Why are ex-members poor sources of true information on Scientology?

Ex-members, called apostates, are an acknowledged phenomenon with known, predictable patterns, as documented by sociologists and religious scholars. To quote just one, Bryan Wilson, Ph.D. of Oxford University in the United Kingdom:

“The apostate is generally in need of self-justification. He seeks to reconstruct his own past, to excuse his former affiliations, and to blame those who were formerly his closest associates. Not uncommonly the apostate learnt to rehearse an “atrocity story” to explain how, by manipulation, trickery, coercion, or deceit, he was induced to join or remain within an organization that he now forswears and condemns. Apostates, sensationalized by the press, have sometimes sought to make a profit from accounts of their experiences in stories sold to newspapers….”

“Academics have come to recognize the ‘atrocity story’ as a distinctive genre of the apostate and have even come to regard it as a recognizable category of phenomena.”

This happens with other groups as well and even in marriages or broken friendships. The one who leaves sometimes goes a long way to explain how bad the relationship was or tries to justify that he abandoned his friends. This is a social mechanism and sometimes quite fantastic to listen to, but not a good measure to find the truth.
Some former members might complain about “bad experiences” they had or claim to have had. So, obviously they decided not to do something about it and left the organization. Maybe it was not the right thing for them. Just as most other religious organizations Scientology does not hold members who do not want to be members. Scientology practices do not work properly if done under pressure or false premises. So who wants to go, should leave or help to remedy perceived wrongs. Ex-members who try to make a living as “experts” on the faith they abandoned are clearly not neutral and not a good source for anything related.

An unbeatable way to find out something about Scientology is to go to a local church or mission and look around, get a tour and get informed. You can also go to a library and get a Scientology book. A pretty comprehensive book is one called “What is Scientology?” which tells about the Scientology belief and the organization structure (the book is also online since more than 10 years here).

There are also 18 basic books of L. Ron Hubbard in which he describes his findings and works in chronological order. Last but not least there are plenty of websites with free books or excerpts of Scientology material which the Church has put out over the last years. If you are more interested what the Church of Scientology, the organization, does and supports, you should have a look at the Church’s website.

DOCUMENTATION:
Bryan Wilson: Apostates and New Religious Movements
Kliever: The Reliability of Apostate Testimony About New Religious Movements
What is Scientology? Book online
Scientology Handbook online

81 Comments

  1. I’m so glad you asked, Pat, because there’s a lot that Hibbard claimed that wasn’t true. But we’ll just focus on the things that didn’t work. He made certain claims about the abilities of clears and OTs. I doubt you’re familiar with his own statements on the matter, sadly, but that’s a perfect example.

    He said that clears and OTs had certain abilities, which they don’t actually have. And that’s demonstrable. Clears do get colds, just for one example. And no OT has ever actually exteriorized- they only can believe they can, but can’t actually do it. It’s like a child playing make believe.

    Are you passively-aggressively implying something with your quote, dear pat?

  2. Ex-Scientologists are often great sources of information because what they have said has been confirmed time and time again.

    • Right. Confirmed. lol. You have to resort to generalities that are unconfirmable by their very nature.

      • Confirmed is right, by many thousands of former Scientologists.
        Unless you look at both sides, you will never know that, Pat.
        Looking at the other side is something that you are afraid to do.
        There must be some tiny criticism that you have of Scientology.

      • I have no reason to criticize Scientology. I’ve never been in doubt (Introduction to Scientology Ethics, Doubt Formula) so there was never a need to look at any other point of view. Scientology works. What else is there besides that?

      • So you have not even the smallest little criticism of Scientology or the way it is being run. Wow! I guess that must make it perfect in your mind.

      • Of course she doesn’t, Len. If she did, it would be discovered during her next security check. And then she’d be in for it!

        Now, I’m not saying that scientology is a cult, but all cults have a process where doubt is forced out of the person. Dictatorships do, too- they remove the ability of the person to think for themselves, and allow them to submit completely to the cult or dictator- where the leader or founder of the same does the thinking for them. The thing is, the person still thinks they’re able to think freely- that they reached that decision on their own. You know how to tell the difference? They have a formula or an indoctrination process, after which all doubt is removed.

        Of course, that doesn’t apply here. Certainly scientology isn’t a cult. Of course.

        But Pat really does believe that the organization is flawless. The funny thing is, if that were true, there there wouldn’t be any changes, right? And yet, all of Hubbard’s original staff was declared supressive or is otherwise missing. The books have been rewritten. The structure has been changed and groups and divisions that Hubbard didn’t create himself have been formed. I guess things are perfect NOW, under Miscavige; they weren’t perfect under Hubbard, since they were changed.

        I’m really curious, Pat- in what way does Scientology ‘work’? I mean, I’m really glad that you feel well and that it works for you- that’s a very good thing. But what of all the things that Hubbard claimed that don’t actually work? Is that good enough for you?

      • What did L Ron Hubbard claim that didn’t work by one’s own personal experience or observation? Remember, in Scientology, what is true is only true if one personally observes or experiences it. It’s the empirical model. http://www.scientology.org/what-is-scientology/basic-principles-of-scientology/personal-integrity.html

        “Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people” Eleanor Roosevelt

      • First, posting this in the correct place.

        I’m so glad you asked, Pat, because there’s a lot that Hubbard claimed that wasn’t true. But we’ll just focus on the things that didn’t work. He made certain claims about the abilities of clears and OTs. I doubt you’re familiar with his own statements on the matter, sadly, but that’s a perfect example.

        He said that clears and OTs had certain abilities, which they don’t actually have. And that’s demonstrable. Clears do get colds, just for one example. And no OT has ever actually exteriorized- they only can believe they can, but can’t actually do it. It’s like a child playing make believe.

        Are you passively-aggressively implying something with your quote, dear pat?

      • This is not a generality. This is a fact. The haters are going to hate but theta will win in the end. It always does. Ron said it best.

      • That is the awesomest thing I’ve ever heard, he may be a proven liar, but the man had the voice of an angel. Not a particularly musically inclined angel, perhaps, but it takes all types ;)

        I do hope that the theta hurries up and wins, though. The number of scientologists are shrinking rapidly, while the independents and the critics are growing rapidly. I’d imagine that theta is waiting for a dramatic last-minute victory, much like the mighty Casey at bat.

      • I told you so Big Daddy. If Scientology was a fraud there would be no way Ron sing and could make music as good as this. Arp Cola delivers!!!

        Scientology has the tools for living and livingness and no amount of ad hom is going to change that. That ought to shut all you haters up! LOL!

      • More generalities, BD? Exactly what did he say were Clear or OT abilities that were wrong, and where exactly did he say that?

      • “And no OT has ever actually exteriorized- they only can believe they can, but can’t actually do it”

        And you know this because you’re an OT and you’ve never exteriorized?

      • “More generalities, BD? Exactly what did he say were Clear or OT abilities that were wrong, and where exactly did he say that?”

        Sorry, I though you had read what Hubbard wrote:
        “Clears do not get colds. Just what, if any, part the virus plays in the common cold is not known, but it is known that when engrams about colds are lifted, no further colds appear – which is a laboratory fact not so far contradicted by 270 cases…”

        This was what Hubbard said, and was repeated while he was alive. Your link, on the scientology website, wasn’t ever said while Hubbard was alive. It wasn’t until after he died that his word was changed.

        There’s more!

        “Morning sickness is entirely engramic, so far as can be discovered, since clears have not so far experienced it during their own pregnancies.”

        Clears don’t get morning sickness. Cool.I must have missed amazing fact in any medical journal.

        I could go on, but let’s use Hubbard’s own research. In 1950, he announced that the world’s first clear was ready to demonstrate her abilities. She failed to demonstrate the claimed abilities when Hubbard demonstrated. He said that she would have “full and perfect recall of every moment of her life,” but she was unable to to remember the color of his tie or other recent facts. He also claimed another clear in 1966, but he also never demonstrated the abilities promised. Interestingly, he left scientology years later after disapproving of the management of the organization.

        “And you know this because you’re an OT and you’ve never exteriorized?”

        No, of course I’m not an OT. I know that because no OT has ever exteriorized. I’ve talked to several who have admitted that they are unable. Some of them claim that they can do it, but that it’s a (ahem) world that no one else can see. Okay, I’ll buy that- it’s a world that only they can see. I can do that, too. I just did it, right now. I just did it again.

        The thing is that scientology’s website defines exteriorization as “the state of the thetan being outside his body with or without full perception.”

        There has never been an OT that has left his body with full perception. That’s easy enough to prove, because if they could, then scientologists are the least ethical people on the planet. If a scientologist is able to save lives using this ability, then they are accountable for the lives that they refused to save.

        What is it, Pat? Are scientologists unable to leave their body with full perception, or are they unwilling to save lives by doing so? Are they unable or unethical?

      • Len- Pat doesn’t look at both sides, so she has no idea what former members are saying or how many of them are speaking out. She hasn’t read the official reports and hasn’t followed the news. She has less than half of the information, and she thinks that’s enough to reach a conclusion. Literally all she has is her own experiences, which only makes her qualified to discuss… her own experiences. All she can say is that it works for her, but she can’t really talk about the crimes associated with the organization or the experiences of past members, because she can’t bring herself to honestly evaluate them. So while some of us have seen the bigger picture, she’s only able to say that she really really super likes scientology and thinks it’s totally great. The rest of us have read through the OT levels that have been released online, which have been validated as accurate by scientology management. We can read Hubbard’s own writings and see what he actually said, in his own handwriting or his own voice. In short, the critics have more objective, hard facts than Pat does. So her opinion on anything outside of her experiences amount to nothing more than her blind faith. But she can’t see that, and because of the directions that she’s following, she’s not able to see the cracks forming. She’s like someone looking at a brick wall very very closely- the rest of us can see the bricks and mortar, including the broken ones. She can only see red.

    • As for Clears, http://www.scientology.org/faq/clear/do-clears-get-colds-and-get-sick.html

      Have you read all the books and listened to all the lectures that accompanied them? I don’t think so, or you’d know that the research continued and tech evolves.

      • So here’s the big question: Is there anything at all that a scientologist can actually, physically, objectively do that a non-scientologist can not? Despite Hubbard’s outlandish claims, there appears to be nothing that a scientologist can do that no one else can.

      • Wait- did HUBBARD HIMSELF every say that clears do indeed get colds, Pat? Can you find anything that HUBBARD said that matches what your link to the scientology website said?

  3. X-members will always be liars. Pure and simple.
    Ever since the first apostate, this has been so.
    Never listen to a bitter x-member. Do your own research.
    Until then, you will never know what the truth is.

    • X-members are not always liars and it is not that simple.
      Every post that states that is a generalization. For sure.
      News about this cult tends to verify what the X’s say.
      Uppity posts that ignore these stories don’t help either.

  4. thank you for the links to the pdfs of Wilson and Kliever

  5. X-members will always be the last people to go to when it comes to the truth. Eventually, they may calm down enough to know just how much damage they cause. Nevertheless, most don’t ever change. They just continue the crazy old tale. Understandably, one takes what they say with a huge pinch of salt.

    • That argument is brilliant, because either way you win. You can immediately discount the word of anyone that’s never been a member (including scholars, judges, etc), because “they’ve never tried it” and “They don’t know what they’re talking about.” But now you can also completely ignore the THOUSANDS of former members (including OTVIIIs) simply because they left. That means the only people you can believe are coincidentally the only people that agree with you.

      They have similar stories and experiences- and you ignore each one. No wonder scientology still looks good to you.

      • What facts would a judge or scholar have if they’ve never tried it or read the book? That’s silly.

      • Pat: They’d have… facts. Objective, repeatable and identifiable facts. A judge doesn’t care about the beliefs of scientology- they care about the law and the many crimes that have come out of the organization.

        Do you have an opinion on psychiatric drugs? How many times have you tried it?

      • No, they don’t have all the facts. That’s where your assertion breaks down. They only hear the atrocity stories that are put out to justify having deserted one’s religion. I have never had any reason to doubt because Scientology always works for me when I use it. Only if I had been in doubt would I have had need to look at the apostate stories and evaluate them against my own experiences and truths. (Introduction to Scientology Ethics, Doubt Formula).

      • No one said that they had all of the facts, but they have facts that you haven’t heard. They have a part of the story that you, by your own admission, intentionally ignore. That means that they have more information than you do, upon which they based their conclusion- you have only half of the story. You don’t have to be IN doubt to collect all of the information, Pat. But sometimes, it can create doubt when you get more facts. But I suspect that you already know that, and I suspect that’s why you close your ears to facts contrary to your beliefs.

        So that, again, raises the question as to why you’re here? You’re not familiar with the unbiased sources, as this site advertises that it uses. And you’re not willing to listen to or consider other points of view. So all you can do is repeat your position over and over again, ad nauseum. But you ignore facts that aren’t even critical! Facts that are neutral. You still haven’t looked at Hubbard’s own medical record, have you? That’s not critical- it’s very neutral. But what would happen if you saw that? What would happen to you if you saw that Hubbard lied, in his own records?

        But you’ve gone through a process that has convinced you that you don’t need to have all of the facts before you make a decision. That you can ignore anything that runs contrary to your beliefs, but somehow think that your decision is completely your own and rooted in fact. The funny thing is that you so quickly judge those who say the same thing! You say, how can someone judge scientology without trying it? You say that as if to imply that someone needs all the information before they make a decision. How can you say that when you won’t do the same thing?

      • I have no reason to judge anything based on other peoples opinions. That’s all these are. That would be letting others tell you what to think and that means slavery. So, tell me again, why I would want opinions when I already have first-hand experience and knowledge?

      • First, let’s separate two concepts: facts and opinions.

        You claim that you don’t want to hear opinions contrary to your own, because hearing points of view that disagree with yours somehow equals slavery. I could accept that much easier if you weren’t also so eager to ignore verifiable facts! By talking only about opinions, you’re trying to give the impression that you’ve made an informed judgement, but the reality is that you’re ignoring anything that’s contrary to your previously held beliefs. That’s the very definition of being closed-minded.

        For example, it is a fact that Hubbard’s own record shows that his claims were a lie. That’s no someone’s opinion, and that’s not hearsay- that’s a verifiable fact in black and white. Yet you ignore that- you refuse to acknowledge it or even look at it. That can be likened to sticking one’s head in the sand, or plugging your ears so you don’t accidently change your mind. Some, such as myself, have heard both sides of the debate and made up my mind after hearing both arguments. Frankly, that’s a stronger position than one that only has half of the data.

        So you ignore fact, but that’s your choice. Why should you listen to people’s experiences, then? You say opinion, but I remind you that testimony is a legal consideration; no one’s asking you to accept someone’s opinion, but there is ample testimony that you also haven’t considered. And why should you? You’ve already made up your mind, right? But if your beliefs are unshakable, merely hearing someone else’s experience shouldn’t be threatening to you. And yet, here we are.

        But validation says a lot. Sometimes, it’s how we know we’re not insane. Your position is that scientology is valid because you’ve tried it and it works. You have nothing outside of yourself to support your belief, but you feel you don’t need it. Your position is exactly the same as someone that truly believes that they can talk to ghosts, hear God tell them to set fires or turn invisible when no one is looking. You have exactly the same argument as they do- they know it’s true, and that’s good enough for then. The thing is that all of you could, if your beliefs are true, demonstrate it to the world. But none of you try. You have your own reasons, but normally they would say, “I shouldn’t need to validate it, I know it works!” or, oddly, “It doesn’t work if you try to show it!” So please tell me, Pat- how are you any different than the man that talks to the dead?

      • “Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people” Eleanor Roosevelt

      • Fact: What I know is what I observe or experience, not what someone else tells me. I don’t listen to (buy into) other people’s opinions and that’s a fact. I can’t believe how much energy you put into trying to generality me into doubt. LOL

      • “Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people” Eleanor Roosevelt”

        Your passive-aggressiveness isn’t very becoming, Pat. We’re not discussing people- we’re talking about the ideas put forth by a person and supported by others. We are discussing ideas- ideas come from people. If I were talking just about people, I might question why you profit from scientology (by selling books online), and if that has anything to do with why you defend it so staunchly. The profit motive is suspicious. But, that would make me small, so I’ll just keep talking about the ideas.

        You know the irony of your quote? Do you know how many pages scientology has created to talk about people? Do you know how many magazines have been printed to talk about its enemies? Did you know that scientology still offers a BOUNTY for information on online critics? Yeah, you might be right with your quote. Whoever made sites like the ones that Louanne links to, the kind that only discuss people, might be pretty small-minded.

        “Fact: What I know is what I observe or experience, not what someone else tells me. I don’t listen to (buy into) other people’s opinions and that’s a fact. I can’t believe how much energy you put into trying to generality me into doubt. LOL”

        I’m not trying to generality you into doubt. I don’t think you’re capable of that, and I think that you know that you would be caught during your next sec check if you were. But you’ve answered the question- you’re no different than someone that talks to the dead or travels to the underworld. Your statemetns are the same as those offered by voodoo practitioners. At least you’ve finally confirmed that.

      • You’re really hung up on this sec check thing. If a person has done nothing wrong, why worry about it? Sounds like fear-mongering to me

      • Did you not read the rest of my comment, or did you only choose one small line to respond to? Sigh.

        I do think it’s relevant. It’s actually not a good thing when doubt is discouraged. And I think that people need to understand that, if they join the organization, they will be checked to see if they are doubting. Quite frankly, I believe that’s part of your motivation, and why you’re incapable of objectively evaluating your own organization.

      • Since you like quotes so much:

        “Any religion which prohibits doubts abandons any hope of growth or development. A religion without doubt is fixed and unchanging. Such a religion is useless to dynamic thinking individuals who are curious about the truth of reality.”

        Donavan Hall

      • Let’s not forget Hubbard’s own words: “If you oppose Scientology we promptly look and will find and expose your crimes. If you leave us alone we will leave you alone.” There are many other orders and quotes by Hubbard that tell a scientologist to focus on the person rather than ideas- small minded indeed! But, the thing is that Pat’s not allowed to engage in a fair and open exchange of ideas. Hubbard himself said, “Attackers are simply an anti-Scientology propaganda agency so far as we are concerned. They have proven they want no facts and will only lie no matter what they discover. So BANISH all ideas that any fair hearing is intended and start our attack with their first breath. Never wait. Never talk about us – only them. Use their blood, sex, crime to get headlines. Don’t use us.” To put it another way, if someone has a critical perspective, you attack them! You talk about them! You look into their lives until you find something to use to discredit them. Hubbard called it dead-agenting (because he misunderstood the writings of Sun-Tzu), and it was his advice for dealing with critics. That’s why scientology had to apologize and pay damages to Bonnie Woods in 1993- because they illegally harassed her for daring to criticize scientology. That’s also why the scientology site “religious freedom watch” exists SOLELY to discuss individuals. Scientology sure spends a lot of time discussing people, it would seem.

      • “If a person has done nothing wrong, why worry about it?”

        Indeed, Pat. As long as you do what you’re told, you have nothing to worry about. But what if you don’t? Those things that you confess… scientology knows them about you, and they hold your secrets. And your secrets are safe, unless you speak out against them- unless they decide you’re an enemy. If that happens, your most personal secrets will be printed in scientology’s magazine, for everyone to see. Or perhaps another website, to attack you. That, of course, after all of your friends and loved ones happen to “voluntarily and freely” disconnect from you, because you no longer share their belief.

        So stay in line, because scientology will not allow dissent.

        You’ll oppose this, Pat. You’ll fight against it and mock it, throwing LOLs around freely and clumsily dodging the points and issues. You’ll do that because Hubbard said so, and you always do what you’re told. So you have nothing to worry about- you’re a very obedient scientologist, no matter what it cost you.

  6. The only place a Scientologist belongs is in the labor division of a concentration camp. Only then could they serve a purpose to somebody.

    • I was fascinated to find out that the new DSM V (Psychiatry’s bible) lists trolling as a psychosis. Ironic really, since psychs readily admit to paying people to post anti-Scientology trolls. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. LOL

      • Pat- please provide a source for your claims. Where in the DSM V is trolling listed as a psychosis? And where have psychologists admitted to paying people to troll scientology?

      • Excuse me. DSM IV although Narcissism and Cluster B Personality is in DSM V. http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/5/15/19332/5961

      • No offense, but that’s really stupid. Even our own link doesn’t support your claim, and that diagnosis could just as easily be applied to some of the scientologists that yell at strangers, etc. Prove your claim that psychs “readily admit” to paying people to post anti-scientology trolls. And then, please explain why scientology has instructed people to post against critics.

      • Who exactly has been instructed to post against Scientology critics?

      • Tory Christman.

        Now your turn- please prove your claim that “psychs readily admit to paying people to post anti-Scientology trolls.” I provided a name- please do the same for someone that has admitted to paying people to post anti-scientology trolls.

      • Tory Christman.

        Now your turn- please prove your claim that “psychs readily admit to paying people to post anti-Scientology trolls.” I provided a name- please do the same for someone that has admitted to paying people to post anti-scientology trolls.

      • Oh, and let’s not forget the fact that Scientology IP addresses are still banned from posting on wikipedia. You can argue that the members weren’t ‘instructed’ to vandalize wikipedia, and perhaps you’re right. It really could be just an amazing coincidence that so many people sat in a scientology center at the same time to edit wikipedia in favor of scientology. That would be quite a coincidence, but it certainly is possible. But, in that case, the wikimedia decision ruled that:

        “promoters of the Scientology organization were “getting together, saying, ‘Let’s work together to make this a more pro-scientology article”

        Not that the promoters (aka scientologists) were striving for accuracy, but for accuracy AS THEY SAW IT. They wanted a pro-scientology article, which was why they were removing the contrary facts. Dan Rosenthal, the wikipedia spokesperson, said that scientologists were posting with an agenda- not in the interest of truth and fact. According to Anne Anderson, author of Insiders’ Guide to the Greater Tampa Bay Area, such a ban against an organization’s IP range is very rare, but necessary in this case. Why? Because the scientologists were reducing the accuracy of the articles en masse. That’s not okay.

        And let’s not forget the time in 1995 that Scientology Lawyer Helena Kobrin tried to shut down all free and open conversation on the scientology newsgroup! This very directly answers your question, as she was directly paid by scientology to post those messages and try to shut down discussion critical to scientology. It didn’t work, of course, because people are free to criticize scientology online. Of course, scientology then turned to the courts and started suing people for talking about scientology online, so that’s a whole new level of what we’re talking about. That’s not just paying people to counter critics… that’s paying lawyers to sue people for criticizing online. That’s terrible.

        And then NOW magazine reported in 1996 that scientology, unhappy that it couldn’t shut down the newsgroup, started paying people to regularly flood all newsgroups with pro-scientology messages. You still see that today, with spam posted that’s entirely unrelated to the conversation just to try and drive down or drown out anything contrary. Sometimes it’s unrelated to scientology at all- apparently, that practice is still popular. But directly to your question, the article reports that the people were instructed to try to make the newsgroups unreadable by trying to turn the posters against each other and flood the newsgroups with spam.

        A couple years later, Search Engine Optimization was very popular- it was the next big thing. In 1998, Salon Magazine reported that scientology was paying webmasters to try and make critical information harder to find. They made thousands and thousands of fake, positive websites just to flood the search engines and make their algorithms less effective. Yes, they paid people to manipulate businesses to their own benefit. Google and other search engines had to change their programming in order to overcome dishonest tactic.

        So, yes- there are many examples of scientology paying people to post against scientology critics, or otherwise trying to restrict people’s ability to talk openly about scientology. Scientology sure seems interested in doing whatever they can to stop open conversation about this topic.

      • LOL. Where’s the cite on Salon?

        There are places right here where people have admitted being paid. I thought you read the threads.

        Look at Louanne’s Myth post on Wikipedia. She gives cites. You really should look at those.

      • Ah, you’re doing it again. You’re presented with a very large amount of information, so you combine “LOL” with the nitpicking of any detail that you can latch onto.

        Salon is the cite. Perhaps they made it all up, just for fun- that could be. But they researched, and they felt it was worth printing. That’s far more than you’ve offered.

        Louanne’s myth post is… cute. It’s a lot of whitewash, just like all of her articles. You really don’t think that she’s unbiased, do you? And she has the same citations that I looked at, including the arbitration ruling. That only supports my point. In fact, she agrees that scientology IP addresses were banned as a result of the ruling, and never denies that fact.

        Now, I’ve read the threads. No one admitted to being paid- you’re either lying or have forgotten. Please provide any source that proves your stated claim. Bonus points if you can find anyone that’s not posting on some anonymous wordpress blog like this ;) If you can’t do so (as has happened in the past), I’ll assume that you’ll admit that you were wrong. No one’s being paid by psychiatry to discredit scientology, Pat- that sounds paranoid.

      • Are you not able to admit that you were wrong with your claims? It takes a big person to be able to do so.

      • “Salon says” is not a cite. Link to the article where they say that. You have a habit of ad hominem when you get called out on stuff like this. How can I admit I was wrong when I saw it for myself? smh

      • Actually, Pat, it is.

        Citation: “a quotation from or reference to a book, paper, or author, especially in a scholarly work.”

        But you don’t trust it. That’s fine, I had plenty others. You’re free to ignore each one. The point is that I answered your question when you asked it. Now it’s your turn. You made a claim- please support it. Where did you see anyone paid to oppose scientology?

        I really don’t think you know what ad hominem means. If you did, you wouldn’t think that’s what you were seeing. My point is relevant- you have not been able to support your claims, which leads me to believe that you cannot do so. I only wonder if you’re a big enough person to admit that.

      • Oh, by site you actually meant URL or link- I get it now.

        What I don’t get is how you can demand a link when you won’t do it yourself. You made a claim, and scientologywidow replies saying that your claim was silly, AND THEN asking you why the opposite was true. Instead of proving your initial claim, you just demand more and more proof about someone else’s claim. You seem to do that a lot, such as with your claim about the success rates of certain scientology programs.

        I have the site for salon, but I’m going to hang onto that. It’ll be incentive for you to actually back up the claim that you made. Please stick to the purpose of this site, which is to try and use non-scientology websites to prove your claim. I’ll be looking forward to seeing you validate what you said to be true.

      • “psychs readily admit to paying people to post anti-Scientology trolls”

        I second the motion that you support your claim. Where has a psych admitted to paying people to post anti-scientology trolls? Can you prove what you say?

      • Fun fact, pat: having an opinion that disagrees with your own doesn’t make one a troll. You seem to dismiss a lot of people that way, but it just looks like a defense mechanism.

      • You must not know the defintion of troll. It’s not a troll because I don’t agree with it. It’s a troll because it’s posted to create conflict and upset.

      • *definition

      • So how can you be sure of their intent, Pat? How do you KNOW that it was posted just to create conflict, versus an opinion that happens to create conflict just because you don’t like it. How can you possibly know why someone posted something?

        Do you think *I* am a troll?

      • Yes I do think you’re a troll.

      • I see. So how do you judge my intent? Do you know me, personally, that you can judge WHY I post? Because it sounds to me like you’re just applying a label to me in order to make it easier to blow off what I say. “How can ANYONE oppose scientology?” you might wonder? “It’s wonderful and has done wonderful things for me!” But you’d be hard-pressed to find any time that I disagreed with that. I’m glad it’s done wonderful things for you. Questioning is okay, pat- it doesn’t make someone bad, and it doesn’t make someone a troll. I question the lies that have been proved to be lies, and the harm that has been shown to be harmful. That’s not a troll, no matter how badly you want it to be so.

      • What a person DOES shows intent. I examine the actual statistics here and what I see is a person who is intent on creating doubt and conflict, based merely on what you write, ad hom attacks, questioning answers.

      • No, Pat. What a person does allow one to guess as to their intent. You’re making an assumption that I know for a fact is false. I’m not here to troll, because that would imply that I don’t believe in what I’m saying or doing. And you know that I’m not a troll, as well, because if you truly thought I was you wouldn’t “feed” me.

        I don’t use ad hom attacks. Calling someone a troll IS an ad hom attack, however, because it’s trying to attack the person in order to lessen the weight of their argument. And questioning answers? That’s the sign of a troll? Odd.

        But what answers do you give to be questioned? You really have only one answer, and you repeat it over and over again. When you’re not repeating your single answer (“it works for me, that’s good enough”), you’re merely arguing and avoiding answers. I ask again- why are you here? This is a site that claims to use OBJECTIVE resources to answer questions, but you consistently refuse to do so. You only use scientology sites, which the description of this site says that it specifically avoids. It looks to me like you’re only here to argue.

  7. Okay, obviously we miscommunicated. So I will be more clear. Despite your initial claim (“Louanne never said that, btw. SMH”), Louanne did indeed call Leah Remini a coward, and said that she sucks.

    Do YOU think that Leah Remini is a coward, and that she sucks?

  8. okay, obviously we miscommunicated. So I will be more clear. Despite your initial claim (“Louanne never said that, btw. SMH”), Louanne did indeed call Leah Remini a coward, and said that she sucks. Do you agree with Louanne on that?

  9. What about the Catholics, BD? Read the studies. I’m sure you’re intellectual enough to apply the data to any religion as the study does.
    Think for yourself.

    • The Catholics that left the Catholic church blew the sex abuse scandal open. They were brave enough to speak for the victims, just like those that left scientology. The difference is that people listened to them- people believed them. If that was like scientology, you’d have millions of catholics looking the other way because “bah, bitter apostates!”

      How many THOUSANDS of former members can you ignore? Over 3,000 have spoken out already- how many more do you need?

      • It’s irrelevant. In Scientology, what is true is only true if one personally observes or experiences it. No one said Scientology is for everyone so it really doesn’t matter. When someone attacks it instead of just allowing others to have their on beliefs tells me that you’re a psych puppet. Get over it.

      • That literally sounds insane. It’s like saying, “the devil must be real, because I keep hearing him tell me to set fires. The fact that you so easily ignore the tgousandsof former members that have spoken out, and the fact that you’re so paranoid to think that psychiatry pays people to care about scientology says a lot about scientology as a whole.

        So, based on what you’re saying- is that why there’s never been anyone that can do what scientology promised (no clears as hubbard described them, no ability to actually do anything “special”. In fact, there is NOTHING that a scientologist can physically do that a non-scientologist can’t. The only thing that a scientologist can do that the rest of the world can’t is use flawed ‘tech’ that’s mostly stolen from other places)

      • Use your FOIA like we did about Psychiatry. No “paranoia” when it’s documented. This insanity here is thinking that 3000 is significant.

      • This should be good.

        Pat- pleas provide a link to your “FOIA Results” that show that psychiatry is paying people to oppose scientology. I assume that you’ve seen them yourself, and you’re not just repeating something you were told. Right? You say it’s documented- where?

        You’re right, 3000 people all leaving scientology and speaking out about abuses, not to mention the thousands upon thousands that left and chose a private, peaceful life; no, that means nothing. Neither would 5000. Or 10,000. Let’s just ignore ANY number of people speaking out about what they have seen, and pretend that it’s not growing. Let’s pretend that former “clears” aren’t admitting that it’s a scam. Let’s pretend that former OTVIII’s aren’t leaving and saying that the organization is corrupt. You keep your head in the sand all you want, while former OT’s run away.

  10. is this in response to the most recent celebrity defection and criticism from scientology? I understand that Leah Remini has recently left and is very vocal about her experiences.

    I’m curious- what about all the catholics that left the church amid the sex abuse scandal? is there criticism invalid because they no longer wanted to be associated with what they were seeing?

  11. read them, pat. Please tell me what you read that answers my question.

    do you agree with louanne, that Leah Remini is a coward?

  12. Here you are again, the person that keeps asking someone else to think for you. You didn’t read the studies, and if you’d really read Louanne’s posts you wouldn’t have asked this. Quit trolling.

    Louanne never said that, btw. SMH

  13. Ah, yes. And here YOU are again- the person that seems to think that asking a question on a site that says “ask a question” is the same as asking someone to think for you.

    I read the studies. If YOU had, you’d know that my question is not answered by the studies- or rather the opinion of the couple of authors. Of course, I don’t think that even you are so dim as to pretend that the experiences of ALL “apostates” can be so easily dismissed- especially when thousands of them are telling a similar story. But, then again, I doubt that you’ve looked at the list of thousands of ex-members and listened to their similar stories.

    I also forgot about your track record for reading comprehension. My mistake, I’ll be more clear. You see, after the latest celebrity left scientology (Leah Remini), louanne posted of apostates, “I personally think these people SUCK. Too wimpy to sort out their grievances – if they are no made up to begin with – and too much of a coward to address their personal issues.” She is painting all apostates with a very broad brush, but there you have it. So Louanne DID say that- do you agree, or is asking if you agree asking you to think for me?

  14. No, I don’t agree.

  15. Okay; I truly respect your position, and have to agree with your assessment.

    What about Louanne’s comment do you disagree with, or the entirety?

  16. I don’t agree with you. I agree with L

  17. That’s quite a reversal from the previous conversation, in which I outlined what Louanne said and asked if you agreed with it, to which you responded that you didn’t agree. Specifically:

    me: (After quoting what Louanne said) “She is painting all apostates with a very broad brush, but there you have it. So Louanne DID say that- do you agree, or is asking if you agree asking you to think for me?”
    you: “No, I don’t agree”

    But I guess you meant to say, “Yes, I do agree?”

    So you’re saying that you agree with Louanne that Leah Remini sucks, is wimpy and a coward?

  18. What I didn’t agree with was your summary because you misunderstood what I was disagreeing with. It’s that simple. This recent post was to clarify what was being disagreed with. Now you can disagree with me about what I meant when I said what I disagreed with and we can have fun with “you said” or we can drop this as a silly round of “change what Pat said to mean something else…”

  19. Sigh, this proxy doesn’t post correctly. I’ll address your other posts when I get to a computer.


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  • What is this blog?

    I am running a website, ScientologyMyths.info which deals with critical questions about Scientology.
    So naturally I am into finding answers to the questions that are constantly being asked all over the internet about Scientology, Scientologists, the Church, L. Ron Hubbard and the Church's leader, David Miscavige. I want to find answers from independent sources, not only Church of Scientology owned sites or anti-Scientology hate sites. So what's left? Court documents, photos and other reliable sources. Help me find stuff and ask whatever you want. Thanks!

    The easiest way to shoot a question over to me is to click here.

    Or search below.
  • Archives

  • Religion Photo Feed

    Riese San Pio Decimo

    Virgen del Rocio.

    Tengo que tocarla.

    More Photos
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.