Scientology is all bad

[AnonKat]

Than you will never examine it properly, I think that is a sin.

Scientology is all bad.

 

[Infinite]

Than you will never examine it properly, I think that is a sin.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

You keep trying to stop any discussion of Scientology from including statements made by Hubbard -- as if what Hubbard said had nothing to do with Scientology and must be discounted entirely.

This really continues to boggle my mind.

Bill

Not at all. It's just that since hubbard was notoriously unreliable any statements by him must be regarded in that same light. There are items of interest there, but there is also much that is erroneous, deceitful, or intentionally manipulative.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Idle Morgue]

Hmm - you could have simply answered your own questions by doing some basic reading.

Someone saying something like most scientologists babble in session would not get much traction with any psychologist. They are much less interested in the fantasies unless those fantasies dictate actions in the real world.

You would have also found that psychologists normally do not prescribe drugs as they are not licensed physicians, nor do they usually have admitting privileges to hospitals (something that is required for institutionalization) - I say "usually" because there are physicians who also hold psychology degrees.

So the difference between a psychologist and a scientologist would be that a psychologist would recognize the drivel in an auditing session as guided fantasy and not of much use, whereas Scientologists cannot see a person dying of a mental illness in their midst even at the "mecca of technical perfection".

Which pretty much makes scientology not just worthless but harmful.

That is just PROFOUND!!!!

 

[Bill]

Not at all. It's just that since hubbard was notoriously unreliable any statements by him must be regarded in that same light. There are items of interest there, but there is also much that is erroneous, deceitful, or intentionally manipulative.

Mark A. Baker

Yes, and that perfectly sums up Scientology, whatever version you wish to pretend is the "real Scientology".

Bill

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... Mark Baker doesn't care what Hubbard said about Scientology, even though he thinks that Hubbard discovered it, ...

No. It is more accurate to say that hubbard wrote up the majority of materials relating to the subject of scientology. It is more accurate to say that he gave it a name and promoted the subject rather than that he "discovered it". Much, arguably most, of the actual subject data comes from the work of others.

... I asked once, here, whether people with views like his would be prepared to give up the 'Scientology' label, since labels don't matter anyway, just as a PR measure against the CofS. He declined; I can't force him; I don't see any point in further fighting about terminology.

The fact is that the labels don't really matter.

Unlike many others I continue by my own preference to acknowledge the role that the history of scientology as a popular spiritually based movement has played in developing and promoting the various techniques associated with scientology auditing. I don't have a problem with the 'words' used to scientology. I dispose of that which makes no sense and use that which does. Not a problem.

What I consider to be ridiculous is the excessive focus others place on the words as if they have some significance beyond the point of communication.

There is a subject of scientology. It has beneficial aspects. There is also a church. It is a dangerous and abusive cult. That so many apparently are incapable of distinguishing between these distinctly different phenomena is indicative, not of problems with the subject, but of their own preoccupation.

I've a personal liking for the phrase Open Source Spirituality, but I'm also fine with continuing to use the term scientology as a generic (like kleenex) term rather than it's trademarked variety.

I'm not the one arguing passionately over the emotional significance of individual's personal choice of language. Why would you care? (rhetorical)


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... He says that we are wrong about the evils, mistakes and/or failures of Scientology because "That isn't Scientology!" He does not properly qualify this as his version of Scientology, he just says "Scientology" and that we are completely wrong about it. ...

Actually I don't tend to use the word "Scientology" at all. My preference is to clearly differentiate between the subject of scientology and the institutions associated with the Co$. I tend to be quite clear about the distinctions I draw, whereas ambiguity is the hallmark of your own posts.

The capitalization of the initial 's' of the word scientology by common english practice implies a reference to an institution, in this case those of the Co$. However you routinely use "Scientology" in reference not simply to the church and its affiliated agencies but also to aspects of the subject, tech, materials, and other aspects relating to the lives of those who consider themselves to be scientologists.

In short, you aggregate distinctly different topics into a single confused & ambiguous terminology. In contrast my tendency has been to focus on specific areas of difference and discuss them separately.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Bill]

Actually I don't tend to use the word "Scientology" at all. My preference is to clearly differentiate between the subject of scientology and the institutions associated with the Co$. I tend to be quite clear about the distinctions I draw,

Gee I haven't noticed that. What I've noticed is that you pretend that there is a "Scientology" which has nothing to do with Hubbard, and then you pretend that's the "real Scientology".

whereas ambiguity is the hallmark of your own posts.

That's a lie.

The capitalization of the initial 's' of the word scientology by common english practice implies a reference to an institution, in this case those of the Co$. However you routinely use "Scientology" in reference not simply to the church and its affiliated agencies but also to aspects of the subject, tech, materials, and other aspects relating to the lives of those who consider themselves to be scientologists.

That's a lie. I always refer to the Church of Scientology as the Church of Scientology and to Scientology as Scientology. What you object to is that I know the corruption in the church comes directly from Scientology itself.

In short, you aggregate distinctly different topics into a single confused & ambiguous terminology.

And yet another lie. You are batting a 1000 on lies. It is you that is ambiguous because you refer to "Scientology" but what you are talking about is Bakerology -- you never make a distinction.

In contrast my tendency has been to focus on specific areas of difference and discuss them separately.

And that's why, when we discuss Scientology, you always give the generality "That's not Scientology"?

Mark A. Baker

If you are going to do nothing but lie about what I've said, I cannot have a sane discussion with you. Of course, you are a Scientologist, of course you lie and, of course, no sane discussion is possible.

Bill

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Originally Posted by Student of Trinity
I'd be very interested in any discussion you can provide about why Scientology doesn't count as an objective subject, but is only defined by Hubbard's dicta. I think that's a case that has to be made, not one that can be assumed as self-evident, but I'm inclined to think it probably can be made, and I'm interested in that.

Originally Posted by Bill
As for this aspect, which I was not addressing, i do have some thoughts.

First, this is reversed. Why should anyone need to "make the case" that Scientology is not an objective subject? Of course it isn't but if Mark, or someone else, wants to claim that it is, it is up to them to prove that there are absolute, proven facts that form the foundation of this "cosmic Scientology".

If Scientology was an "objective subject", there must be solid FACTS that it is based on. It can not be objective without proof and facts of its foundational principles. Scientology lacks all proof and any facts.

"Reactive mind"? Unproven. "Engrams"? Unproven. "Axioms"? Unproven. "Case gain attributed specifically and only to Scientology"? No proof. "Thetans"? No proof. "Past lives"? Unproven. And on and on.

Go through all the foundational claims of Scientology and you will find that not one single claim has been proven.

Until Mark, or anyone else, provides solid evidence of any of Scientology's foundational claims, Scientology remains only opinion and conjecture. It is up to the believers to provide proof if they want to claim it is "objective". It is NOT up to me to prove otherwise.

Scientology - The Science of Knowing How to Know, as sold by Hubbard, doesn't exist.

Hubbardism does exist.

Hubbardites think they are Scientologists, but there are no Scientologists, because there is no Scientology.

They are Hubbardites.

Student of Trinity, taking into consideration the above two excellent posts by Bill and Smilla, let me point something out to you that you may or may not have understood since you did not spend years studying Scientology.

Smilla's point that "there is no Scientology" might sound nonsensical to you but it is absolutely correct. There is a "natural law" behind that, much like Newton's Law of Motion. It is called:

The Hubbard Law of Commotion. For each and every Scientology policy, bulletin or piece of tech, there is an equal and opposite policy, bulletin or piece of tech.

Baker's magic spell only works if people unfamilar with Scientology don't know how the trick is done. Scientologists here on ESMB have seen this Scientology trick tens of thousands of times. The Scientologist "proves" that Scientology works by finding times that someone did what Hubbard said and it yielded results. They do this while shielding the viewer (misdirection) from all the times people did the exact opposite (also stated as fact by Hubbard, per the Hubbard Law of Commotion) and had disastrous or tragic results.

For example, a Scientologist would show you a time when Hubbard's tech was applied to someone who was starting to have a mental breakdown whereupon they quickly recovered. They would not show you the time Lisa McPherson was given the "Introspection Rundown" and killed as a result.

Mark Baker tries to confuse others on what Scientology is by handpicking certain fruits from trees in the garden of Scientology--and presenting it in a nifty fruit basket. Not only is that not Scientology, but for each shiny & tasty apple in his basket, there is an identical-looking apple back in the cult's garden that is poisonous.

What Scientology practitioners are practiced at is the art of deception using words. Intelligent people do not expect to be fooled by this kind of rhetorical legerdemain, but they do get tricked nonetheless unless they understand how it works. Similarly, incredibly strong athletes are not able to forcefully pull their fingers out of a Chinese finger trap.

Take another look at how Baker is doing his trick. Your statement that his position is "coherent", is, frankly, not true--owing to the very fortunate fact that you never wasted your time studying Hubbard's work. Try to find any part of Scientology that doesn't have an equal and opposite part. Nobody has done it yet. Consider this to be part of your enlightenment on understanding Scientology. Normally I charge hundreds of thousands of dollars to give people this Advanced Level tech. LOL.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Gee I haven't noticed that. What I've noticed is that you pretend that there is a "Scientology" which has nothing to do with Hubbard, and then you pretend that's the "real Scientology".


That's a lie.


That's a lie. I always refer to the Church of Scientology as the Church of Scientology and to Scientology as Scientology. What you object to is that I know the corruption in the church comes directly from Scientology itself.


And yet another lie. You are batting a 1000 on lies. It is you that is ambiguous because you refer to "Scientology" but what you are talking about is Bakerology -- you never make a distinction.


And that's why, when we discuss Scientology, you always give the generality "That's not Scientology"?


If you are going to do nothing but lie about what I've said, I cannot have a sane discussion with you. Of course, you are a Scientologist, of course you lie and, of course, no sane discussion is possible.

Bill

Hey Bill, I have watched Baker in countlesss conversations where he was cornered (by truth) and began throwing out lies and character "attack".

You must have really shaken him up because he started lying really fast this time.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

...

If "Scientology" was a self help book on "HOW TO WIN AT ROULETTE" there would be two versions of the same book with the same, identical cover and name.

1st VERSION: Hubbard's scientifically researched method would provide a "tech" for winning that was: Bet on red every time.

2nd VERSION: Hubbard's scientifcally researched method would provide a "tech" for winning that was: Bet on black every time.​

People who used the 1st Version and won money would swear by it.

People who used the 2nd Version and lost money would be instructed by readers of the 1st version that they did not apply the tech correctly.

People not knowing how Scientology is presented never suspect that there are two different books using the same name and cover.

That's how magic tricks are done. The audience never thought of that.

But once is it pointed out, it is ridiculously simple.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Jesus. It's debate between dissenting individuals. Not an attack.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Originally Posted by HelluvaHoax!
Hey Bill, I have watched Baker in countlesss conversations where he was cornered (by truth) and began throwing out lies and character "attack".

You must have really shaken him up because he started lying really fast this time.

Jesus. It's debate between dissenting individuals. Not an attack.

Your point is a good one. That is why I used quotations around the word "attack".

Because Baker typically uses innuendo and lies when he is cornered. Like telling Bill that "....whereas ambiguity is the hallmark of your own posts." Anyone who has read Bill's posts or his outstanding Blog knows that he is one of the most knowledgeable, straightforward, transparent and specific writers about Scientology on the entire Internet.

By contrast, I often see Baker reduced to denigrating people with ad hominem-laced charges of their suffering from "obsession" or "incapable of using logic" and other such personal hostilities. Hey, if you don't think the word "attack" is appropriate, let's call it an "assault" on truth. Better?

 

[Mark A. Baker]

...

I do not lie nor do I find outbursts of emotive outrage rationally suasive.

Mark A. Baker

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

I do not lie nor do I find outbursts of emotive outrage rationally suasive.

Mark A. Baker

Are you time traveling? How did you suddenly begin composing posts with a faux 18th century British rhetorical affectation?

By the way "outbursts of emotive outrage" that are not "rationally suasive" is much better than when you directly use the word "obsessed". People won't know what you mean exactly, it's better that way.

 

[Bill]

I do not lie nor do I find outbursts of emotive outrage rationally suasive.

Mark A. Baker

Then provide PROOF of all your lies about me. Or stop lying.

Also, this "emotive outrage" thing, what is that? Nothing I wrote fits that description. Was that your "emotive outrage" you were talking about?

Bill

 

[Claire Swazey]

It's not lies or innuendo. It's discussion. MAB just has a different set of views than yours.

 

[Gadfly]

It's not lies or innuendo. It's discussion. MAB just has a different set of views than yours.

And, some views far better align with the observational facts and events.

All views are NOT created equal.

 

[Gadfly]

Your point is a good one. That is why I used quotations around the word "attack".

Because Baker typically uses innuendo and lies when he is cornered. Like telling Bill that "....whereas ambiguity is the hallmark of your own posts." Anyone who has read Bill's posts or his outstanding Blog knows that he is one of the most knowledgeable, straightforward, transparent and specific writers about Scientology on the entire Internet.

By contrast, I often see Baker reduced to denigrating people with ad hominem-laced charges of their suffering from "obsession" or "incapable of using logic" and other such personal hostilities. Hey, if you don't think the word "attack" is appropriate, let's call it an "assault" on truth. Better?

Personally, I do like some of what MAB posts.

But, Hoaxter is accurate here. MAB more than occassionally stoops to covert swipes, innuendo and over-generalized non-specific criticisms of often unspecified posters. While I don't have the view that MAB consciously applies Hubbard's "attach tech", in a way not dissimilar to what Vinaire used to do here, nonetheless, MAB USES these "techniques". It is evident and observable in more than a few of his posts.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

It's not lies or innuendo. It's discussion. MAB just has a different set of views than yours.

I do understand what you are saying.

Here's my thing. To me, Scientology was a monumental waste of time. That happened because of the lies of L. Ron Hubbard and my being a naive teenager. But, great lesson in deception and self-deception.

The lies are the core obscenity of Scientology.

Been out for a very long time but it took some "clearing" to clear myself of the Clearing technology. LOL. In hindsight, the process of de-cultifying was just one of gaining CLARITY without being bombarded by Hubbard's (and Scientologist's) non-stop deception.

There are many people with whom I don't agree here on ESMB and I get along just fine with them. What I do take exception to, however, is when Mark tries to muddy the water and confuse issues with ambiguous rhetorical flourishes.

Yes, Claire, I know that others have different opinions and views. That is not at issue.

What is however integral to de-cultifying and de-Hubbardizing is to gain simple and straightforward CLARITY on the densely packed lies that Hubbard spewed for 36 years.

When I see someone muddy the water, I tend to comment because I honestly do not believe it is helpful to anyone to be further fogged over regarding the "tech".

Yes, Claire, I know that we don't agree on whether Mark does that or not.

I think I will keep my sensitivity knob at 11 on such matters, despite your encouragement to do otherwise.