Buhaha…

Source (photo): http://scr.bi/bxc11V

Nice area. I just can’t believe that this is where boys are playing with their balls.

233 Comments

  1. Haha! That’s a classic, one of my favorite flicks.

  2. Don’t read anything into this, it’s not directed at anyone. But our recent conversations about science made me think of this hilarious scene from a great movie:

  3. “Dianetics and Scientology doesn’t need your approval, consent, comments, or disbelief, to work for those who do it and observe it to be true.”

    Nor do any of the examples I listed. I’m happy you found something that works for you, but your experiences are as valid as the voodoo bokur, the Wiccan or the astral projectionist; attempting to claim that dianetics is any more scientific than those is misguided.

    “Thank you for your opinions.”

    And you, yours

  4. Ack all
    Bd

  5. Dianetics and Scientology doesn’t need your approval, consent, comments, or disbelief, to work for those who do it and observe it to be true.

    Thank you for your opinions.

    Pat

  6. With the foundation so laid, and to bring the discussion back around to pat’s stated purpose for this blog, I must wonder which of the claims of Scientology would stand to independent, unbiased analysis?

    For example, we’ve seen on this blog that statistics and independent analysis refute the claims of criminon. Scientific/medical analysis refutes the claims within narconon. Even the membership claims don’t hold to any independent survey.

    Is there anything significant, out of the many factual claims, that would stand to such review?

  7. Bit, I digest. (yes, that was an intentional play on words)
    I think that we can see that dianetics is a science only when using a very specific set of qualifiers. Which would also encompass a wide range of other concepts. But, perhaps, that’s only true for me.

  8. One may wonder, “why stop there?”, as we are defining dianetics as a science in a very specific way. That is:
    – following “exact procedures” to achieve “specific results”
    – subjective experience is acceptable as verification
    – objective, independent validation is not required, and may not be possible
    – need not conform to the modern utilization of the scientific method, including seeking peer analysis
    – be “something you do”
    – be a “knowledge acquired by study” (the defined usage of the term between 13th- 17th century, by definition, archaic)

    With such standards in place, we can see that those that accept dianetics as a science would surely accept voodoo as a science as well (and also be interested in the true story of voodoo zombie experiments). One studies the potions or the rituals and “does” them to achieve a specific result, relying primarily on subjective validation.

    One would surely also accept astrology the same way, which is based on a study of the cosmos, relative to how we feel.

    Another example of such a science would be astral projection and time travel, popularized by Carlos castenaeda after his studies of central American Indian tribes.

    There are many other examples, if the standard is uniformly applied.

  9. oh, as a very friendly reminder, i would be very interested in hearing how, scientifically speaking, dianetics differs than voodoo?

  10. And here’s another thought. According to http://scientologytoday.blogs.scientology.net/category/international-news/page/2/ :

    “As a student at George Washington University in the early 1930s, Mr. Hubbard learned the scientific methodology he later applied to unlocking the riddle of the human mind and life.”

    This, according to scientology.net, confirms that hubbard did have an understanding of the modern concept of the scientific methodology which, as far back as the 1800s demanded scientific rigidity:
    “It is not enough to base scientific method on experience alone” (Philosophy of Inductive Science, 1840).

    I would have a hard time believing that a credible university would teach that a subjective-only study is not a pseudoscience.

  11. Besides, Hubbard gives us some clues in Dianetics, the Evolution of a Science (2007 ed). He says:

    “As it stands today, the science of dianetics and results- which are as demonstrable as the proposition that water, at 15 pounds per square inch and 212F, boils- is an engineering science” (pg 8)

    “And a science, at least to an engineer, is something pretty precise. “ (pg 36)

    “It has to produce predicable results uniformly every time” (pg 36)

    “The full definition of science requires that it permit accurate description of how to produce desired results invariably” (page 99)

    I know that you will say that, in your experience, that dianetics is all of those things. But, I would counter that, if they were, they would be very easy to objectively verify. Unless you could define for me which “predictable results” are found “every time”?

  12. But, you see, Hubbard talked about Science. And when he did, he gave examples. He wrote about physics. He wrote about biology. He wrote about nuclear science.

    All of these are hard sciences; objective, consistent and inviting of independent research. And no reputable scientist in those fields would consider something to be factual or valid until it could be reliably demonstrated and able to withstand peer review. But, If hubbard considers something that is ONLY “provable” by subjective means a “science”… perhaps that’s why he failed physics in college?

    Do you have any examples of hubbard discussing any “science” that can only stand to subjective evaluation? the science of philosophy, perhaps? beauty? I can’t.

    The irony is that CCHR (not hubbard, I know) blasts psychiatry for the same thing on their website, calling is a “Pseudo-science” and that “None of the diagnoses are supported by objective evidence of physical disease, illness, or science.” I really fail to see how one could expect objective evidence for one thing, while gladly accepting subjective evidence for another.

  13. Sigh, we must agree to disagree on this if seems.
    I stand by my position, based on what I consider to be reliable data- as do you.
    So, we must agree that any benefits are purely subjective- I don’t think we’ll be able to determine or document beyond that.

  14. @Comment by BigDaddy on January 23, 2011 4:41 pm

    “I can see why LRH felt this was skewed.”

    “But, see, that onlyhighlights the difference between the contemporary practice and understanding of the term “science”, and that which has been adopted by scientology.

    I’m not saying that the scientology usage of the term isn’t “valid”, but it’s just not what “most” people understand as science.”

    No, BD, the author attempts to call it a study. There’s no actual results shown, ergo not a study at all, but a result of whatever was done, just like Dianetics is.

    The difference is that Dianetics was given to the public, gives everyone the ability to see for themselves.

    Now, again. As far as I’m concerned the data is available to you to see for yourself.
    You can try it for yourself or not. If you choose to continue speculating without doing something to see for yourself then that’s up to you

    I have nothing more to say on this. You’ve been given numerous references including the book itself to test with.

    Pat

  15. “I can see why LRH felt this was skewed.”

    But, see, that onlyhighlights the difference between the contemporary practice and understanding of the term “science”, and that which has been adopted by scientology.

    I’m not saying that the scientology usage of the term isn’t “valid”, but it’s just not what “most” people understand as science.

  16. “I have nothing more to say on this.”

    I sincerely appreciate the attempt. I can, for myself, define dianetics as “subjective science”, if we can all agree on the term?

  17. “For mathematical ability and intellectual function, multiple tests were used in an effort to provide a representative score. Three groups of subjects totaling thirty-six persons were selected. The three groups were exposed to different amounts of dianetic therapy during an interval of sixty days, the first having no hours, the second eighteen hours and the third thirty-six hours. Eighteen hours of dianetic therapy are claimed to afford a significant change in the subjects.”

    Actually, there is no such limit of 18 hours in DMSMH. It’s more like 50 hours.

    The tester, by his own admission averaged scores (rather than stating specific results, subject to subject. Averaging 0 hours of auditing on the first 12, 18 on the 2nd 12, and 36 on the 3rd 12 over 60 days is not is not what the book says should be used, so the test did not attempt to duplicate any test already done, to verify results.

    It also does not show any actual auditing occurring, which is a criteria being used by critics, for proof. There’s no data on what questions were asked or response. I can see why LRH felt this was skewed.

    Pat

  18. “Are you saying that that statement only applied to the “Creation of Human Ability”, which we were discussing at the time? If so, why was the reference to the study removed from later editions of SoS?”

    This is what I mean about abstracts and innuendo. I say what I mean. If you wanted to know “why” it was removed, you need to ask that directly (like you’ve just done). I don’t know that it was ever there, as I’ve already told you, since I never saw that.

    Dianetics Letters
    http://dianetics.lronhubbard.org/page58.htm (you’ll need to keep clicking the “next” button to get through the entire series).

    Dianetics Lectures and Demonstrations
    2 of 4 are an actual auditing session.

    Then of course, there’s the empirical science of actually applying it yourself.

    I have nothing more to say on this.

    Pat

  19. here we go- it was hard to find a link that didn’t have a reference to the “x” word, which I tried to avoid out of respect.
    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/fischer/index.html

  20. Thank you for the excellent replies

    “I don’t have a position other than what I already referenced when LRH talked about the foundation trying “rule” that past lives coming up in the sessions had to be excluded from the results”
    -I still can’t find that. You did provide a link, yes, but I haev to ask again for specifics. Which of the letters reference that organization by name? How does such a thing happen, do you think, that the study will be referenced in book editions during hubbard’s life, corrected only after his death?

    “Yes, and that is personally observed in my own test results before and after.”
    -Okay, great! May I ask, if it’s not too personal, I assume that it was a diffent test than the first time? Also, I have no doubt that certain actions (as found in Dianetics, as well as meditation and the like) can help one to better focus, thus scoring better. Was the “after” significantly after the session?
    Also, I assume (based on your personal integrity) that the test was a reputable test. Does that mean that the rise in IQ could be objectively tested and observed?

    “tinyurl.com/fisherman1 and the others are not working so I can’t follow what you’re saying”
    -They all work for me, across different computers. I’m afraid I don’t know what to tell you on that one.

    “So, give me the actual URLs even if you have to use more than one post”
    -Are you still unable to go to the single full URL that I posted? I fear that posting more would only muddy the water, if we can’t find a way to get you access to the single one… But, you’re right that until that point, we can’t really discuss them, I’m afraid. But, regardless, the point is actually quite droll, and doesn’t really apply to whether the process “could” be objectively tested.

    “However, I never mentioned Science of Survival except this time, in reference to a study, so no, that is not my position.”
    -What you did say was, “Then, because the current edition is the result of verifying it word for word with the original manuscript, is the current edition the only valid one”
    Are you saying that that statement only applied to the “Creation of Human Ability”, which we were discussing at the time? If so, why was the reference to the study removed from later editions of SoS?

    “The transcriptionist added over 3000 “;” making the text very difficult.”
    -Removing semi-colons, which is great, is very different than removing a reference to a study of dianetics.

    “I’m not a covert personality that thrives on innuendo and implied slurs.”
    -Nor am I, I’m glad we have that in common.

     

  21. Comment by BigDaddy on January 21, 2011 12:48 am

    “Just for the sake of clarity, your position is that this study was referenced in early versions of Hubbard’s book (science of survival) in error, which is why it’s no longer in current versions?”

    I don’t know what you mean by current versions (in the book world they are referred to as editions) for Science of Survival. I read it the first time in 1976 or so, and it was a bitch. The transcriptionist added over 3000 “;” making the text very difficult. It was a dream to have it published correctly.

    However, I never mentioned Science of Survival except this time, in reference to a study, so no, that is not my position. Why is it that you keep trying to add in some meaning to my communication that I didn’t say? Why does it have to be abstract? I say what I mean. I’m not a covert personality that thrives on innuendo and implied slurs.

    Pat

  22. You also said, “Never mind. I have work to do and I’ve spent too long here”, so, I suppose I incorrectly assumed as much. My mistake.

    Got it. I have work to do so am not always able to spend time here. Most of the time I’m posting here, it’s 4 or 5 am, then my work suffers if spend too long.

    Pat

  23. Those links tinyurl.com/fisherman1 and the others are not working so I can’t follow what you’re saying. I know that LRH mentions studies that omitted key parts of the procedure or went asking non-dianetic questions (such as that referred to in the question and answer on Laurie’s site). Even the NYT article can’t say that it doesn’t work, only that the psychs call it bs. So, give me the actual URLs even if you have to use more than one post.

    Please.

    Pat

  24. Comment by BigDaddy on January 21, 2011 12:29 am

    So, perhaps we can entertain a similar line of questioning: do you believe that dianetics actually can raise IQ?

    Yes, and that is personally observed in my own test results before and after.

    Pat

  25. Comment by BigDaddy on January 21, 2011 12:48 am

    I don’t have a position other than what I already referenced when LRH talked about the foundation trying “rule” that past lives coming up in the sessions had to be excluded from the results. Those are in the Dianetic Lectures and Dianetic Letters which I already gave as my references.

    Pat

  26. “This was not LRHs Foundation”

    Just for the sake of clarity, your position is that this study was referenced in early versions of Hubbard’s book (science of survival) in error, which is why it’s no longer in current versions?

  27. “Dianetic Processing: in the studies.”

    I might have missed it- but I don’t see any flaws in the studies. I saw Laurie’s opinion on the Fox study, but this is a different one.
    Now we have a difference of belief- one that we can’t answer here- as to whether the dianetics processing was correctly utilized for the study. You will, I assume, believe that it was not, which is as valid as someone’s belief that it was.
    Of course, if it was not, the entire thesis review board, and the researcher’s advisor, should be very ashamed at having failed to confirm such a basic thing.
    So, perhaps we can entertain a similar line of questioning: do you believe that dianetics actually can raise IQ?

  28. “You have to ask yourself, if Dianetics was so unworkable, why did the APA want all rights to it? Just a thought.”

    Where do you see anything about the APA wanting all rights to dianetics?

    This is the same group that said (in a resolution), in the newspaper link I provided:

    “While suspending judgment concerning the eventual validity of the claims made by the author of ‘Dianetics,’ the association calls attention to the fact that these claims are not supported by empirical evidence of the sort required for the establishment of scientific generalizations. In the public interest, the association, in the absence of such evidence, recommends to its members that the use of the techniques peculiar to Dianetics be limited to scientific investigations designed to test the validity of its claims.”

    And one of the directors, Dr. Lowell Kelley, said “what we have here is a man who claims he has discovered an exact science of the mind and developed a technique of therapy which goes far beyond that known to psychology, psychiatry and psychoanalysis.”
    and described the techniques advanced in the book “as a hodge-podge of accepted therapeutic techniques with new names.”

  29. Dianetic Processing: A Brief Survey of Research Projects and Preliminary Results was written by then Dianetic Research Foundation Ibanex, Southon and Benton, using research auditiors. This was not LRHs Foundation. This was during the “takeover” of Dianetics that he refers to in the Dianetics Letters. (See link in earlier post). LRH also talks about the research in the Dianetics Lectures. Points were made about errors in the studies.

    You have to ask yourself, if Dianetics was so unworkable, why did the APA want all rights to it? Just a thought.

    Pat

  30. Well, you’ve made the solitary point that you have (and, quite well, I agree that it’s a good point)

    You also said, “Never mind. I have work to do and I’ve spent too long here”, so, I suppose I incorrectly assumed as much. My mistake.

  31. “But, I understand and respect that you’re done with this conversation.”

    Where did I say that?

    Pat

  32. Sure thing:
    http://tinyurl.com/fisherstudy1

  33. Comment by Bigdaddy on January 19, 2011 5:43 pm

    I’m not getting anything on removing / replacing the (dot). I even googled fisherstudy1 and came up blank. Since there’s only one url you can post the actual one. The filter kicks in when you try to post more than one link.

    Pat

  34. Pat, Laurie was not aware of this doctoral thesis from New York University:
    tinyurl (dot) com / fisherstudy1

    Also, of course, Hubbard claimed to have “evidence”, which I assume would be available upon request. Of course, I have requested it, but heard nothing.
    You can also see Hubbard’s claims, published in the new york times on sept 9, 1950, page 19, column 2 at tinyurl (dot) com / nytimeshubbard

    The article charged that Dianetics “claims are not supported by empirical evidence of the sort required for the establishment of scientific generalizations. In the public interest, the association, in the absence of such evidence, recommends to its members that the use of the techniques peculiar to Dianetics be limited to scientific investigations designed to test the validity of its claims.”
    When reached for comment on the article, Hubbard responded that he “was ready to furnish to the American Psychological Association proof of the claims made in his book “Dianetics.” He said that as long as a year ago, he made such an offer to the association but received no reply. Mr. Hubbard said that he had already submitted proof of claims made in the book to a number of scientists and associations. He added that the public as well as proper organizations were entitled to such proof and that he was ready and willing to give such proof in detail.”

    The booklet, “Dianetic Processing: A Brief Survey of Research Projects and Preliminary Results” were, according to my recollection, referenced by Hubbard in early versions of Science of Survival. However, current versions of the book omit this reference.If you want, you can buy a coipy of an early version, which still includes the link, at tinyurl (dot) com / earlyversion . It’s signed by Ron, although it is an older version, which you have stated to be incorrect.

    But, I understand and respect that you’re done with this conversation. I suppose that all we can agree on is that at best, dianetics has never been supported be independant testing.

  35. Never mind. I have work to do and I’ve spent too long here.

    Pat

  36. Comment by Bigdaddy on January 19, 2011 3:31 pm

    http://en.allexperts.com/q/Scientology-1751/2009/1/Dianetics-disproven.htm

    That’s the only study I can find and this is what Laurie says. I understand can why it didn’t work. lol

    What are the others? Do you have the studies that you’re using to base your conclusion on?

    Pat

  37. “my every attempt to point out that it’s only going to be true for you if you personally observe it.”

    I ack that you’ve made that point, and you’ve made it very well. But that remains your sole point. And I agree with you, it’s subjective only.
    But that’s my only point, that certain claims, if true, could easily hold up to objective scientific analysis. This has not been successfully done (or the amazing randi would be out a million bucks)

  38. no, that’s saying that attempts were made to objectively prove scientology, but each “provable” element was not able to be verified. In other words, many claims could be observed objectively, if factual (real facts, not subjetive facts). None of the claims were observed objectively.
    Me, personally, if Hubbard had created “prrof of claims” that was suitable to be released to the scientific community, and he felt that the information was suitable for the public, I’d be interested in seeing it.

  39. So, attempts at objectivity were made, just not successful. That’s why scientologists today deny any further attempts.

    huh? That’s like telling me that Ely Lilly ran some drug studies and that they were successful. Now it turns out that the results were skewed with unfavorable studies omitted from the results and side effects hidden.

    If you’d rather operate on those versus first hand, then that’s up to you. I don’t need to go further with this since you’ve proved my point that explaining does no good and you’ve ignored my every attempt to point out that it’s only going to be true for you if you personally observe it.

    Pat

  40. Really, pat? Do the published studies and interview with Hubbard, those are all fakes? It’s odd that the professor would risk his degree like that, if his thesis was forged. I wonder why his thesis advisor and review committe didn’t catch that?

  41. ACtually, it’s a common misconception that there have been no attempts at scientific evaluation of the claims of dianetics, although none have been successful

    False.

    Pat

  42. Comment by Scientist on January 19, 2011 2:06 pm

    Here’s a thought, you say, “I turned on Radiation Sickness and turned it off”

    Do you believe that if there had been a geiger counter nearby that it would have registered radiation?

    Who knows?

    Pat

  43. Here’s a thought, you say, “I turned on Radiation Sickness and turned it off”

    Do you believe that if there had been a geiger counter nearby that it would have registered radiation?

  44. “There is objective evaluation if you cared to try the procedure”

    So let’s try looking at it this way- does it “work” for everybody?

    In voodoo, you apply the procedures (ritual) and you conjure a spirit.
    Is that any less scientific?

  45. ACtually, it’s a common misconception that there have been no attempts at scientific evaluation of the claims of dianetics, although none have been successful, prompting Professor John A. Lee to write:

    “Objective experimental verification of Hubbard’s physiological and psychological doctrines is lacking. To date, no regular scientific agency has established the validity of his theories of prenatal perception and engrams, or cellular memory, or Dianetic reverie, or the effects of Scientology auditing routines. Existing knowledge contradicts Hubbard’s theory of recording of perceptions during periods of unconsciousness”

    in the 50’s, Harvey Jay Fischer tested Dianetics therapy against three claims made by proponents and found it does not effect any significant changes in intellectual functioning, mathematical ability, or the degree of personality conflicts (Dianetic therapy: an experimental evaluation. A statistical analysis of the effect of dianetic therapy as measured by group tests of intelligence, mathematics and personality.” Abstract of Ph.D. thesis, 1953, New York University)

    Jack Fox tested Hubbard’s thesis regarding recall of engrams, with the assistance of the Dianetic Research Foundation, and could not substantiate it

    Now, Pat, you’ve claimed that all of Hubbard’s research is in his books. But I would challenge that something else must exist. After all, the New York Times printed an interview with Hubbard himself on 9 September 1950 in which he stated that “he had already submitted proof of claims made in the book to a number of scientists and associations” and that “the public as well as proper organizations were entitled to such proof and that he was ready and willing to give such proof in detail”.

    I’m assuming also that you’re familiar with the booklet “Dianetic Processing: A Brief Survey of Research Projects and Preliminary Results” released by the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation in 1951 which published “evidence”, such as x-ray plates and IQ tests, but was in no way verifiable. One was left to take their word for it.

    So, attempts at objectivity were made, just not successful. That’s why scientologists today deny any further attempts.

  46. Comment by Scientist on January 19, 2011 1:37 pm

    Okay, that’s fair.
    But, perhaps you can tell me, with no possibility of objective evaluation, how do you eliminate the possibility of autohypnosis?

    There is objective evaluation if you cared to try the procedure. At no time in Dianetics are you unaware of your current environment and you can confirm that with the procedure. Sit down with a pc and audit and see.

    Again. It’s in the doing.

    Pat

  47. Again, all claims are entirely subjective and could not stand to actual examination. That’s belief. Or, perhaps, that’s as much science as is voodoo, which meets every single standard you apply to Scientology.

    Not true. You have the data to apply to see for yourself.

    Do you believe voodoo to have an equal scientific basis as dianetics?

    Do you mean can I get the same results with Voodoo? No. I don’t understand your line of thinking. I see Dianetics as something you do (and you have the exact procedures to use in the books), where voodoo is a belief system and to my knowledge has no exact procedures where I could get a specific result. It’s the wrong thing to choose for an example. I also don’t ever remember seeing that voodoo claimed to be a science.

    In Dianetics, if you apply the procedure you get an erasure of an engram. Something you can test for yourself. In voodoo, …?

    Pat

  48. Okay, that’s fair.
    But, perhaps you can tell me, with no possibility of objective evaluation, how do you eliminate the possibility of autohypnosis?

  49. Comment by Scientist on January 19, 2011 1:19 pm

    On a personal basis, I experienced this for myself on my own Purification RD. I turned on Radiation Sickness and turned it off by continuing to do the program and the procedure (so it’s true for me). The knowledge is verifiable in the doing. The book tells you how to do that too

    Pat

  50. “What’s more scientific than that?”

    Actual science. You’re still defining pseudoscience, which has been defined on this page.

    Again, all claims are entirely subjective and could not stand to actual examination. That’s belief. Or, perhaps, that’s as much science as is voodoo, which meets every single standard you apply to Scientology. Do you believe voodoo to have an equal scientific basis as dianetics?

  51. “The book Clear body, Clear mind gives you that data”

    I can’t find it. Page number, please?
    Are you saying that you are able to subjectively evaluate the effects and treatments for radiation poisoning?

  52. “what was found on each book, that differed from the original manuscripts or dictations”

    Since I assume that it’s only true for you if you’ve been able to validate it for yourself (versus merely believe it because you were told it’s true), where did you view the original manuscripts? Where can I?

    How on earth did someone allow that typo to get in, and no one noticed that Hubbard was saying that Scientology was not a religion?

  53. “Are they verifiable? Do they work?”

    Yes, but only subjectively

  54. Case in point, how on earth would one subjectively validate hubbard’s claims of radiation treatments?

    The book Clear body, Clear mind gives you that data.

    Pat

  55. “is it workable”.
    For those that believe that it is, yes.

    It’s not a matter of belief. Scientology is something we DO, not believe. It’s not a belief-based system. The workability is in the doing of it and observing the results.

    And, ta da! You can do it and observe it because the data is available to you too.

    What’s more scientific than that?

    Pat

  56. Comment by Scientist on January 19, 2011 12:39 pm

    Are they verifiable? Do they work? Dianetics and Scientology are, by applying the procedures given in the books, that you have access to you can find out for yourself.

    Pat

  57. are you refuting my statement that dianetics does not employ the modern scientific method

    Yes.

    So any edition released in Hubbard’s life is wrong, to some degree

    He gave the hat to RTC, to recover lost tech. There’s a whole video on how this came about and what was found on each book, that differed from the original manuscripts or dictations. The fact that this was done to ensure it was strictly LRH without editor changes is pretty awesome to me. It’s actually irrelevant that these were finished after his death, since he created RTC before he died.

    Pat

  58. What a fascinating conversation!
    If we use for a moment, pat’s definition (which assumes that the specifically-defined modern usage is exactly the same as the 13th century version), then there is a new-found validity to other pursuits.

    If “”science is “knowledge” or “truth” derived from observation, regardless of how modern man chooses to verify (methodology) that knowledge or truth”, then we can equally define the following as “science”;

    Bigfoot
    9/11 conspiracy theories (most of them)
    Shamanism
    Black magic
    Wicca
    Astral projection
    Voodoo
    The “time cube” theory
    Several best selling books (already defined)

    Good to know

  59. “Then, because the current edition is the result of verifying it word for word with the original manuscript, is the current edition the only valid one”
    Okay, that’s fair. So any edition released in Hubbard’s life is wrong, to some degree? And by extension, all books changed and released after his death are correct, and the versions released in his lifetime are not?

    “is it workable”.
    For those that believe that it is, yes.

  60. Last thing, I missed your comment to me at January 19, 2011 11:48 am
    And would be a hypocrite if I ignored you.
    When you say “no”, are you refuting my statement that dianetics does not employ the modern scientific method, or when I say that it does not retain the raw research data? I mean, Hubbard did claim lab work, did he not take notes, at least? I don’t even expect scientific notes, like one may expect from a nuclear physicist; but I’d be surprised if Hubbard did lab research and only recorded his claim, rather than the data.
    (I think that a summary of some of his claims have already been recorded here).
    Case in point, how on earth would one subjectively validate hubbard’s claims of radiation treatments?

  61. Comment by BigDaddy on January 19, 2011 11:49 am

    “The quote is in every edition prior to 1971, when if was removed.”

    Then, because the current edition is the result of verifying it word for word with the original manuscript, is the current edition the only valid one. In the current edition on page 417 LRH says

    “Scientology has accomplished the goal of religion expressed in all Man’s written history: the freeing of the soul by wisdom.”

    So, to try again, we agree, at least, that dianetics is a science using only the original definition rooted in the 13tg century, and that it depends on subjectivity for validation? Can we scale it back to that, if nothing else?

    No, we don’t. Again, science is “knowledge” or “truth” derived from observation, regardless of how modern man chooses to verify (methodology) that knowledge or truth. The test of Castenada would be “is it workable”.

    Pat

  62. I’ve been making comments quite quickly, I apologize, ad it has left you without time to discuss some of the unanswered questions or concepts. I will wait, perhaps have lunch, to give you time to address the missed questions, if you are able and willing.

  63. When *it was removed

  64. The quote is in every edition prior to 1971, when if was removed.

    So, to try again, we agree, at least, that dianetics is a science using only the original definition rooted in the 13tg century, and that it depends on subjectivity for validation? Can we scale it back to that, if nothing else?

  65. “Also, can we at least agree that while we may disagree on whether or not dianetics is a science, we do agree that it does not employ the modern concept of the scientific method, nor retain raw research data? ”

    No. LRH gave you the means to verify, in the books. You don’t need to see case histories to do that, since you can see for yourself if it works or not. It’s exact procedure, so it’s repeatable. So is Scientology. It’s verifiable.

    Pat

  66. If dianetics is the “science” portion, and scientology is the “spirit” portion, what did Hubbard mean when he wrote: “Scientology…is not a psycho-therapy nor a religion.” (Creation of Human Ability, page 251)?

    I don’t see an “if … , then …” here, BD. It’s not a logical question and that is not what I said.

    Dianetics is a science of the mind. It addresses engrams in the reactive mind where scientology processes directly address us as spiritual beings. Both involve us as spiritual beings looking at the data and coming up with the answers. Both have exact procedures, have observable results.

    On either, it comes down to this. It’s workable. Ask any Scientologist, and even the 1300 ex-members aren’t arguing about that, are they? So, to me it’s really a matter of what’s true is true because you personally obverved it to be true. To say it’s not true as I’ve observed critics frequently like to do, without ever trying it, is unscientific.

    Both are repeatable, because there are exact processes you can use to test. Having to see original research to “prove” it is moot in the face of that.

    As for the reference to page 251 in COA that isn’t in the 2007 edition. What chapter or sub section is that in?

    Pat

  67. Vest = best

    Also, can we at least agree that while we may disagree on whether or not dianetics is a science, we do agree that it does not employ the modern concept of the scientific method, nor retain raw research data? (I still, by the way, have not gotten a reply to my emails)

    I only asked because we have not yet established a common point for agreement, which I think would be very valuable for comms.

  68. Yes, the autocorrect got me once again.
    Castaneda was used as an example of a scientist, per the definition that you use. He wrote a series of books about his observations and what he found to be true. He wrote about his experiences with shamanism and astral projection. By your chosen definition, his books are science. Also, by the same definition, the Celestine Prophesy, the vest selling series, is science. Do you agree with that, then?

    Lastly, how do you interpret the dictionary dot com assessment of the modern usage of the word science, bearing in mind that it specifically notes that there is a modern definition, indicating that the previous usages are not modern?

  69. Do you mean dianetics when you say diabetics?

    Pat

  70. I actually see the problem here, I think

    For you to consider anything a science it has to be “science according to Castenada”
    where I use science according to the original defintion.

    Pat

  71. “body of regular or methodical observations or propositions”.

    “As dianetics is not regular (repeatable, consistent) and it’s observations are not held to methodical evaluation, it would be correct to say that diabetics is a science, but as understood between the 13th and 17th centuries. ”

    It says observations or propositions, and I don’t see how you can say dianetics isn’t regular, unless you’ve used it over the same period LRH did and came up with no results, even by your added in definition here. Per the dictionary “repeatable” is not a def of regular so you’re adding in there. You should look it up.

    Pat

  72. I found scientist’s summation to be quite accurate, relative to the facts and understandings presented here.

    However, as it was not received in the same manner, I hope that I may try.

    I believe that we all agree that when the word originated in the 13th century, a definition was created that certainly does define dianetics s a science. However, this is slightly confused when you consider the dictionary dot con “word history and usage” section, of which you only copied a portion for your definition, we see that the “modern usage” of the term was first noted in 1725, to refer to as a “body of regular or methodical observations or propositions”.

    As dianetics is not regular (repeatable, consistent) and it’s observations are not held to methodical evaluation, it would be correct to say that diabetics is a science, but as understood between the 13th and 17th centuries.

    I think that I may be able to answer at least one outstanding question- yes, by rf same definition of science as applied to dianetics, the works of Carlos Castenaeda (sp?) would be a science, with all research data found on his best-selling books.
    I am not, however, able to speak to what Hubbard meant when he said that Scientology is not a religion.

    Also, I think that we agree that scientific methodology -may- be applied to some diabetic principles, but this has never been attempted. The majority of dianetics and Scientology, however, relies on subjective belief or understanding.

    We also agree (I think) that diabetics is a forerunner and substudy of Scientology.

    I think it’s implied, as well, that we all agree that people can find great benefits from such a belief system, especially in improving their personal outlook on life.

  73. Correction
    http://www.scientologymyths.info

  74. Comment by Scientist on January 18, 2011 11:51 pm

    You could also say that would be “answering”, which I thought had something to do with this forum….

    I did answer, which you disputed with an attempt to invalidate the basic meaning of science by saying it was a “1300 meaning”. That’s the origin of word or the etymology and one that sheds alot of light on how things get altered. How old a definition is does not mean it still doesn’t mean that or apply today. LRH expects you to find out for yourself whether the tech works or not, by applying it. No amount of explaining will change that, so whether you consider Dianetics a science or not or Scientology is a matter of the fact it’s not true for you. You seem to expect some kind of “test” that you can measure physically for something that occurs spiritually, essentially denying the spiritual. As long as you keep denying the spiritual aspect you’ll never get it.

    What’s true for me is true for me because it worked when I used it or saw how it applied. You will get that as long as you keep trying to get “proof” of workability.

    I may be wrong, but I don’t think that Louanne ever intended for Myths to be used to argue tech. That would go against the idea of Personal Integrity.

    The tech is in the books and lectures. The lectures are in every Qual library and unless you’ve specifically been barred from Church premises are available to for you to listen to. Just don’t be surprised to get asked what word you didn’t understand or to ask yourself how it could be / not be that way, if you ask questions about something in the material. That’s covered in the study technology. There is usually a small nominal fee of $2 to listen to the lecture. Just ask for tape play.

    The point of this forum is to ask questions about myths, as covered at scientologymyths.org.

    Pat

  75. Comment by Scientist on January 19, 2011 12:02 am

    “With all respect, I suppose I’ll reserve my questions for the site owner.”

    No problem.

    Pat

  76. Perhaps, though, you would clear up one small question for me? If dianetics is the “science” portion, and scientology is the “spirit” portion, what did Hubbard mean when he wrote: “Scientology…is not a psycho-therapy nor a religion.” (Creation of Human Ability, page 251)?

    Dianetics is a science of the mind. Science meaning knowledge as is Scientology for the spirit (us). The disagreement as I see it is that some want to change the basic meaning to mean something else than what it means. There are different fields of knowledge. There are the mechanical or physical universe fields of science or knowledge and there are the mental or spiritual fields or knowledge. That’s as basic as it gets. Whenever I use the word science this is the definition I apply.

    Assists:
    http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/SH6_1.HTM

    Pat

  77. With all respect, I suppose I’ll reserve my questions for the site owner. This is, after all, her site that claims to address scientology myths and questions, and it’s unfair to expect you to do so on her behalf.
    I withdraw my questions of you, hoping that the owner of this blog will someday address them.

  78. You could also say that would be “answering”, which I thought had something to do with this forum….
    But I do get it, I have gathered enough data to support my conclusions. Thank you for your time. I will look elsewhere for the answers to my factual questions.

  79. Comment by Scientist on January 18, 2011 10:19 pm

    That would be “explaining”. You either get it or you don’t.

    Pat

  80. Comment by Scientist on January 18, 2011 9:43 pm

    No interest there at all.

    Pat

  81. Comment by BigDaddy on January 18, 2011 5:13 pm

    No, that would be “explaining”. You either get it or you don’t.

    Pat

  82. Now, I have an understanding that scientology deals with the religious beliefs of the group, but you seem to assert that scientology is not meant to be held to scientific principles (please correct me if I’m incorrect).

    However, Hubbard says in “Scientology: A New Slant on Life” that, “It is a discovery of Scientology- a discovery susceptible to the most arduous scientific proofs- that people are not bodies, but that people are living units operating bodies.”

    What was hubbard referring to when he mentioned the “most arduous scientific proofs”?

    Also, is the “touch assist” a scientology or dianetics concept?

    About the definition of science, Hubbard seems to discuss that in ANSoL (page 38), when he refers to “science today”, in that it is “far, far in advance of the hindu concept of the world wherein a hemishphere rested on the backs of seven elephants”. He also sites, as examples of science, engineering and physics.

    Did hubbard use a different definition of “Science” when developing scientology, as when he wrote “Scientology: A New Slant on Life”?

  83. I’m just curious, Pat.
    Do you consider Carlos Castaneda to be a scientist? And his series of books to be science?

  84. Well, I think that we have to come to a point where we recognize that we may hold differing truths.

    We do, I think, agree that Dianetics is a science by 13th century standards (referencing the date of usage in the definition you posted), but I think that we can also agree that it is not a science by modern understanding of the term. If we are to use modern parlance, suitable for a modern movement such as dianetics, I think that the appropriate term is “psuedoscience”, defined as “Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology”

    Or, perhaps we must coin a new term, being “subjective science”, which some would call an oxymoron, but certainly seems to fit this case.

    So, I must say that the specific claims of scientology (referring primarily to the claims of dianetics, which if I understand, you’re agreeing with hubbard’s claim that dianetics is a substudy of scientology), examples of which were given by scientist, do indeed seem to be specific claims, but have not been held to readily available scientific examination.

    However, that point is rendered moot by the position, which I understand and accept, that such things may not be true for one person, but may be for another. Some, for instance, may be able to apply dianetics and be “only three or four hours from taking your glasses off for keeps” (L Ron Hubbard, DAB vol 2, number 7), but another may not. Perhaps one, after going clear, may not get colds any longer, but another may. I, again, understand and accept that it’s subjective, and may be true for one scientologist, but not another. We’ve, perhaps, established what we can.

    So, I accept what you’re saying, that we must agree to disagree on certain portions of this subject, aside from what we do already agree on.

    Perhaps, though, you would clear up one small question for me? If dianetics is the “science” portion, and scientology is the “spirit” portion, what did Hubbard mean when he wrote: “Scientology…is not a psycho-therapy nor a religion.” (Creation of Human Ability, page 251)?

  85. Comment by BigDaddy on January 18, 2011 3:29 am

    ‘Oh, I knew I read it somewhere else as well. I’m sure you read it at some point:
    “Dianetics is a forerunner and substudy of Scientology”
    -L. Ron Hubbard
    Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought (page 5)’

    You’re correct.

    However, I disagree that it changes that Dianetics is still a science, dealing with the mind, which is the attempt here where Scientology being strictly about the spirit. Without Dianetics we wouldn’t have Clear and without Clear we wouldn’t have OT.

    It also doesn’t change the fact that there are no claims made to cures. The fact that it has happened for some is in the case histories. I’ve covered that. If you want proof you have to apply the data. Which has been my point all along. Sorry that’s not true for you but I’m not “explaining” anything to you or providing “proof” because the proof is in the DOing and observing.

    It is better to get off this now. If it isn’t true for you after reading the books then it isn’t true and it still won’t be no matter how often I try to explain or what I say.

    That goes for anyone who questions the tech here on myths. The data is in the books and lectures. Find out for yourself if it’s true for you.

    Pat

  86. Comment by BigDaddy on January 18, 2011 3:29 am

    “http://www.scientology.org/faq/background-and-basic-principles/what-is-the-difference-between-scientology-and-dianetics.html”

    This is a valid link. However, I don’t agree with it. In other words, Dianetics was first and deals with the mind. Scientology came about from Dianetics research. Dianetics is used for handling engrams and attaining the state of Clear, which (for me) makes it not a “sub-study” but part of the whole evolution into Scientology and is still used separately today in a much valued place on the bridge. Those words on Scientology.org are not from any LRH book to the best of my knowledge.

    I stand by my statement

    Pat

  87. Oh, I knew I read it somewhere else as well. I’m sure you read it at some point:
    “Dianetics is a forerunner and substudy of Scientology”
    -L. Ron Hubbard
    Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought (page 5)

    I only point this out in hopes that we may establish a common point from where we may discuss.
    Is is also in this book that certain medical and scientific claims are made about the practice of scientology, such as that it can improve intelligence (page 6).

  88. current site errors, I hope they don’t result in multiple posts:

    There seemed to be confusion, so I hope you’ll allow me to assist in making comms.
    It’s true that the website that scientist directed you to had a broken link on it. I don’t see that as a problem, myself, but it seemed to create some concern for you. To help clear that up, it appears that he was providing a link from a major news source about the list, while providing the list itself in youtube format.

    If that’s not sufficient, you may see the full list at
    forums (dot)whyweprotest (dot) net (slash) threads/big-list-of-over-1000-exes-who-have-spoken-out.57290/

    I believe the number is up to just over 1300 now. Of course, that number only includes those scientologists that have left and chosen to publicly speak out against the group. That number does not include those that chose to leave quietly and without coming forward publicly.
    You seemed to disbelieve that there are “thousands upon thousands” of people that have spoken out against scientology, but you can see (and verify yourself, if you wish) over a thousand former scientologists alone, and that’s not including former scientologists that are non-public critics.
    Plus, consider that whyweprotest has over 33,000 members alone (I’m not pulling data from the many other critical forums), I would say that thousands upon thousands is a rather conservative estimate.

  89. “Refer Milestone One lectures”

    Is there something in particular that you would have me listen for? I’d certainly like to know before shelling out $350 for it, since my local libraries don’t carry it.

  90. “I’m not speaking of numbers. That was “scientist”. So, no. More Q & A, BD?”
    But my question was not to “scientist”, it was to you. But you’re saying you won’t answer so I suppose that’s that. It seems like a pretty simple question, though, if we extrapolate it out…. I would wonder to myself if would believe the numbers claimed by the church are accurate.

  91. “No. Because you asked that question, I no longer believe you when you say you read the books.”

    That sounds pretty harsh, especially when scientology.org says otherwise.
    “Dianetics is a forerunner and substudy of Scientology.”
    -http://www.scientology.org/faq/background-and-basic-principles/what-is-the-difference-between-scientology-and-dianetics.html

    Perhaps you should have researched more before blatently calling me a liar.

  92. Comment by Scientist on January 17, 2011 8:13 pm

    Your link leads to an empty page.

    Pat

  93. “But isn’t Dianetics generally considered to be both a forerunner and a substudy of Scientology?”

    No. Because you asked that question, I no longer believe you when you say you read the books.

    Pat

  94. Comment by BigDaddy on January 18, 2011 1:15 am

    Refer Milestone One lectures

    Pat

  95. Comment by BigDaddy on January 17, 2011 7:57 pm

    I’m not speaking of numbers. That was “scientist”. So, no. More Q & A, BD?

    Pat

  96. Quick question, before I call it a night.

    Pat, you say:

    “All these questions relate to Dianetics, and not Scientology. In Scientology, we are dealing with the spiritual being and how we relate that is subjective. That’s not the point. The question was asked about research into “claims” of better health. That’s Dianetics, which has never made any claim to cures. ”

    But isn’t Dianetics generally considered to be both a forerunner and a substudy of scientology? If so, wouldn’t that indicate that Dianetics is indeed a part of scientology?
    Perhaps, is what you’re meaning is that scientology as a whole isn’t scientific, but the dianetics component is?

  97. I have one, too!
    Most, not mists

  98. Sorry, “find” countless examples, not “found”. grammar fail.
    If you ask, I can provide links.

  99. A question related to the current line:
    Do you find that mists scientologists accept the claims Hubbard made in dianetics?

  100. “That tells me all I need to know about you.”

    In light of the fact that I’ve backed up all of my claims, and that I can found countless examples of you doing the very thing that you accuse me of, what exactly does it tell you about me? Is it okay for you to do something (make claims, not back them up; not providing specific links when asked), but you somehow fault anyone else for doing exactly that?

    You like definitions:
    “hypocrite: a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs”

  101. Pat,
    In actuality, I think that we’ve finally reached a place that we can both call agreement. You even repeat it:
    Scientology is entirely subjective, with absolutely no “science” to it- even Laurie Hamilton says the same. It’s purely belief, and that’s fine. There’s nothing wrong with that. Heck, I observe that I’m a stud muffin that all the girls go crazy after- it’s true for me, even though no one else would probably agree.
    Dianetics, on the other hand, claims to be a science, and you seem to agree. However, it’s a psuedoscience at best, as nothing to it has withstood actual scientific scrutiny.
    So I’m not arguing your beliefs, just seeing that they’re entirely subjective- that’s not a slam, it’s just how it is.
    Now, I haven’t shown you that I “can’t back it up”, but that you’ve demanded that I do so at least twice, but you refuse to do it yourself. And as I read through your posts, I see that’s a very common trend. You do that a lot, it seems- demand something that you’re not willing to do yourself. You pointed out the dianetics papers, but just gave a site. When I asked for specifics, you couldn’t come up with them. However, when you asked me for “page numbers”, I did what you asked. You hold a double standard, and that’s poor practice.
    However, here’s just one link to the 1000 ex-members that publicly came out:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2010/05/1000_exscientologists_speak_ou.html
    The story is there, but the link seems to be down. If you’d like, you can view what I think is an older list of names- verify, if you’d like:
    (too many links, I think, my post is blocked- but I’m sure you can find it on youtube)
    Add to that the tens of thousands of accounts on ex-scientology kids, why we protest and the like- heck, even pick one of those sites, and you have more people claiming to oppose scientology than you have claiming to practice it.
    So, still waiting for your links. While you’re at it, I’d be interested if you could ever respond to your own challenge about criminon.

  102. Pat,
    In actuality, I think that we’ve finally reached a place that we can both call agreement. You even repeat it:
    Scientology is entirely subjective, with absolutely no “science” to it- even Laurie Hamilton says the same. It’s purely belief, and that’s fine. There’s nothing wrong with that. Heck, I observe that I’m a stud muffin that all the girls go crazy after- it’s true for me, even though no one else would probably agree.
    Dianetics, on the other hand, claims to be a science, and you seem to agree. However, it’s a psuedoscience at best, as nothing to it has withstood actual scientific scrutiny.
    So I’m not arguing your beliefs, just seeing that they’re entirely subjective- that’s not a slam, it’s just how it is.
    Now, I haven’t shown you that I “can’t back it up”, but that you’ve demanded that I do so at least twice, but you refuse to do it yourself. And as I read through your posts, I see that’s a very common trend. You do that a lot, it seems- demand something that you’re not willing to do yourself. You pointed out the dianetics papers, but just gave a site. When I asked for specifics, you couldn’t come up with them. However, when you asked me for “page numbers”, I did what you asked. You hold a double standard, and that’s poor practice.
    However, here’s just one link to the 1000 ex-members that publicly came out:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2010/05/1000_exscientologists_speak_ou.html
    The story is there, but the link seems to be down. If you’d like, you can view what I think is an older list of names- verify, if you’d like:

    Add to that the tens of thousands of accounts on ex-scientology kids, why we protest and the like- heck, even pick one of those sites, and you have more people claiming to oppose scientology than you have claiming to practice it.
    So, still waiting for your links. While you’re at it, I’d be interested if you could ever respond to your own challenge about criminon.

  103. No clue what you’re trying to tell me, pat.
    Whilst thou is speaking of numbers, wouldst thou venture a guess ad to how many scientologists there exists?

  104. Comment by BigDaddy on January 17, 2011 4:45 pm

    Do the same with science, BD.

    Pat

  105. Comment by Scientist on January 17, 2011 3:15 pm

    I explained when I shouldn’t have. If you don’t get it after reading the data you never will.

    What’s true for you is true because you observe it personally.

    I never made an allegation that I then had to “give references for”. You did with your 1000s and 1000s generality and now you’ve shown me that you can’t back it up. That tells me all I need to know about you.

    Pat

  106. Just to interject in this lively conversation:

    “Knowledge of life, the mind, the world doesn’t change what the word itself means.”

    Actually, that’s exactly how word meanings change. Language, in general, is very fluid. Don’t believe me? Set a small bundle of sticks on fire, then tell people that you “love setting fags on fire”. Common lexicon DOES change in time. That’s why we no longer speak ye olde King’s English.

  107. “If you are dissatisfied with that then go get a partner and audit for about 50 hours and see for yourself.”

    Have you ever tried psych drugs? Does one HAVE to pay money and rely on their own subjective experience to be able to discuss a subject? Or is it possible to understand something from an unbiased scientific viewpoint?

  108. “Link”
    Why am I meeting your demands, when you ignore my request for the same? Hold yourself to the same standard, eh?

    Now, I thought you were saying that scientology was a science? Perhaps I misunderstood, but I think that we can agree that scientology is in no way a science, and is only proven by the subjective experiences of people that already want to believe.

    But, is clear and OT a scientology or dianetics concept? I’m confused, as the terms seem to fill both.

    I think we can also agree that dianetics (of course, the root of scientology) is nothing like science, either.

    So, I think that we’ve reached a point of agreement- there’s faith, which is fine- but nothing like science here.

    I just really don’t understand, though- why don’t those that practice dianetics just prove their claims?

  109. “Sure! Is a list of over 1000 former members that are publicly speaking out worth anything? ”

    Link

    Pat

  110. Comment by Scientist on January 17, 2011 12:51 pm

    All these questions relate to Dianetics, and not Scientology. In Scientology, we are dealing with the spiritual being and how we relate that is subjective. That’s not the point. The question was asked about research into “claims” of better health. That’s Dianetics, which has never made any claim to cures. Results that they have occured are in the case histories. (previously discussed).

    You can see what people say about their results here
    http://www.dianetics.org or listen to previously referred to lectures.

    The reference is Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health

    The derivation is no less valid today. Science means knowledge. Methods of arriving at that knowledge change with discoveries, but it still means knowledge. We’re talking about defining the word itself and what it means versus what it’s used for.

    Knowledge of life, the mind, the world doesn’t change what the word itself means.

    If you are dissatisfied with that then go get a partner and audit for about 50 hours and see for yourself.

    Pat

  111. As a passing thought, if scientology really is a true 21st century religion… shouldn’t the 21st century understanding of science be what’s used?
    But, it’s a moot point, there really seems to be a lot of division within scientology itself on whether or not scientology is actually a science.
    It seems to me that it’s a faith, until the scientific / medical claims are actually treated as a science.

  112. Quote from Laurie Hamilton, on all experts:
    “And as the sciences of man are physical sciences, we cannot define Scientology as “science.””
    and
    “each of these matters is required to be addressed at the level of SUBJECTIVE, not objective understanding, we cannot, and should not, call Scientology a science.”

    http://en.allexperts.com/q/Scientology-1751/Scientology-True-Science.htm

  113. “Yes, you’ve missed that it’s only true if you’ve observed it to be true. That would be the proof. ”

    Again, do you believe that anything is universally true? Is there anything at all that’s just “true”, whether on believes it or not?
    For example, is it “true” that the sky’s blue, even if I don’t believe that?

  114. “The Dianetics letters contain data on the attacks and on the research.”

    I’m glancing through, but it’s a lot to read.
    As you asked me… Page numbers?

  115. Yes, in the definition you chose, circa 1300’s, that may have passed for science. But in the modern lexicon, from a modern point of view, that defines, at best, pseudoscience from a subjective point of view. By the definition you’ve provided, the reports of critics are, equally, science.

    “Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology”

    “subjectivity – judgment based on individual personal impressions and feelings and opinions rather than external facts”

    So, if scientology is a science, so are all religions- they’re each a science because the believers “know” that it’s true. Is that the context you’re meaning? But even Hubbard made references to lab studies and experiments, and claimed to be one of the first nuclear physicists- was he basing that on “just knowing”? But, again, some of Hubbard’s claims could be verified by actual science- about clears not getting colds, for instance, or about radiation or drugs. Did Hubbard use actual science when establishing those theories, or did he just “know”?

    “LRH wrote the books as he discovered data, so that others could look for themselves to see if it’s true.
    That’s the science. That’s the point I’ve been making all along.”
    So you’re saying that Hubbard… discovered… and proved certain things and just wrote that those things were true, but recorded no actual research?

    Snow White:
    Oh, is that all that was? Why on earth, then, did so many scientologists go to jail for it, including Hubbard’s wife? Or is that all part of the massive “conspiracy”? You can see court records and other documents relating to operation snow white- is all that not true merely because louanne asserts it on her other website, with no evidence other than saying that it’s not true?

    Seriously, no one here is even asking for proof of the beliefs of scientology, only for the medicinal or scientific claims that could be easily proven. Of course, the Amazing Randi has an open million dollar challenge to any scientologist that can prove any of the powers that Hubbard claimed, and it would be very easy to do if true. Exteriorization, for example, would blow the world open and would be very easy to prove- is that possible.

    So, if you define science as something that you “know”, then yes, scientology is a science, as is the bible, black magic, psychics, astral projection and most major world-conspiracies. Do you believe that?

  116. The Dianetics letters contain data on the attacks and on the research.

    http://dianetics.lronhubbard.org/index.htm

    Pat

  117. Added thought from the desk of Pat

    science

    Dictionary.com

    c.1300, “knowledge (of something) acquired by study,” also “a particular branch of knowledge,” from O.Fr. science, from L. scientia “knowledge,” from sciens (gen. scientis), prp. of scire “to know,”

  118. @Comment by BigDaddy on January 16, 2011 5:24 pm

    I will, Pat! I hope to hear something soon, I’ve asked just about any scientology entity I can find.

    Yes, you’ve missed that it’s only true if you’ve observed it to be true. That would be the proof.

    “By physical claims, I’m referring to the completely verifiable medical and scientific claims, such as those shared by scientist. He’s made many, certainly you’re aware of them?”

    These would be in the case histories of those audited in LRH’s research. Confidential auditing sessions. Those are the one’s you want? I really don’t see that happening.

    Some of those sessions were recorded with the permission of the preclears and are available throughout the recorded lectures from 1950 on. Those are the Basic lectures, Congress lectures and the ACCs.

    LRH wrote the books as he discovered data, so that others could look for themselves to see if it’s true.

    That’s the science. That’s the point I’ve been making all along.

    Pat

  119. Comment by Scientist on January 16, 2011 6:01 pm

    “I’m really tearing up google looking for any FOIA evidence of a conspiracy against scientology”

    We used the FOIA to find the false reports. That’s what Snow White was.

    http://www.scientologymyths.info/snow-white-program/

    Pat

  120. I’m really tearing up google looking for any FOIA evidence of a conspiracy against scientology… Would appreciate any help, if you find something I don’t.

  121. Specifically, I already emailed:
    info@scientology.net,
    info@twth.org
    info@scientology.org
    and posted to allexperts

  122. I will, Pat! I hope to hear something soon, I’ve asked just about any scientology entity I can find. Do you have any more that I may have missed?

    By physical claims, I’m referring to the completely verifiable medical and scientific claims, such as those shared by scientist. He’s made many, certainly you’re aware of them?

  123. “Freedom of Information Act disclosures proved it.”
    -Really? Please do tell.

    “Gee golly, now I’m really worried. That’s sure an awful lot of people. But then I’m sure you have the actual proof of those amounts?”
    Sure! Is a list of over 1000 former members that are publicly speaking out worth anything? How about the membership stats of the many, many critical sites? Tens of thousands if you count all those. That’s much more conclusive proof than the numbers that the church claims to have, in terms of active numbers. Do you demand the same proof from management when they give you a number? I’m assuming that you believe that all of the surveys and studies are wrong?

    “Then apply the data in the books, which are the track of his research. If it works for you fine, if it doesn’t, fine. It’s not true for you then.
    It works for me, so it’s true for me.
    That’s my proof and all I need.”
    That’s great, but that’s not science. The books state his claims with absolutely NO verifiable evidence as to them. Did he happen to record the names of those that he saw heal beyond what science can explain? Has he actually provided any verifiable evidence of his claims? Any of them?

  124. Comment by BigDaddy on January 16, 2011 5:03 pm

    “Yes, I’ve looked through, I think, every page on this and laurie’s site, but can’t seem to find anything scientific-like.”

    Let us know, will you, when you hear from her about the research?

    “I’m talking about the physical claims.”

    What physical claims?

    Pat

  125. “lol, yeah, I was assigned to him during the last meeting. Seriously, you sound a little bit paranoid.”

    Sorry you feel that way.

    “Do you really think there’s some conspiracy against Scientology”

    Freedom of Information Act disclosures proved it.

    “, rather than thousands upon thousands of people, including thousands of former members, that see that something’s wrong? ”

    Gee golly, now I’m really worried. That’s sure an awful lot of people. But then I’m sure you have the actual proof of those amounts?

    “Speaking of wrong, is it wrong to expect that hubbard’s claims will be supported by something more than believer’s anecdote? I’m more than happy to accept it, but personal experience is not science. I like science.”

    Then apply the data in the books, which are the track of his research. If it works for you fine, if it doesn’t, fine. It’s not true for you then.

    It works for me, so it’s true for me.

    That’s my proof and all I need.

    Pat

  126. Yes, I’ve looked through, I think, every page on this and laurie’s site, but can’t seem to find anything scientific-like.
    I’m talking about the physical claims. LIke I said, if someone feels better after auditing, that’s awesome. What’s more, if it’s true for someone that they can leave their body at will or cause certain events to happen, I’m tickled pink.
    No, I wouldn’t try to take that from anyone, and if their subjective experiences lead them to something that they believe to be true, then I don’t think I could if I tried. It’s much more productive, and indeed, even possible, to discuss verifiable facts.

  127. “By actual clinical test, the actions of aspirin and other pain depressants are to:
    A. Inhibit the ability of the thetan to create mental image pictures” (scientology handbook- what clinical tests?)”

    Which book? Is that the large book “What is Scientology?” or is that “Handbook for Preclears”?

    Page numbers?

    Pat

  128. “all illnesses are psychosomatic is, of course, absurd, for there exist, after all, life forms called germs which have survival as their goals.”
    “All our facts are functional and these facts are scientific facts, supported wholly and completely by laboratory evidence.”
    “Clears do not get colds.”
    (Dianetics, 1950)

    Page numbers?

    Pat

  129. Comment by BigDaddy on January 16, 2011 4:17 pm

    “My cousin took me to a church many years back- he was into it for a few years. They hooked me up to the cans, had two session, it was fun, but not especially helpful.
    But, my beef isn’t against the validity of auditing- I think it works just as well as sitting down with a therapist and talking. Talking to another person works wonders. No, if someone feels better after talking about their problems, more power to them!”

    Fair enough!

    “I am more interested in the medical and scientific claims”

    What claims are those? Physical claims or those dealing with the spiritual results of auditing?

    BTW, there are already a lot of questions and answers on Laurie’s site about research.

    Pat

  130. wait, would that mean that I’m counted in the official scientology membership statistics?

  131. My cousin took me to a church many years back- he was into it for a few years. They hooked me up to the cans, had two session, it was fun, but not especially helpful.
    But, my beef isn’t against the validity of auditing- I think it works just as well as sitting down with a therapist and talking. Talking to another person works wonders. No, if someone feels better after talking about their problems, more power to them!
    I am more interested in the medical and scientific claims, and I don’t seem to be the only one. I really don’t care if someone believes in reincarnation or not- it’s a personal belief. But the things, in my opinion, that can be proven… should.

  132. What auditing was that, BD?

    Pat

  133. Pat, status update on our quest (which I still appreciate your advice and help on!):

    I just uploaded a question to Laurie Hamilton of allexperts, making a slight modification after reading scientist’s post. To laurie:

    “Sir or Ma’am,
    I am interested in learning more about scientology, especially the work of Mr. Hubbard.
    I’ve read many of Hubbard’s works, and I see where he’s made quite a few very specific claims. These claims, such as on the nature of man and the benefits gained from studying scientology (such as going clear or OT) are summarized in the basic books, but there’s nothing on his methods of research nor his actual findings. Has his research ever been archived? Do you have copies of his original work, to include his methods and discoveries?
    Mr. Hubbard himself said, ““All our facts are functional and these facts are scientific facts, supported wholly and completely by laboratory evidence,” and I truly believe this to be the case!
    Also, had he released anything about his future research plans prior to his death? I’m aware that DM announced his death and plans, but did Hubbard himself write or share anything about the nature of his future plans, and whether or not he will ever share his findings with the world?
    Thank you,”

  134. Specifically, Hubbard made very many specific medical and scientific claims. Anyone is free to beleive in reincarnations or aliens, or whatever someone chooses to believe. But when you make medical/scientific claims, it’s considered polite to actually perform some, you know, medicine or science. For instance:

    “all illnesses are psychosomatic is, of course, absurd, for there exist, after all, life forms called germs which have survival as their goals.”
    “All our facts are functional and these facts are scientific facts, supported wholly and completely by laboratory evidence.”
    “Clears do not get colds.”
    (Dianetics, 1950)

    “By actual clinical test, the actions of aspirin and other pain depressants are to:
    A. Inhibit the ability of the thetan to create mental image pictures” (scientology handbook- what clinical tests?)

    “This is useful knowledge. With it the blind again see, the lame walk, the ill recover, the insane become sane and the sane become saner. By its use the thousand abilities Man has sought to recover become his once more.”
    “Paralysis, anxiety stomachs, arthritis and many ills and aberrations have been relieved by auditing them.”
    “Cancer has been eradicated by auditing out conception and mitosis.”
    “Today, Eleanor has arthritis. She is audited… tonight she doesn’t have arthritis” (A history of man)

    “A girl crippled by polio was able to throw away her crutches after my first session.”
    “A broken limb will heal (by X-ray evidence) in two instead of six weeks.”
    “I’ve seen a goiter the size of a baseball visibly shrink and disappear in the space of one-half hour right after an engram was run.”
    (Dianetics today, 1975)

    “Dianazene runs out radiation – or what appears to be radiation. It also proofs a person against radiation in some degree. It also turns on and runs out incipient cancer.”
    (all about radiation, 1957)

    These are just a few examples.
    Are any of these claims universally true, or just true for those who believe them? Each one could be very easily proven to anybody, even a skeptic like me- is that possible? Is that really too much to ask?
    It’s important, I think, because someone who really believes these things to be true, DESERVES them to be so, especially if they rely on them to be such.

    “No one should approach the temple of science with the soul of a money changer.” ~Thomas Browne

  135. lol, yeah, I was assigned to him during the last meeting. Seriously, you sound a little bit paranoid. Do you really think there’s some conspiracy against scientology, rather than thousands upon thousands of people, including thousands of former members, that see that something’s wrong?
    Speaking of wrong, is it wrong to expect that hubbard’s claims will be supported by something more than believer’s anecdote? I’m more than happy to accept it, but personal experience is not science. I like science.

  136. Sent in? Yes, the masters sent him in to help me handle you. I had to trade in almost all my internet credits to get him in, but it’s worth it.

    Seriously, is it at all possible that more than one person in the world is asking questions critical of scientology? I don’t appreciate your insinuation- and while I respected your request, I ask that you respect mine: don’t accuse me of such things, I find it offensive.

    Now I’ve been audited, and had a free stress test. Yes, I tried it, and I made that needle dance. You can make it do just about anything that you want to do. I also tried it very sincerely, the first time- it wasn’t ground-breaking in the least.

    But, we’ve had this conversation before- how do you know that psych drugs are bad for you? Street drugs?

    Like I said, you say empirical knowledge, which is defined as “The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.Empirical data is data that is produced by an experiment or observation.
    A central concept in modern science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses.”

    However, you’re describing subjective, anecdotal experience, with no ability to seperate bias. Scientist makes a good point- why haven’t the specific medical and scientific claims been objectively established? Is that possible.

  137. Comment by bigdaddy on January 16, 2011 3:05 am

    Ah, the game’s afoot.

    Was Scientist sent in to get you back on track? He’s afraid you might actually succeed in getting it and that you might think for yourself.

    In the meantime, Doctor Watson, the test of workability in any research, is whether it works or not. It’s empirical knowledge. If LRH presented you with the knowledge on how to do something and gave that to you and you applied it and saw it works, the research itself is borne out. That’s the only proof you need, but you’re still welcome to try to see it, whatever that gets you. It still won’t show you that it works. As I said before, Scientology is something we DO, not believe.

    Apply the data. That’s the test. What’s to be afraid of?

    Pat

  138. The same problems found in stage hypnosis, especially when one tries to use those findings as evidence of past lives or other supernaturalism:

  139. Pat… Do you see that there’s two different people talking to you? Me and “scientist”?
    But, yes, I’ve hear the live auditing… it’s not exactly a scientific environment, and makes no attempt to eliminate cognative bias or confirm findings. It’s interesting, but it’s not scientific.
    The name Cathy was the one used in the reply from scientology.

  140. Comment by bigdaddy on January 16, 2011 3:05 am

    Ah, so the live auditing done in front of a class is “single man” ?

    It seems to me there’s some confirmation bias going on here, BD.

    Pat

  141. Comment by bigdaddy on January 16, 2011 3:06 am

    “Thank you Cathy”

    ?

    Pat

  142. I think Big’s a little more patient than me.
    Big, you won’t get that research- it was never done. If it was, it would be very proudly archived along with everything else the man created. All that they will give you, as you see in the answers, are books and recordings of what the one man said to be true, with no one questioning “why” or “if” they are.
    You can see this in the end result. The research doesn’t matter as much as the end state- out of the countless medical and scientific claims made by LRH, has even a single one been proven to be true? Don’t clears still get colds? Don’t high-level OT’s still get cancer? Doesn’t the president of scientology still wear glasses?
    more telling, why did hubbard die with anti-allergy medicine in his system if he could overcome allergies? And why did his doctor prescribe a drug, which the primary purpose was a psychiatric drug, even at the time, when there were more effective anti-allergy medicines available? Was Hubbard immune to the psych drug’s effects?
    You can stop asking, BD- the lab experiments that hubbard wrote about never happened- he only told people that they did. And they believed it.

  143. by the way, what are you asking, about something left out? I don’t understand.

  144. Well and, of course, I’ve heard/read many of the lectures, but they have the same inherent limitation of the books: it’s just the singular man, telling the things that he says are true, and inviting one to choose for themselves what to believe, but without all the information. All that I’m seeking is the rest of the data, beyond the claims of a single person and the subjective experiences of others. Please don’t misunderstand! I’m in no way saying that those two things are not valid! I ack that the things you believe are very true for you, and I am in no way invalidating them just because I require more information.
    Even the church says, of Ron, “he tested all his discoveries and found the most effective methods for applying the results of that research”. I only ask that some of that research and test methodology be shared. Surely that’s not unreasonable, I would think! I’m not even calling into question or arguing his spiritual claims! I’m more interested in his specific scientific claims, and how he tested those theories.

  145. ?
    Did something get left out here?

    A thought:

    There are quite a few actual sessions recorded and available. Dianetic Lectures and Demonstrations come to mind plus there are sessions throughout his recorded lectures in the Congresses, Basic Lectures and ACCs

    Proof enough for me! And yes, hearing these was exciting :)

    Pat

  146. I replied:

    “Thank you, Cathy!
    Were Hubbards research notes and all of his raw data never saved? That would be so valuable, to be able to see his research as it unfolded. For instance, his test data when researching Dianetics?
    Thanks!”

  147. This is what I’ve gotten so far:
    With questions about hubbard, they send me links about miscavige! Oh well, hopefully some of my other emails will pan out.

    ” Thanks very much for your email and I can see you have definitely looked into Scientology quite a lot. All of Mr Hubbards research into life, the mind, body and spirit are contained in all of his 18 books and over 3,000 lectures. A full chronological study will give a full understanding of all his discoveries. The full body of knowledge is known as the Golden Age of Knowledge.

    Have a look at these two links and all related material.

    http://www.scientology.org/david-miscavige/renaissance-for-scientology.html
    http://www.scientology.org/david-miscavige/completion-of-the-golden-age-of-knowledge.html

    I would recommend you look at the two landmark events – Golden Age of Knowledge for Eternity and Golden Age of Knowledge Accomplished.

    Let me know if you have any questions.

    Regards
    Cathy

  148. Your enthusiasm is overwhelming :)
    Wouldn’t you be excited to see his actual research?

  149. In the meantime, BD, why don’t you grab the Self Analysis Book and run yourself through some lists and see if anything changes?

    Or better yet, find someone and audit each other on some Dianetics to see if the procedure laid out works? The DVD has the commands.

    This will give you first hand experience to test the data for yourself.

    Remember, Scientology is something we DO. That’s how we get to the observation part of “What is true …”

    Pat

  150. Comment by bigdaddy on January 15, 2011 6:02 pm

    Alright. Thanks for sharing that.

    Pat

  151. The question I asked (to every address I could find!)

    Sir or Ma’am,
    I am interested in learning more about scientology, especially the work of Mr. Hubbard.
    I’ve read many of Hubbard’s works, and I see where he’s made quite a few very specific claims. These claims, such as on the nature of man and the benefits gained from studying scientology (such as going clear or OT) are summarized in the basic books, but there’s nothing on his methods of research nor his actual findings. Has his research ever been archived? Do you have copies of his original work, to include his methods and discoveries?
    Also, had he released anything about his future research plans prior to his death? I’m aware that DM announced his death and plans, but did Hubbard himself write or share anything about the nature of his future plans, and whether or not he will ever share his findings with the world?
    Thank you

  152. Comment by BigDaddy on January 15, 2011 2:16 pm

    “okay, I’ll see what I can find that way, and let you know.
    I’ve read the basics (I had to drive, my local libraries sold them and I missed the opportunity), and I’m afraid that it only seemed to summarize his findings, without offering the opportunity for outside validation. I fear that his actual research may be lost to posterity.”

    Possibly with the Historian. Again, you’ll need to ask.

    Pat

  153. okay, I’ll see what I can find that way, and let you know.
    I’ve read the basics (I had to drive, my local libraries sold them and I missed the opportunity), and I’m afraid that it only seemed to summarize his findings, without offering the opportunity for outside validation. I fear that his actual research may be lost to posterity.

  154. Comment by BigDaddy on January 15, 2011 1:11 pm

    “Related question:
    Hubbard did a great deal of lab research into the nature of the thetan and his other discoveries- has that research ever been found or maintained?”

    Yes, it’s all on the chronological development of Dianetics and Scientology in what we call the Basics

    This page lists them in order:
    http://www.bridgepub.com/store/catalog/basics-books/index.html

    You can get them in the libraries

    Pat

  155. Comment by BigDaddy on January 15, 2011 1:29 pm

    Last question for now, promise :)
    I can’t find contact information for starkey or the lrh historian. Can you help with that?

    I suggest sending a letter to them via the Fort Harrison in Clearwater. It’s how I’d have to go, or use the “contact us” at Scientology.org

    By the way, I appreciate that you have been acknowledging me. :)

    Pat

  156. Last question for now, promise :)
    I can’t find contact information for starkey or the lrh historian. Can you help with that?

  157. Re my last question, it is asked with all sincerity. Lrh did do actual scientific research, correct? If so, more information on his methods and findings would be illuminating.

  158. Related question:
    Hubbard did a great deal of lab research into the nature of the thetan and his other discoveries- has that research ever been found or maintained?

  159. and indeed there are many parallels! I could easily see those comparisons. I would call them, certainly, influences. I wouldn’t say that there are roots in the spiritual philosophy, but there are certain influences, especially in the rituals and traditions.
    So, I think we agree on this one, that older religions seem to influence newer ones, from Christianity to Islam to Sientology. I’m not sure about the spiritual roots, but, again, I would heartily agree in some aspects sharing a common lineage.

  160. Comment by BigDaddy on January 15, 2011 12:36 pm

    Yes, it draws many parallels. I especially like the references to the soul.

    One would need to set out a time line on this, to see when it evolved to body and compare that to different versions of the Bible.

    That’s what I did and found it fascinating to see how that could be true.

    The definition of “root”, as I’m using it = “the source or origin of a thing”

    Pat

  161. okay, well, I respect your beliefs and thank you for sharing what you feel to be true. I am glad that it’s true for you.
    I’ll continue searching for facts, they interest me. I appreciate the suggestion for how I may find some, and will pursue that.

  162. Comment by BigDaddy on January 15, 2011 12:03 pm

    “You believe it, as to most/all scientologists- ”

    :D

    “my only question is for me, who needs more than just the word of DM-”

    It’s not just the word of DM, it’s LRHs last comm to us. I believe that Mr. Starkey has the original or the LRH Historian does. I think he’s in Clearwater. If you’d like to see it for yourself.’

    “is there now, or was there ever, anything beyond the unverifiable (to me) word of a person? I don’t question that it’s true for you, asking you if there’s anything beyond your belief is not an attack on you. But, I suspect that you’ve answered that, so I can stop asking.”

    OK.

    There’s actually a formula that will help with that.
    It’s called the Doubt condition and you’ll find it in the Ethics Book.

    Pat

  163. I see, I have read that before, in a recent class.
    Basically, yes, there are universal truths that are in common with most organized religions. For example, all major religion have a version of the “golden rule”, and the entire “way to happiness” booklet is a modern retelling of ancient beliefs.
    And, also, yes, it is interesting that the Hindus rang bells, as do Christians, as well as other elements.
    So, I must say that I’ve always been interested in the similarities, but as far as the “roots”, I don’t find that to be true for me. But, that may be how one defines “roots”, I suppose.

  164. Comment by BigDaddy on January 15, 2011 12:03 pm

    Here’s a study with many references. Have fun!

    http://www.stephen-knapp.com/christianity_and_the_vedic_teachings_within_it.htm

    Pat

  165. Pat,

    When you said, “Are you actually going to sit there and say that DM reading it made it false somehow” and “Show me that you are just asking for my view and that you’re not here to invalidate, or troll (create conflict) by questioning my answer”, it sounded quite upset. I was offering the opportunity to break comms, if things were getting too emotional. You’re saying no, that’s fine.

    I do, and as I reread, believe that I DID acknowledge your statements. If you don’t read that the same way, allow me to clear the air- I acknowledge your beliefs and statements, and applaud you for having/making them. Asking questions about them is NOT the same thing as disrespect. So, for the record, I ack your statements and respect your right to make them.

    Moving on.

    Now, I’m really not sure how to rephrase this question; there seems to be some confusion. You’ve put forth the theory that modern abrahamic religions have roots in eastern religions, specifically the veda and vedic hymns. I ask you about the nature of the roots, but you repeat the claim that it is so. My question, if you know the answer (I don’t, so I won’t judge) is how is that so? What are the nature of the roots? Is it because of the relative ages? If so, I would say that the timeline isn’t quite the same as roots. Also, I must disagree that the vedas (Hinduism, as the religion, the hymns as the works) are the oldest religion on the planet. Recent discoveries of (suspected, no way to say for sure) religious symbols in Africa date back 70,000 years. Now, of course, if your’re referring to organized religion, you may be right, but religious beliefs are nearly as old as man, in some form or another.

    Now, your comment, “I did not. The answer was Yes, with a comment on how I arrived at that. No more. No less.” My question remains, and I ask it with all respect, is there anything beyone subjective experience that allows you to draw that conclusion? As you see, I had asked you a question, and your answer was based on your personal experience. And that’s fine, I appreciate knowing your beliefs and how you arrived at them. However, that doesn’t really answer my question, you understand. It’s much like it you were to ask “anon” how he knew he was Hubbard. He may say that he is, and his personal experiences have told him so. That would explain why he believes what he believes, but it certainly wouldn’t convince you or answer your question, would it?

    You also ask me, “Are you actually going to sit there and say that DM reading it made it false somehow, or I should be in doubt?” I say, not at all! I’m very happy that you trust the man! Myself, however, I have no reason to trust what he says solely because he says it, any more than I would expect you to trust bunker or headley- or me, for that matter. You believe it, as to most/all scientologists- my only question is for me, who needs more than just the word of DM- is there now, or was there ever, anything beyond the unverifiable (to me) word of a person? I don’t question that it’s true for you, asking you if there’s anything beyond your belief is not an attack on you. But, I suspect that you’ve answered that, so I can stop asking.

    Lastly, you talk often of the difference between what is true for you, and what is true for someone else. This is fine, and I completely support your right to have truths to your own. But do you believe in any universal truths? Is there anything that is not subjective? For example, if YOU believe that souls/thetans reincarnate, and I DON’T believe that souls/thetans reincarnate, can it be both? Can a soul/thetan both reincarnate and not reincarnate? Can both of our beliefs be true, in your system? TO put it in a different context, if we see a wall, and we both carefully consider the wall, I may believe it to be solid wood while you believe it to be a vineer (sp?). Can we both be correct?

  166. Comment by BigDaddy on January 14, 2011 9:02 pm

    Where’s the mis-emotion? Insistence that you respect my point of view? Acknowledgment does not mean you agree. Just that you get it, even if its not true for you. Don’t try to spin my point of view as “upset”. That’s invalidation.

    Pat

  167. Pat, you’re clearly upset, and that is not my goal. I’m not attacking you or your beliefs. We’re just seeing that common clash between science and faith, as they are very different and each very valuable.
    Shall we, perhaps, terminate this discussion? I’d hate to see that happen, but I don’t want to upset anyone here.

  168. Comment by BigDaddy on January 14, 2011 11:26 am

    I did say. They all have their roots in religion going back to the Veda and Vedic Hymns, which is the oldest religion on this planet, which very strongly states that we are spiritual beings and not bodies. If you’ve researhed religion then I’m sure this is old news for you. The idea that we are not bodies, is the new idea. You’ve already told me that that isn’t true for you and thats ok with me.

    Pat

  169. Comment by BigDaddy on January 14, 2011 11:26 am

    I did not. The answer was Yes, with a comment on how I arrived at that. No more. No less.

    ‘You say, “That doesn’t mean that either of us are “right” or “wrong””, if we draw different conclusions. Let’s take a recent example. You believe in, essentially, reincarnation. I don’t. Can we both be right in that matter?’

    That’s the point. If reincarnation (using the old definition of multiple lifetimes in different bodies) isn’t true for you then it isn’t true for you. Thank you for letting me know and answering my question.

    As far as LRH goes, did you miss that he told us? Are you actually going to sit there and say that DM reading it made it false somehow, or I should be in doubt? Based on where I am, that made complete and total sense to me. It became my truth. Do you feel like you should contest that or undermine my reality now? Ask me to explain why that’s true for me? If so, then I would find that you lack sufficient grace to allow others to be or know and wish to invalidate my personal integrity by calling what’s true for me into question.

    Show me that you are just asking for my view and that you’re not here to invalidate, or troll (create conflict) by questioning my answer.

    Pat

  170. Pat,

    You ask where you used personal experience as an answer, but then you answered your own question. Indeed, you did say “The answer to your question is Yes, and that’s what is true for me, based on my personal experiences.” I highlight where you said “based on personal experiences”. And that’s perfectly fine- I’m not casting doubt on the validity of your experiences, but I am saying that they are purely objective. Would you agree with that, as a starting point? In other words, I’m not changing the subject, but asking you to elaborate on your answer, is all.

    However, if the only way that it is known, for instance, that Hubbard is not coming back is a personal experience, then I’m afraid that I’m left unsatisfied, which is my solely my issue and I’m not trying to make it yours. However, I’m a science fan, a logical type of guy, and find that solely subjective proofs are less prefereable than something objective, repeatable, and observable.

    You say, “That doesn’t mean that either of us are “right” or “wrong””, if we draw different conclusions. Let’s take a recent example. You believe in, essentially, reincarnation. I don’t. Can we both be right in that matter?

    You also say that you “believe that I answered this already regarding the roots of Judeo-Christian beliefs”. I see where you said that you feel they DO share common roots with eastern religion, but I don’t see you saying HOW. That was my question, although I may not have been clear. What is that nature of this connection?

    It’s a pleasure having this civilized and mature conversation with you- I mean that.

    BD

  171. Comment by BigDaddy on January 14, 2011 8:13 am

    “But, this may be an opportunity for further discussion! Me, I have read and studied, as have you. We have reached very differently and diametrically opposing conclusions. By my interpretation, one of us may be correct, and one incorrect, or we may both be wrong, but we can’t both be correct. Or can we? Based on your belief, if two find disparate personal truths, can they both be right? Or, indeed, is one right and one wrong?”

    Each person is an individual so what one observes may not be the same thing another observes. I may get some entirely different epiphany from reading an LRH book than you would. Or you could get one and I wouldn’t. That doesn’t mean that either of us are “right” or “wrong”.

    “I, too, have spent much time studying religions of all types, from eastern to abrahamic to wicca to theistic and non-theistic satanism. It is, certainly, fascinating. I would be very curious in what roots you see in abrahamic religions?”

    Sorry, but I’m not getting what the question is. I believe that I answered this already regarding the roots of Judeo-Christian beliefs. (I see Abrahamic on the same track, differing with the divergence into the Talmud and Bibles as the accepted scriptures.)

    Pat

  172. Comment by BigDaddy on January 14, 2011 8:13 am

    Using only this last question (one you asked in response to my comment on Anon’s “impersonation” of LRH coming back as an Anon), where did I use personal experience as the answer?

    This is the question I see:
    “At some point, can a thetan decide not to return to a body, after one dies?”

    My answer:
    “The answer to your question is Yes, and that’s what is true for me, based on my personal experiences.”

    Answer = Yes. To then go off into personal experiences would be a divergence from the question. See? In Scientology it’s called Q & A (a new line of questioning from an answer) to do so. It gets you nowhere. You could acknowledge that the question got answered THEN asking a new question, that keeps things more organized and sane for having an intelligent discourse. I understand that comments can pique curiosity or interest. Just keep them to different subjects, so it doesn’t appear that you’re refuting answers. Possibly its the way you’re phrasing such as above so if you can try that it might help.

    Pat

  173. What an engaging conversation! Most certainly the most stimulating we’ve had.
    To dive right in, I’m sure you have some knowledge that I do not, but do you have any knowledge of communication left by Hubbard, other than that which was only verbally relayed through dm? I’m very curious as to how he communicated his plans. Among those that were left behind, is there a belief that his research will benefit man?
    I’m not quite sure, you see, how to proceed from here. We have very different positions on this matter, regarding personal experiences. For instance, by attempting to discuss yours, you seem to feel that I am changing the subject. I don’t understand, as your personal experiences were used as an answer. I trust that the expectation is not that your personal experiences are a final adjudication, not to be questioned when given as an answer? But, please do correct me if I’m mistaken.
    But, this may be an opportunity for further discussion! Me, I have read and studied, as have you. We have reached very differently and diametrically opposing conclusions. By my interpretation, one of us may be correct, and one incorrect, or we may both be wrong, but we can’t both be correct. Or can we? Based on your belief, if two find disparate personal truths, can they both be right? Or, indeed, is one right and one wrong?
    I, too, have spent much time studying religions of all types, from eastern to abrahamic to wicca to theistic and non-theistic satanism. It is, certainly, fascinating. I would be very curious in what roots you see in abrahamic religions?
    Also, you may not be aware that Latin wasn’t the original language of any of the judeo-Christian religions. Have you ever read translations from the original Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew? You will notice many key differences to that of st Jerome, responsible for the translations to Latin.
    But, I’m very eager to see what I may have missed- do you see anything in the abrahamic religions that would support the belief of “one life, many bodies”?
    Roots aside, most abrahamic religions (Judaism, Catholicism, Christianity, Muslim) and, I would hazard, many (at least) other religions currently teach an eternal reward or punishment. Is that belief compatible with the core beliefs of Scientology?
    Again, thank you for the very stimulating conversation.

  174. Comment by BigDaddy on January 13, 2011 6:24 pm

    “Pat, how might you know that Hubbard won’t come back? And, if he won’t, will we never receive the benefits from his research?”

    From the communication he left us at the time of his death.

    My personal experiences are just that. What is true for me is true through personal observation and is not part of this discussion. Don’t go off track of the original question.

    We’ve been over this before and I get accused of “not answering” the question. My answer is “establish your own truth on studying the data”. Every time you question any personal observation it just tells me that you don’t have the personal knowingness. That’s ok. Rather than accept that its my personal observation, youi choose to question it further. The whole point here is that its my observation. Establish your own from your own study of the actual data, not from anything I say .

    I appreciate your answering me about your belief system. Did you know that the Judeo-Christian system has its roots in eastern religions – in fact, the same ones as Scientology? That’s the Veda and Vedic Hymns of 10,000 years ago

    I’ve spent a considerable time doing a study in religions. The translations of the Bible from Vulgate Latin especially saw changes to how the soul was referred to. It’s an interesting study and worth the time to track the changes so you see what I mean.

    The idea that you are a spiritual being as opposed to having one is not the new idea, due to the historical aspect of the roots, but one life, one body is.

    Pat

  175. Pat, how might you know that Hubbard won’t come back? And, if he won’t, will we never receive the benefits from his research?
    Also, if your personal experiences demonstrate to you that indeed someday the thetan will no longer need a body, that would seem to imply some sort of spiritual betterment spanned across multiple lifetimes. Does that imply that you will benefit from your training in this lifetime?
    To answer your last question, I believe in the judeo-Christian concept of heaven and he’ll (awesome dio tour, btw), in which you have one life followed by eternal reward or punishment, in fact, that’s central to judeo-Christian beliefs. How is the Scientology belief of their spiritual nature compatible with the mine?

  176. bodies*

  177. Comment by BigDaddy on January 13, 2011 7:20 am

    The humor I saw was in the fact that LRH’s research took him beyond bodie, and in order to continue, he had to go on without one,. He won’t be returning into a new body here, so Anon pretending to be a return showed me how misinformed people are about our nature as spiritual beings. The answer to your question is Yes, and that’s what is true for me, based on my personal experiences. How about you? What do you think will happen when the body dies?

    Pat

  178. I’ll simplify the question.
    At some point, can a thetan decide not to return to a body, after one dies?

  179. Comment by BigDaddy on January 12, 2011 11:47 pm

    huh?

    Pat

  180. Pat,
    I think, actually, humor may be the point :)
    But, if I may ask, Hubbard -chose- to not return quite yet, correct? Is that how it works for most?

  181. Comment by Anon on January 11, 2011 10:58 pm

    I actually find that funny. What’s your name, person formerly known as Ron?

    Pat

  182. Hello, it’s me, L. Ron Hubbard. I am back.
    I had dropped my body in 1986 and spent 4 years on target 2 to do my research, but then i got bored and took control of a male homo saps body to see what’s up on teegeack.
    Tell David that i am back and ready to reclaim what is rightfully mine.
    By the V mask he will recognize me.
    I do not forget
    I do not forgive
    I am L. Ron Hubbard
    Expect me!

  183. Pat,
    Thank you for your thoughtful responses to my questions!
    I appreciate the relevance of the resources that you provided, as well! I’ll take a much closer look at those items.
    Bg

  184. Comment by BigDaddy on January 10, 2011 8:08 am

    Remember, in Scientology what’s true for me is what I have personally observed to be true. If you want source data, read the reference. I’m asking you to establish your own truths from that rather than any personal knowing that I may have on the matter.

    Pat

  185. Comment by BigDaddy on January 10, 2011 8:08 am

    Those quesitons are best answered by asking you to read the section on Suppressive Persons in the Introduction to Scientology Ethics Book.

  186. For example, the sp is somewhat anologous to an “evil” person in many religions, and the title is often thrown about just as carelessly. I, myself, have been called such a thing several times for far less than a question like this.
    I have to wonder… Would YOU call me an SP?
    Now those that have been “declared”, officially. Such a declaration, made officially, can have very serious impacts on a life. Would you, yourself, remain close to someone that the main body determined to be such a person? If so, I fear many wouldn’t.
    So, surely there’s some robust process in place to make sure that those accused are actually such a thing? Who within Scientology is qualified to make such a serious official determination?
    Does the average scientologist have access to this information?
    Also, the pl defines what I believe must be a very brief summary of how one reaches such a state. Certainly, more thorough research was done by Hubbard?
    Also, is a declare still dependent on the qualities defined by hubbard?

  187. For example, the sp is somewhat anologous to an “evil” person in many religions, and the title is often thrown about just as carelessly. I, myself, have been called such a thing several times for far less than a question like this.
    I mus

  188. Yes, or that I would like to know more.

  189. Comment by BigDaddy on January 10, 2011 1:34 am

    So, BD, are you saying you don’t understand the PL?

    Pat

  190. Okay…
    So, to rephrase, Hubbard says that someone is not “created” as an SP, but becomes one?
    There have been, of course, many former Scientologists (to include many of Hubbard’s personal staff) that had “become” SP’s. For such a serious charge, who is it that determines that that indeed is what’s happening in their life?
    Thanks for the engaging discussion!

  191. Comment by BigDaddy on January 9, 2011 10:30 am

    That’s a quote from the HCO PL.

    Pat

  192. So, pat, you’re saying that people “become” sp’s?

  193. Comment by bigdaddy on January 5, 2011 5:43 pm

    “Could you please kindly consider an answer to my question regarding how an sp becomes an sp?”

    Quote : “The technical fact is that they have a huge problem, long gone and no longer known, even to themselves, which they use hidden or outright vicious acts continually to ‘handle’. They do not act to solve the environment they are in. They are solving one environment, yesterday’s, in which they are stuck.

    The only reason the insane were hard to understand is that they are handling situations which no longer exist.” Unquote

    HCO PL 5 April 1965 Issue 1 “Handling the Suppressive Person – The Basis of Insanity”

    Pat

  194. Louanne,
    Could you please kindly consider an answer to my question regarding how an sp becomes an sp?
    Bg

  195. Bigdaddy, Scientologists believe one thing and do another. SP’s are SP’s. They are born that way. They are not created. Yet many people Scientology declares get declared because they see the “church” as unethical and the “church” needs to vilify these folks so no one else follows them to the path of truth=away from Scientology.
    A couple in Florida were declared for challenging “Church” management with something they were doing as off policy and they were declared because they refused to knowingly go against policy. Yet it was management that was outright violating the policy. Go figure.

  196. Tie in question, based on my comment above.
    Louanne, what “creates” an sp? Ate they born that way? Is it thetan influence? Is it a choice?

  197. On the subject…

    I’m quite sure that in rather short order, Louanne will be posting about the legal “victory” over Marc headley and his wife.

    For those unaware, Headley attempted a lawsuit against scientology in response to the very long hours and very little pay expected of him and his wife while they were “in” the sea org. However, the victory came in the form of a technicality- not vindication of “right”. The Court felt that the sea org members fit the definition of “minister”, and that the government is not able to fully evaluate the supposed religious policies of any group, to include scientology. In other words, the technical victory does indeed go to scientology, due to the Court’s understandable unwillingness to tread into shaky waters- but the court records may end up having widespread effects.

    Somewhat chilling in its widespread impacts is the courts’ declaration that “The Ministerial Exception Applies to Plaintiff’s Trafficing Victims Protection Act Claim”. Again, the court did not ever decide that Scientology WASN’T doing these things, only that they can’t judge on it without entangling in the “reasonableness” of the practice.

    (For the sake of accuracy, I’ll only stick to what’s actually IN the official, now public court records. I won’t touch too much on Tommy Davis’ gloating letter to the SP times, saying, “scientology wins. S.P. Times and its anti-Scientology friends and sources lose.”- the man is frightening, overall.)

    By Scientology’s own contributions to the case, now public record, we now know several things that were previously claimed and suspected, but are now found in the US Court District Memorandum, document 269, filed 8/5/10, page ID 11306.

    1. “Since 1986, Sea Org members have not been allowed to raise children”

    2. “Sea Org members are not allowed to leave (Scientology’s) premises without an escort”

    3. “If Sea Org members want to leave the organization, they may complete a process called ‘routing out’. During this process they are still expected to contribute to the Sea Org, and may be required to perform manual labor. If a Sea org member leaves the organization without routing out, members will attempt to follow that member and try to pursuade him not to leave the Sea Org. If he decides not to return, he is labeled a ‘Supressive Person'”
    (Follow? That doesn’t sound all that great. And is that all it takes to be considered a full-on Supressive Person?)

    4. “Scientology did not dispute the evidence of physical abuse on its premises”

    What’s very interesting is that the Headley’s made several claims. They claimed that they were coerced into having abortions, that their commuinications were censored, that members were disciplined through sleep and food deprivation, and that attempts were made to force Claire to divorce Marc. Scientology did not deny those claims. Instead, they stated on the record that “the challenged conduct was doctrinally motivated”. This, in essence, validates the claims, while also serving to block further inquiry.

    So, a legal victory? Absolutely- they have wonderful lawyers, who have ample practice in lawsuits. A moral victory? Not so much.

     

  198. Oh, o/u, I forgot to mention that operation clam bake has a standing challenge to all scientologists to prove the site content to be wrong, and their attempts are posted on the site. It’s worth reading, to get a more comprehensive view.

  199. Over,
    I can sympathize with you. I got the same treatment when I first started posting here- even mocking my (at the time) poor language abilities.
    If you sincerely want more information about Scientology, I would highly recommend that you google “operation clam bake”. It has a wealth of information on Scientology, to include court documents, and links to some of the many fine sites on the subject- especially the “ex-Scientology kids” website. And if you only have time to read one thing on the subject, I highly recommend you research the story if Paulette Cooper, and what happened to her when she tried to write a book about Scientology,
    To address your question, pat would have us believe that the “targets” of freedom Mag willingly gave up embarrassing, personal confessions, knowing full well that the most personal if their statements were subject to publication in print and on the web. I, personally, have a hard time believing that the lady (even though Scientology already put her name out there, I won’t do the same, out if common decency) honestly confessed to marriage infidelity, knowing that she would someday be mockingly labeled by her firmer friends (to include the readers of freedom Mac) as “the adultress”.
    And compare her with the young Australian soldier, who committed suicide (by electrocution) after getting involved with Scientology (and after mid death, multiple harassing phone messages from the local Scientology office were found on his phone- horrible). Left with no answers for the family, the police requested, and then received a court order, for the young man’s Scientology files, in order to determine what role the group may have played in his death, if any.
    Scientology refused to assist and sent all of his records to the US, siting confidentiality concerns.
    So one is left to wonder why they so carefully protect all files of (alleged) victims, but so willingly share the personal information of their enemies?

  200. For the record, I’m not sure who’s right or wrong on this one but I will say this… if I were the church I would tone down the freedommag stuff… it’s almost hard to read it’s so ‘cut throat’ … it’s unprofessional sounding… it doesn’t sound like someone who’s above it and innocent. Still I haven’t decided.

  201. Wow… wasn’t trying to argue… at all. Thanks for clearing that up for me… I thought this forum was to answer people’s questions not berate them for questioning anything in the first place. Guess I’ll take my questions elsewhere.

  202. “Don’t bother responding. i won’t reply.”

    That’s new? :)

  203. No pc data was used in Freedom Mag. All data published was from their write ups from ethics actions, that they well knew could be used for further ethics handlings, which the Freedom Mag expose on them is. Ethics files do not classify as confidential. Only Confessionals do (pc folders). Quit being so willing to forward false data.

    Pat

    Reference: Introduction to Scientology Ethics section on Ethics Review.

    Don’t bother responding. i won’t reply. This is not a debate.

  204. *The Church of Scientology

  205. I understand Scientology defending itself… My problem with the FreedomMag stuff is they use confidential stuff from people’s ethics and PC folders… that kind of irks me… I mean, isn’t their a priest confidentiality that is supposed to be upheld?

  206. I’ll even give one very simple example to the contrary. But only one is needed.
    You say quite directly that one thing equals another. In part,
    Liar = coward
    The family that hid Anna frank and the rest in their attic, in order to keep them alive, they lied, did they not? We can simply plug them into the equation:
    Miep gies = coward
    So you you would surely say that your concept is “always” true, would you?

  207. No, it’s not.

  208. “A liar is a coward is a perjurer is a criminal”, isn’t that like reactive mind A=A=A think?

    • “A liar is a coward is a perjurer is a criminal”

      Called logical sequence.

      – L

  209. Wait, Lou is bitching about attacks from exScientologists….BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    Hello kettle!!

  210. “Likely Mike Rinder will not be speaking on Today Tonight in a few hours about how Marty Rathbun strangled him.

    So Freedom Mag does: http://www.freedommag.org/special-reports/cnn/the-kinky-relationship-rathbun-and-rinder.html

    – L”

    Thanks, now we have a fuller picture of the culture of violence that has been permeating Scientology, since LRH emprisoned children in chain lockers on his ship Apollo.

  211. “Comment by Louanne on July 21, 2010 5:52 pm”
    Really, louanne? Are we resorting to an “I’m rubber, your glue” type of debate here? If you want to steal my arguments, feel free, but at least give me author credit!
    But you’re including your own site and “religious freedom watch” in your count of “ex-scientologist hate sites”?

  212. “So Freedom Mag does:”
    Why? Because they both suffered the same abuse, and understood the “why”.
    Did freedom mag ever cover any Scientology topics, or have they always focused on personally attacking their enemies?

  213. “Comment by Anon on July 21, 2010 5:02 pm”

    Likely Mike Rinder will not be speaking on Today Tonight in a few hours about how Marty Rathbun strangled him.

    So Freedom Mag does: http://www.freedommag.org/special-reports/cnn/the-kinky-relationship-rathbun-and-rinder.html

    – L

  214. Lazy today… but:

    Ebarassing fail.
    You results show two things:
    A laundry list of the countless hate-sites created by ex-scientologists and their minions and dedicated to attacks on individual scientologists, and a wwp form posting, in which the anons denounce his crime.

    So true fanatic ex-scientologists and their minions focus on updating their hateful sites and attacking individual scientologists, while the anons denounce their crimes and pretend to move on with their lives.

    Which one sounds more unhealthy?

    – L

  215. Mike Rinder will be speaking on Today Tonight in a few hours about how David Miscavige strangled him.
    Here are already two trailers:
    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/mike-rinder-the-truth-david-miscavige-wants-to-kill/

  216. I can’t hear you.

    Bang bang on the door baby!

    That’s where it’s at!

  217. The hate coming from Scientologists is astounding. Really shows you where they’re at.

  218. Spellcheck got me, “sons” = “anons”

  219. “Anonymous is a bunch of spineless psychos. I haven’t seen them doing something useful yet”

    Actually, the wwp picture caption is much more creative. You should post that one instead!

    But when you say that the “sons” have never done anything of which you seem to approve… Does that mean that you support the pedophile and the animal abuserthat the 4chan community tracked down and turned into the police?

  220. “Context:
    http://www.google.com/search?q=marty+rathbun+arrest

    Ebarassing fail.
    You results show two things:
    A laundry list of the countless hate-sites created by scientologists and dedicated to rathburn, and a wwp form posting, in which the anons denounce his crime.

    So true scientologists focus on updating their hateful sites and attacking the man, while the anons denounce the crime and move on with their lives.

    Which one sounds more unhealthy?

    And does it bother you that the anons, as a whole, don’t support such criminal behavior, and are willing to acknowledge it?

  221. Confession: I was a little creative on the quote… Here is the real one:

    “And that’s the real story of Rathbun, Rinder and DeVocht. They don’t belong in front of cameras, unless it’s for a mug shot.”
    http://www.freedommag.org/special-reports/cnn/a-liar-is-a-coward-a-perjurer-is-a-criminal-4.html

    How true. He’s been violent and alcohol abusing all along and it gets worse now.

    – L

  222. “Comment by Anon on July 20, 2010 7:18 am
    Context:
    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/confession/

    Context:
    http://www.google.com/search?q=marty+rathbun+arrest

    – L

  223. “Comment by Truth on July 20, 2010 12:45 am
    Maybe you could have Anonymous help you make that picture funny.”

    Anonymous is a bunch of spineless psychos. I haven’t seen them doing something useful yet.

    – L

  224. Context:
    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/confession/

  225. Maybe you could have Anonymous help you make that picture funny.

  226. It’s very simple Dawg, Scientologists have to hate those that Scientology tells them to hate. See they think their Spiritual Freedom is at stake. And because they have “the greatest good for the greatest number” stuck in their heads (not realizing they are brainwashed into thinking that means do anything to keep Scientology going), they are even willing to throw family to the curb because Scientology told them their family member was an SP.
    Because Scientology itself knows they are in trouble right now, attacking Cooper is just a wrong target. And of course they can’t see that either. Specially because he was more than fair to both sides. And that is what Scientology is so mad about….Cooper wasn’t willing to go to the extremes that OSA goes to.
    But thankfully Scientologists are waking up and taking a stand to DM and his version of Scientology.

  227. I would be so flattered to have an entire hate site dedicated to me! But Rathburn gets several hate sites dedicated to him, and Anderson Cooper gets an entire hate-filled issue of FM dedicated to him, but scientology ignores the thousands upon thousands of other critics and opponents that are equally deserving of lies and attacks!

    I feel left out.

    At least this site is honest by admitting that it left stuff out in its retelling. It doesn’t matter that he admitted to what he did, or that the scions wouldn’t have known about it if he wasn’t honest… he knew that hate sites like this would pick it up and mock him. He came clean anyways. But that doesn’t matter to sites like this. Of course, Louanne, somehow, turns it into a dirty joke- I guess we know what’s on HER mind!!

    But, if anyone had read the original article, they would have gotten the point of what MR was talking about in context, instead of the unprofessional chop job that the the site did.

    One example, Rathburn said, “There wasn’t a single criminal in that cell whom I did not get along with and find something to like about. Every conversation I had was deeper and more meaningful and more caring than any conversation that was ever permitted in DM’s Hole.” where the hate site only shortened it to “There wasn’t a single criminal in that cell whom I did not get along with.”

    What I can’t figure out, is why do scions seem to hate honesty so much? And instead of addressing the issues that Rathburn brings up, they choose to chop it up to attack the person. Is that the right way to do things?

  228. Excellent article, louanne. Very well researched, hard-hitting and relevant to the issues!

  229. I read Marty’s confession. I don’t think he gets it.

    But then I saw his photo! Buhahahahahahahaha! That’s the shit!

  230. Dude, I am a subscriber to Freedom Mag. Never miss an issue!

    – L

  231. Did you see this about Marty Rathbun?
    http://www.freedommag.org/special-reports/cnn/a-liar-is-a-coward-a-perjurer-is-a-criminal.html

  232. Psycho Rathbun “Moving on up”!
    This guy is completely gone! But then again, he is a leader in his own field! May he lead the way!


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Comments RSS

  • 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

    S. Spirito in Sassia

    San Pietro

    Flight into Egypt

    More Photos