Black and White

Terril park

Sponsor
LOL.

Seriously, I never ran any atom bombs in volcanos. That would have been out tech and, well…..delusional.

Becuz, the reality is that they were Hydrogen Bombs.

Let's keep this discussion standard and rational, okay?


I was just trying to keep the gradient less steep as its possible you were
rabitting:coolwink:
 

Man de la Mancha

Patron with Honors
So, Chapter 5 of Scientology 8-80 is filled with praise for Black and White such as



and it basically says Black and White is going to solve all the problems of other processes and have the whole planet clear within a week or something.

but in Scientology 8-8008 it says



Both of these books were published in 1952. Surely I am not the only one who has noticed this and found it rather odd.

I had maybe 4 or 5 hours of standard "auditing" and about 10 or 15 hours of sec checks in my 4 years as a Scientologist. Nothing big ever happenned, but I did have two incredible experiences running this "black and white" process (solo, of course). It made me realize we are separate from the body.
 

Queenmab321

Patron Meritorious
I found the following, very short, acticle compelling, as well as appropos to this thread. I think Scientology walks and quacks like a religion. Its dogamatism renders it unphilosophical and its magical thinking is anything but scientific. Furthermore, it provides its adherents with strong feelings of special identity and purpose, which is, as I understand it, a primary function of all religious sects.

http://hatewatch.freedommag.org/hatewach/experts/eng/beckford01.pdf
 

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron
I found the following, very short, acticle compelling, as well as appropos to this thread. I think Scientology walks and quacks like a religion. Its dogamatism renders it unphilosophical and its magical thinking is anything but scientific. Furthermore, it provides its adherents with strong feelings of special identity and purpose, which is, as I understand it, a primary function of all religious sects.

http://hatewatch.freedommag.org/hatewach/experts/eng/beckford01.pdf

No, I could use those characteristics to define both the Communist and Tea Parties as religions*. The Tea Party is largely, but not exclusively composed of people who already have a religion, and the CPSU and CCP are / were athiests.

* And if you don't think both Tea Party and Marxist economics are magical, thinking, well... :biggrin:
 

kate8024

-deleted-
No, I could use those characteristics to define both the Communist and Tea Parties as religions*. The Tea Party is largely, but not exclusively composed of people who already have a religion, and the CPSU and CCP are / were athiests.

* And if you don't think both Tea Party and Marxist economics are magical, thinking, well... :biggrin:

They may fit with the Functionalist definition but I do not in any way see how those meet the Substantive definition. If you see a way that it does, please explain your insight there a bit more in detail.
 

Veda

Sponsor
I found the following, very short, acticle compelling, as well as appropos to this thread. I think Scientology walks and quacks like a religion. Its dogamatism renders it unphilosophical and its magical thinking is anything but scientific. Furthermore, it provides its adherents with strong feelings of special identity and purpose, which is, as I understand it, a primary function of all religious sects.

http://hatewatch.freedommag.org/hatewach/experts/eng/beckford01.pdf

Two more links from the same "hatewatch.freedommag" site.

http://hatewatch.freedommag.org/hatewach/social.htm

http://hatewatch.freedommag.org/


9780884049166_p0_v1_s260x420.jpg


___________



tumblr_ld50v7q6tn1qabw68o1_400.gif


 
Last edited:

DoneDeal

Patron Meritorious
snip
Here are some more links from the same "hatewatch.freedommag" site.

tumblr_ld50v7q6tn1qabw68o1_400.gif


lol..I see. I couldn't figure out what the simpsons thing was about till I saw it's address.

Man, that hurt my eyes. I guess I stared at it too long.
 

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron
They may fit with the Functionalist definition but I do not in any way see how those meet the Substantive definition. If you see a way that it does, please explain your insight there a bit more in detail.

That was a not a definition of religion, but a direct reply to Queenmab321 about the three charactierstics s/he said made Scientology quack like a religion:

Dogmatic (Not all religions are, but the Tea Party and CPSU / CCP are. Komintern was as well, but Komintern might as well have been an arm of the CPSU after 1921).

Magical Thinking (The Tea Party's faith in market economics beyond the boundary conditions where markets work, and its faith in austerity measures in the face of faked academic data, is nothing but magical. Their ideas about the Founders and Original intent are also magical and talismanic. The CPSU was still working on 5 year plans when I lived there in the Gorbachev era. If they hadn't built Communism in 70 plus years, it's pretty magical thinking to keep going. Although you could argue, without much argument from me, that it had crossed over into "insane" by that point. The idea of novo homis - so familiar to ex-SCN, also reared its head.)

Strong Feelings of Identity and Purpose (The Tea Party thinks it's getting rid of the rot in society, and all those pledges keep the RINOs out, or at least in fear of their seats if they don't toe the abortion line. The CPSU was Helping Workers of the World Unite! Then it got "Dizzy with Success" and declared that everyone was working for "Socialism in One Country"! Look at all the sick fucks weeping with nostalgia for Stalin. All the ex-SCN reading about battered woman syndrome from RVY will identify with that, too - no sense of purpose for them anymore. The world doesn't make sense without their former abuser.)
 

DoneDeal

Patron Meritorious
I once challenged anyone on ESMB to find an exception to that Hubbard "law" (of commotion) and so far nobody has.

That's cause it's impossible since it's an ever moving target. Standard tech, yeah right.
There are probably 5 or so contradictions for each statement made by little h.

Actually, I already did the research, my brain is mush now.

Don't be like me and be a scn'ists. Or don't be like a scn'ists and be like me. Or don't be like a non scn'ist's and be like me, or...
I'm trying to write a song. I'll get it down, been working on it for 50 years....good thing we got billions. Ton's of time to ponder and waste.
 

Queenmab321

Patron Meritorious
No, I could use those characteristics to define both the Communist and Tea Parties as religions*. The Tea Party is largely, but not exclusively composed of people who already have a religion, and the CPSU and CCP are / were athiests.

* And if you don't think both Tea Party and Marxist economics are magical, thinking, well... :biggrin:

While I certainly agree that poltical philosophies/movements can provide individuals with an experience comparable to religious devotion (one can make something very like a religion out of almost anything), and there are certainly elements of Marxism, its eschatology, for example, that appear to be little more than secularized versions of Christian dogma, I believe the absence of super-empirical presuppositions is significant. Religions typically purport to reveal special knowledge of a more or less comprehensive, cosmological scheme, one that underwrites morality and places one within a context of spiritual struggle, for personal salvation and, more often than not, for the ultimate salvation of the world.
 

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron
While I certainly agree that poltical philosophies/movements can provide individuals with an experience comparable to religious devotion (one can make something very like a religion out of almost anything), and there are certainly elements of Marxism, its eschatology, for example, that appear to be little more than secularized versions of Christian dogma, I believe the absence of super-empirical presuppositions is significant. Religions typically purport to reveal special knowledge of a more or less comprehensive, cosmological scheme, one that underwrites morality and places one within a context of spiritual struggle, for personal salvation and, more often than not, for the ultimate salvation of the world.

I'll give you that and then some. The soul concept in $CN brings it closest to religion. But that it postulates that it can prove the existence of such a thing through MEST means (e.g. emeters) makes it a little different in my book. It removes the faith aspect, and replaces it with a con that must keep moving the goalposts to keep the faithful believing.

Religions like $CN that postulate real, literal, immortal souls, but no Gods at all, are rare on the ground. I think it's useful to look at them as separate from what we usually take to be religion or philosophy. I guess some New Age beliefs come close, though they usually posit non-human spirits, too.

Of course, given my technical training and materialist leaning, I have a term for God-less soul believing sects that's probably not kind enough for open debates:

spiritualist bullshit

:coolwink:
 

kate8024

-deleted-
Both of these books were published in 1952. Surely I am not the only one who has noticed this and found it rather odd.

So I looked up the publishing months, and not only were both published in 1952, they were published only 1 month apart. 8-80 was in November 1952 and 8-8008 was in December 1952
Source: Technical Bulletins Volume 1, pages 288 and 297
 

Queenmab321

Patron Meritorious
I'll give you that and then some. The soul concept in $CN brings it closest to religion. But that it postulates that it can prove the existence of such a thing through MEST means (e.g. emeters) makes it a little different in my book. It removes the faith aspect, and replaces it with a con that must keep moving the goalposts to keep the faithful believing.

Religions like $CN that postulate real, literal, immortal souls, but no Gods at all, are rare on the ground. I think it's useful to look at them as separate from what we usually take to be religion or philosophy. I guess some New Age beliefs come close, though they usually posit non-human spirits, too.

Of course, given my technical training and materialist leaning, I have a term for God-less soul believing sects that's probably not kind enough for open debates:

spiritualist bullshit

:coolwink:
Many fundamentalist Christian sects believe (God love 'em) that the claims of Christianity can be established and defended on an evidentiary basis. They begin with their dogma and attempt to marshal evidence through a kind of backward reasoning. From what I've read, Scientologists operate in a similar fashion. The Scientologists' claim that their beliefs are grounded in empirical research notwithstanding, the actual career of the typical adherent bears all the marks of blind faith. So, regardless of their lip service to scientific method, it seems obvious that, at the end of the day, their devotion is characteristically religious.

I'm no expert on tax law, but I think it's likely that Scientology's official status as a religion in the U.S. stems largely from a calculation on the government's part that the benefits of preserving the tax exempt status of all religious organizations outweighs the potential entanglements that could arise from making an exception in the case of COS. Tax exempt status of religious entities is conditioned upon non-involvement in political activities, so rather than enhancing freedom of religion, it actually provides a means of government control. Churches tend to opt for the quid pro quo, refraining from engaging in political activism in order to maintain their tax exemption.
 

Veda

Sponsor
I've never been to that site. I simply googled the name of the article and copied the URL of the first pdf I came across.

Scientology loves dupes and, initially, I might have thought of you as merely someone who has simply been duped by Scientology on the topic of it being a religion, but with your recently posted - initially cute - video, which equates kids saying the pledge of allegiance with brainwashing, and that ends with a "come and get your Ritalin" statement to the kids, I'm beginning to wonder.

Scientology's two ploys for deflecting the brainwashing accusation are 1) insist that only very unusual and specific actions are brainwashing, such as "pain drug hypnosis," etc., or 2) insist that almost anything is brainwashing.

For someone who's never been involved with Scientology, you are strangely "on the same page" with Scientology on both the "religion" and "brainwashing" topic.

But then again, perhaps it's just one of those things.

It's probably just one of those things. :)

In any event, although it probably won't make any difference in your case - although I hope it does - I suggest you listen to the reading of the affidavit of Lawrence Brennan, starting at 2:12, regarding religious cloaking, and again at 4:07, regarding the use, and deception and manipulation of, "religious experts."

Video on Religious cloaking - the affidavit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZvqeGrbILw

The complete document:

http://www.lermanet.com/reference/brennan-dec.pdf
 

Queenmab321

Patron Meritorious
Scientology loves dupes and, initially, I might have thought of you as merely someone who has simply been duped by Scientology on the topic of it being a religion, but with your recently posted - initially cute - video, which equates kids saying the pledge of allegiance with brainwashing, and that ends with a "come and get your Ritalin" statement to the kids, I'm beginning to wonder.

Scientology's two ploys for deflecting the brainwashing accusation are 1) insist that only very unusual and specific actions are brainwashing, such as "pain drug hypnosis," etc., or 2) insist that almost anything is brainwashing.

For someone who's never been involved with Scientology, you are strangely "on the same page" with Scientology on both the "religion" and "brainwashing" topic.

But then again, perhaps it's just one of those things.

It's probably just one of those things. :)

In any event, although it probably won't make any difference in your case - although I hope it does - I suggest you listen to the reading of the affidavit of Lawrence Brennan, starting at 2:12, regarding religious cloaking, and again at 4:07, regarding the use, and deception and manipulation of, "religious experts."

Video on Religious cloaking - the affidavit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZvqeGrbILw

The complete document:

http://www.lermanet.com/reference/brennan-dec.pdf

Religion isn't always a con, but when it is, as in the case of Scientology, it's still religion. I live in the Bible Belt. The typical parent down here tells their child that if she doesn't love Jesus and submit to the teachings of scripture, she will be BURNED ALIVE in hell forever. I happen to believe this is an unfortunate state of affairs, but it's not my business, and, more to the point, it's not the business of government to tell these people what to believe. It seems to me, when it comes to "religious cloaking" the COS got good lawyers who came up with sound arguments. After all, we're talking about the behavior, for the most part, of consenting adults and the consenting guardians of minor children. In a free society only so much can be done to protect people from their own credulity. The government can and has weighed in on medical claims, but it cannot speak to the existence of thetans, engrams, past lives, angels or the probable return of either LRH or Jesus Christ.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Religion isn't always a con . . . .

I would have to say that MOST of the time it IS a con - all religion.

Just not intentionally so.

It is simply a matter of idiots perpetuating their idiocy upon their children and others under their influence.

With your example of the Bible Belt indoctrination, to me, it is STILL a CON. But, as I said, it is not intentionally a con.

With Scientology, Hubbard DESIGNED it to be a very slick con - and he succeeded.
 

Veda

Sponsor
Obtaining "financing and appropriations," from the government, was noted as an objective in Hubbard's confidential 'Intelligence actions, Covert Intelligence Data Collection' of 1969.

The objective, to some extent, has been attained.

459338133_irs2_xlarge.gif


-snip-

I think it's likely that Scientology's official status as a religion in the U.S. stems largely from a calculation on the government's part that the benefits of preserving the tax exempt status of all religious organizations outweighs the potential entanglements that could arise from making an exception in the case of COS.

-snip-

Compare your explanation with that of Lawrence Wright, made during an interview from last year, regarding the IRS's sudden about face, changing the position it had held for decades:


In 1993, the "Church" owed a billion dollars in back taxes. They had decided not to pay taxes, and desperately needed a tax exemption or they would go out of business. We would not be talking about the "Church of Scientology" if they had not gotten an IRS tax exemption.

David Miscavige [had] launched 2,300 lawsuits against the IRS, and individual agents, hired private investigators to follow individual agents around, and part of the deal, whatever the merits of the case, was that the IRS would give the "Church" tax exemption, forgive the billion dollars, and the "Church" would call off the private investigators, and drop the lawsuits...

When the IRS made that determination, then the protections of the first amendment, freedom of religion clause, came into play, and those are vast protections, and it's because of those protections that the "Church" is able to operate today...



One of those followed around by private investigators was the IRS Commissioner, and the topic of the possible blackmailing of the IRS Commissioner, is another disturbing area.
 
Top