Scientology is a con?

Here is a review thread I wrote back in 2000 from my direct 1999/2000 investigation of COS. Enjoy.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?2335-A-Scientology-Experience&highlight=scientology

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i second this point, although i agree that studying something to some degree is a requirement for talking about it, being a practitioner is not required to get a pretty good grasp of what a religion is about.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You both are missing the point.

The point was that he was demanding an existing or former member to talk about it and insulting anyone that had the audacity to speak of it without having been a member or former member.

So, I told him that if that's his only attitude, he should become a member and basically, tell himself about it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

why is it that everybody assumes everyone else is missing the point around here?
The quote from balerion i agreed with was a response to seagypsy. I think it is safe to say there may be more than one point going around in these threads.

 

I think most people confuse hate with dislike.
For example:

 

I think you should probably stop attempting to defend your wife against everyone who disagrees with her, because you really do come off poorly. She doesn't need your help, anyway, and you're misrepresenting her. Neither of us seem to be disagreeing with the sentiment of "Go find out for yourself," but that's not the only thing she said in her post. She also claimed that first-hand participation is required to understand something. What followed was a healthy discussion between two peers that lead to a better appreciation of the other's position. You don't need to come in and act like we're somehow overlooking something. We're not.

 

I think some people try to redefine hate to mean something more than what it actually does. "Hate" is merely a strong or passionate dislike. You want to make it more than that, have at it, but don't tell me I've got it wrong when you're using personal definitions.

 

Actually, you have it all wrong way around. I said what I said to the guy that was being... obtuse. S.G. then defended what I'd said- a little too emphatically because you jumped all over it's meaning and yadda yadda. In other words, I wasn't agreeing with her interpretation of what I intended, either.
I just spelled out what I had originally meant when I told him to go join the church himself and find out.

It's all very simple, Balerion- so you really shouldn't be struggling with it so much. But you are struggling with it, so my quick explanation above and now will have to suffice because I really do not care to argue it if you continue to struggle with your ego refusing to any error on your part from here on. (e.g. people have incriminating photos of the admin, you claim... LMFAO)

Have fun.

 

And here comes the overcompensation. It's like clockwork.

To quote that Samsung commercial, "Anyone ever had deja...deja...deja..deja vu?"

 

i love how many times people claim everyone else is obtuse, stupid etc etc. Are people willing to say, "we seem to be disagreeing on x y or z". Hey people, have you ever thought that it is possible that someone would think differently than you do and not be an idiot??? This place hasn't lost it's special charm in all the years i was gone.

I understand that someone might say, "go try it out" but i disagree that that is the most effective way to get information on a religion that operates as a secret society. In that case you would probably get more information by accessing testimony from people who were at the top, rather than joining in at the bottom.

 

Not necessarily.
I'll explain why:
Let's say I claim that 1+1=2.
GenericI.D. then posts that 1+1=3.
I explain to GenericI.D. why 1 added to 1 will equal 2. He disagrees, argues his point... After a while, he will be accused of being stubborn or refusing to accept mathematics. Why is this? Because it is honest. "Agree to disagree" is a weak way of saying, "I cannot defend my position." While you're referring to a more polite atmosphere, there are times when my 'nice guy act' has passed its limits.
In fairness to myself, I did not claim that everyone else is obtuse. I claimed one person was being obtuse and I stand by that. He was rude, arrogant and obtuse. I didn't choose his behavior- he did. I chose simply to describe it as I sees it.

This is true.
But it's also true that a lot of idiots think differently than I do... But I didn't call any of these jokers an 'idiot.'

I agree with this statement. What you just said makes perfect sense.

For my own commentary, I got fed up with his arrogant and unreasonable demands and made that suggestion facetiously.

Bring some charm of your own- contribute as an example. This forum is more... free with ad homs... than most. It can be trying sometimes. But you have that power to choose your own posting style and be above that, as well. But please don't change the meaning of my posts by saying generalizations such as the one in your last posts opening sentence.

 

This is where I, apparently, misinterpreted Neverfly's remarks and defended what I believed to be literal remarks. I usually speak very literally so wrongly assume other people are being literal as well. So my defense of his remark was wrongly placed, since I totally misrepresented his statement. Completely unintentionally of course. Then Balerion and I compared notes and discovered our disconnect was in how we were using the word "understand" and so met each other in the middle. So, cole grey, you came in a bit late for the thread spankings. We were mostly getting along fine, except that there was my lingering misrepresentation of what Neverfly actually meant. He was clearing that up.

 

but you guys clearly weren't talking about math. you were talking about whether a religion can be discussed by non-practitioner or something to that effect, i.e. an idea that is somewhat less defined than 1+1=2. In non-provables this concept of "do the math" doesn't really apply.

i didn't mean to say you personally were claiming everyone else was obtuse, but rather that, in aggregate, if we were to accept everyone's claim that their opponent is an idiot, everyone in sciforums is an idiot. The whole sciforums vibe is just funny to me in that particular way, i wasn't saying you are a prime offender of any sort.

i didn't mean to say you used the word "idiot". I was commenting on the general tendency for sciforums posts to contain that type of comment.

i appreciate your ability to step back and look at that instead of merely acting as if you meant exactly what was said and everyone else misinterpreted it. It is like talking to George W. Bush around here sometimes, where nobody is ever willing to say, "what i said was not perfectly expressed", instead it is almost always, "you didn't understand me because you are a poo-poo face, and i am perfect."

P.S. i was just pointing out that i agreed with balerion's general direction. I am sure you are all quite personable, as i i've said, it wasn't so much about one use of the word "obtuse" - it just reminded me of other discussions that were much less congenial which seem to always contain a lot of finger-pointing, and name-calling.

 

Less defined, yes, but interpretation of meaning can be very inaccurate. Being a jerk to people trying to answer your question (Referring to the O.P. and not to you) is not inaccurate but is annoying and worthy of compensation.

Everything you said here is pretty on target and I agree with the sentiment. It would be nice if the majority of members stepped back and loosed less ad hom attacks than they do. I do it occasionally.

There is only one mistake:

Fixed it for ya.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Wow... Interesting thread on Scientology. Once again the meeting of minds was actually a collision. So, we must live Scientology in order to understand it? Is that the consensus?

 

Not really a consensus, no. Depending on to what intensity you wish to understand it, maybe. But as Balerion stated, a general understanding would not require indoctrination. For me to claim to understand it, I would want a deeper understanding, to the point of understanding it from the point of view of a believer, to be able to empathize. But I tend to take ideas to extremes and I don't think anyone else was intending that. And as Neverfly clarified, he was being facetious only. So we have differing views, and the consensus seems to be that "that's ok".

Now Cris has posted a link to a thread he started long ago that does give insider information on what happens in a scientology church and it is quite disturbing in my opinion. But it is only one person's experience. I think I would need to read of many people's experiences to see if there is a pattern. Then develop an opinion based on any observed pattern.

 

I'm not using personal definitions. According to the dictionary hate is extreme dislike.
This is where I'm coming from:
"In psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud defined hate as an ego state that wishes to destroy the source of its unhappiness."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatred#Psychoanalytic_views

 

All religions are cons, built on convincing others that your religion is the one that really matters when none of them do when you die.

 

Yeah, an extreme dislike. So where do you get off saying that my feelings towards the Patriots are not hateful?

 

haha. just try not to put your words in my quotes, that is kind of messed up. but i appreciate the humor.