonycat
Crusader
Okay, if no one minds. Make a thread in what amounts to the trash heap area in the forum, and we can have some fun. No hard feelings, I hope.
kate8024
-deleted-
freethinker
Sponsor
That datum, Outflow=Inflow was never in a Policy letter. It's origin is unknown but Ron never wrote it
Are you still in the Mormon church now?
Are you still in the Mormon church now?
Anonycat
Crusader
I think you meant Targ.
kate8024
-deleted-
I go to pretty much every church/temple/pagan ritual/etc. On Sundays I usually cycle through churches. In a lot of them I'm considered a member of the congregation, but in the Mormon church you are not considered a full member unless you have been baptised in the church and made a declaration in front of the church that this is _the_ true church which refuse to do partly because it in effect means renouncing all other churches/faiths/etc. and partly because Mormons are their own brand of crazy. Believe me, the places that ex-mormons post looks a lot like ESMB.
Gadfly
Crusader
I have the view that there can be evidence-based spirituality, but no, NOT "religion".
Buddhism is such a thing. Various mediation techniques are the result of thousands of years of experimentation into the mechanisms and workings of a mind (and possibly spirit). Yoga too.
Scientology pretends to be such a thing.
Religious trappings have been appended to both Buddhism and the Vedas, but in pure form, these are largely exercises in a "scientific exploration of the mind and spirit".
But, by its nature and by definition "religion" involves BELIEF in what is UNSEEN (i.e. "faith"). Believing in what is NOT OBSERVED is the opposite of "evidence". The moment "faith" enters the picture, the evidence goes out the window and is disregarded.
Though getting into subtleties of "mental science", faith can be viewed from a higher plateau as "the imaginative creation of what does not yet exist" - but THAT isn't how it manifests in most religions other than certain branches of Buddhism and Hinduism. Some forms of "prayer" access this factor - though unknowingly.
Buddhism is such a thing. Various mediation techniques are the result of thousands of years of experimentation into the mechanisms and workings of a mind (and possibly spirit). Yoga too.
Scientology pretends to be such a thing.
Religious trappings have been appended to both Buddhism and the Vedas, but in pure form, these are largely exercises in a "scientific exploration of the mind and spirit".
But, by its nature and by definition "religion" involves BELIEF in what is UNSEEN (i.e. "faith"). Believing in what is NOT OBSERVED is the opposite of "evidence". The moment "faith" enters the picture, the evidence goes out the window and is disregarded.
Though getting into subtleties of "mental science", faith can be viewed from a higher plateau as "the imaginative creation of what does not yet exist" - but THAT isn't how it manifests in most religions other than certain branches of Buddhism and Hinduism. Some forms of "prayer" access this factor - though unknowingly.
Last edited:
Commander Birdsong
Crusader
me?
hard feelings?
over words?
puh-leeeze
get back to ya later and we'll get a thread going...