scientology

[ada]

I know there are a few creationists out there, just wondering if there are any followers of Elron Hubbard as well?

What are your general opinions on scientology?

[prometheus]

It is a joke that shows how insane religion is. Anyone can make up anything and people will believe in it. That was the joke the Scientology guy wanted to prove. And he succeded and got rich. Amazing!

[jre58591]

"religion is the opiate of the masses."
-karl marx

"organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers."
-jesse ventura

[rimv2]

I know there are a few creationists out there, just wondering if there are any followers of Elron Hubbard as well?

What are your general opinions on scientology?

The study of knowledge. Hmmmmm.......

 

Whatever floats their boats

[e60m5]

I know there are a few creationists out there, just wondering if there are any followers of Elron Hubbard as well?

What are your general opinions on scientology?

"Elron Hubbard" - lol!     Reminds me of a certain infamously corrupt corporation - perhaps the truth is out...

[pianojems]

Scientology is regarded as a cult by many people....I have heard about some of the unsettling rituals they follow....which are actually dangerous and harmful to human beings.

[pianowolfi]

I don' t think L. Ron Hubbard has had true knowledges. His goal was to "make money, make more money!" and that is the main and only goal of his company. Even IF he would have had true knowledges the problem would be the same, the way they work would be an abuse of the truth.

[quasimodo]

The stunning thing is all those celebrities who adhere to their club.
Also all the infiltration in the management training about self-development. Alledgedly a lot of big companies have hired consultants firms to train their staff without knowing that scientology was behind. Dang!

[prometheus]

Plus they use violence and extortion.

[BoliverAllmon]

Isn't scientology the group that must eat the placenta or something after their child is born? I think I remember hearing something about that when Tom Cruise was having a baby.

boliver

[timothy42b]

Hmm.  A religion founded by a science fiction writer.

Shouldn't that have been a clue? 

[pianojems]

According to their birthing rituals, the baby must be abandoned for 3 days after, without being fed or touched. That should be illegal. What do you all think about that whole silent birth crap....meaning a woman has to give birth silently without making a peep or using any drugs or pain killers. I was completely outraged. I have no kids....but imagine squeezing out a melon without any "noise". The whole system is corrupt and totally wrong IMOP.

[prometheus]

Religious dogma requires no defence.

[bella musica]

"religion is the opiate of the masses."
-karl marx

"organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers."
-jesse ventura

In America these days, TV is the new opiate of the masses...   

[zheer]

According to their birthing rituals, the baby must be abandoned for 3 days after, without being fed or touched. That should be illegal. What do you all think about that whole silent birth crap....meaning a woman has to give birth silently without making a peep or using any drugs or pain killers. I was completely outraged. I have no kids....but imagine squeezing out a melon without any "noise". The whole system is corrupt and totally wrong IMOP.

   The thing about silent birth crap, well its just just that a load of crap. But hay if an individal rather give bith in a certain way so long it wont result in the death of the mother or child, then why not.

[ted]

Years ago the scientologists used to rush out and nobble passers by in town. I once went in and they gave me a funny test which made no sense and a book of incoherent stories about spacemen. They had some people sit down and fart about with tin cans attached to wires and a battery. I just flagged it away as a joke but I learned later on that they caused a lot of serious trouble by persuading simple people to join and turning them against their families.

[jspash]

i believe scientology started as an alternative form of psychotherapy, but was only changed to a "religion" for tax purposes. that is... they don't have to pay any!

bunch of nutters. stay away from those "free personality test" people with the blank stares and humourless manner.

but that's just my opinion 

oh yea, if you're still reading (and interested) check out this scientology website: https://clambake.org

actually it's anti-scientology, but they do explain the "religion"

[arensky]

i believe scientology started as an alternative form of psychotherapy, but was only changed to a "religion" for tax purposes. that is... they don't have to pay any!

bunch of nutters. stay away from those "free personality test" people with the blank stares and humourless manner.

This is true.

I took the personality test in college, wandering about aimlessly one summer afternoon. I found it neither insightful, interesting or humorous. Don't recall anything about spacemen, lol.  that would have made it worthwhile! 

The next day the guy who gave me the test and talked to me called me on the phone (never give your correct phone # to "nutters", whatever brand they are) and was very hostile and aggressive in telling me "you need to get clear, man! You owe it to yourself, GOTTA GET CLEAR! Are you gonna be a loser, or do the right thing and GET CLEAR!!!??? "

I very politely told him to **** off, and hung up. He continued to call for about two days, then wrote me off I guess. Weird people, to be avoided, perhaps unless you are a very rich movie star. It seems to work for some of them, and they are probably treated better than I was.

[mephisto]

Since this is a piano forum:  The great pianisst Katsaris is a member or this scientology thing.

[arensky]

Since this is a piano forum:  The great pianisst Katsaris is a member or this scientology thing.

So is Chick Corea.

[prometheus]

Really? Both of them? I didn't know.

[nanabush]

Scientology... hmmm....


I got nothing...it's so blatantly retarded, that I cannot make a more concrete statement 

[zheer]

Well, recently I was given a DVD called Dianetics, great stuff, just over three hours in total. The founder of Dianetics is also the founder of scientology, let me tell you something Dianetics works. L.RON Hubbard was definitely very aware of Freud's discovery, Hubbard was not medically trained so one can only conclude that he was a genius. Today many psychologists use this technique in their practice, Hubbard knew how the mind works and the root cause of mental problem. Like how Hubbard drew on Freud's discovery and his own study of people, today great advancement in the field of psychology is due Hubbards Dianetics, one thing that facinates me is the connection man has with our animal past.
Scientolgy is a philosophy, not a religion, here is where Hubbard's imagination went wild, it's not a religion because it's man made, and because of its roots in dianetics/psychology, members are in some cases brain washed. Anyway Hubbard's discovery obviously was the outcome of eastern philosophy and western science, but the discovery of dianetics is pure genius. 

[richard black]

it's not a religion because it's man made

Couldn't you say that about any so-called religion?

[zheer]

Couldn't you say that about any so-called religion?

Definitely NO, religion was given to man by God ( if you believe in God ), un-like eastern philosophy, which I happen to love is man made. Scientology is offered to man by L.Ron Hubbard, who is not God, but claims that each individual human being is God.

[furtwaengler]

one thing that facinates me is the connection man has with our animal past.

not a religion, here is where Hubbard's imagination went wild, it's not a religion because it's man made 

It is hard for me to reconcile these two comments from the same post, which *to me* are contradicting, and "imagination went wild" could easily be applied to the first quote as well as the second.

Nevertheless...I know next to nothing about scientology, but found a recent radio advertisement for a newly opening "Scientology and Celebrity Center" amusing.

[lostinidlewonder]

If you don't know much about Scientology here is an easy to follow description.


https://www.xenu.net/archive/scientology_illustrated/

[iroveashe]

Definitely NO, religion was given to man by God ( if you believe in God ), un-like eastern philosophy, which I happen to love is man made. Scientology is offered to man by L.Ron Hubbard, who is not God, but claims that each individual human being is God.

What about atheist religions?

[zheer]

It is hard for me to reconcile these two comments from the same post, which *to me* are contradicting, and "imagination went wild" could easily be applied to the first quote as well as the second.

Let me explain, by imagination here, I mean something that is not factual ( fiction ), not real. The connection between man and the animal species is scientifically proven, therefore it's factual. By "imagination went wild" I mean Hubbard was entering the field of 'science-fiction'.

[zheer]

What about atheist religions?

Since atheists do not believe in God, to be an atheist is to be with-out a religion.

[communist]

A=without
Theist=with god
Atheist=without a god

[thalbergmad]

The connection between man and the animal species is scientifically proven, therefore it's factual.

I remember reading a very interesting book about pets who "knew" when their owners were coming home.

Thal

[iroveashe]

Since atheists do not believe in God, to be an atheist is to be with-out a religion.

So Buddhism is not a religion now? Or Humanism or Naturalistic Pantheism?

[zheer]

So Buddhism is not a religion now? Or Humanism or Naturalistic Pantheism?

Buddhism ( for me ) is not a religion it's a philosophy, however for many people it is a religion.
Humanism as far as I'm aware is  Renaissance thinking, I had no idea it was religion, perhaps you can explain, Pantheism  .

Two things define religion, a belief in a supernatural power or God. This is why Buddhism is held by many to be a religion. Personally I refuse to worship a statue, caw or another human being unless she happens to be really hot ( thats a joke)

[zheer]

If you don't know much about Scientology here is an easy to follow description.


https://www.xenu.net/archive/scientology_illustrated/

I'm still laughing.

[iroveashe]

Buddhism ( for me ) is not a religion it's a philosophy, however for many people it is a religion.
Humanism as far as I'm aware is  Renaissance thinking, I had no idea it was religion, perhaps you can explain, Pantheism  .

Perhaps a quick Google search could help more than any explanation I can give:
https://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2006/09/atheist_religio.html

It's said that Beethoven had pantheistic believes btw

[lostinidlewonder]

I'm still laughing.

Thats because you are an agent of XENU!!!!!!! GET HIM!!!!!

[nanabush]

What about pastafarians?  Followers of the flying spaghetti monster...  I find that just about as believable as some of the crap people follow today 


(I know, it's a joke, no need to call me out on it... I'm just making a comparison)

[thalbergmad]

I find that just about as believable as some of the crap people follow today 

It is a lot less dangerous as well

Thal

[ahinton]

It is a lot less dangerous as well

That would have to depend upon how you define dangerous and how you evaluate such potential and/or actual dangers; there are surely plenty of non-schools of non-thought that can (and all too often do), as an essential consitituent of their respective manipulative agendas, create dangers of one degree or another simply by seeking successfully to undermine the practices of human rationality. We have indeed encountered various manifestations of this kind of thing on this forum on a number of occasions, as I am sure you know as well as, if not considerably better than, most of us here...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

That would have to depend upon how you define dangerous and how you evaluate such potential and/or actual dangers;

There are those that would kill in the name of God or Allah, but how many would kill in the name of the flying spaghetti monster.

Not many.

Thal

[gep]

While Scientology may be a larger one among such (many) "cults" that have been specifically started to swindle people out their possessions, there are quite a few things disturbing among most if not all organised religions and simmilar organisations. A few examples?
- A Dutch Muslim primary school teaches the children never to greet a non-Muslim with "Salem" ('peace'), since a Muslim can never have peace with an "infidel".
- In Ireland a multi-year investigation about all sorts of abuse by members of the clergy was presented, but only after an agreement with said clergy not to reveal names, as to "not harm the interest of the Catholic Church".
- In India some 250 million people are deemed to belong to the "untouchables", as per the despicable Caste-system. Indian government does very little against this, since this system officially doesn’t exist.
- North Korea. Need I say more?
- USA right wing groups, fundamental "Christian" (note the "").

Any group that want to determine what everybody else is supposed to think and believe is a potential danger. Any such group that manages to attain power has become a danger. Never allow anyone else to force his/her thinking upon you, always do your own.

gep

[thalbergmad]

Well said Sir.

A lengthy debate could be made out of each of your points.

Thal

[ahinton]

Well said Sir.

A lengthy debate could be made out of each of your points.

True, but for the time being (and in the interests of trying to remain at least reasonably close to the thread topic), what might be worth pointing out is that there is a fundamental definitional difference between religions and organisations whose existence is for the sole or principal purpose of swindling funds out of people. Clearly, the foundation of Islam, Roman Catholic Christianity, Hinduism and such like was not for the sole or principal purpose of swindling funds out of people (and the fact that these religions do receive monies from their respective followers is necessarily indicative neither of coercion or of having no other purpose or intent). On the other hand, the so-called Church of Scientology appears to be predicated almost entirely upon extyracting funds from the unsuspecting - and its adoption of the word "Church" in its name is, of course illustrative of its conscious and deliberate hoodwinking process. Furthermore, "Scientology" is an absurd tautologism, the term "science" and the suffix "-ology" conveying the same meaning.

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

there is a fundamental definitional difference between religions and organisations whose existence is for the sole or principal purpose of swindling funds out of people.

If I may be so blunt, a religion is a kind of answer to fundamental spiritual "why' and "how" questions giving those needing answers to such questions a kind of holdfast. A kind of filter between them and hard reality. I do not have any problem with people seeking answers for themselves and finding such as they can live with.
Such "organisations" as are meant here (specific Scientology in this thread) have nothing whatsoever to do with such a definition of religion, they are simply the lowest crime clad in the outer garments of religion to ensnare the susceptible. That governments seem unable or unwilling to do much against them is a crime in itself.

Clearly, the foundation of Islam, Roman Catholic Christianity, Hinduism and such like was not for the sole or principal purpose of swindling funds out of people

A nasty minded person might now ask: "do you mean Protestant Christianity was? (All italics mine). Something I do trust you did not nor do wish to say!
If I recall correctly, one reason Luther stood up agains the Pope's church was it's utter corruption at that time.
True, most religions were not started with any fund-raising intend. However, du moment most religions became institutionalisted, they started needing funding. In itself still no problem. However, if one sees the mechanics behind quite a bit of that fund-raising one cannot help but start to worry. I grew up (still live ) in a rather very much orthodox fundamentalist protestand part of The Netherlands, so I've seen a few things here and there...

and the fact that these religions do receive monies from their respective followers is necessarily indicative neither of coercion or of having no other purpose or intent

Indeed so, just as long as there are no mechanics of coercion. The more fundamentalist a religious group, the more coercion there usually is (of the kind "the more you give, the higher your seat in Heaven will be" and "if you do not give more/enough, you will go straight to Hell"), upto and including handing over one entire posessions (as is the goal in criminal groups such as Scientology and Moon, to name but two of the criminal sort)

On the other hand, the so-called Church of Scientology appears to be predicated almost entirely upon extyracting funds from the unsuspecting

I think the last word should be "brainwashed". I've done some reading up on the techniques of such groups....

and its adoption of the word "Church" in its name is, of course illustrative of its conscious and deliberate hoodwinking process.

If only because USA law says churches are exempt of paying taxes. And governments are usually very scary of attacking anything smelling of religion...

Furthermore, "Scientology" is an absurd tautologism, the term "science" and the suffix "-ology" conveying the same meaning.

The Simpsons once had an episode on this, only here the "Church" was called "The Movementarians".
Scientology is not just an absurd tautology, I fear. If it were just that, the harm would not be that big.

Well said Sir.

Thank you Thal! But his is the second time you agree so with me, I hope you're not starting  a cult here! 

All best,
gep

[richard black]

Definitely NO, religion was given to man by God

But in that case, said 'God' is clearly a pompous fool, because why else would any entity set up a system purely for his (her?) own self-aggrandisement?

[ahinton]

If I may be so blunt, a religion is a kind of answer to fundamental spiritual "why' and "how" questions giving those needing answers to such questions a kind of holdfast. A kind of filter between them and hard reality. I do not have any problem with people seeking answers for themselves and finding such as they can live with.

Nor I - but if that's being "blunt", I'm somewhat surprised!

Such "organisations" as are meant here (specific Scientology in this thread) have nothing whatsoever to do with such a definition of religion, they are simply the lowest crime clad in the outer garments of religion to ensnare the susceptible. That governments seem unable or unwilling to do much against them is a crime in itself.

Indeed; it seems almost as though those very garments not only hoodwink the paying victims but also conceal the criminal nature of those organisations' activities - as though Ponzi schemes are not OK but Scientology and their like is somehow acceptable, at least to the point that the turning of blind eyes thereto is perceived to be justifiable.

A nasty minded person might now ask: "do you mean Protestant Christianity was? (All italics mine). Something I do trust you did not nor do wish to say!

Of course not (as I'm sure you realise); I referred to Catholicism here purely because you had mentioned it in your post to which I was replying.

If I recall correctly, one reason Luther stood up agains the Pope's church was its utter corruption at that time.

Yes but, as I stated, the point is whether the organisations concerned were set up for the sole or principal purpose of extracting funds from the unsuspecting or otherwise vulnerable; in so saying, I was not by the same token seeking to suggest that genuine religious organisations are or have ever been above harbouring corrupt activity

True, most religions were not started with any fund-raising intend. However, du moment most religions became institutionalised, they started needing funding. In itself still no problem. However, if one sees the mechanics behind quite a bit of that fund-raising one cannot help but start to worry. I grew up (still live) in a rather very much orthodox fundamentalist protestant part of The Netherlands, so I've seen a few things here and there...

I'm not convinced that all of those mechanics are necessarily suspect. Any organisation that attyacts public funding requires to be audited for the purpose of ensuring, as far as possible, that the funds it receives are used solely for the purpose for which they were intended; take, for example the established Protestant Church in England - a survey some time ago revealed not only that it had invested funds most unwisely but that, as a consequence, several tens of millions of pounds are now required for restoration of major English cathedrals and abbeys - yet this sum was for organ refurbishment only, so God alone knows how much is required in total - i.e. to include all necessary restoration and refurbishment of the buildings themsleves!

Indeed so, just as long as there are no mechanics of coercion. The more fundamentalist a religious group, the more coercion there usually is (of the kind "the more you give, the higher your seat in Heaven will be" and "if you do not give more/enough, you will go straight to Hell"), up to and including handing over one''s entire posessions (as is the goal in criminal groups such as Scientology and Moon, to name but two of the criminal sort).

I think the last word should be "brainwashed". I've done some reading up on the techniques of such groups...

If only because USA law says churches are exempt of paying taxes. And governments are usually very scary of attacking anything smelling of religion...

You're correct in stating that actual legitimate religious groups are not always immune from coercive practices and brainwashing; my point was merely that none of them were set up for those purposes alone or functions on those bases alone.

The Simpsons once had an episode on this, only here the "Church" was called "The Movementarians".
Scientology is not just an absurd tautology, I fear. If it were just that, the harm would not be that big.

Sure, but my point was not about that organisation but merely its name that embraces tautology.

Thank you Thal! But this is the second time you agree so with me; I hope you're not starting a cult here!

I had thought that Thalism had been mentioned on this forum before - and, in any case, there is always the Thaliban...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

But in that case, said 'God' is clearly a pompous fool, because why else would any entity set up a system purely for his (her?) own self-aggrandisement?

Oh, I'm not so sure that this is an isolated instance(!)...

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

Quote
Definitely NO, religion was given to man by God

Unfortunately, He/She/They/It gave some many different versions, ALL of which are the One, the Only, the Complete, the Utter, the Undeniable, the Unquestionable and the Whole truth, even when mutually exclusive.
Of course this doesn't include YOUR religion! Whatever it is....

Quote from: gep on Today at 12:15:02 PM
A nasty minded person might now ask: "do you mean Protestant Christianity was? (All italics mine). Something I do trust you did not nor do wish to say!

Of course not (as I'm sure you realise); I referred to Catholicism here purely because you had mentioned it in your post to which I was replying.

I do realise, I was referring to a nasty minded person . But I made this remark because, when it comes to religion and/or politics (which may be overlapping), human capabillity of creative and malignant misunderstanding seems to be limitless.

for example the established Protestant Church in England - a survey some time ago revealed not only that it had invested funds most unwisely but that, as a consequence, several tens of millions of pounds are now required for restoration of major English cathedrals and abbeys

Interesting! But then, the PCE is also a kind of official/governmental-ish sort of organisation, since the head of state is also the head of the church. I would be VERY intriguid to see any organisation do try and do a (public/published) survey of any church overhere (barring taxes).

so God alone knows how much is required in total - i.e. to include all necessary restoration and refurbishment of the buildings themsleves!

Perhaps She could lend a dime? I daresay a miraculous rain of pounds would be quite a noticable pointer to Her existence!

You're correct in stating that actual legitimate religious groups are not always immune from coercive practices and brainwashing; my point was merely that none of them were set up for those purposes alone or functions on those bases alone.

But they do seek to convince people to accept a certain thinking pattern. This happens all the time with all kinds of organisations, very much not just religions. However, I do think religions are more fundamentally directed to do so. In various levels of pushing, of course, varying from the benign (simple civillised conversation) to the malignant (simply uncivillised conversion).

had thought that Thalism had been mentioned on this forum before - and, in any case, there is always the Thaliban...

I trust there is a Thalisman offering protection from the Thaliban... 

But in that case, said 'God' is clearly a pompous fool, because why else would any entity set up a system purely for his (her?) own self-aggrandisement?

We're talking Scientology here, not the bonus system in the financial sector.....

All best,
gep

[ahinton]

Unfortunately, He/She/They/It gave some many different versions, ALL of which are the One, the Only, the Complete, the Utter, the Undeniable, the Unquestionable and the Whole truth, even when mutually exclusive.
Of course this doesn't include YOUR religion! Whatever it is....

Indeed - and that rather reminds me of Sorabji who once wrote that Fascism is anyone else's Fascism other than one's own...

when it comes to religion and/or politics (which may be overlapping), human capabillity of creative and malignant misunderstanding seems to be limitless.

Yes, although certain of my experiences have clarified that religion and politics by no means have exclusive rights to the practical application of such malignant misunderstanding!

Perhaps She could lend a dime? I daresay a miraculous rain of pounds would be quite a noticable pointer to Her existence!

She would probably prefer to desist from such forms of magnanimity, given all the opprobrium surrounding the banks' borrowing, lending and risk-taking activities - and the notion that God might become subject to regulation, however ineffectual, in UK by FSA is beyond risible, frankly...

I trust there is a Thalisman offering protection from the Thaliban... 

One would indeed hope so; perhaps Thal himself will tell us...

We're talking Scientology here, not the bonus system in the financial sector.....

OK, but there might reasonably be argued to be an uncomfortably large number of points of commonality between the financial activies of bankers and scientologists...

Best,

Alistair