WHO SAYS THE TECH. DOESN'T WORK!

Veda

Sponsor
-snip-

I guess many of us have totally different memories and it can grate a bit when hearing what sounds like PR nonsense (I get that it wasn't nonsense now).

-snip-

It does sound like PR nonsense at times... :eyeroll:

Some people on ESMB like to write Hubbard and Scientology off as "all bad" due to Hubbard's personality flaws.

Compare:

Isaac Newton's Personal Life

-snip-



Using the data I learned in Scientology in everyday life, I leave university professors, People learned in philosophy, spiritual leaders, politicians, businessmen and laymen astounded by the clarity and exactness of these observations.

-snip-

True, in recent years it has become increasingly difficult to find scientologists who can differentiate, like we used to do in the old days. But still you can find them, especially among those [Independent Scientologists] who left.
 

Motti

Patron
[QUOTE= [IMG said:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/images/misc/quote_icon.png[/IMG] Originally Posted by Motti
To sum it up:

Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true unless it's true for you. And if its not true for you, then you have M/Us and/or Overts


FIFY.

Dear Infinite,
I did not originally post the second sentence in the bold letters. This was your addition. But I would like to add a case-in-point to corroborate your addition and show how many MU's kool-aid drinkers have and hold on to:

religion |riˈlijən|
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods


This is the standard general dictionary definition. You can find it (or similarly phrased) in any dictionary of the English language.

It flies squarely in the teeth of the designation of Scientology as a religion:

A) Scientology does not involve any belief. First, the definition of the word "Scientology" is "Knowing how to know". KNOWING is not BELIEVING. You only believe in what you don't know. If, for example, you met God personally and talked to him, you wouldn't believe he existed, you'd know he existed.

Second, the maxim "it's not true unless it's true for you" defies belief.

B) "It is carefully observed here that the science of Scn does not intrude into the dynamic of the Supreme Being". (FOT, pp. 36-38) = No Supreme Being in Scientology.

So since it does not have either a supreme being and/or the element of faith in its fundamentals, it cannot be a religion per the definition.


(It can be called a religion for tax-exempt purposes, though...)

I have startled and perplexed quite a few loyal Scientologists with this MU clearing many times.

You can find many more MU's within the accepted dogma of the CoS. For example, they confuse the term "Look" (look and observe what's going on around you) with the term "Listen" (Listen to what COB says and this is the gospel truth or you're off to Ethics). Or confusing the terms "Freedom" and "Enslavement".


There are many more.
 

MrNobody

Who needs merits?
Dear Infinite,
I did not originally post the second sentence in the bold letters. This was your addition. <snip>

Motti, Infinite wrote FIFY, which means "fixed it for ya". With this FIFY comment he indicated that he changed the quoted text to what (he thinks) it should mean. It's really not much different than my <snip> comment, which I edited into your text to indicate that I shortened the quote.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Some people's fun doesn't involve shouting at ash trays for hours, but I guess it takes all sorts.

I wonder why people always want to make it seem like the drill is only comprised of shouting at ashtrays and that this goes on for hours.

Actually, it's composed of equal parts of the shouting and there's also whispering, speaking in normal tone and performing the command silently.

So shouting is...lemme see...oh yeah 25%.

Wow.

(plus it is kind of fun to do the drill and the yelling always cracks people up. They have fun with it.)
 

Veda

Sponsor
Scientology does not involve any belief. First, the definition of the word "Scientology" is "Knowing how to know". KNOWING is not BELIEVING. You only believe in what you don't know.

-snip-

...the maxim "it's not true unless it's true for you" defies belief.

-snip-

I shortened your post, removing the misleading and manipulative aluminum confetti.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
The maxim "what's true for you is true for you" defies logic.

Hubbard never said THAT. People say THAT all of the time, but it is NOT any actual quote. If such a quote actually exists, somebody, please post it.

The actual quote is something like:

What is true for you is what you have OBSERVED.

That comes from the policy, Personal Integrity.

And, whether you admit it or not, just about every person alive bases what he or she views as "true", at least to more than a little degree, on what he or she has observed (experienced, read, etc).

There is no doubt, that what any person "accepts as true" becomes "truth" for him or her. Of course, that does NOT mean that it "is true". The psychology of "belief" is a fascinating subject, that has a great deal to do with how any person interacts with the "data" of Scientology.

While Hubbard always downplayed this aspect greatly, because he wanted his subject viewed as some "science of knowing how to know", Scientology DOES function as a typical religion, because it involves a great deal of "faith" and belief - as opposed to actual verifiable facts. Of course, Scientology members often imagine that they are brutally logical in their understanding and application of Hubbard's "scientific" subject, but in fact, they are RELIGIOUS FOLLOWERS in the same vein as most any other "faith-based religion".

Hubbard makes a GREAT MANY CLAIMS, strewn all throughout the subject materials of Scientology, that often have little or no supporting evidence, and which any Scientology participant MUST "accept on faith" - because there is no other way to accept the information as true. KSW #1 is largely of that nature. KSW #1 is NOT "factual" - it is "gospel".

Scientology DOES function as a religion - but not in the way that any Scientology adherent will ever want to admit. And, not in a way that Hubbard's subject will ever endorse. There is no place in all of the subject data of Scientology where Hubbard comes out and honestly shares with the reader that, in fact, YOU are being groomed into a very strict type of BELIEVER through involvement with Scientology. Hubbard does NOT want to give the slightest clue that Scientology participants are CREATING an immense imaginative edifice based on Hubbard's many claims, assertions and statements. He wants to create and forward the delusion that you are "knowing with certainty based on careful personal observation". That last, "knowing with certainty based on careful personal observation", is often very far from the truth of the matter.

The carefully-planned gradient process of Scientology indoctrination tricks people into imagining that they are "knowing how to know", when in fact, they are being deceived into accepting a very exact set of BELIEFS about all sorts of things - things that for the most part CANNOT be EVER verified by actual honest experience. In other words, all too often Scientologists claim and assert that he or she is "logical", basing ones views on "observations", and "scientific", when actually the opposite is true.

The statement by Hubbard that "one need not believe anything" is PR. It is part of one of MANY LIES that Hubbard tosses out to trick members into starting along the Bridge to Total Stupidity. Most people will agree that it is a "good thing" to not have to believe in anything when investigating or trying out some new subject, so Hubbard places THAT "fact" there to "grease the works", and thus allows new Scientology participants the opportunity to delude themselves with the notion that "I am a cold calculated logical observer". It is funny really, because one imagines that he or she "need not believe anything", yet this same person very soon begins accepting all sorts of beliefs about a great many things as a result of studying Scientology.

It is most certainly a good idea to base what you accept as true on honest and evaluated observations. Sadly, THAT is NOT the way it works in Scientology!

And, once I started to notice THAT discrepancy, that tremendous contradiction, that Scientology did NOT work that way (even though it loudly claimed to), so began my gradual walking away from both the practice (Church) and the subject of Scientology. For me, I did NOT get involved with Scientology to become part of some "fairth-based religion". When I started seeing that THAT was largely what it WAS, well for me, it lost its attraction.
 
Last edited:

Jachs

Gold Meritorious Patron
A) Scientology does not involve any belief.

carefully observe

I have startled and perplexed quite a few loyal Scientologists with this many times.

Scientology relies only on belief that what Ron said is to be followed.

You can find many more within the accepted dogma of the CoS. For example, they confuse the term Look (look and observe what only Ron said is going on) with the term "Listen" (Listen to what the 1,000s say is the gospel truth or you're off back to Scientology). Or confusing the terms Implant and Impart.

There are many more.

I agree.
 

Jachs

Gold Meritorious Patron
Hubbard never said THAT. People say THAT all of the time, but it is NOT any actual quote. If such a quote actually exists, somebody, please post it.

The actual quote is something like:

What is true for you is what you have OBSERVED.

That comes from the policy, Personal Integrity.

And, whether you admit it or not, just about every person alive bases what he or she views as "true", at least to more than a little degree, on what he or she has observed (experienced, read, etc).

There is no doubt, that what any person "accepts as true" becomes "truth" for him or her. Of course, that does NOT mean that it "is true". The psychology of "belief" is a fascinating subject, that has a great deal to do with how any person interacts with the "data" of Scientology.

While Hubbard always downplayed this aspect greatly, because he wanted his subject viewed as some "science of knowing how to know", Scientology DOES function as a typical religion, because it involves a great deal of "faith" and belief - as opposed to actual verifiable facts. Of course, Scientology members often imagine that they are brutally logical in their understanding and application of Hubbard's "scientific" subject, but in fact, they are RELIGIOUS FOLLOWERS in the same vein as most any other "faith-based religion".

Hubbard makes a GREAT MANY CLAIMS, strewn all throughout the subject materials of Scientology, that often have little or no evidence, and which any Scientology participant MUST "accept on faith" - because there is no other way to accept the information otherwise. KSW #1 is largely of that nature. KSW #1 is NOT "factual" - it is "gospel".

Scientology DOES function as a religion - but not in the way that any Scientology adherent will ever want to admit. And, not in a way that Hubbard's subject will ever endorse.

The carefully-planned gradient process of Scientology indoctrination tricks people into imagining that they are "knowing how to know", when in fact, they are being deceived into a very exact set of BELIEFS about all sorts of things - things that for the most part CANNOT be verified by actual honest experience. In other words, all too often Scientologists claim and assert that he or she is "logical", basing ones views on "observations", and "scientific", when actually the opposite is true.

So right on Gadfly,

Hubbards strategy is always angling to make you a believer, always referring back to Ron, always back to believe Ron ,thats a whole lot of faith. If you were allowed to observe the truth without interference there wouldnt be a church.

Believe what the Reg says, what management says, what the sup says, and they can always find somewhere sometime that Ron said it. Never what the last OT, or sea org member who blew said, because Ron didnt ever want you to know that. Ron is never wrong, but once you discover the lies all lead back to Hubbard,the whole show starts to crumble.
 

Idle Morgue

Gold Meritorious Patron
Thank you for this thread! I just had a WIN!:happydance: I just figured out WHEN I realized that Scientology was a total CON! I had a PTS bullshit cycle too...the 16 year old brand spanking new and untrained :hyper: EO asked me my item.

I could not locate it because I never suspected the CULT - it WAS THE CULT!!!:happydance::happydance::happydance: He asked me to look at PTS Type III. :nervous: WTF??? How did I drive myself to the Morgue?? PTS Type III - never did find my ITEM that cycle and it was never brought up again. Then he told me to write up my O/W's. I did it but obtained NO RELIEF because I missed my item - The entire Organization! The Church of Scientology was suppressing the shit out of me. No, I had no overts against them other than being clueless to the game!

Thanks for this thread...I see more and more everytime I read! :yes:Hip Hip Hooray!
 

GreyLensman

Silver Meritorious Patron
Thank you each and every one for your welcoming - validating and hilarious replies to my first post (What did you find out), and here is another little something else that I wanted to get off my chest.

In about 1969 while at St Hill and after I had attested "Clear" I was found to be P.T.S. and consequently ordered to have an S&D. My item was 'it' but apparently I was still reading on the meter as being P.T.S.

A few days later I bumped into Jim Stathos who was on his way to Southampton to see LRH, who had recently docked there on the "Royal Scotsman". While down in Southampton he introduced me to Ron and I expressed an interest in joining the ship as the 'ship's carpenter', but explained that I had been declared P.T.S. even though I had had an S&D at St Hill. Ron asked me what my item was and I told him it was 'it', he said that was a generality and invited me on board for another S&D.

As a result of my session on board the "Royal Scotsman" when the question "Who or what has un-mocked you" was used it still came up that my item was 'it'. My folder went back to LRH and at my next session the question had been changed to "Who or what has attempted to un-mock you", this produced a new item "Scientology".

My folder went back to LRH and I was routed off lines, presumably as a result of a successful action. On my way through my routing form my folder was open on a desk and in it I could see a note from LRH, it read "give the PC his item and get him out of the area". I remember hitch hiking back to East Grinstead feeling decidedly like a non-person. So started my road out of the Church of Scientology aided by a selection of Ethics officers, and several Com.Evs.



Just shows how OT Ron really was - he absolutely knew you really had the correct item...


Scientology - the place where eventually you will cognite and blow. The whole church is really a session in and of itself, a show, a matrix. You just need to choose the red pill, wake up and you're done. Except that now the universe needs saving all over again.
 
Top