State of Mind

[Michael]

How do you describe a person's mental state when said individual is a Scientologist and believes in the existence of the alien OverLord Xenu (pbuh) and his Prophet Ron Hubbard (pbuh)?

Would you say this person is religiously devout?
Would you say they are brainwashed?

Are they enlightened or deluded?


Suppose said individual lost the ability to recognize simple facts. Such as this: It is possible that there is no Xenu. It is possible that Rob Hubbard made it all up. It is even possible that some of the Scientologists after Ron Hubbard added to it, canonized it and they made some of it up as well.

If said individual can not recognize these potential facts are they what? Nuts? Pious? Brainwashed? Devote? What exactly?

Suppose said individual was so deep in the beleif of Scientology they refused to recognize that the possibility could exist that Xenu was not real. They were basically living day to day praying to Xenu, worrying about what Xenu thought of them, telling people about Xenu, talking about how society would be better if only everyone would follow the true teachings of Ron Hubbard... what then?


How would you describe their State of Mind?

[lightgigantic]

generally people ascribe their state of mind to their experiences and values.

I mean, you could talk why it may be crazy for you to be a scientologist (by dint of your experiences and values), but if you want to call in question a particular person, you would get a different picture.

Its a common misconception that religious congregations are homogeneous (ie to talk of the "scientologist" and why they are one) - anyone who has had any indepth experience with congregations can understand this.

[Michael]

OK, I'm asking you how would YOU describe the above mentioned state of mind? From your experiences.

I'd say there's a difference between a Scientologist who recognizes that yes their beleif in Xenu may be wrong but still maintain it (as in they have faith that is it correct) and someone who can not recognize their beleif may indeed be wrong and Xenu, well, He just might not really exist.

Wouldn't you agree that the two people have different states of mind regarding their beleif?

[greenberg]

Michael,

I think what you are getting at is simply the differentiation between realization and blind belief. Even oneself can have much difficulty to distinguish between the two.

However, for an external observer, it is usually impossible to correctly assess whether a person indeed has realization, or whether they are merely in a state of blind belief.

There really isn't much to say about this, other than actually taking up the practices oneself that the other person says they have taken them up, and seeing where they lead one.
Otherwise, talking about these things is a waste of time.

[Michael]

I think the Scientologist herein described, has to a degree, lost their logical state of thinking - when said thinking involves Xenu. I'm sure on other subjects they could think logically, but, in regards to Xenu ... they can not. Other than this they could live day to day as rationally as the rest of us, which is why we're are so loath to suggest they are nuts. In all outward appearances they seem rational. And for most cases they probably are. But when it comes to Xenu, then things in their mind breakdown. Logical thought processes are somehow lost.

For the most part, most Scientologist live their religous life away from the normal day to day life. This is because most people are kind of creeped out when they see someone praying to Xenu. Scientologist understand this and hide it from us.

I imagine that for another theist, it must be extremely unsettling - as they themselves are praying just as fervently to their own Xenu or YWHA or Allah or who have you.

That may be, at least one reason why people kill people of their faiths? When all things are considered equal. It could also be why scull caps, burkas, flying-saucer hats etc... are worn. To announce to the world: I'm so deep in this shit I want everyone to know about it, and I'm happy to take the heat. In a sense, such a person is saying they understand it puts many people off, but they don't care. They want us to know that they've thought about it and they want to wear the little flying saucer hat anyway. Well, unless they were taught, from childhood, that they must wear the little flying saucer cap or Xenu will be displease.. that's any altogether different situation.



I wonder, could it be considered child abuse to teach children that not wearing the little flying saucer cap will make Xenu very very mad? Even if it means this child will be the butt of many jokes at school? It could be good for the cult, you see, it segregates this child from the rest, she or he will more than likely only form a tight relationship within the community. Especially if said community is large enough to actually ostracize him or her. Especially if said community kills people for not wearing this little flying saucer cap.

Hmmmmmm...........

[lightgigantic]

I think the Scientologist herein described, has to a degree, lost their logical state of thinking - when said thinking involves Xenu.[/I]and there you have it
most scientologists I have encountered are not so much into the Xenu trip (as you are) but are more interested in human values, psychology etc etc in an Amway sort of sense.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Yes but I hated to see Tom's beliefs so criticized while apparently accepting christianity as logical.

[Michael]

and there you have it
most scientologists I have encountered are not so much into the Xenu trip (as you are) but are more interested in human values, psychology etc etc in an Amway sort of sense.Would you agree that when people can not think logically, they are more prone to being manipulated by the leaders of their religon?

Also, I'll copy this over from another thread:
Imagine if there existed a group of people who worshiped Xenu and another who worshiped Zenu. In one situation they teach their children that ALL Alien Overlords are allowed to be worshiped and it's OK that other people worship Zenu. In another situation they instead insist on teaching their children that ONLY Xenu is the True Alien OverLord! Only their Book is the Perfect book! The Xur'an is the TRUE word of Xenu via an intergalactic mind-beam and into Ron Hubbard (pbuh) head!!! Next we see Xenuists murdering people of the Zenu. Slitting their throats and cutting off their head all while screaming "Xenu is Great!" "Xenu is Great!"

If we are going to teach illogical thinking, then I would hope we would at least try to make such superstitions as gentle as possible - keep repeating it's wrong to kill, it's wrong to kill, it's wrong to kill, so that people don't do it.

Yes but I hated to see Tom's beliefs so criticized while apparently accepting christianty as logical.Fair call. Poor Poor billionaire Tom :p

Actually, Tom (pbuh) is just going nuts period, on the backdrop of Scientology it's sort of funny.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

I doubt he's a billionaire but that's not crucial.
Fair call but he's going nuts??? He's no more nuts than 85% of people.
Christians call Scientology a cult but the only reason they get away with that is most people is the USA are christian. There's no logic to it but they can't see it due to their blinders.

[Michael]

I was thinking having lived a couple of decades in Hollywood would probably drive anyone nuts.

That's funny about Christians. During the Roman Empire THEY were the cult. They were also called atheists for denying the Gods. That said, Roman society was becoming more monotheistic anyway, even without Xainity Sol Invictus was already becoming a redeeming mono-God for Romans.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Christians kidnap a cultist friend or relative & deprogram them using mainly The Holy Babble not realizing they need deprogramming also.

[Michael]

deprogramming with the Bible ... shit, that's scary.

[Simon Anders]

How do you describe a person's mental state when said individual is a Scientologist and believes in the existence of the alien OverLord Xenu (pbuh) and his Prophet Ron Hubbard (pbuh)?

How would you describe the state of mind of someone who thinks that if they have a __________(fill in brand of car) they will get laid more and are more valuable as a person?
or someone who believe that on Sunday they eat the body of Christ?
or someone who believes that the US is a democracy?
or someone who believes they are really just complicated machines?

[lightgigantic]

Would you agree that when people can not think logically, they are more prone to being manipulated by the leaders of their religon?
people who can not think logically are more prone to being manipulated full stop

[Michael]

How would you describe the state of mind of someone who thinks that if they have a __________(fill in brand of car) they will get laid more and are more valuable as a person?Shallow.

or someone who believe that on Sunday they eat the body of Christ?Kind of Creepy

or someone who believes that the US is a democracy?Idealist


or someone who believes they are really just complicated machines?Visionary

people who can not think logically are more prone to being manipulated full stopAgreed.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Humans are organic machines.

[greenberg]

people who can not think logically are more prone to being manipulated full stop

True. But being able to think logically will not be enough to prevent one from being manipulated either.

Applying logical reasoning without this reasoning being informed by goals and values, leads to decay and decadence. There is no guarantee that if one simply reasons logically, one will have a "good life" or be happy.

[lightgigantic]

True. But being able to think logically will not be enough to prevent one from being manipulated either.

Applying logical reasoning without this reasoning being informed by goals and values, leads to decay and decadence. There is no guarantee that if one simply reasons logically, one will have a "good life" or be happy.
actually I was thinking the same thing - logic is only effective to the degree that the premises are truthful ... and even then, fallible as we are by conditioned nature, sound intelligence is not our constant companion

[cosmictraveler]

How do you describe a person's mental state when said individual is a Scientologist and believes in the existence of the alien OverLord Xenu (pbuh) and his Prophet Ron Hubbard (pbuh)?

That person is just as delusional as all religions are and only wants a tax break and poke fun at everyone else. ;)

[swarm]

greenberg There is no guarantee that if one simply reasons logically, one will have a "good life" or be happy.

Seems to be working for me. Epicurus managed nicely. Oh, the list goes on, but if you really want guarantees religion is happy to give you as many false ones as you need.

[Simon Anders]

greenberg There is no guarantee that if one simply reasons logically, one will have a "good life" or be happy.

Seems to be working for me.This is what is generally called anecdotal evidence.

Epicurus managed nicely.How do you know Epicurus was happy? Oh, the list goes on, but if you really want guarantees religion is happy to give you as many false ones as you need. How do you yourself evaluate this as an argument? what is it actually?

[swarm]

Simon Anders This is what is generally called anecdotal evidence.

Since I'm giving you first hand confirmation it is not anecdotal evidence. Granted I'm a single data point, but that is a start.

Simon Anders How do you know Epicurus was happy?

Same way you know any one is. He reported being happy and it was confirmed by those who knew him. In fact he was so successful at being happy that people came to his garden to learn from him and for several hundred years followed his practices, until the xtians wiped them out.

Simon Anders what is it actually?

Take about a fist sized rock. Drop it on your foot. Repeat until you understand actually.

[Simon Anders]

Simon Anders This is what is generally called anecdotal evidence.

Since I'm giving you first hand confirmation it is not anecdotal evidence. Granted I'm a single data point, but that is a start.


You are not correct. The definition is broader.

The expression anecdotal evidence has two quite distinct meanings.

(1) Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity: the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy or untrue.

(2) Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion from which it does not follow, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.

In both cases the conclusion is unreliable; it might happen not to be untrue, but it doesn't follow from the "evidence".

Simon Anders How do you know Epicurus was happy?

Same way you know any one is. He reported being happy and it was confirmed by those who knew him. In fact he was so successful at being happy that people came to his garden to learn from him and for several hundred years followed his practices, until the xtians wiped them out.
So you believe some stories in old books.

Simon Anders what is it actually?

Take about a fist sized rock. Drop it on your foot. Repeat until you understand actually.
Yes, it was a cast rock and not an argument.

[Changeling]

Simon Anders: "So you believe some stories in old books."

Well, it's not exactly a supernatural claim. And, you don't have to "believe" it. You can just try it and see if it actually works that way.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Coworker :BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
Stranger : I have different beliefs.
Coworker : Are you happy?
Stranger : No.
Coworker : Then your beliefs aren't doing you any good.

[Simon Anders]

Simon Anders: "So you believe some stories in old books."

Well, it's not exactly a supernatural claim. And, you don't have to "believe" it. You can just try it and see if it actually works that way.
Wow you and swarm do quotes the same way. Kind of like a swarm or a changeling.

I never said it was a supernatural claim, just a weakly supported one, and also, I'll add now, anecdotal evidence.

[Changeling]

Simon Anders: "Wow you and swarm do quotes the same way."


I've been doing this since long before new-fangled auto-quoting.




Simon Anders: "I never said it was a supernatural claim, just a weakly supported one, and also, I'll add now, anecdotal evidence."


If you have some reason why you think Epicurus' philosophy doesn't work, just say what it is.

[Simon Anders]

Simon Anders: "Wow you and swarm do quotes the same way."


I've been doing this since long before new-fangled auto-quoting.You mean since you joined in August.

Simon Anders: "I never said it was a supernatural claim, just a weakly supported one, and also, I'll add now, anecdotal evidence."


If you have some reason why you think Epicurus' philosophy doesn't work, just say what it is.There is a context to the way I am reacting to swarm the way I am. Rigor cuts two ways.

[Changeling]

Simon Anders: "You mean since you joined in August."

Wrong. I mean since I first started participating in online discussions back in 1995.



Simon Anders: "There is a context to the way I am reacting to swarm the way I am. Rigor cuts two ways."

Sure. But the claim that "Epicurus was happy" is not an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. And, even if there never was a dude named Epicurus and someone else made the whole thing up, it's still someone's philosophy. Only the names have been changed to protect the innocent!

Anyone is still free to give the methods a try and see first hand if they work for creating happiness.

[Simon Anders]

Simon Anders: "You mean since you joined in August."

Wrong. I mean since I first started participating in online discussions back in 1995.Ah, well, then, you can't be the same person as swarm.



Simon Anders: "There is a context to the way I am reacting to swarm the way I am. Rigor cuts two ways."

Sure. But the claim that "Epicurus was happy" is not an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. Again, context. swarm was rebutting a statement of Greenberg's. A statement that was not extraordinary. It was a sloppy response, as are many here, but one could have taken it as a certain kind of argument, a rather extraordinary one. I was pointing out the weakness of that argument.

[swarm]

Simon Anders
usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence.

I'm not generalizing. I'm specifically reporting on my condition, something for which I have more than sufficient evidence and experience.

So you believe some stories in old books.

When the claims are reasonable and well supported and I'm able to verify them, sure.

When the claims are unreasonable and irrational and unsupported and cannot be verified, then no I don't believe them.

I take it you believe anything you read then?

So do you have anything of substance or are you just going to wave your hands in the air and say "anecdotal evidence" again?

I was pointing out the weakness of that argument.

Not yet you aren't.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Everything I don't experience is anecdotal.

[swarm]

StrangerInAStrangeLa

Everything I don't experience is anecdotal.

That must keep you busy.

[Simon Anders]

I'm not generalizing. I'm specifically reporting on my condition, something for which I have more than sufficient evidence and experience. Oh, sorry. I took it as a response to Greenberg whom you quoted. It seemed you did not agree with his rather obviously true statement. I did not realize you were merely chattering. You are quite correct. In the context of merely writing about yourself it was not anecdotal evidence. You were still wrong about what anecdotal evidence was or was not, but I understand your response to me better now.


When the claims are reasonable and well supported and I'm able to verify them, sure. How did you verify that Epicurus was happy?

I take it you believe anything you read then? What a strange conclusion. Please show me why you think this is the case. And also, given the counter examples which are rather glaring in these forums, since I clearly have not agree with things you are written I read, why did these counter examples not make you question this 'take' of yours.

So do you have anything of substance or are you just going to wave your hands in the air and say "anecdotal evidence" again? As someone who 'does' enlightment, as you have claimed, I am sure you know that substance is much more ephemeral than we tend to think of it. I see this as a process. If you would like substance, in your own posts, or in others, I am sure you know how to start the ball rolling.


Not yet you aren't Actually, you have now pointed out that it wasn't an argument. You were merely writing about yourself. If it was an argument, than it was weak because it was, yes, anecdotal evidence. But now that we know it was not an argument against what Greenberg had said, it is a non-issue.

Or I could look at your behavior here and in the Enlightenment thread as hypocritical and notice all the warning signs that you are someone who cannot admit he is wrong and add you to my Ignore list.

Why, I think I will do that. Good luck with it and do keep practicing. Bye.

[swarm]

Simon Anders
Why, I think I will do that.

Oh thank god.