Repost: Welcome!

Hi there,

And thanks for visiting this blog! I put it up to give you the opportunity to ask questions, about Scientology, Scientologists, David Miscavige and whatever you feel is related to that. If you are here to make statements or raise a fuss, you are violating the only rule this blog has. Otherwise I am very interested about your questions and will do my best to answer them, using documentation and all I know about the subject.

For common questions (“Aliens?,” “Cult?”) be sure to check out ScientologyMyths.info as well.

– Louanne

Advertisements

117 Comments

  1. I have a general scientology-related question:

    is David Miscavige seen as beyond reproach or divine by scientologists? Or is he seen more as a human being that may have character flaws?

    is his position like the pope’s, where the things that he says are correct by default?

    • No, no and no. Just so you know, accusations against him have already been debunked. Look beyond the hate sites. Look for yourself, think for yourself. :)

      • What accusations are you referring to? I’m not following.

        So you’re saying that David Miscavige has flaws?

      • Ah, another Big Daddy “So you’re saying…” Covertly hostile and a surefire tell that you’re a troll trying to create conflict.

        No, I didn’t say that. And whatever reason you had for asking this to begin with comes from bs on the hate sites. Those accusations. Take your pick. They’re bs.

      • dear diary,

        today I learned that the active liatening techniques that they taught at the University is hostile. And trolling, somehow. Also, pat doesn’t know how to read usernames

        pat, you said “no” when asked if david miscavige is beyond reproach or seen as divine. but perhaps I should be more clear; does david miscavige have any flaws at all? I’m not asking what they are- I’m only wondering if a scientologist is able to admit that a specific human being has flaws. or can you answer that?

      • also, again, what accusations are you saying have been debunked?

      • Look.

      • (reposting, because it was in the wrong place)

        “Look”.

        That’s what I love about you, pat. You make a claim (in this case, about accusations that have been debunked) and then refuse to back them up. I almost think that you’re not able to list them, for some reason. But it’s really uncanny how you’re able to do that. That’s not how things work, pat- unless you’re okay with the rest of the world making claims that they can’t or won’t discuss further.

        And then you ignore other elements that you don’t want to or can’t discuss, like the simple question about whether Davey has any flaws at all. Are you afraid that you’ll get in trouble if you say that he does? Or does it just offend your sensibilities to even consider that he might have flaws? Either way, that’s a pretty worrisome prospect.

        I’ve long since wondered why you’re even here. You don’t really discuss anything, and you rarely answer questions. I guess I’ll never know.

    • If I may, I’d like to re-open this question for all of the scientologists on this board, if there are any other than pat. I’m not sure if there are or not, as I don’t see many positive comments here from readers regarding scientology.

      To any scientologist, is David Miscavige completely, amazingly flawless? Or does he have any flaws at all?

  2. Louanne,

    What are the implications for scientology from the recent French court decision to uphold the organized fraud conviction against the church? As I’m sure you’re aware, this is unique case, because it wasn’t only individual scientologists being convicted of a crime, but also the organization as a whole; this decision follows the original 2009 ruling and the decision to uphold last year.

    What are your thoughts on this?

    • Louanne can answer when she gets time.

      No implications whatsoever. See definition of implication below*

      The ruling is being appealed to the European Court. It’ll be overturned. The same way it was in Russia when they tried to ban Scientology books. Scientology is booming there. Meanwhile, Scientology in France continues to expand. Publicity makes people curious and they look for themselves. :D

      *implication

      noun
      1.
      something implied or suggested as naturally to be inferred or understood: to resent an implication of dishonesty.
      2.
      the act of implying: His implication of immediate changes surprised us.
      3.
      the state of being implied: to know only by implication.
      4.
      Logic. the relation that holds between two propositions, or classes of propositions, in virtue of which one is logically deducible from the other.
      5.
      the act of implicating: the implication of his accomplices.

      Origin:
      1400–50; late Middle English implicacio ( u ) n < Latin implicātiōn- (stem of implicātiō ) an interweaving, equivalent to implicāt ( us ) (see implicate) + -iōn- -ion

      Synonyms
      7. associations, connections.

      Dictionary.com Unabridged
      Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.

      • Implication (noun): The conclusion that can be drawn from something, although it is not explicitly stated
        A likely consequence of something

        his phrasing is valid. The organization was convicted of a crime- that seems unlikely to boost membership. do you have any unbiased sources to support your claim of expansion? have you validated that yourself or have you been told it’s true?

      • There are no “implications”. The appeal was denied and the Church is appealing to the EU Court. That’s fact with nothing implied by it. BD likes to make statements, disguised as “questions” which violates the FAQ.

      • (reposting because last proxy site posted in the wrong place. No offense, but it’s a good idea to use a proxy site when posting on the official blog of an organization that at one time offered bounties for IP addresses! edit: I just checked- they still are. That’s pretty terrible. A $5,000 bounty for the name of their enemies…)

        I wish you’d at least be consistent. You yourself claimed that there were implications (in the sense of impacts), but now you’re saying there aren’t. You said that the ruling was somehow making scientology grow- that people said to themselves, “hey, I’m really curious about this group that just got convicted of fraud! Let me join them!” You know, because that worked so well for Enron- they had a lot of publicity, but somehow the arrest of key exectutives didn’t help their business any. I really admire your optimism, though, by thinking that the organized crime conviction is somehow a GOOD thing. Heck, by your logic, the Catholic sex abuse scandal should have been great for membership, right?

        You’re right, it is fact that the fraud conviction was upheld and that scientology needs to appeal to the European Union court. Many people would wonder how the rest of the world sees that organized crime conviction. Apparently, you as a scientologist doesn’t see that as a bad thing; do you really think that us wogs see things with such thick rose-colored glasses? Top scientology executives went to jail, just like other scientologists have for murder, fraud and other crimes. I’m really amazed that you can even begin to spin that as a good thing.

        And, by the way, just ignoring questions doesn’t make them statements. That’s why I addressed my question to Louanne, rather than you- you generally don’t discuss things, you just get bogged down in (incomplete) definitions and other distractions.

        Like C.S. said, can you back up your OWN claim that scientology is “booming” in france? Where on earth did you get that information? Did you even bother to check that claim before you made it?

      • You both seem to misunderstand the definition. Nothing was “inferred” or implied. It was clearly stated.

      • Okay, whatever, that’s a very minor point that has nothing to do with the question. But, you seem to have answered it. Are you actually saying that the organized crime convictions in France is somehow positive for scientology? You did say that “Scientology is booming there” and “Scientology in France continues to expand.”

        Are you merely relying on what you’ve been told, or do you have anything to back up your very bold claim?

  3. As the admin of this site is working, no doubt very shortly it will be renowned, due to its feature contents.

  4. Thanks this blog is so wonderful and it’s so refreshing to find a blog that actually tells the truth about Scientology

  5. Regarding your ‘This Rocks – Atlantic article’ post.

    You should clarify that the article in the PDF was neither written by the Atlantic magazine or currently hosted there. To continue to imply otherwise is unethical and dishonest.

    • “You should clarify that the article in the PDF was neither written by the Atlantic magazine or currently hosted there.”

      Sorry, but I won’t spoon-feed grownups.

      It says “Sponsor content” (including a “What’s this?” at the top) and “Sponsor Content provided by the Church of Scientology” at the bottom.

      The debate in the Atlantic is about their marketing team moderating the comments. Which sucked. Not even my own comments were posted….

      – L

      • I think, Pat, what she’s (?) referring to is the fact that you called it an “Atlantic Article” without clarifying that it was not an article and it was not written by the Atlantic, neither of which was clear in your post. To be fair, “This ROCKS! A paid advertisement in the Atlantic” doesn’t have the same ring to it.

      • ” Comment by appless on January 21, 2013 12:55 pm

        I think, Pat, what she’s (?) referring to is the fact that you called it an “Atlantic Article” without clarifying that it was not an article”

        Where did I do that?

      • You didn’t- I meant to say that to Holly. My error.

  6. LOL Louanne, all the pro-Scientologist comments on your paid-for Atlantic article are getting vote way down; VERY DOWNSTAT!

    Someone’s going to the go to Lower Conditions :P

    • Lol, it says right at the top “sponsor content”. Yeah, awesome that scientology paid to put their own article, the one that they wrote, on the web. That’s a great use of church funds :)

      no wonder louanne blocked comments on that one.

    • An interesting assortment of articles in the Atlantic that AREN’T paid for by scientology:

      Scientology vs. Psychiatry: A Case Study, “Just because one doctor failed to follow the rules doesn’t invalidate the entire field of psychiatry.”

      A Wonderful New Book About Scientology, By a Wonderful Writer (regarding the book by Lawrence Wright)

      Scientology, Fact Checked – The Daily Dish

      What’s The Matter With Scientology?

      The first is very interesting; my favorite quote, “When you watch self-congratulating CCHR videos cataloging shoddy conditions in the world’s most underfunded and poorly managed mental health facilities over the years, Scientologists hope you’ll accept their slippery logic that these events say something about the validity of psychiatry as a whole. Of course they do not, no more so than any case of medical malpractice in any field, in any country, brings down validity of medicine as a whole.”

      From searching, it appears that the positive news about scientology is either “sponsored content” or self-published press releases.

    • From the site:

      “We have temporarily suspended this advertising campaign pending a review of our policies that govern sponsor content and subsequent comment threads.”

      • Yes, Freedom of Speech not for everyone, eh? Scary….

        Anyway, in case you missed it here is a PDF of it: https://scientologymyths.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/the_atlantic_14january2013.pdf

      • your freedom of speech is not being attacked. the site is a commercial enterprise and didn’t wish to appear to have written an article in favor if scientology. instead, they removed it.

      • Yeah, they didn’t expect an organized attack from the SPs.

      • yes, that’s literally the only possible explanation for why the article was removed.

      • What I think is that they did as they said and withdrew it for review of policies regarding comments. I’m sure that they pulled it due to the organized attack by SPs, due to the vitriol, not that there was any truth in the comments. LOL

      • Okay, I’ll bite. Upon what do you base your assumption that this was an “organized” attack by “SPs”? Is it not possible that there’s just growing criticism against the group?

        And yes, comments was the reason they gave. Something was posted that looked very much like a news article and people rebelled against it. The problem was that they were removing critical, but not pro, comments. That’s what they need to review- they were catering to the customer (scientology), not the readers.

      • I would note, too, that The Atlantic never claimed comments was the sole reason for removing the advertisement. Their own notice says, ““We have temporarily suspended this advertising campaign pending a review of our policies that govern sponsor content and subsequent comment threads.”

        It’s also worth noting that the huge backlash, in which the paper was criticized in CNN’s blog, gawker, slate, businessinsider and more, was over the portrayal as the blatant ad as an actual news article. Even louanne here calls it an “Atlantic Article”, when it’s more accurately an ad paid for by scientology to run on their website.

      • I guess the question has been answered. The Atlantic formally acknowledged that the advertisement was pulled BOTH because of the nature of the article and the comments section:

        “We ran a “native advertising” campaign for a new advertiser that, while properly labeled as Sponsor Content, was in my opinion inconsistent with the strategy and philosophy for which this program is intended. In this case, we did not adequately work with the advertiser to create a content program that was in line with our brand. In addition, because we had not fully thought through the issues around commenting on Sponsor Content, we made some mistakes trying to moderate the commenting thread.”

    • I am sure you are working on it with all socks you got…

      • I don’t do that- sounds like you do, though, since that’s the first place you go. there’s no need for socks when so many are already speaking out against the article.

      • Wow! The 2 1/2 %ers sure are screaming! LOL

      • yeah, that must be it.

      • Lol 2.5%? Ever heard of Gallup Polls? Switch those numbers and drop the decimal point; 52% of people have a “Total Negative” view of Scientologists; only 7% have a “Total Positive” view.

        http://www.gallup.com/poll/106516/Americans-NetPositive-View-US-Catholics.aspx

        “Suppressive Persons” are the majority, and they’re only going to get bigger once Lawrence Wright’s “Going Clear” comes out and Paul Haggis speaks on NBC Rock Center this Thursday! :D

      • Comment by Ulysses on January 15, 2013 7:55 pm

        So much for your understanding of the PTS / SP tech.

      • Pat, can you offer some additional information about pts/sp tech?

      • Louanne accusing others of of using sock puppets is quite literally the pot calling the kettle black.

        Also – according to that link only 7% of those polled had a positive view of scientology and 52% had a negative view.

        That’s just embarassing.

        What do you think your current administration has done wrong to allow scientology to be viewed so unfavorably? clearly the ‘tech’ has been misapplied, right?

    • The Atlantic announced “We screwed up…We are sorry, and we’re working very hard to put things right” concerning allowing the Scientology post on their site.

      I SOOOO cannot wait for the next IAS event to get leaked on Youtube; the church will surely find a way to turn this major PR flub into a some sort of win somehow :D

      • Easy- they supported free speech and journalistic integrity by forcing the Atlantic to hold themselves to the highest standards by ensuring honesty in their sponsored content.

      • Comment by Ulysses on January 15, 2013 8:48 pm

        “The Atlantic announced “We screwed up…We are sorry, and we’re working very hard to put things right” concerning allowing the Scientology post on their site.”

        That is so false. They didn’t apologize for that. They apologized for filtering comments

      • Comment by appless on January 15, 2013 8:52 pm

        “Easy- they supported free speech and journalistic integrity by forcing the Atlantic to hold themselves to the highest standards by ensuring honesty in their sponsored content.”

        Beep! False. The Atlantic filtered comments. The Atlantic didn’t say anything about “honesty in their sponsored content”. That’s the critics dubbing in, and spinning it as usual

      • Statement from The Atlantic

        Regarding an advertisement from the Church of Scientology that appeared on TheAtlantic.com on January 14:

        We screwed up. It shouldn’t have taken a wave of constructive criticism — but it has — to alert us that we’ve made a mistake, possibly several mistakes. We now realize that as we explored new forms of digital advertising, we failed to update the policies that must govern the decisions we make along the way. It’s safe to say that we are thinking a lot more about these policies after running this ad than we did beforehand. In the meantime, we have decided to withdraw the ad until we figure all of this out. We remain committed to and enthusiastic about innovation in digital advertising, but acknowledge—sheepishly—that we got ahead of ourselves. We are sorry, and we’re working very hard to put things right.

        Media Relations Contact:
        Natalie Raabe
        The Atlantic
        (202) 266-7533
        nraabe@theatlantic.com
        —-

        That’s the exact message – take from that what you will.
        To me – sounds like they considered hosting that content a lapse in judgement.

    • One question –

      Pat/Louanne –

      Why do you think Scientology purchased that ad in the first place? Wouldnt the target audience be better served via Freedom Magazine?

      • I don’t know but my guess is that The Atlantic offered sponsored content and the Church was booking it. There are over 500 sponsored content articles on the The Atlantic’s website so for them it probably was a normal deal.

      • If I may ask a similar question? Given the generally negative reaction by non-scientologists, and the overwhelmingly negative news that resulted from the action, do you feel that the advertisement was a good idea?

  7. You’ve resorted to making statements, Appless. I won’t discuss anything with you if you persist in this mode. The cites are there and I don’t care if you don’t like them. Those are the source of the data for those DVDs.

    • I think it’s a reasonable point for discussion. CCHR is making very serious tacit accusations against an entire profession, which stands to impact people’s careers and livelihoods. The fact that people could be harmed by this erroneous information is certainly concerning. Wouldn’t you say that it’s wrong to potentially harm someone’s career based on inaccurate information? Is that acceptable to you?

      I think it’s also a reasonable question to ask how you can accept that claim as true without being bothered to confirm the facts, as it certainly calls into question other things that you may consider to be true without all available information.

      • It’s not erroneous. You’ve shown by your responses to have misunderstood what you read by saying it is saying something it doesn’t say. This inability to recognize differences is causing you trouble.

      • I provided many, many examples of the provided data being erroneous. You clearly didn’t read what I already wrote. How many examples of errors or missing data do you need?

      • You listed that the cites were by doctors which was irrelevant to the cite. No one said the cites were by psychs and you spent a lot of time trying to discredit something that was never said. The facts are that these cites show knowledge of events that were spoken of during the DVDs.

      • actually, louanne’s link claimed that psychs performed acts that were actually by a medical doctor. you appear to be so eager to blame one profession that you are very willing to overlook the actual causes tgat have been made very clear. you haven’t responded to the fact that the medical profession accepted responsibility and you’ve chosen to ignore all questions as to the relevance of the Nazis to the rest of the profession then and now.

        why?

      • there is absolutely zero credible evidence that suggests that the holocaust would not have happened without psychiatrists. any suggestion thst this is so is pure conjecture and willingly ignores the facts surrounding the situation.

        this is particularly true when one considers that a psychiatrist helped. end the Nazi eugenics program.

  8. BTW, did you watch the documentaries?

    • Yes, I did. Have you ever fact-checked them?

      • Nope. All the cites are included for your fact-checking pleasure.

      • do you believe tge documentary to be true? more importantly, do you tgink it reflects in any way on the profession today?

      • Comment by appless on January 11, 2013 8:58 pm

        Yes

      • Is that yes to both questions?

  9. Another question; I realize that this may sound like a “statement”, but I really don’t mean it that way. In fact, I very sincerely apologize if I come across as making a statement rather than asking a sincere question.

    I am wondering why it is so easy to find people posting critical information about scientology, to include their own bad experiences, but it’s so rare to find people posting positive information about scientology. Why are there so many more critics active online talking about scientology than there are adherents?

    Thank you.

    • By experience, not a lot of Scientologists are interested in endless debates about beliefs and practices of Scientology. Also, the Internet provides an easy forum for cowards and hate campaigners who can claim just anything without being put to task on it. Who wants to deal with jerks like that if you have better and more positive things to do?

      • fair enough, I appreciate your perspective.

        why do you post? and pat, if you have an opinion?

      • In addition, Louanne, let’s not forget that Scientology is not a belief-based system. What is true for a Scientologist is true because it was personally experienced in being applied. At that point, it becomes knowledge and not belief or opinion. We KNOW. There’s no interest in debating because it’s what we KNOW vs arguments on why it isn’t that way. No Scientologist would willingly sit here to be invalidated. I’m here to help answer questions. I don’t debate. I’ll call invalidation when I see it and after over 40 years as a Scientologist, I can sure recognize it. I know people are here to make statements when an answer is dissed, or when I or L get dissed. Since this is Louanne’s site, she gets to set the rules. Peeps can bitch when she removes posts that are statements, can try to run a “we don’t approve” propaganda,when we call someone out for suppressive behaviour, complain about Church policy, etc.. The fastest way to get ignored is to do the above.

      • okay, interesting point. I think that I asked the question wrong. When you look at personal websites, blogs, facebook pages, what-have-you, you see a lot of people talking about their faith in god(s) or other supernatural concepts like the power of nature. Certainly not in a forum like this (as you seem to think that I meant, Pat), perhaps, but people generally seem very happy to talk about the wonderful experiences that they’ve had with Catholicism, or Judaism, or Buddhism. And, if they’re concerned about people arguing with them, they can just talk about their beliefs in any of the thousands upon thousands of forums, subreddits or sites dedicated to their belief and fellow believers. Even a controversial religion like theistic satanism has many very public adherents that love to talk about their beliefs and experiences.

        I wonder what it is that makes scientology the only religion that I can find in which people don’t do that in the same way?

        I’m very curious about your comment, Pat; you say, “What is true for a Scientologist is true because it was personally experienced in being applied. At that point, it becomes knowledge and not belief or opinion. We KNOW.” This same thing can be said about many belief systems, but let’s choose Wicca as an example. People try something and it works- they experiment with it and they know that their spirit guides can communicate with them and they can channel the energies of nature. They personally experience it in being applied and develop knowledge based on their personal experiences. Is this as valid as scientology in that regard?

      • I can’t speak for Wiccans since I don’t know what kind of principles would “work” similar to Scientology’s applications / procedures that have been tested empirically. What in Wiccan doctrine would be similar to this that would work on being applied by personal observation?

      • “I wonder what it is that makes scientology the only religion that I can find in which people don’t do that in the same way?”

        Because Scientology is different. It’s an applied religious philosophy. It’s something we DO, not believe. Other philosophies are belief-based. Here’s the essay on that:

        “PERSONAL INTEGRITY
        BY L. RON HUBBARD

        What is true for you is what you have observed yourself. And when you lose that, you have lost everything.

        What is personal integrity? Personal integrity is knowing what you know. What you know is what you know and to have the courage to know and say what you have observed. And that is integrity and there is no other integrity.

        Of course, we can talk about honor, truth, nobility—all these things as esoteric terms. But I think they would all be covered very well if what we really observed was what we observed, that we took care to observe what we were observing, that we always observed to observe. And not necessarily maintaining a skeptical attitude, a critical attitude or an open mind—not necessarily maintaining these things at all—but certainly maintaining sufficient personal integrity and sufficient personal belief and confidence in self and courage that we can observe what we observe and say what we have observed.

        Nothing in Scientology is true for you unless you have observed it and it is true according to your observation.

        That is all.

        L. Ron Hubbard”

        http://www.scientology.org/what-is-scientology/basic-principles-of-scientology/personal-integrity.html

        .

      • could you pleaee clarify which of scientology’s applications and procedures have been tested empirically? your question requires me to understand that point.

      • Comment by appless on January 11, 2013 9:04 pm

        All of it was arrived at empirically. That is self-evidently when you read the books and accompanying lectures in chronological order.

        What question?

      • Evidently = evident.

        I see what you mean by question. You’re the one who asked if the same principle of knowing something works by applying it and experiencing the result applies to Wicca. I asked what principle of Wicca you’re referring to that I could DO and see if it works. (paraphased, of course)

      • You may not be familiar with Wicca to any degree. I practiced it for some time in my youth, and devoted a great deal of time to it, although I no longer practice or believe it.

        Essentially, once believes that certain things are possible, such as charms, spells or otherwise impacting the flow of energy that makes up the universe. This is a vast oversimplification, of course, but the core is that there are elements of the universe that is not understood by science, yet can be “used”, if you will, by the individual. The important part is that one doesn’t accept something merely because they’re told it to be true, but that it’s only real when and if it exists for them. For example, I wouldn’t expect you to act on the guidance of my spirit guide, but since I experienced it for myself- since I tried it and it worked for me- it is considered to be absolutely true.

        What’s the difference between your concept of truth and the above?

        To further cement the similarity, do you believe that a scientologist is able to leave their body at will and make a concrete impact at a different location? For example, could a scientologist in any way directly interact with the physical world at a location other than their own?

      • “All of it was arrived at empirically. That is self-evidently when you read the books and accompanying lectures in chronological order.”

        There are, of course, multiple definitions and interpretations of the concept, which may differ between a layperson and a professional scientist.

        Do you mean that ‘all’ of scientology was arrived at empirically in the sense that it is “depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.” or in the sense that it may be objectively proven through demonstration or non-biased experimentation? Can any of the empirical elements to which you refer withstand non-biased scientific scrutiny?

      • Also, on a more basic level, what about from the perspective of the adherent? Is the catholic who KNOWS that God is real and reliably impacts their lives (feeling it is past the realm of belief) any different than the scientologist who KNOWS that their… system… works and is true?

        From what I gather, both people can only feel that internally, but couldn’t necessarily reliably demonstrate this knowledge in a way that impacts the physical world. The only thing that it appears that both people can claim are fairly esoteric terms like “increased happiness” or “more success”. Is that accurate?

      • Comment by appless on January 12, 2013 5:32 pm

        As I already stated, I don’t know Wicca principles. Your response to my asking for a principle that can be applied to life that works, was to tell me that it’s belief based, which was my point to begin with. Scientology is not belief based.

      • Comment by appless on January 12, 2013 5:36 pm

        Researching something empirically is scientific. In order to test it you need to use the principle and observe the result. It will either be true for you if it works or not true if you are unable to observe it for yourself.

        Discussing it won’ t change the fact that you need to do it, to see if it works

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research

      • TL;DR: your link disproves your claim.

        Would you say, then, that anything that one has to “do” to see if it works is scientific? For example, back to Wicca, one is taught not to accept anything as true unless they’ve tried it and it works for them. By your definition, that appears to be quite scientific.

        Your link, however, says that empirical evidence can be “analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively” by a researcher, and empirical evidence is best used when questions cannot be answered in a laboratory setting. Would you say that the empirical evidence could be appropriately analyzed by anyone other than the individual, eliminating the subjective concerns of such research? Also, could much of scientology not be properly analyzed in the lab? For example, exteriorization; it appears to me that such a thing could be very easily confirmed or rejected in a non-biased objective setting.

        Your link also says that, “Accurate analysis of data using standardized statistical methods in scientific studies is critical to determining the validity of empirical research”. Most importantly, your own link says, “Among scientific researchers, empirical evidence (as distinct from empirical research) refers to objective evidence that appears the same regardless of the observer. For example, a thermometer will not display different temperatures for each individual who observes it. Temperature, as measured by an accurate, well calibrated thermometer, is empirical evidence. By contrast, non-empirical evidence is subjective, depending on the observer.”

        This does not appear to describe scientology, as it varies a great deal depending on the individual. Actual scientific empirical data, according to the link you provided, can NOT only be true for the individual, as “The use of empirical evidence negates this effect of personal (i.e., subjective) experience”. Therefore, scientology is not empirical according to your link.

      • If I may ask, how is something that can only be experienced subjectively NOT be belief-based. For example, you might claim that you can exteriorize, but could you read something that’s on the other side of a wall?

      • From non-religious, common sense moral code by L Ron Hubbard

        “21. FLOURISH* AND PROSPER**

        Sometimes others seek to crush one down, to make nothing out of one’s hopes and dreams, one’s future and oneself.

        By ridicule and many other means, another who is evil-intentioned toward one can try to bring about one’s decline.

        For whatever reason, efforts to improve oneself, to become happier in life, can become the subject of attacks.

        It is sometimes necessary to handle such directly. But there is a long-range handling that seldom fails.

        What, exactly, are such people trying to do to one? They are trying to reduce one downward.

        They must conceive that one is dangerous to them in some way: that if one got up in the world, one could be a menace to them . So, in various ways, such seek to depress one’s talents and capabilities.

        Some madmen even have a general plan that goes like this: “If A becomes more successful, A could be a menace to me; therefore I must do all I can to make A less successful.” It never seems to occur to such that their actions might make an enemy out of A even though he was no enemy before. It can be classed as an almost certain way for such madmen to get into trouble. Some do it just from prejudice or because they “don’t like someone.”

        But however it is attempted, the real object of such is to make their target grow less and fail in life.

        The real handling of such a situation and such people, the real way to defeat them is to flourish and prosper.

        Oh, yes, it is true that such people, seeing one improve his lot, can become frantic and attack all the harder. The thing to do is handle them if one must but don’t give up flourishing and prospering, for that is what such people want you to do.

        If you flourish and prosper more and more, such people go into apathy about it: they can give it up completely.

        If one’s aims in life are worthwhile, if one carries them out with some attention to the precepts in this book, if one flourishes and prospers, one certainly will wind up the victor. And, hopefully, without harming a single hair on their heads.

        And that is my wish for you:
        flourish and prosper!

        * flourish: to be in a state of activity and production; expanding in influence; thriving; visibly doing well.

        **. prosper: to achieve economic success; succeeding at what one does.

      • And flourish and prosper to you, as well! I truly hope that you never encounter anyone that would oppose you personally in the way your text described.

        Sorry for the delay in replying, apparently my original reply didn’t post :(

        and then I posted in the wrong place…

    • Comment by appless on January 12, 2013 5:43 pm

      These questions show that you just aren’t getting the concept of Scientology’s tenet – It’s something we DO, not believe. Catholicism is a belief-based system. Scientology isn’t.

      A Scientology principle can be applied in life and show a result.

      An example would be the ARC Triangle.
      http://www.scientology.org/what-is-scientology/basic-principles-of-scientology/the-arc-triangle.html?video=scn6a_arc

      • What is the difference between a scientologist that operates according to your concept above, and a voodoo practitioner who DOES voodoo because they’ve tested it and they know it works? Or a spiritual medium that DOES, and not believes, that that they can communicate with a spiritual realm that they’ve confirmed for themselves exists?

        I’m genuinely trying to understand your position, and appreciate your comments. I know you’re getting frustrated, so I will try to ask my questions and respond to your answers very delicately.

        As part of scientology involves belief in a spiritual nature (which they feel is supported by their experiences) and is coupled with an action (such as learning methods for communicating) that are not dependent on the spiritual claims, is there a difference between scientology and a religious-based self-help program?

      • You have yet to tell me 1) the result of testing the principle of the ARC triangle and 2) a principle (tool) of Wicca that can be done that has an observable result.

        The key here is “observable”. That is either quantitative or qualitative or both. It can be reproduced, thus my asking YOU to use the tool yourself. What would happen to you if it worked? What would the result be if you cannot find a tool in Wicca that can be tested this way. The point being that empirical method is scientific and that is how Dianetics and Scientology were researched. One only need to study the basic texts and accompanying lectures to see the track the research took empirically. You refuse to test it then say it can’t be tested. I’m not going to argue this with you. Scientology needs no proof. Scientology doesn’t need your approval. There are many who’ve used it and seen it work, including myself.

      • Oh, I’m sure it has worked for you, and that’s wonderful. But why aren’t the results predictable and universal? Consider the link that you provided, where an excellent example of what “empirical” data actually is. What if I looked at a thermometer and told you that it read 73 degrees. You look at it and told me that it read 50 degrees. We both look at it, but we see different things, and we can’t objectively confirm our findings. Would you say that’s “scientific” in any way?

        Per your link, scientology is entirely subjective and doesn’t stand against the criteria for “science”. If it could, then certain elements could be very easily objectively established in an empirical way and completely remove all doubt between “belief” and “objective reality”. A perfect example, again, is exteriorization- could it be done in a proper controlled setting, or can it only be done within the “experience” of the person?

  10. THIS POST IS A QUESTION FOR LOUANNE:

    Louanne, is there any truth to recent headlines that Scientologists believe that psychiatrists caused the holocaust?

    • @appless on January 8, 2013 10:25 pm
      “Louanne, is there any truth to recent headlines that Scientologists believe that psychiatrists caused the holocaust?”

      Laid the ground for it, for sure. The back story of the holocaust/psychiatry connection is well documented. If you are interested you could read this:

      http://www.cchr.org/documentaries/age-of-fear/creating-the-holocaust.html

      and then go on and watch that:

      http://www.cchr.org/videos/psychiatry-an-industry-of-death/psychiatry-the-men-behind-the-holocaust.html

      -L

      • I see a tenuous link, at best. The first in the list, (1859) Darwin, was a biologist, although scientology doesn’t seem to oppose biology.
         
        (1879) Then you have Wundt, with a very oversimplified version of his theory. In fact, he drew a distinction between humans and animals in his “Lectures on the Mind of Humans and Animals”. He was an experimental psychologist, and did prove that humans could be taught with stimulus response, which is quite accurate. Wundt actually believed that the soul was a physiological, rather than a supernatural , concept which wasn’t a unique concept even at the time. Far from having his thoughts on the soul “taught throughout the world”, he avoided talking at length about the soul.
         
        (1883) While Galton did indeed study psychology, he was a “polymath: anthropologist, eugenicist, tropical explorer, geographer, inventor, meteorologist, proto-geneticist, psychometrician, and statistician” (wikipedia). But were you aware of his proposal to accomplish eugenics? He felt that the weal should remain celibate, and that breeding should be encouraged by the intelligent and successful. At no time did he propose anything related to the holocaust.
         
        (1895) Alfred Ploetz was a doctor and biologist, not a psychiatrist.
         
        (1898) The Race Betterment Foundation was founded by medical doctor John Kellogg (of the breakfast cereal fame). He was not a psychiatrist either.
         
        (1904) Ploetz, again, was not a psychiatrist.
         
        (1904) Davenport was a biologist. Carnagie was a businessman. Fisher was a professor of medicine and anthropology. None of them were psychiatrists.
         
        (1905) Ploetz, is still not a psychiatrist. His brother is, however, but he was also a Nazi. One would have to wonder which of his leanings influenced his position.
         
        (1907) Laughlin was not a psychologist.
         
        (1910) No psychologists are mentioned here.
         
        (1911) Davenport and Laughlin are still not psychologists.
         
        (1912) Ploetz is still not a psychologist
         
        (1913) The Iowa law was influenced by Josiah Kennedy, a medical doctor.

        (1916) Rudin is still a Nazi psychologist, and a very bad person.

        (1920) Hoche was a psychiatrist, Binding was a jurist.

        (1921) the US secretary of commerce and Herbert Hoover were not psychologists.

        (1921) not sure about Bauer, but Fischer was not a psychiatrist and lenz was a geneticist

        (1923) Neither lenz or ploetz are psychologists.

        (1924) Boeters was a medical doctor. He reference American sterilization processes that were themselves not created by psychiatrists

        (1925) Hitler was not a psychiatrist. Hoche still was.

        The same names appear up through the point where the Nazi eugenics program began. the grounds that were laid, which you attribute to psychiatrists, were in fact laid by biologists, geneticists and doctors, yet they are not similarly blamed.

        one can argue that psychiatrists were involved to an extent, but we have to consider that these were Nazi psychiatrists, which certainly impacted their views far more than their profession. Do you also hold accountable the Nazi doctors that speed the party?

        but let’s ignore for a moment the fact that there is no support for the claim that psychiatrist “laid the groundwork” for the holocaust, much less caused it. how can you use that as a case against the profession today? nazi doctors did horrible experiments on the jews- froze them to death, cut them open while they were still alive; do you blame today’s medical profession for that?

      • louanne,
        in order to gain a complete picture of psychistry’s role in the eugenics movement, please consider reading the work of Ian Robert Dowbiggin. he specifically studied this phenomenon and shows that psychiatry and psychiatrists played a critical role in the passage of tge first anti-eugenics laws.

        while it is true tgat many psychiatrists (just like many biologists, doctors, etc) supported the concept (of positive eugenics, which was encouraging tge “fit” to have as many children as possible ratger than negative eugenics like was practiced in germany), it was largely psychiatry’s stand against eugenics that led to its collapse as a discipline. psychiatrists George Adler Blumer and Charles Kirk Clarke were two that laid the groundwork to kill the eugenics program.

      • I have a comment on this if you’re interested

      • That was in reply to your comments on the links L gave you for documentation for the involvement of psychiatrists and psychologists in the holocaust. For some reason WordPress isn’t indenting replies on threads.

      • I’m very interested, please.

      • Nowhere does it state in the documentation that Louanne refers to, that these documents were FROM psychiatrists or psychologists, nor does Louanne say that. Think about this. Why would you expect that these guys would self document their involvement in the Holocaust and the killing of 6 million Jews?

      • but the link claims that some people were psychiatrists when they actually were not.

        you do raise a very good point- there is a notable lack of documentation linking psychiatrists to the holocaust. and youre right! I certainly wouldn’t document my involvement with such horrors!! But without such documents, how do you blame paychiatriats, particularly when so many doctors and scientists did have a documented connection?

      • thank you Pat, by the way, for your very logical and well-reasoned point. I look forward to your thoughts on this very engaging topic.

      • I think that we can all agree that psychiatrists were INVOLVED, and that many of them committed crimes during the atrocities of World War II. However, I don’t see any case that could be made for saying that psychiatrists caused the holocaust, or that psychiatric work formed a significant basis for its execution. Furthermore, I think we have to distinguish between “psychiatrists” and “Nazi psychiatrists”, the latter being the ones that actually helped support the terrible acts. The holocaust was in no way supported by the entire profession, and not even all of the German psychiatrists supported the atrocities. To imply that psychiatrists were somehow guiding the process could be potentially offensive to the millions of victims by reducing the planning and implementation roles of the true perpetrators. Hitler himself planned euthanasia from the start for military purposes- he said that “in the event of war, [he] would take up the question of euthanasia and enforce it” because “such a problem would be more easily solved” during wartime. He wanted to free up hospital beds and medical professional for the war, and knew that war would silence the expected criticism.

        Let’s consider the euthanasia program that began prior to the holocaust, from 1939-1941. Physicians (not psychiatrists) planned and implemented the program, and were aided by surgeons and nurses. Were psychiatrists involved? Certainly. But it wasn’t the psychiatrists leading the programs. In fact, the so-called T4 program resulted in tens of thousands of people killed, and psychiatrist Karl Bonhoeffer was among those that rallied against the program and had it shut down. There were no repercussions against Bonhoeffer, either professionally or personally, which you would expect if he went against some sort of conspiracy within the entire or regional profession. Yes, a psychiatrist helped to shut down the German eugenics program.

        But Hitler and his commanders weren’t done there. They waited until the war was fully underway and launched the holocaust, not only killing millions but using the “undersirables” to further their medical / surgical knowledge. They conducted high altitude tests on the prisoners, lowering the air pressure until their lungs exploded. They tested hypothermia theories on them by freezing them to death. They killed them just to display their skeletons in a collection. They tested drugs and vaccinations on them. They broke their bones and infected the wounds, then fed them seas water until they went into cardiac arrest and operated on them without anesthesia. In fact, it was the medical doctors- the physicians and surgeons- that joined the party most willingly, with 45% of physicians willingly joining, many with the desire of improving their medical and scientific knowledge- the US Holocaust Museum calls physicians the most “highly Nazified professional group of Germany” and notes that it was Hitler’s personal medical physician that headed the program, not a psychiatrist. They got the best labs, the largest budgets and the best conditions for doing so. Dr, Elise Huber, the president of the German Medical Association, acknowledges that the medical community was largely responsible; “”Today we know and must accept the responsibility that the medical community was [involved], and that community remained silent . . . It was . . . medical megalomania that paved the way for the Nazi ideology and the Holocaust.” The German Medical Association represents physicians, not psychiatrists, which are represented by the German Psychological Society. He was accepting blame on behalf of the medical profession.

        This is reflected in the findings of the international court. During the Nuremburg trials, 23 medical doctors were tried for their crimes- not a single psychiatrist was ever charged by the US War Crimes Tribunal. The only psychiatrists involved were for the prosecution. Among those tried included those that actually implemented and developed the eugenics programs and those that were given charge over the tests. The international court poured over secret texts and captured documents and was able to find those to blame for causing the atrocities- none of them were psychiatrists.

        To be fair, however, the modern psychiatric community does condemn the acts of those psychiatrists that were involved.

        Therefore, we can see that psychiatrists were far from the CAUSE of the holocaust, and we’ve already established that it was the medical and scientific community that laid most of the groundwork. We can see, here, that it was the surgeons and physicians that both encouraged and profited (in a sense) from the horrors, which was allowed by the government. Not psychiatrists anywhere in that mix, or at least not in any significant sense. We can also see that the only psychiatrists that encouraged the holocaust were specifically Nazis- there was no consensus within the psychiatric community as a whole and not even within the psychiatric community of Germany! And even the modern psychiatric community denounces the actions of the individual psychiatrists that, like so many in Germany, tolerated or assisted in the holocaust.

        So, how can we blame the psychiatric profession as a whole for something that was supported only by the Nazis? How can we do so without also holding equally, if not more, accountable the medical doctors that actually planned and implemented the holocaust or the politicians that directed it?

      • ” that psychiatrists caused the holocaust, or that psychiatric work formed a significant basis for its execution. ”

        Louanne didn’t say that. In fact, when you asked she stated that they laid the groundwork for it.

      • “Louanne didn’t say that. In fact, when you asked she stated that they laid the groundwork for it.”

        Consider my original question- “is there any truth to recent headlines that Scientologists believe that psychiatrists caused the holocaust?” She didn’t answer that question, although she didn’t say “no” either. Her link, however, made several similar claims that i disputed. In addition to their being no validity to the claim (in my original question) that psychiatrists CAUSED the holocaust, there’s also no real rationale for saying that they “laid the groundwork”, unless you’re saying that “a small number of psychiatrists made a small contribution to the medical and biological ideas that eventually led to the holocaust”.

        What do you think about my original question; do you think psychiatrists caused the holocaust?

      • Here is that conversation:

        [@appless on January 8, 2013 10:25 pm
        “Louanne, is there any truth to recent headlines that Scientologists believe that psychiatrists caused the holocaust?”]

        “Laid the ground for it, for sure. The back story of the holocaust/psychiatry connection is well documented. If you are interested you could read this: ”

        Sure looks like an answer to me. You asked about what Scientologists believe. Louanne can only answer fro herself, since she is not “Scientologists”. I also have never seen that headline and i follow news daily.

      • Perhaps Louanne will so kind as to clarify her answer. I asked if it’s true that scientologists believe x, and her answer could be construed as “they believe they laid the groundwork” for this.

        I was interested and did follow her link (which claims that psychology had a role in “creating” the holocaust and that it “Created” the racial hygiene movement and lists of chronology of how eugenics and the holocaust was “caused” by psychologists; the video claims that Nazi’s killed millions BASED on psychiatry and psychology) and was surprised at how inaccurate, misleading and untrue so much of it was! Frankly, I object to the needless vilification of a group based solely on their profession, which I feel that CCHR perpetrates and encourages- causes, even.

        I clarified how the links that she provided in her answer specifically supported the concept that psychiatrists “caused” or “created” the holocaust in a way that was misleading and factually incorrect in very many cases. What’s terrible to me is that the role of the true criminals are significantly downplayed in order to attack a different group. Why not admit that it was the medical and scientific community that not only caused the horrors but admitted to doing so?

        There weren’t many articles, and they were generally overseas. However, my question is grounded in the fact that multiple headlines made such a claim.

      • You may have missed the question, but do you personally believe that psychiatrists caused the holocaust?

      • Comment by appless on January 11, 2013 9:40 pm

        I don’t see where you asked me specifically, but I’ll answer anyway.

        Hitler brought the psychiatrists in to help him. Psychiatrists created the euthanasia program and ideology. So both Hitler and the psychs are responsible for creating the holocaust

        http://scientologyagainstdrugs.wordpress.com/category/psychiatrists-admit-they-created-hitlers-holocaust/

      • That site is highly biased and not backed up in fact. They choose to present quotes rather than actual historical facts. Did you not read the post that I made recently? The head of Hitler’s Eugenics program was a medical doctor. The architect of his program, and the US one upon which it was based was a biologist. The chiefs of the programs and experiments were scientists and medical doctors. As I posted previously, the head of the German Medical Association acknowledged that it was medical doctors that laid the groundwork and allowed the holocaust to happen; your site only has the head of the German Psychiatric Association criticizing the actions of the psychiatrists that chose to participate in the horrors- today’s psychiatrists also despise the actions of the Nazi psychiatrists.

        If it was the psychiatrists that cause it, why were there no psychiatrists tried or convicted in the Nuremberg trials? Why was it only medical doctors that were tried?

      • Just so I understand, do you draw a distinction between the Nazi psychiatrists and the non-nazi psychiatrists that did no such thing? Between the german psychiatrists that supported the killings and those that opposed and fought it? Between Nazi psychiatrists and the profession today?

      • I’ll drop a few facts here:

        Adolph Hitler was, of course, the primary architect of the holocaust. His stated reason was to reduce “undesirables” and to free up resources for global conquest. He brought with him a vertitable who’s who of sociopaths- his right hand man was Heinrich Himmler, who was a soldier. Reinhard Heydrich was a solcier and a police officer. Ernsy Kaltenbrunner was an SS soldier. Adolph Eichmann was an SS soldier. Rudolph Hoss was an SS soldier and a former priest. Heinrich Muller was gestapo. Oswold Pohl was an SS soldier. Fritz Sauckel was a sailor. Hans Frank was a lawyer. Willhelm Frick was a politician. Robert Ley was a politician.

        These were the individuals that planned and directed the holocaust. These were the men that gave the orders and created the plans. To say otherwise is to excuse these sociopaths for what they had done.

        The pre-holocaust euthenasia program was headed by phsycians and based primarily on the research of biologists and medical doctors. It was established in October 1939 when Hitler signed the “euthenasia decree” which specifically charged Dr. Med Karl Brandt (not a psychiatrist) with carrying out the program.

        “Reich Leader Bouhler and Dr. med. Brandt are charged with the responsibility of enlarging the competence of certain physicians, designated by name, so that patients who, on the basis of human judgment [menschlichem Ermessen], are considered incurable, can be granted mercy death [Gnadentod] after a discerning diagnosis.”

        The order, signed by Hitler, specified that the Medical Doctor was to co-lead the program (along with the non-psychiatrist administrator), and that it was to enlarge the competence of physicians- not psychiatrists but physicians. Hitler never mentioned psychiatry nor did he bring any psychiatrists to the program- his order was to the contrary. As I mentioned before, it was a psychiatrist that helped lead the effort to STOP the program!

        Now, some Nazi psychiatrists DID indeed help the effort, and they should not be forgiven for the horrors in which they participated in. But you could only say that “psychiatrists” helped cause the holocaust in the same sense that you can say that lawyers, teachers and businessmen helped caused the holocaust- they didn’t plan it and they didn’t have any say over its execution; they were just a part like the soldiers and citizens of the area. In fact, immediately after world war II, psychiatrists helped to convict the war criminals, and psychiatrists began to study the holocaust to understand how so many people could get caught up in such a thing. Maybe you’ve heard of Milgram’s experiment (and the many that have replicated it since then)? To oversimplify the findings, he proved that a vast majority of people could be made to literally kill another human being merely by our inclination to obey authority. How much more so when the entire government and culture was telling you to do something!

        We can see that the holocaust was ordered by Nazi leaders and politicians and carried out primarily by medical doctors. We can see that Hitler intended the original T4 program to be a medical, rather than psychiatric, program and put a medical doctor in charge of the program. It’s undeniable that psychiatrists, like lawyers and laborers, participated, but it would be willfully ignorant to say that only one group “caused” it or played a larger role than the medical doctors. We also can’t say that the one of the many psychiatric philosophies influenced those that led the holocaust, as they never gave credit to those ideals. If one wants to, they can ASSUME that one of the many psychiatric theories of the day in some way contributed, but even then they would have to acknowledge the similar (and far more compelling) arguments made by the scientists of the time.

        But all of the psychs and lawyers and laborers and doctors that were involved have one thing in common- they were either Nazis or supported the aims of the Nazi party. Do you think it was their profession or their affiliation with the Nazis that caused them to do what they did? And, again, do you think that their past actions have any bearing on their professions today?

      • Comment by appless on January 12, 2013 5:50 pm

        Who ran the program and whose idea it was are two different things.It’s bias on your part to twist data (who ran the program versus who ordered it [Hitler]). German psychiatrists clearly admit they caused it. It is illogical to say these are the same thing.

      • I’m not twisting any data, unlike the links that have been provided (eg, calling a medical doctor with no experience in psychology a “psychologist”). I’m providing verifiable facts. German psychiatrists admit their role, yes- as they should. German medical doctors, as I said before, admitted that THEY caused it and it wouldn’t have happened without their participation and greed. Why, then, do you single out psychology and ignore the medical profession’s role?

        Furthermore, there’s no record that any of the actual architects of the holocaust were in any way influenced by, or even aware, of the few psychological schools of thought that in any way supported eugenics. And, again I remind you that a German psychiatrist led the charge against the T4 program!

        But even if the Nazi psychiatrists WERE solely responsible (which we can clearly see they are not) how does that reflect on the profession as a whole, especially when the rest of the profession did not participate or visibly support it? How does that reflect on the profession today, if it does?

        Can you at least admit that psychiatrists weren’t the only profession that participated, and that the profession didn’t unanimously support the efforts?

      • Comment by appless on January 14, 2013 3:36 pm

        You still aren’t getting it and this is the last time I will speak of this. Scientology needs no proof. What is true is true for YOU only if you observe it to work on being applied.

        So, yes, it is subjective in that sense.

        When tested by LRH, what happened to the pc was the observable result. What the pc said, or did was the observable result. You can recreate it. The problem you seem to be having is that you have to do it yourself to see if it works. The same anyone would have. We are individuals and each different. There is no “universal” same result from individual to individual. One may have a different realization than you do, etc. etc. The premise you seem to be operating on is that you should be able to see a lab test when it’s not an empirical lab type per the definition I gave you earlier.

        ” Research design varies by field and by the question being investigated. Many researchers combine qualitative and quantitative forms of analysis to better answer questions which cannot be studied in laboratory settings, particularly in the social sciences and in education.”

        Like it or not, Scientology was researched empirically – scientifically.

      • I respectfully disagree, largely because uf what you say is true, the lack of academic scrutiny is voluntary. if what you say is not true, than the lack of objective analysis is necessary.

        a very simple question would clear this all up, and define scientology as either belief-based or objectively true; could any scientologist exteriorize at will in a labratory setting? could that person read something on the other side of a wall?

        if what you’re saying is true, this should be very easy.

      • “if what you’re saying is true, this should be very easy.”

        Have at it. It’s only true for you if you personally observe it on application. Go for it.

      • “For sure.”

        So, despite all evidence to the contrary, you somehow believe that psychiatrists played a fundamental part in “laying the groundwork” of the holocaust, and you can take the actions of specifically Nazi psychiatrists and somehow say that their actions have some bearing on the ones that opposed the holocaust and the ones that weren’t even born yet. That makes sense. Can’t figure out how you give the medical profession (the ones that advocated for, helped plan and execute the whole thing) a pass, but I suppose you’ve already made up your mind about that.

        “Have at it. It’s only true for you if you personally observe it on application. Go for it.”

        So exteriorization only works if you don’t try to do anything real with it, got it. I guess if one “exteriorizes” and looks at newspaper otherwise hidden from their view, they’d be able to only see something that was only true for them? What’s the utility if what you “see” while operating outside of your body isn’t what anyone else would see if they were physically looking at it?

      • And flourish and prosper to you, as well! I truly hope that you never encounter anyone that would oppose you personally in the way your text described.

        Sorry for the delay in replying, apparently my original reply didn’t post :(


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

  • What is this blog?

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

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

    Or search below.
  • Archives

  • Religion Photo Feed