Is Tom Cruise losing it?
Posted by:
durham
()
Date: May 30, 2006 12:57PM
No - you can get a good idea of what Scientology & Dianetics are about from reading www.scientology.org [faq.scientology.org] and www.dianetics.orgQuote
upsidedownnewspaper
I am surprised you are happy to answer questions in this forum, Durham. And pleased: one of my biggest problems with Scientology is the closed nature of the Church. It seems to me I can't know what is good about Scientology unless I join. (Is that right?)
You can good an even better idea from dianetics and you can go to your local church without joining to look around and ask questions.
Well it's hard to explain exactly if you haven't read Dianetics - but basically it means I don't get angry or upset about stuff if I don't want to. It's a nice way to be - things feel much more serene and exciting than they used to be.Quote
Regarding your post, what does, "I don't get restimulated by anything much," mean? Is this referring to past traumas, perhaps, or just past experiences? If so, why is it a problem to be stimulated by your past experiences or even traumas? Are you talking about negating one's past experiences? Turning them off? Ignoring them? Or what, exactly? If you don't mind.
Is Tom Cruise losing it?
Posted by:
durham
()
Date: May 30, 2006 12:58PM
Yes - I've read all that before.
Is Tom Cruise losing it?
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: May 30, 2006 08:24PM
durham:
It seems that you accept whatever Scientology tells you or Hubbard writes despite all the information available that has been published exposing Hubbard as a little more than a con man and the church as often destructive and responsible for serious personal injuries.
Anyone interested in Scientology should read the following articles before becoming involved with the church.
The Time Magazine article "Scientology: Cult of Greed"
See [www.culteducation.com]
This in-depth piece which was a cover story for Time in 1991 exposes the criminal history of Scinetology and relates information about the many people it has hurt.
Scientology sued Time over this publication, but lost. Not only did the church lose, the case never even went to trial. And Scientology lost all its appeals.
See [www.culteducation.com]
The Los Angeles Times series is also quite interesting.
See [www.culteducation.com]
More recently Rolling Stone has run an up to date review.
See [www.culteducation.com]
These article offer a historical perspective of Scientology, from an objective journalistic viewpoint.
To better understand Scientology's criminal history the court record regarding related criminal activities Scientologists admitted is interesting.
See [www.culteducation.com]
This outlines, but admission publicly, what crimes Scientologists commited through the notorious "Operation Snow White."
L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology has often been praised by Tom Cruise and other Scientology celebrities, but his history demonstrates little substance to praise. He had three failed marriages, numerious family problems and limited education. His bio presented by Scientology is often misleading.
Here are some key articles.
[www.culteducation.com]
An excerpt from the above article about Hubbar's military record...
In his fitness report of Hubbard, Rear Admiral F.A. Braisted stated, " consider this officer lacking in the essential qualities of judgment, leadership and cooperation. He acts without forethought as to probable results….Not considered qualified for command or promotion at this time."
While Hubbard was censured and lost command of the PC-815, the fallout could have been much worse. The United States was at war on two fronts, and the Navy possessed neither the resources nor the time to dish out sufficient disciplinary action.
In his letter of admonition, which served to close the proceedings, Braisted wrote, "Because of the short time that you have been in command, and the exigencies of the service, this letter of admonition is written in lieu of other more drastic disciplinary action which would have been taken under normal and peacetime conditions."
In 1950, the man labeled "lacking in the essential qualities of judgment" published Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, the thesis for his new religion, Scientology.
Also see [www.culteducation.com]
Hubbard is accused of "systematic torture, beatings, strangulations and scientific torture experiments."
See [www.culteducation.com]
Excerpts include the following statements by a judge about Hubbard and Scientology.
"The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background and achievements."
"The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be reflective of its founder LRH..."
Hubbard called "hopelessly insane"
See [www.culteducation.com]
And this PentHouse interview with his son L. Ron Hubbard Jr. is interesting.
See [culteducation.com]
Hubbard's son said:
"My father started out as a broke science-fiction writer. He was always broke in the late 1940s. He told me and a lot of other people that the way to make a million was to start a religion. Then he wrote the book Dianetics"
"No research at all. When he has answered that question over the years, his answer has changed according to which biography he was writing. Sometimes he used to write a new biography every week. He usually said that he had put thirty years of research into the book. But no, he did not. What he did, reaily, was take bits and pieces from other people and put them together in a blender and stir them all up --and out came Dianetics!"
"he beat up a lot of women very badly. Blood, black eyes, busted teeth, the whole thing. He beat the holy hell out of women. His rages were incredible. I've read reports of the kinds of rages Hitler used to have, and they sound just like my father's. He was especially touchy about food. He would always have somebody else at the table sample everything on the table before he'd eat it. I've seen him pick up an entire dinner table and throw it against the wall if he didn't like the food or thought it was suspicious. He got very strange in the fifties. He had to have his clothes washed and washed and washed. He would take showers half a dozen times a day. I have often wondered if all of this might have been caused by the massive amounts of drugs and medication he took."
Anyone who takes the time to seriously and objectively research Scientology will find that based upon the historical record it's a potentially unsafe organization with a dark history.
It seems that you accept whatever Scientology tells you or Hubbard writes despite all the information available that has been published exposing Hubbard as a little more than a con man and the church as often destructive and responsible for serious personal injuries.
Anyone interested in Scientology should read the following articles before becoming involved with the church.
The Time Magazine article "Scientology: Cult of Greed"
See [www.culteducation.com]
This in-depth piece which was a cover story for Time in 1991 exposes the criminal history of Scinetology and relates information about the many people it has hurt.
Scientology sued Time over this publication, but lost. Not only did the church lose, the case never even went to trial. And Scientology lost all its appeals.
See [www.culteducation.com]
The Los Angeles Times series is also quite interesting.
See [www.culteducation.com]
More recently Rolling Stone has run an up to date review.
See [www.culteducation.com]
These article offer a historical perspective of Scientology, from an objective journalistic viewpoint.
To better understand Scientology's criminal history the court record regarding related criminal activities Scientologists admitted is interesting.
See [www.culteducation.com]
This outlines, but admission publicly, what crimes Scientologists commited through the notorious "Operation Snow White."
L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology has often been praised by Tom Cruise and other Scientology celebrities, but his history demonstrates little substance to praise. He had three failed marriages, numerious family problems and limited education. His bio presented by Scientology is often misleading.
Here are some key articles.
[www.culteducation.com]
An excerpt from the above article about Hubbar's military record...
In his fitness report of Hubbard, Rear Admiral F.A. Braisted stated, " consider this officer lacking in the essential qualities of judgment, leadership and cooperation. He acts without forethought as to probable results….Not considered qualified for command or promotion at this time."
While Hubbard was censured and lost command of the PC-815, the fallout could have been much worse. The United States was at war on two fronts, and the Navy possessed neither the resources nor the time to dish out sufficient disciplinary action.
In his letter of admonition, which served to close the proceedings, Braisted wrote, "Because of the short time that you have been in command, and the exigencies of the service, this letter of admonition is written in lieu of other more drastic disciplinary action which would have been taken under normal and peacetime conditions."
In 1950, the man labeled "lacking in the essential qualities of judgment" published Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, the thesis for his new religion, Scientology.
Also see [www.culteducation.com]
Hubbard is accused of "systematic torture, beatings, strangulations and scientific torture experiments."
See [www.culteducation.com]
Excerpts include the following statements by a judge about Hubbard and Scientology.
"The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background and achievements."
"The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be reflective of its founder LRH..."
Hubbard called "hopelessly insane"
See [www.culteducation.com]
And this PentHouse interview with his son L. Ron Hubbard Jr. is interesting.
See [culteducation.com]
Hubbard's son said:
"My father started out as a broke science-fiction writer. He was always broke in the late 1940s. He told me and a lot of other people that the way to make a million was to start a religion. Then he wrote the book Dianetics"
"No research at all. When he has answered that question over the years, his answer has changed according to which biography he was writing. Sometimes he used to write a new biography every week. He usually said that he had put thirty years of research into the book. But no, he did not. What he did, reaily, was take bits and pieces from other people and put them together in a blender and stir them all up --and out came Dianetics!"
"he beat up a lot of women very badly. Blood, black eyes, busted teeth, the whole thing. He beat the holy hell out of women. His rages were incredible. I've read reports of the kinds of rages Hitler used to have, and they sound just like my father's. He was especially touchy about food. He would always have somebody else at the table sample everything on the table before he'd eat it. I've seen him pick up an entire dinner table and throw it against the wall if he didn't like the food or thought it was suspicious. He got very strange in the fifties. He had to have his clothes washed and washed and washed. He would take showers half a dozen times a day. I have often wondered if all of this might have been caused by the massive amounts of drugs and medication he took."
Anyone who takes the time to seriously and objectively research Scientology will find that based upon the historical record it's a potentially unsafe organization with a dark history.
Is Tom Cruise losing it?
Posted by:
upsidedownnewspaper
()
Date: May 30, 2006 10:39PM
Quote
Regarding your post, what does, "I don't get restimulated by anything much," mean? Is this referring to past traumas, perhaps, or just past experiences? If so, why is it a problem to be stimulated by your past experiences or even traumas? Are you talking about negating one's past experiences? Turning them off? Ignoring them? Or what, exactly? If you don't mind.
[b:0faba9bb23]Well it's hard to explain exactly if you haven't read Dianetics - but basically it means I don't get angry or upset about stuff if I don't want to. It's a nice way to be - things feel much more serene and exciting than they used to be.[/quote][/b:0faba9bb23]
I have read Dianetics, and I don't understand. I don't understand why Scientology insists on the idea that humans are oftentimes "trying not to know." In my language, this means "coping," by which I mean, "coping", a natural human characteristic.
You say, "[you] don't get angry or upset about stuff [you] don't want to." But emotions are natural, I thought, and in this world there are things outside of an individual's control, right?
To be honest, I am quite skeptical of Scientology. Too often it seems to me that Scientology aims to mute the natural human condition. And in fact, it does exactly that, right?: by OTVIII, you are no longer human but thetan, right or wrong?
I can't justify to myself my becoming super-human. I can't see how I would ever give myself that right.
I look forward to your response. It is a rare chance to be given a free insight into the world of Scientology!
Is Tom Cruise losing it?
Posted by:
durham
()
Date: May 31, 2006 03:36PM
I don't accept anything anyone tells me including LRH without thoroughly researching or experiencing what they're talking about. LRH said you should do the same.Quote
rrmoderator
durham:
It seems that you accept whatever Scientology tells you or Hubbard writes despite all the information available that has been published exposing Hubbard as a little more than a con man and the church as often destructive and responsible for serious personal injuries.
Well I read dozens of negative articles about Scientology before I became involved. I was cautious and thought it could be a bluff, but I thought it would be interesting to see how the bluff worked (if that's what it was).Quote
Anyone interested in Scientology should read the following articles before becoming involved with the church.
From faq.scientology.org:
It took me a long time before I could understand why people would oppose something if it really was so good. It's quite easy to see there are some people who aren't very positive though. Some people view man as inherently bad and their reasoning goes along the lines of empowering him is dangerous and the best way to survive is to put him down or keep him in cages.Quote
Q: Why do some people oppose Scientology?
A: There are certain characteristics and mental attitudes that cause a percentage of the population to oppose violently any betterment activity or group. This small percentage of the society (roughly 2 percent) cannot tolerate that Scientology is successful at improving conditions around the world. This same 2 percent is opposed to any effective self-betterment activity. The reason they so rabidly oppose Scientology is because it is doing more to help society than any other group. Those who are upset by seeing man get better are small in number compared to the millions who have embraced Scientology and its efforts to create a sane civilization and more freedom for the individual.
Yes - it depends on which source you choose the version of his history you get. If you read any of his work it's obvious he was a genius and knowledgeable in many areas.Quote
L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology has often been praised by Tom Cruise and other Scientology celebrities, but his history demonstrates little substance to praise. He had three failed marriages, numerious family problems and limited education. His bio presented by Scientology is often misleading.
Well I actually don't think that's very objective. I'm involved with my local church - we only help people. All the policies that Scientology churches use are publically available. Have you read Dianetics or any books about Scientology?Quote
Anyone who takes the time to seriously and objectively research Scientology will find that based upon the historical record it's a potentially unsafe organization with a dark history.
Is Tom Cruise losing it?
Posted by:
durham
()
Date: May 31, 2006 04:16PM
Maybe you should try Dianetics out then! Also there are some excellent study techniques in Scientology that help you understand what the author of any book really meant. That maybe sounds a bit patronising but I'd always been a straight A student yet improved a lot with the Scientology techniques.Quote
I have read Dianetics, and I don't understand.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you elaborate?Quote
I don't understand why Scientology insists on the idea that humans are oftentimes "trying not to know." In my language, this means "coping," by which I mean, "coping", a natural human characteristic.
Well let me give an example - one person loses a wallet with a lot of money in it. He vows to be more careful next time and gets on with it. The second guy is devastated - he thinks about what a waste of money it was and goes into a depression. With Scientology you can move from the 2nd state to the first state.Quote
You say, "[you] don't get angry or upset about stuff [you] don't want to." But emotions are natural, I thought, and in this world there are things outside of an individual's control, right?
That's not surprising. The barriers to understanding it are huge. You have to believe it might be possible to improve your condition, you have to be interested in doing so and you have to spend some time to understand it.Quote
To be honest, I am quite skeptical of Scientology.
I was lucky I met a specific person or I'd never have tried it out (I actually came into contact with some Scientologists about 12 years ago and decided it was rubbish).
And of course there is a lot of disinformation about Scientology that puts people off trying it out.
Scientology is not about muting anything - it's about empowering. But for me to judge that statement properly you'll have to tell me what you mean by "natural human condition".Quote
Too often it seems to me that Scientology aims to mute the natural human condition.
Well to understand what the OT levels really are you'd have to do a lot of reading and have done some Dianetics so you understand a fraction of the kind of improvements possible. The best way of describing it is that you get some abilities you never realised you had.Quote
And in fact, it does exactly that, right?: by OTVIII, you are no longer human but thetan, right or wrong?
Glad you're interested. :) [/quote]Quote
I look forward to your response. It is a rare chance to be given a free insight into the world of Scientology!
Is Tom Cruise losing it?
Posted by:
durham
()
Date: May 31, 2006 04:51PM
I've talked about my experiences in Scientology with friends regularly on an internet forum since before I got involved.
One guy who was a good friend of mine (real life friend to) really didn't like it. He got angrier when he realised it isn't based on faith. He kept arguing that it was rubbish and dangerous and eventually when he realised that I had logical arguments to counter his he left the forum and stopped talking to me.
Another guy made it his business to stalk me on the forum attacking and ridiculing Scientology whenever he could (without even trying to find any facts about it even from a hostile source).
The vast majority of people though just read my experiences with varying degrees of interest (or disinterest).
But this was proof for me that a small number of people have very strong reactions about this stuff.
One guy who was a good friend of mine (real life friend to) really didn't like it. He got angrier when he realised it isn't based on faith. He kept arguing that it was rubbish and dangerous and eventually when he realised that I had logical arguments to counter his he left the forum and stopped talking to me.
Another guy made it his business to stalk me on the forum attacking and ridiculing Scientology whenever he could (without even trying to find any facts about it even from a hostile source).
The vast majority of people though just read my experiences with varying degrees of interest (or disinterest).
But this was proof for me that a small number of people have very strong reactions about this stuff.
Is Tom Cruise losing it?
Posted by:
durham
()
Date: May 31, 2006 05:25PM
Here is a page I created about my research in the spiritual realm:
Here are my experiences regarding how the way I perceived the world shifted:
Until just after I'd turned 29 I was an atheist. By this I mean that I was someone who believed that the universe was started by chance (if it ever had a start). I believed that we are bodies, nothing more and when we die that's it. I didn't recognise that this was a belief either totally - to me it was fact. My opinion was that virtually all reasonably intelligent and educated people knew this fact unless they had been indoctrinated into a religion as a child.
That I changed my point of view from this to something else is quite rare. This page explains how that happened.
JFK
The first thing of any note was watching Oliver Stone's JFK. "Interesting," I thought, "Is this point of view severely biased or based on fact?" It was certainly a different point of view to the one I accepted that LHO was the lone killer. A few months of research revealed there was obviously some sort of government/CIA/FBI conspiracy. This is hardly surprising really as governments all over the world in all countries have been found conspiring, even if it is for what they believe is best for their country. One interesting thing was that there appeared to be media collusion in the conspiracy, at least the media were very happy to print one side of the story (the official government version) and less happy to print the other. I didn't really have a lot of faith that the media would be a part of this but the idea that the media wasn't always interested in getting to the truth of a matter remained a possibility in my mind. (In the end I found out to my satisfaction how the conspiracy worked and who the killer was, which was nice for me.)
Discovery of Ghosts
A few years went by and I decided to get Discovery Channel. There were some interesting programmes on ghosts. I'd seen problems about mediums and the like on national TV before and though some of them seemed pretty convincing on the surface I'd always assumed there must be a rational (not spiritual) explanation.
However one programme in particular got my attention - a ghost had told a medium about some insignificant facts (though important to the ghost) which checked out after intensive research into old local records of the area. There were many witnesses in the programme, many people who'd never believed in ghosts before whose stories all agreed with each other. I still wasn't entirely convinced but was interested enough to start some research into the phenomenon.
Psychological Explanations?
One of the things I was interested in learning was were there any studies that explained why these people who seemed sane and respectable would think they had seen a ghost when they hadn't? I couldn't find many I felt were plausible - a few a long the lines of "some people just delude themselves in all kinds of ways", but the more plausible studies said that they couldn't really explain it and the examination of such people showed their experiences and memory of them were much more consistent with them being actual experiences rather than delusion.
Many Different Types of Phenomena
I continued this line of research and found a large amount of interesting phenomena. Astral-travelling, Out of Body Experiences, Near-Death Experiences, mediums, ghosts, religious experiences, telepathy, remote-viewing etc.
I found all the evidence I could looked at both sides of the story and bought about 40 books on the various subjects. I checked hundreds of websites and chatted to hundreds of people with paranormal experiences.
Real Life Evidence
I carried this over into everyday life and openly talked about it with people I knew or just met in the pub. I found that these experiences were much more common than most people realise. My grandfather told me he'd had an out-of-body experience and was sure he wasn't hallucinating though he didn't think there was much point in trying to convince others of that.
Formation of the Universe and Life
I also checked out the science of how the universe was created and how life formed on earth.
Even though I had become less sceptical of spiritual phenomena I expected science to prove there was no need to believe in anything of the sort. However I found plenty of scientists arguing that the chances of the universe forming in a way that allowed for even just the formation of planets to be infinitessimately small. Similar plenty of scientists argue that the chances of life forming on earth are infinitessimately small. Some even go further and say that although Darwinian evolution is a sound theory it doesn't account for the speed of changes. The idea of an irreducible biological unit is used to explain that some parts of the bodies are made up of thousands of tiny parts which would be useless if even one of the parts didn't work. The chances of all the parts forming together by chance are again next to nothing.
Finding a Universal Theory
So I can eventually come to the conclusion that we don't die when our bodies do. It was purely based on evidence, but second hand evidence. I wanted to understand more - was there any way of tying these theories altogether? Where do we go to when we die? I spent a lot of time on the net chatting to people about their experiences and asking questions. Eventually I came across someone who made pretty good sense and helped me tie a lot of the evidence that seemed sometimes conflicting together. She had many fantastic abilities herself and explained to me that anyone can get firsthand experience of their spiritual nature. She explained that Scientology was a good place to look.
Scientology
I investigated Scientology cautiously as I'd heard that it was a religion started for profit. I bought some books and read them. They made a lot of sense. It was clear that either LRH was the greatest conmen ever with a genius unmatched by people like Einstein, or what he was saying was true. I decided to investigate. At the very least I realised that I would gain an insight into the nature of brainwashing other people to believe something. I asked questions about all the areas I was worried about and found good answers to them. I tried Scientology out and got evidence that it worked! It is fantastic and helped me in many areas of life.
The Reaction of Others
Before I even started Scientology I told people I knew that I’d done some thorough research and found overwhelming evidence that we don’t die when our bodies do. I expected others to be intrigued and research the topic for themselves. To my surprise I found that most reactions ranged from disinterest to anger and contempt that I was peddling harmful ideas with no basis in fact. Many people acted as if I'd started a personal smear campaign against them! One guy even stopped being friends with me because he thought my new point of view was so dangerous. I found this very interesting – why would people react like that? I just wanted to share something that was fascinating and really made me feel better and more excited about life! I noticed that many of the people arguing against my point of view tried to say that it had no basis in fact, but had little interest in reading the data I presented to them and then ridiculed me for talking about it in the first place - as if that's a method of operation conducive to finding out about something! At least given that I have a very high IQ and my arguments were obviously well presented they couldn't ridicule my position on those grounds!
Help
The answer I figured was quite complex but to simplify it – some people are on some level scared of help. They may have harmed others in the past or been hurt by people with more power than them and they get the impression that the best way to survive is to prevent others from getting more powerful. This gets warped slightly to even include preventing others from feeling good about themselves (as they associate feeling good with being capable). You must have met people who frequently try to cut others down to size yourself. There are even people who feel guilty about feeling happy, and people who cause themselves physical harm to feel a little less guilty!
Challenge
I guarantee that I can convince anyone who thinks it would help them to believe that they live on after their bodies that this is the case. I can do this only by showing people the wide variety of evidence that exists. And there is a hell of a lot of it. I don’t even need to refer to any material from Scientology to do so either. Contact me if you’re interested
Here are my experiences regarding how the way I perceived the world shifted:
Until just after I'd turned 29 I was an atheist. By this I mean that I was someone who believed that the universe was started by chance (if it ever had a start). I believed that we are bodies, nothing more and when we die that's it. I didn't recognise that this was a belief either totally - to me it was fact. My opinion was that virtually all reasonably intelligent and educated people knew this fact unless they had been indoctrinated into a religion as a child.
That I changed my point of view from this to something else is quite rare. This page explains how that happened.
JFK
The first thing of any note was watching Oliver Stone's JFK. "Interesting," I thought, "Is this point of view severely biased or based on fact?" It was certainly a different point of view to the one I accepted that LHO was the lone killer. A few months of research revealed there was obviously some sort of government/CIA/FBI conspiracy. This is hardly surprising really as governments all over the world in all countries have been found conspiring, even if it is for what they believe is best for their country. One interesting thing was that there appeared to be media collusion in the conspiracy, at least the media were very happy to print one side of the story (the official government version) and less happy to print the other. I didn't really have a lot of faith that the media would be a part of this but the idea that the media wasn't always interested in getting to the truth of a matter remained a possibility in my mind. (In the end I found out to my satisfaction how the conspiracy worked and who the killer was, which was nice for me.)
Discovery of Ghosts
A few years went by and I decided to get Discovery Channel. There were some interesting programmes on ghosts. I'd seen problems about mediums and the like on national TV before and though some of them seemed pretty convincing on the surface I'd always assumed there must be a rational (not spiritual) explanation.
However one programme in particular got my attention - a ghost had told a medium about some insignificant facts (though important to the ghost) which checked out after intensive research into old local records of the area. There were many witnesses in the programme, many people who'd never believed in ghosts before whose stories all agreed with each other. I still wasn't entirely convinced but was interested enough to start some research into the phenomenon.
Psychological Explanations?
One of the things I was interested in learning was were there any studies that explained why these people who seemed sane and respectable would think they had seen a ghost when they hadn't? I couldn't find many I felt were plausible - a few a long the lines of "some people just delude themselves in all kinds of ways", but the more plausible studies said that they couldn't really explain it and the examination of such people showed their experiences and memory of them were much more consistent with them being actual experiences rather than delusion.
Many Different Types of Phenomena
I continued this line of research and found a large amount of interesting phenomena. Astral-travelling, Out of Body Experiences, Near-Death Experiences, mediums, ghosts, religious experiences, telepathy, remote-viewing etc.
I found all the evidence I could looked at both sides of the story and bought about 40 books on the various subjects. I checked hundreds of websites and chatted to hundreds of people with paranormal experiences.
Real Life Evidence
I carried this over into everyday life and openly talked about it with people I knew or just met in the pub. I found that these experiences were much more common than most people realise. My grandfather told me he'd had an out-of-body experience and was sure he wasn't hallucinating though he didn't think there was much point in trying to convince others of that.
Formation of the Universe and Life
I also checked out the science of how the universe was created and how life formed on earth.
Even though I had become less sceptical of spiritual phenomena I expected science to prove there was no need to believe in anything of the sort. However I found plenty of scientists arguing that the chances of the universe forming in a way that allowed for even just the formation of planets to be infinitessimately small. Similar plenty of scientists argue that the chances of life forming on earth are infinitessimately small. Some even go further and say that although Darwinian evolution is a sound theory it doesn't account for the speed of changes. The idea of an irreducible biological unit is used to explain that some parts of the bodies are made up of thousands of tiny parts which would be useless if even one of the parts didn't work. The chances of all the parts forming together by chance are again next to nothing.
Finding a Universal Theory
So I can eventually come to the conclusion that we don't die when our bodies do. It was purely based on evidence, but second hand evidence. I wanted to understand more - was there any way of tying these theories altogether? Where do we go to when we die? I spent a lot of time on the net chatting to people about their experiences and asking questions. Eventually I came across someone who made pretty good sense and helped me tie a lot of the evidence that seemed sometimes conflicting together. She had many fantastic abilities herself and explained to me that anyone can get firsthand experience of their spiritual nature. She explained that Scientology was a good place to look.
Scientology
I investigated Scientology cautiously as I'd heard that it was a religion started for profit. I bought some books and read them. They made a lot of sense. It was clear that either LRH was the greatest conmen ever with a genius unmatched by people like Einstein, or what he was saying was true. I decided to investigate. At the very least I realised that I would gain an insight into the nature of brainwashing other people to believe something. I asked questions about all the areas I was worried about and found good answers to them. I tried Scientology out and got evidence that it worked! It is fantastic and helped me in many areas of life.
The Reaction of Others
Before I even started Scientology I told people I knew that I’d done some thorough research and found overwhelming evidence that we don’t die when our bodies do. I expected others to be intrigued and research the topic for themselves. To my surprise I found that most reactions ranged from disinterest to anger and contempt that I was peddling harmful ideas with no basis in fact. Many people acted as if I'd started a personal smear campaign against them! One guy even stopped being friends with me because he thought my new point of view was so dangerous. I found this very interesting – why would people react like that? I just wanted to share something that was fascinating and really made me feel better and more excited about life! I noticed that many of the people arguing against my point of view tried to say that it had no basis in fact, but had little interest in reading the data I presented to them and then ridiculed me for talking about it in the first place - as if that's a method of operation conducive to finding out about something! At least given that I have a very high IQ and my arguments were obviously well presented they couldn't ridicule my position on those grounds!
Help
The answer I figured was quite complex but to simplify it – some people are on some level scared of help. They may have harmed others in the past or been hurt by people with more power than them and they get the impression that the best way to survive is to prevent others from getting more powerful. This gets warped slightly to even include preventing others from feeling good about themselves (as they associate feeling good with being capable). You must have met people who frequently try to cut others down to size yourself. There are even people who feel guilty about feeling happy, and people who cause themselves physical harm to feel a little less guilty!
Challenge
I guarantee that I can convince anyone who thinks it would help them to believe that they live on after their bodies that this is the case. I can do this only by showing people the wide variety of evidence that exists. And there is a hell of a lot of it. I don’t even need to refer to any material from Scientology to do so either. Contact me if you’re interested
Is Tom Cruise losing it?
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: May 31, 2006 09:09PM
durham:
Repeatedly people ask the same question over and over again in my work.
"How can someone get involved in something like Scientology"?
The implication being that there must be something wrong with those taken in by Scientology since the organization, its founder and his teachings have been exposed through the press.
Well, thanks for helping everyone to understand how and/or why that happens.
You say that you have "investigated" and supposedly "researched Scientology, yet as you have demonstrated here through your posts you actually know very little about the organization, its founder and history.
You have not even reached "clear," let alone an OT level. You only know what you have paid to find out thus far, and it's not much.
The chronology of your enlightenment is rather revealing. You seem to be someone who wants to believe, and you cite supposed proof of things that cannot be proven demonstrating this.
It seems you were predisposed to believe whatever Scientology would tell you, as long as what they said made you feel good.
Combine that with their process of indoctrination, which many say is little more than "brainwashing" and you end up where you are now, which seems to be willing to accept virtually anything they say or any apology they might offer regarding their history, bad press, etc.
One example is the Scientology response to why people oppose them, which is a transparently self-serving response of an organization that refuses to accept responsibility for its behavior.
The more obvious answer is that people oppose Scientology because of its bad behavior, policies and that its teachings don't work.
See [www.cultnews.com]
Scientology is ranked lower than Islam as one of the most, unpopular religions in America. Even Islam, despite “Muslim terrorists” and rioting radicals making headlines, is seen better.
Specifically, Americans are twice as likely to view Islam favorably than Scientology.
The poll conducted by CBS News was actually focused on measuring the perception of Islam amongst Americans and not Scientology, but other religions were named and came up and also were measured in poll results.
CBS found that amongst Americans 45% said they have an unfavorable view of Islam, a rise from 36% in February reports Daily Times in Pakistan.
Only 19% of had a favorable view of Islam, compared to 30% in 2002.
But only 8% of the American public view Scientology favvorably according to the CBS poll, which is less than one in ten.
Other faiths ranked are also follows; 58% had a favorable impression of Protestantism, 48% of Catholicism, 47% of the Jewish religion, 31% of Christian fundamentalist religions and 20% of the Mormon religion.
Scientology's explanation, which you have accepted, not only doesn't make sense, it demonstrates again why the church is so unpopular. There is no dialog about its mistakes, but rather only denial and a complete refusal to even address issues about its behavior.
For example, L. Ron Hubbard's bio.
You seem to think that there is another "version" of his recorded life. As if his military record, court records, school records are subjective. And he is somehow his "genius" was "obvious" despite the records that objectively demonstrate otherwise and the first hand accounts of his own son, former wives and associates.
Again, beleiving in Hubbard for Scientologists appears to be a matter of faith, not something based upon facts.
Anyone that seriously investigates and does research about the man can easily establish that, as numerous press articles demonstrate.
This is how many cult members respond. There is a certain serenity in surrender to the group and its mindset, which makes cult members feel good. The group has all the answers and there is no more need to struggle, "it's a nice way to be" and increasingly it's about how they "feel" not what they think.
This can be seen in part as an inate desire by many to seek something that makes them feel good regardless of the consequences. Much like a drug addict or an alcoholic. In addition cult members experience the group process of persuasion or indoctrination, which is often called brainwashing.
The psychologist Margaret Singer broke this down to six conditions that follow in succession.
1. [b:95c43c8725]Keep the person unaware of what is going on and the changes taking place [/b:95c43c8725](e.g. Scientology doesn't allow people to know their entire program or teachings until they pay to reach each level therefore an initiate cannot make a fully informed decision about joing the religion, since they don't actually know what it is all about).
2. [b:95c43c8725]Control the person's time and, if possible, physical environment. [/b:95c43c8725](e.g. in Scientology this is done by taking up the person's time with courses, auditing, programs, etc. and increasingly they tend to associate more and more with other Scientologists.
3. [b:95c43c8725]Create a sense of powerlessness, covert fear, and dependency.[/b:95c43c8725] (e.g. in Scientology this is accomplished through teachings about the negative reactive mind, suppression, suppresive people, engrams, auditing etc. Eventually the Scientologist will also fear the influence of body thetans).
4. [b:95c43c8725]Suppress much of the person's old behavior and attitudes.[/b:95c43c8725] (e.g. in Scientology this is accomplished through its course work and auditing. Scientologists are taught to label anything they think or feel that is contrary to Scientology's preferred way of thinking and feeling as negative, suppresive etc.).
5. [b:95c43c8725]Instill new behavior and attitudes.[/b:95c43c8725] (e.g. in Scientology this is accomplished also through course work and auditting, conversely to number four above. That is, whatever Scientology says is a good behavior or attitude is acceptable and adopted by the Scientologist).
6. [b:95c43c8725]Put forth a closed system of logic; allow no real input or criticism. [/b:95c43c8725](e.g. in Scinetology Hubbard's teachings are absolute. He is always right and if you disagree you are wrong. Hubbards teachings are what noted psychiatrist and thought reform expert Robert Jay Lifton called a "Sacred Science."
Liftons says that this Sacred Science becomes "an ultimate moral vision for the ordering of human existence. This sacredness is evident in the prohibition (whether or not explicit) against the questioning of basic assumptions, and in the reverence which is demanded for the originators of the Word, the present bearers of the Word, and the Word itself. While thus transcending ordinary concerns of logic, however, the milieu at the same time makes an exaggerated claim of airtight logic, of absolute "scientific" precision. Thus the ultimate moral vision becomes an ultimate science; and the man who dares to criticize it, or to harbor even unspoken alternative ideas, becomes not only immoral and irreverent, but also "unscientific." In this way, the philosopher kings of modern ideological totalism reinforce their authority by claiming to share in the rich and respected heritage of natural science."
This is the most obvious facet of Scientology that corresponds to what can be seen easily as thought reform or "brainwashing."
See [www.culteducation.com]
This is a complete description of the eight criteria Lifton used to establish if a group or organization is using "thought reform."
See [www.culteducation.com]
This chart by Singer demonstrates the gradations of influence from education through advertising to thought reform.
At the bottom of the chart is a list of Singer's six conditions along with Lifton's eight criteria and how they correspond with each other.
Sadly what you have demonstrated on this board durham is that you are not thinking critically or meaningfully researching anything about Scientology. Instead, what you prove is the effect Scientology can have an individual, which rather than being empowereing can usurp individual thinking and/or still the mind.
Perhaps at some point Scientology will make demands upon you that you can't meet, for example financially.
They will pressure to take course after course and this will be expensive.
Maybe after you have maxed out your credit cards and are broke some realization will come. Though this doesn't seem to do it for many Scientologists. They then become Sea Org members (full time staffers) working for the organization in exchange for continuning course work.
This can be seen as a low cost labor force that Scientology uses to run the organization.
Wake up durham.
Repeatedly people ask the same question over and over again in my work.
"How can someone get involved in something like Scientology"?
The implication being that there must be something wrong with those taken in by Scientology since the organization, its founder and his teachings have been exposed through the press.
Well, thanks for helping everyone to understand how and/or why that happens.
You say that you have "investigated" and supposedly "researched Scientology, yet as you have demonstrated here through your posts you actually know very little about the organization, its founder and history.
You have not even reached "clear," let alone an OT level. You only know what you have paid to find out thus far, and it's not much.
The chronology of your enlightenment is rather revealing. You seem to be someone who wants to believe, and you cite supposed proof of things that cannot be proven demonstrating this.
It seems you were predisposed to believe whatever Scientology would tell you, as long as what they said made you feel good.
Combine that with their process of indoctrination, which many say is little more than "brainwashing" and you end up where you are now, which seems to be willing to accept virtually anything they say or any apology they might offer regarding their history, bad press, etc.
One example is the Scientology response to why people oppose them, which is a transparently self-serving response of an organization that refuses to accept responsibility for its behavior.
The more obvious answer is that people oppose Scientology because of its bad behavior, policies and that its teachings don't work.
See [www.cultnews.com]
Scientology is ranked lower than Islam as one of the most, unpopular religions in America. Even Islam, despite “Muslim terrorists” and rioting radicals making headlines, is seen better.
Specifically, Americans are twice as likely to view Islam favorably than Scientology.
The poll conducted by CBS News was actually focused on measuring the perception of Islam amongst Americans and not Scientology, but other religions were named and came up and also were measured in poll results.
CBS found that amongst Americans 45% said they have an unfavorable view of Islam, a rise from 36% in February reports Daily Times in Pakistan.
Only 19% of had a favorable view of Islam, compared to 30% in 2002.
But only 8% of the American public view Scientology favvorably according to the CBS poll, which is less than one in ten.
Other faiths ranked are also follows; 58% had a favorable impression of Protestantism, 48% of Catholicism, 47% of the Jewish religion, 31% of Christian fundamentalist religions and 20% of the Mormon religion.
Scientology's explanation, which you have accepted, not only doesn't make sense, it demonstrates again why the church is so unpopular. There is no dialog about its mistakes, but rather only denial and a complete refusal to even address issues about its behavior.
For example, L. Ron Hubbard's bio.
You seem to think that there is another "version" of his recorded life. As if his military record, court records, school records are subjective. And he is somehow his "genius" was "obvious" despite the records that objectively demonstrate otherwise and the first hand accounts of his own son, former wives and associates.
Again, beleiving in Hubbard for Scientologists appears to be a matter of faith, not something based upon facts.
Anyone that seriously investigates and does research about the man can easily establish that, as numerous press articles demonstrate.
Quote
I don't get angry or upset about stuff if I don't want to. It's a nice way to be - things feel much more serene and exciting than they used to be
This is how many cult members respond. There is a certain serenity in surrender to the group and its mindset, which makes cult members feel good. The group has all the answers and there is no more need to struggle, "it's a nice way to be" and increasingly it's about how they "feel" not what they think.
This can be seen in part as an inate desire by many to seek something that makes them feel good regardless of the consequences. Much like a drug addict or an alcoholic. In addition cult members experience the group process of persuasion or indoctrination, which is often called brainwashing.
The psychologist Margaret Singer broke this down to six conditions that follow in succession.
1. [b:95c43c8725]Keep the person unaware of what is going on and the changes taking place [/b:95c43c8725](e.g. Scientology doesn't allow people to know their entire program or teachings until they pay to reach each level therefore an initiate cannot make a fully informed decision about joing the religion, since they don't actually know what it is all about).
2. [b:95c43c8725]Control the person's time and, if possible, physical environment. [/b:95c43c8725](e.g. in Scientology this is done by taking up the person's time with courses, auditing, programs, etc. and increasingly they tend to associate more and more with other Scientologists.
3. [b:95c43c8725]Create a sense of powerlessness, covert fear, and dependency.[/b:95c43c8725] (e.g. in Scientology this is accomplished through teachings about the negative reactive mind, suppression, suppresive people, engrams, auditing etc. Eventually the Scientologist will also fear the influence of body thetans).
4. [b:95c43c8725]Suppress much of the person's old behavior and attitudes.[/b:95c43c8725] (e.g. in Scientology this is accomplished through its course work and auditing. Scientologists are taught to label anything they think or feel that is contrary to Scientology's preferred way of thinking and feeling as negative, suppresive etc.).
5. [b:95c43c8725]Instill new behavior and attitudes.[/b:95c43c8725] (e.g. in Scientology this is accomplished also through course work and auditting, conversely to number four above. That is, whatever Scientology says is a good behavior or attitude is acceptable and adopted by the Scientologist).
6. [b:95c43c8725]Put forth a closed system of logic; allow no real input or criticism. [/b:95c43c8725](e.g. in Scinetology Hubbard's teachings are absolute. He is always right and if you disagree you are wrong. Hubbards teachings are what noted psychiatrist and thought reform expert Robert Jay Lifton called a "Sacred Science."
Liftons says that this Sacred Science becomes "an ultimate moral vision for the ordering of human existence. This sacredness is evident in the prohibition (whether or not explicit) against the questioning of basic assumptions, and in the reverence which is demanded for the originators of the Word, the present bearers of the Word, and the Word itself. While thus transcending ordinary concerns of logic, however, the milieu at the same time makes an exaggerated claim of airtight logic, of absolute "scientific" precision. Thus the ultimate moral vision becomes an ultimate science; and the man who dares to criticize it, or to harbor even unspoken alternative ideas, becomes not only immoral and irreverent, but also "unscientific." In this way, the philosopher kings of modern ideological totalism reinforce their authority by claiming to share in the rich and respected heritage of natural science."
This is the most obvious facet of Scientology that corresponds to what can be seen easily as thought reform or "brainwashing."
See [www.culteducation.com]
This is a complete description of the eight criteria Lifton used to establish if a group or organization is using "thought reform."
See [www.culteducation.com]
This chart by Singer demonstrates the gradations of influence from education through advertising to thought reform.
At the bottom of the chart is a list of Singer's six conditions along with Lifton's eight criteria and how they correspond with each other.
Sadly what you have demonstrated on this board durham is that you are not thinking critically or meaningfully researching anything about Scientology. Instead, what you prove is the effect Scientology can have an individual, which rather than being empowereing can usurp individual thinking and/or still the mind.
Perhaps at some point Scientology will make demands upon you that you can't meet, for example financially.
They will pressure to take course after course and this will be expensive.
Maybe after you have maxed out your credit cards and are broke some realization will come. Though this doesn't seem to do it for many Scientologists. They then become Sea Org members (full time staffers) working for the organization in exchange for continuning course work.
This can be seen as a low cost labor force that Scientology uses to run the organization.
Wake up durham.
Is Tom Cruise losing it?
Posted by:
durham
()
Date: May 31, 2006 09:50PM
No - as I've stated before I know all about the organization, its founder and history as I've stated. I've investigated both sides of the coin and made up my own mind.Quote
rrmoderator
durham:
You say that you have "investigated" and supposedly "researched Scientology, yet as you have demonstrated here through your posts you actually know very little about the organization, its founder and history.
I do think you have a fixed idea about me and anyone else in Scientology. I don't really think you're considering the idea that it could work and my point of view is based on my experience not faith.
Again you're ignoring the fact that Scientology isn't about faith. You progress by using techniques not by people giving you spurious bits of information to believe.Quote
You have not even reached "clear," let alone an OT level. You only know what you have paid to find out thus far, and it's not much.
I thought it might be cool to believe that - I don't understand why someone would prefer to believe we cease to exist when our bodies die. That said I'd love to believe I'm completely irresistable to women but sometimes the odd one resists my charms. ;) I'm not interested (or capable) of believing something without evidence.Quote
The chronology of your enlightenment is rather revealing. You seem to be someone who wants to believe, and you cite supposed proof of things that cannot be proven demonstrating this.
You could also dismiss someone who knows about chemistry by saying that they were just predisposed to believe in chemistry.
That's your fixed opinion. It's not true though.Quote
It seems you were predisposed to believe whatever Scientology would tell you, as long as what they said made you feel good.
I see the good Scientologists do in my area and I know it works. That definitely tilts my opinion in favour of Scientology if it is someone's word against LRH's.Quote
Combine that with their process of indoctrination, which many say is little more than "brainwashing" and you end up where you are now, which seems to be willing to accept virtually anything they say or any apology they might offer regarding their history, bad press, etc.
Or maybe it's the truth.Quote
One example is the Scientology response to why people oppose them, which is a transparently self-serving response of an organization that refuses to accept responsibility for its behavior.
Except it does work. I have personal experience of it. It working is the only reason anyone for anyone to be involved with it.Quote
The more obvious answer is that people oppose Scientology because of its bad behavior, policies and that its teachings don't work.
Even if, and actually especially if Scientology was a scam it's obvious that LRH was a genius.Quote
And he is somehow his "genius" was "obvious" despite the records that objectively demonstrate otherwise
Again your fixed opinion just does not allow you to consider the idea it isn't about faith.Quote
Again, beleiving in Hubbard for Scientologists appears to be a matter of faith, not something based upon facts.
I've done that research.Quote
Anyone that seriously investigates and does research about the man can easily establish that, as numerous press articles demonstrate.
Nice idea. By the same token there should also be a certain serenity in surrendering to the group of those who attack Scientology and their mindset, without bothering to get first hand experience.Quote
This is how many cult members respond. There is a certain serenity in surrender to the group and its mindset, which makes cult members feel good. The group has all the answers and there is no more need to struggle, "it's a nice way to be" and increasingly it's about how they "feel" not what they think.
They explain away their unwillingness to get this first hand experience by saying that it is too dangerous to attempt it, or just pointless.
False. Except for the OT levels you can read about what goes on in each level and the end result to be obtained before starting the level.Quote
1. Keep the person unaware of what is going on and the changes taking place (e.g. Scientology doesn't allow people to know their entire program or teachings until they pay to reach each level therefore an initiate cannot make a fully informed decision about joing the religion, since they don't actually know what it is all about).
All churches are open for people to look around. People are recommended to read books about it and make up their minds based on those.
You can say this about school and places of work.Quote
2. Control the person's time and, if possible, physical environment. (e.g. in Scientology this is done by taking up the person's time with courses, auditing, programs, etc. and increasingly they tend to associate more and more with other Scientologists.
False. Scientology is all about empowering people with techniques that work. You could say parents telling their children to watch out for cars creates "a sense of powerlessness, covert fear, and dependency".Quote
3. Create a sense of powerlessness, covert fear, and dependency.(e.g. in Scientology this is accomplished through teachings about the negative reactive mind, suppression, suppresive people, engrams, auditing etc. Eventually the Scientologist will also fear the influence of body thetans).
False. Scientologists are encouraged to think for themselves and examine the material in books and courses to see if it fits their experiences. There is nothing of the type - "this is how it is. now believe or you'll be in trouble." Mind there are elements of that in most schools.Quote
4. Suppress much of the person's old behavior and attitudes. (e.g. in Scientology this is accomplished through its course work and auditing. Scientologists are taught to label anything they think or feel that is contrary to Scientology's preferred way of thinking and feeling as negative, suppresive etc.).
Again - this is ridiculously general and could be levelled at schools and businesses.Quote
5. Instill new behavior and attitudes. (e.g. in Scientology this is accomplished also through course work and auditting, conversely to number four above. That is, whatever Scientology says is a good behavior or attitude is acceptable and adopted by the Scientologist).
False. Hubbard talked about truth being essentially that which is true for you. Mind most of what LRH says is self-evident when you think about it. That which isn't you shouldn't believe until you have some experience with it. Find me an example of something Hubbard says that you disagree with and I'll be very suprised.Quote
6. Put forth a closed system of logic; allow no real input or criticism. (e.g. in Scinetology Hubbard's teachings are absolute. He is always right and if you disagree you are wrong. Hubbards teachings are what noted psychiatrist and thought reform expert Robert Jay Lifton called a "Sacred Science."
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.