Scientology explained

[Terril park]

I also love cheese cake. Below images for "Viennese cheesecake".


https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=v...=-EOtVMTrKIi07ga2wYGYDw&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ

 

[Kemist]

This is a good post as far as it goes, but it raises as many questions as it answers. What exactly is a control group for psychotherapy (where you can't exactly have a "placebo" interaction, i.e. one which looks like a proper therapeutic intervention on behalf of the experimenter / therapist but in fact isn't, whilst also not having a negative effect on the subject)? Simply giving the subjects no interaction, as in the Army study, doesn't eliminate the possibility that they'd get better as a result of any human interaction, not just that involved in psychotherapy.

P.S. Lemon cheesecake is the best IMO; you need sharp citrusy flavours to act as a counterpoint to all the sweetness (blackcurrant is another good one).

That depends on the study design. You're not restricted to two groups. You can include, for instance, a group with standard therapy as well, to compare the new therapy to the current one. That is indeed what is done in the case of cancer drugs, because it would be unethical (in the real world sense of the word) to give no treatment when we know the outcome is earlier death.

And I doubt a "no-interaction group" would be completely isolated from human contact, because that constitues a very heavy modification of a person's environment by itself. I do not think this would be considered an ethical thing to do on a mentally ill population either. The point of a control group is to compare a new procedure either with no intervention or with the current gold standard. Here, no intervention means the person will still get normal human interaction, which will be distributed across a certain range. If the people undergoing therapy are statistically no better (or worse) than the group who received no therapy, it means that you can affirm that it is unlikely that the therapy has any effect. How unlikely depends on the size of your group and your study design.

 

[RogerB]

Sorry to hear that. It's 75 & sunny here in Los Angeles. Maybe the quakes in NZ are a sign that it will split in half & sink into the ocean before California does.

Is you trying to bait me!?!

One of my friends here actually reported (privately) that, NZ, sitting on the edge of a monster ocean trench/fault zone as it does, is psychically seen (one of those Edgar Cayce type prescience things) to go plop! and vanish below the line between the Tasman Sea and the Pacific big O . . . and, so the prediction goes . . . laying on Bondi Beach expecting to relax at such a time would be a very poor move . . . the tsunami to test your swimming ability would be stupendous!

And for the record, it's even colder here this morning . . . fingers too bloody cold to really work this keyboard.

 

[eldritch cuckoo]

A recent "Bunker" comment with a very useful link that might come in handy for understanding certain responses on this thread, or behavior patterns of a Scientologist you have to deal with "IRL". :wink2:

http://tonyortega.org/2015/01/07/th...-maybe-for-the-super-bowl/#comment-1776506927

Here's a handy list and brief explanation of 15 Primitive Defense Mechanisms. I don't see any that are not employed and set on "auto" in the minds of those still remaining today. They are made up of 2nd and 3rd generation families with the head of each being veterans of scientology. If anyone knows how void of progress and real help in the world their activities and funds have been, it is them. All they have to do, after all, is just look around at their Own families to know this. It is no wonder that approaching them with facts causes fissures and cracks in their protective bubbles. They do not have an easy road ahead of them. That's why any support they can get as they wander away is so important.

Denial, Regression, Acting Out, Dissociation, Compartmentalization, Projection, Reaction Formation, Repression, Displacement, Internalization, Rationalization, Undoing, Sublimation, Compensation, Assertiveness

http://psychcentral.com/lib/15-common-defense-mechanisms/0001251?all=1

 

[Bill]

The pathetic and never-ending wail for "scientific proof" has become the hallmark of a failed Scientologist.

Dear Leon-2,
The insistence of Scientologists like you that no one must ever ask for any proof of Hubbard's claims and must never, ever ask for any evidence of the promised results just means this:

Do not look too closely at Scientology; do not question Scientology; just believe.​

Scientology only "works" on someone who will believe that:

• Everything good that happens now is "because of Scientology" and
• Everything bad is because "Scientology wasn't applied correctly".

That's your true Scientologist right there. The "effectiveness" of Scientology is obvious, every day. No matter whether things are going well or failing - it all means that "Scientology works!"

You just have to believe.

 

[Leon-2]

thousands managed it perfectly?

What does that mean?

Thousands are OT8's, thousands are clear, thousands are Ot, thousands are auditors?

Thousands of people.

 

[Leon-2]

People left (the Church of) $cientology because they were sold false promises, their incomes were being insidiously drained, their families torn apart, their well being and health destroyed, used as slave labor, they were lied to, held against their will and in some cases ending up dead.

Correct.

Note my addition made for even greater correctness.

And note further that none of the above mentions the lack of "scientific proof".

Point made.

 

[Leon-2]

Leon, you are dead wrong, and I am the proof (or at least one of them). I escaped Scientology in 1963, just as the Org was beginning to turn into the evil thing it has become, so I did not endure the awful brainwashing and treatment that most on this forum are recovering from. Most of the people on this forum DID get thoroughly and ethically involved, and are now suffering the consequences. Try reading their posts.

My escape was because I had an argument with a friend who was undergoing Psychoanalysis, and in the middle of the argument I suddenly realized that all my arguments against his belief in Psychoanalysis also applied to my belief in Scientology. So I went to HASI in Johannesburg and asked to see some evidence, and they immediately declared me an SP! Then I started reading and studying physics, evolution, psychology, philosophy, religion, etc. and cleared my brain out. There are still big holes in my knowledge, but at least now they are not full of shit.

Guess I'll go and fill the hole in my stomach with some cheesecake.

Mike

Excellent!

So for a start you seem to agree that the Scio being done now is a completely buggered up version of what was available to you earlier. And I support you on the 1963 date - this is the time Hubs was so deep into GPM stuff and had it all arse about face and went loopy.

But secondly - and there are two sides to this one - you make no mention of whether the psycho-therapy the guy was doing then had been validated by science, nor did you have him go back to his therapist and demand "scientific proof" of the effectiveness of what he was doing.

So while I understand your reasoning and actions and motives, yet it gives no comparable scientific contrast with Scientology.

I gut my teeth in Cape Town Org during the 1970s. We were a backwater of Scio (and they probably still are) but I was in Joburg regularly and knew many of the guys there.

 

[Claire Swazey]

re cheesecaek

I find it a bit heavy. But, a restaurant I used to go to had a white chocolate cheesecake I loved. It was prett light. I found a recipe and made it once but it was dense. Very tasty came out fine, but, man! If I could find a lighter version, it would be awesome.

 

[Free Being Me]

Correct.

Note my addition made for even greater correctness.

And note further that none of the above mentions the lack of "scientific proof".

Point made.

No, leave $cientology entirely. A novel worthwhile concept for a true believer - a life cult free.

 

[Claire Swazey]

No, leave $cientology entirely. A novel worthwhile concept for a true believer - a life cult free.

Cults are a type of group. An ology good, bad, in between -is not a group.

 

[Leon-2]

1)


It's not any kind of science.

Correct. I have said several times on the thread that scientology is not a science. So we're agreed on this.

1) It is the summation of the delusional rantings of a drug addled, sadistic, psychopathic bipolar paranoid schizophrenic.

And that is your scientific assessment, is it? Or is it the ravings of a paranoiac? Sounds like the latter.

1) If you find happiness in that, so be it. You don't find happiness though do you? You'll be happy when you have convinced everyone else that this is a subject fit for study.

I'm pretty uptone and happy in my life. I have a good wife and am fairly well set up. This thread and getting any agreements from others on what I say is a sideshow.

1)What it takes, as you have so admirably demonstrated is a rejection of the very evidence that refutes what you believe.

It requires the capacity for self-deception and delusion.

Let's consider this. You say they don't practice scientology in the COfS. So the thousands you speak of must be in the freezone.

They started off with the Indy 500. This didn't quite get to 500.

They had another drive after that which had a smaller number and then when that floundered they wound up with a closed facebook account.

My experience in watching Marty Rathbun's books indicated that there were a few dozen people writing reviews and dealing with criticism.

I don't understand some of the terms and allusions you make here above so it is hard to even comment on it. Indy 500? another drive with a smaller number? facebook? Rathbun's books I have never read and have no interest in. I know Indy 500 is a car race and facebook is something people waste a huge amount of time on but I don't follow your argument here.

1) Not thousands. Only thousands in your mind.

Thousands of real people in the real world.

1) There is a disturbing pattern in your thinking.

You deny evidence is relevant and prefer you own testimony (you use the term scientific proof, but you are confusing mathematics, which does have proofs, with science which does not).

Science has no proofs? Tell me more, please.

1) You then summarily ignore the testimony of everyone on this board. There are no personal stories where people have said that the reason they left was a lack of commitment.

They couldn't take it anymore, they noticed a contradiction that made them question, they escaped the RPF or escaped before they were about to go on the RPF.

You ignore evidence and you ignore testimonies that do not agree with yours.

We all have a tendency toward prejudice. Wise people are aware of this and counter it by looking for evidence which refutes their beliefs and engage in dialogue with others, where they take ideas on board if they are good. You do neither of these things. Not a good idea.

I am very well acquainted with the horror stories that people have told they went through on this board and elsewhere. I do believe them. I also know full well that they were never 'in' Scientology itself but were caught up in the evil web of the organization set up to deliver scientology. These are two different things and that difference needs to be grasped. The Church of Scientology is an evil empire set up by Hubbard and perpetuated by the corrupt barstards that ran the place after him which is designed to separate fools from their money and to enslave those who have no money left.

They don't do Scientology there. The RPF is not Scientology. They only do robbery and fraud.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Experimentation

It can be good or bad. Medical doctors-including some psychiatrists-have experimented on patients. Sometimes without consent, sometimes deleteriously.

If a person decides he wants to do something considered experimental, it's his lookout.

New Age practitioners' methods are mostly experimental.

 

[Leon-2]

Perfect! You have encapsulated in one post all the faults and failings of Scientology and all the justifications and excuses for those failings.

You have made the case for Scientology is completely bogus. "There is no proof! Asking for proof is crazy! You must believe!"

Not only isn't it "rocket science", it isn't science. "Hubbard lied," you've said. "It isn't science as he claimed. It's how you feel!"

Perfect! You have finally "explained Scientology".

You have never read my posts on this thread have you? Or if you did then you were in such a drugged and drunken stupor that you duplicated nothing.

I have said over and over again and again that Scientology is NOT a science.

And neither is enjoying the taste of cheesecake a science. It is something on experiences by participating in it and contributing towards it (in this case active taste buds) and enjoying the benefits thereof.

I'll have one too please Sally!

 

[Leon-2]

Dear Leon-2,
The insistence of Scientologists like you that no one must ever ask for any proof of Hubbard's claims and must never, ever ask for any evidence of the promised results just means this:

Do not look too closely at Scientology; do not question Scientology; just believe.​

Scientology only "works" on someone who will believe that:

• Everything good that happens now is "because of Scientology" and
• Everything bad is because "Scientology wasn't applied correctly".

That's your true Scientologist right there. The "effectiveness" of Scientology is obvious, every day. No matter whether things are going well or failing - it all means that "Scientology works!"

You just have to believe.

Nuts

 

[Student of Trinity]

Suppose a true-believer Scientologist says openly that Scientology requires high long-term commitment as well as great care to avoid costly mistakes, and that the best benefits it can then deliver are subjective and untestable. I can't see any legitimate objection to somebody stating it as their personal opinion that these untestable benefits can be worth their acknowledged cost. I also can't see any great need to object to an opinion like that, since a deal like that will attract few people, and those few will be going into it with their eyes open.

A deal like the above would be 'soft' Scientology: unobjectionable but unappealing. The only reason anyone's ever heard of Scientology is that it was originally offered in its 'hard' form, which promised dramatically objective benefits like enormous intelligence and freedom from ailments, as rewards for modest efforts that always worked. I retain my impression that people who defend Scientology in soft form are still secretly trying to slip back to the hard form whenever they can, because the soft form is so banal. Baiting and switching, to have your cake and eat it too, is the best of both worlds.

 

[Free Being Me]

No, leave $cientology entirely. A novel worthwhile concept for a true believer - a life cult free.

Cults are a type of group. An ology good, bad, in between -is not a group.

What's so hard to understand leaving a cult in it's entirety, physically as well as mentally/emotionally discarding the cult leader's toxic crippling woo. Any cult leader can tack on an ology so it sounds good. Scary shit leaving a cult on every level but it can be done.

 

[Bill]

You have never read my posts on this thread have you? Or if you did then you were in such a drugged and drunken stupor that you duplicated nothing.

I have said over and over again and again that Scientology is NOT a science.

And neither is enjoying the taste of cheesecake a science. It is something on experiences by participating in it and contributing towards it (in this case active taste buds) and enjoying the benefits thereof.

I'll have one too please Sally!

Oh do stop with the childish put-downs and crude ad hominems. I've not done that to you, I have only addressed your ideas. Your insults don't bother me but apparently my comments, without any personal insults, seem to be more than you can sanely respond to.

I truly feel sorry for you.

 

[strativarius]

Howzit Leon. In answer to my own question posed a few pages back, I determine that you are not a dumb scientologist but a gifted troll. No one could say "The Church of Scientology is an evil empire set up by Hubbard..." and then so staunchly defend his so-called tek the way you do unless they were trolling. And that's all I have left to say on this thread except I'm glad you like cheesecake, obviously a man of taste - quite unusual in a crunchy!*

* Crunchy - Friendly title used by expat Brit Sun City casino staff when referring to white South Africans, especially those of Dutch extraction.

 

[Bill]

Dear Leon-2,
The insistence of Scientologists like you that no one must ever ask for any proof of Hubbard's claims and must never, ever ask for any evidence of the promised results just means this:

Do not look too closely at Scientology; do not question Scientology; just believe.​

Scientology only "works" on someone who will believe that:

• Everything good that happens now is "because of Scientology" and
• Everything bad is because "Scientology wasn't applied correctly".

That's your true Scientologist right there. The "effectiveness" of Scientology is obvious, every day. No matter whether things are going well or failing - it all means that "Scientology works!"

You just have to believe.

Nuts

Oh, I forgot the best part: A true Scientologist believes that all good things that happened before Scientology were because he/she accidentally applied the "correct Scientology tech"!!