First of all, I thought this was a posting for celebrities associated associated with cult-like groups, not to debate Scientology.

I do have an issue when celebrities endorse a religious or spiritual group and begin to give their opionions such as Tom Cruise has on variuos issues (psychology, medications, ect). I feel that it is dangerous territory and needs to be handled by medical professionals. If people want to practice Scientology, let them do so but these celebtrities need to stay out of it.

Quote
get_past_at_any_length
First of all, I thought this was a posting for celebrities associated associated with cult-like groups, not to debate Scientology.

Yes, you are right. This forum is to discuss celebrity involvement in cult-like groups, and this particular thread about Tom Cruise's involvement in Scientology.

But I can see why we digressed. It is exactly the nature of Scientology's celebrity-driven propaganda, a 2-dimensional, one-way communication, which makes attacking the movement so difficult.

Tom doesn't have that problem: he can appear suddenly, unexpectedly in our homes, spout his infuriating nonsense to the world and then disappear. In the event of a rebuttal, Tom and celebrities like him throw wobblies. You must have seen the way he glares maniacally at a journalist, at the camera, at the co-host, who has dared ask the question: "F*ck you. F*ck you," he says.

When we discuss Scientology and its celebrity salespeople, we as individuals in our homes are necessarily taking up a long backlog of controversies which until now have just been thrown in our faces and that we have been long unable to rebut.

Quote
get_past_at_any_length
I do have an issue when celebrities endorse a religious or spiritual group and begin to give their opionions such as Tom Cruise has on variuos issues (psychology, medications, ect). I feel that it is dangerous territory and needs to be handled by medical professionals.

I understand that but it depends on the assumption that psychiatrists have the best method of making people well and others do not.

Quote
upsidedownnewspaper
[b:42e1eb43cb]nutrino wrote:

Quote

Actually that isn't true about Scientology - there are a lot of things that affect a person apart from engrams.

[/b:42e1eb43cb]

what, then? What, then? WHAT THEN?

I can see exactly what rr and nutrino are saying, durham. You refute without substance. You never say anything.

I don't really see much point in saying anything. The first barrier to understanding is willingness to understand. There isn't much willingness to understand here - in fact you yourself have intimated that it's dangerous to try to understand Scientology.

Quote
durham

Quote
upsidedownnewspaper
[b:fdb9d85845]nutrino wrote:

Quote

Actually that isn't true about Scientology - there are a lot of things that affect a person apart from engrams.

[/b:fdb9d85845]

what, then? What, then? WHAT THEN?

I can see exactly what rr and nutrino are saying, durham. You refute without substance. You never say anything.

I don't really see much point in saying anything. The first barrier to understanding is willingness to understand. There isn't much willingness to understand here - in fact you yourself have intimated that it's dangerous to try to understand Scientology.

Only having done exactly what you suggested earlier in this thread. I pre-empted your advice to read Dianetics. I had done that. I have been to my local library and have thoroughly read many of the L Ron Hubbard texts about the mind, Dianetics, and Scientology. I didn't get it.

I came to the internet to get more information. I have looked at official Scientology webpages plus the numerous anti-Scientology web pages. And now that I still don't get it and in fact am quite adverse to the inevitable conclusions I personally reach when considering Scientology doctrine, I have reached the conclusion that Scientology teaches a dangerous lore. In my mind, it preaches a dangerous, godless delusion. And I came here (to the internet) to be proven wrong.

I tried to understand. Now, I don't want to. And all you say to that is, I have an unwillingness to learn.

That is an irrefutable statement, Durham. Exactly the kind of roundabout speech that cults use and just the kind of speak that the moderators of this website are tired of and actively seek to make people aware of. You have no answers. You cannot substantiate your acceptance of the Scientology movement.

My willingness to understand Scientology went unrewarded. I am pleased that Scientology works for you.

Quote

I have reached the conclusion that Scientology teaches a dangerous lore. In my mind, it preaches a dangerous, godless delusion. And I came here to be proven wrong.

Boy you sure came to the wrong place! :lol:

Seriously though - it is nice of you to be please Scientology works for me. I'm sorry you didn't get it - it isn't the easiest book to get on first reading, partly I think because our vocabularies have decreased in general since the 1950s.

I'm guessing you're a Christian. Have you read any of the books about near death experiences and mediums written by Christians?

Quote

I don't really see much point in saying anything. The first barrier to understanding is willingness to understand. There isn't much willingness to understand here - in fact you yourself have intimated that it's dangerous to try to understand Scientology.

Let me get this straight. You [i:3087b567a9] "don't really see much point in saying anything " [/i:3087b567a9] while you stay in the discussion where you, ummmm, have to "say things" ...

The truth is that you are framing the conversation in terms of the other members of the board being willing or unwilling to learn... in other words, you have neatly shifted the responsibility for leanringness off your shoulders and onto theirs... in other words, any failure of communication belongs to the other party, and none belongs to you.

For an example, you have stated that the engram model is an incomplete description of how mental processes are imprinted on the mind.

You've talked the talk. We've listened. We've offered reasons, valid, logic and experience based resons why we feel the need for upfrontness from your side of the table... while you keep playing the "unwilling to learn" hand...

I'll guarantee you this... IF you had something of real concrete inforamtional value to offer, we would be listening and we would take you seriously... so far we don't even have a clue what it is you are referring to by "unwilling to learn"...

Could you explain, for example, two or three other means of "enturbulation" ... how we get MEST stuck in us ? Or whatever you want to call it. You know, Valences maybe, or what Ridges are.. a simple paragraph or two would do fine, just clear English.. like, why do these concepts matter, why should the general population want to know about them ?

I think it is time for you to step up to the plate and defitinvely [b:3087b567a9] talk about what you are talking about [/b:3087b567a9] and while doing so, [b:3087b567a9] not talk about what we are not talking about [/b:3087b567a9] ..

Really, how hard is that for any normal adult to do ?

I do not endorse Scientology at all but again I felt compelled to respond about SSRI's...

Quote
nutrino
Scientology cannot account for the great social benefits derived from the Serotonin Specific Reuptake Inhibitors... a major class of emotionally regulating medicines now taken by millions of people for depression, excess aggression, obsessive thought patterns, compulsive behaviors, and wide range of behavior maladies and thought disorders can be directly traced to serotonin imbalances...

I posted these links on this messageboard before and I will post them again:

-- a [i:0f34c5f313]Wall Street Journal[/i:0f34c5f313] article on studies that show that SSRI's can contribute to suicidal thoughts. in the UK you can no longer legally sell SSRI's to people under eighteen years of age.

-- the FDA's own page which mentions the "black box" warnings they now put on SSRI's to acknowledge this list. in the UK.

-- a scientific thought that says entitled "Antidepressants Versus Placebos: Meaningful Advantages Are Lacking".

-- n 2003, the UK government banned all SSRI's for people under 18, other than Prozac. the article I linked quotes a figure that says that even Prozac only helps 10% of children.

(OTOH the European Medicines Agency recently decided to allow children and adolescents under eighteen but over eight to continue to use SSRI's. but apparently consider it too risky to give SSRI's to children under eight.)

good to always remember that the pharmaceutical companies like Eli Lillly have billions of dollars at stake in the sale of drugs like Prozac.

I don't try to address the complicated issue of mind versus body, suffice to say that rationalizing away the mind by a non sequitor like "serotonin causes us to feel this way" explains everything and nothing.

again, though, to remove any ambiguity I don't in way endorse the Church of Scientology.

IMHO, SSRIs as a claas of drugs are overprescribed for this simple reason: using SSRIs as a first line of therapy drastically cuts insurance costs... thus low cost treatement plans often involve inadequate interviews with the patient. A patient normally will see his prescribing doctor once a month once the therapy hasd been deemed OK... the problem is poor supervision because it allows the doctors to maximize the patient throughput and pharma to maximize presciptions.... SSRIs are tools that must be used appropriately, and there are other non SSRI antidepressants that may be more appropriate... however, this also means that the doctor has to involve himself closely with the patient and be willing to rotate through medicine until a good fit is established.

Many other ingested substances can lead to suicidal ideation as well... such as good old alcohol, which whe combined with good old Tylenol can lead to severe liver damage....

I would humbly submit that strong medicines require expert supervision, and our health iunsurance system has eliminated that leg from the treatment platform.... but then, there is an astronomical quantity of prescription opiate and opoid medicine floating around the grey market, perhaps some of that is being consumed by people genuinely in pain who can't afford to go to doctors... the elderly and the poor infirm...who don't understand the long term risks of opiate consumption.... heck, there are rare forms of depression that respond to opiates... but widespread misuse doesn't lessen the real pain relieving significance of opiate medicines...

It would be a mistake to get too drilled down on SSRIs [i:fddd0e3b53] per se [/i:fddd0e3b53]... the larger issue is whether psychotropic medicines are a macro benefit or a macro deficit to society... my position is that we have benefitted more than we have suffered, and that the quality of that benefit is directly related to the quality of supervision of the patient...

Ohter medicines have been phased out due to their toxicity or high abuse potential... you rarely hear about barbiturates being prescribed except for epilipsy, ans methquaalone which used to be commonly available no longer can be legally sold in the United States....

We may see a winnowing out of the excesses of SSRI use, and a more refined understanding of the needed pharmacolocy or treatement practices.... I seriously doubt we will turn back the clock as much as we will slow the clock until we figure out better what it is we're doing...

Quote
Acid Reindeer
I do not endorse Scientology at all but again I felt compelled to respond about SSRI's...
...
again, though, to remove any ambiguity I don't in way endorse the Church of Scientology.

Well thanks for the post Acid. I do endorse your viewpoint about SSRIs though.