tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post1183383114704613920..comments2023-09-18T04:45:52.991-07:00Comments on Ask the Scientologist: Understanding the "Scientologist Attitude"Just Billhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-10730837800915014492010-02-12T12:16:44.431-08:002010-02-12T12:16:44.431-08:00Re: Falsifiability (nice word!)
You make a good p...Re: Falsifiability (nice word!)<br /><br />You make a good point, that certainly is a major weakness of Scientology: They make very, very specific claims, they say <i>everyone</i> can attain these results (if they pay enough and "go up the levels"), and then ... nothing. Anyone can look at the general population of Scientologists, and especially all the "OTs" and <i>see</i> that those promised results <i>never happened</i>.<br /><br />Perhaps that's the difference between a successful religion (one that survives) and groups like Scientology.Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-87136438781270214132010-02-12T11:19:56.650-08:002010-02-12T11:19:56.650-08:00Bumping an old comment thread because I didn't...Bumping an old comment thread because I didn't feel like this was sufficiently addressed in the above discussion:<br /><br />The core difference between Scientology and most (not all) traditional religions is falsifiability. Religions succeed when they cannot be falsified: make claims about the spiritual nature of an event, and you're safe from pesky logic.<br /><br />Scientology's problem is the same as that of the Mormons: it makes falsifiable claims. When either religion claims X is absolutely true, and X is something any person can go investigate for themselves, the religion is on shaky ground.<br /><br />Whether it's the magical powers attributed to OTs, or the genetic heritage of Native Americans, making claims that can be disproved by evidence is a dangerous proposition for a religion.<br /><br />As an atheist, I have no real interest in defending the more mainstream religions, but I can't argue with the success of their methodology: only make claims that cannot be addressed by evidence. Claim that believers go to heaven after they die, because nobody can check up on that; *never* claim that believers will be able to levitate cars with their minds, because everyone can check up on that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-69642741535553463962009-12-23T17:45:09.794-08:002009-12-23T17:45:09.794-08:00Thanks Rachel! Same at you and everyone else who r...Thanks Rachel! Same at you and everyone else who reads AskTheScientologist. It has been a good year, hasn't it?Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-28957885550931547242009-12-22T19:11:05.938-08:002009-12-22T19:11:05.938-08:00Happy Holidays Bill!
RachelHappy Holidays Bill!<br /><br />RachelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-15374761667656681842009-12-17T23:25:40.375-08:002009-12-17T23:25:40.375-08:00You do an amazing job. Thanks for all your hard w...You do an amazing job. Thanks for all your hard work. I know that many people have woken up as a result of your clarity, honesty and ability to articulate the truth.fatty arbucklenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-41090850028734787112009-12-03T17:40:59.734-08:002009-12-03T17:40:59.734-08:00When I was in, I still remember reading Hubbard...When I was in, I still remember reading Hubbard's book, "The Problems Of Work". Sure enough, it had absolutely nothing to do with the workforce. One doctrine stressed in the book is the doctrine of the stable datum. The book states that any time we are confused by anything, a stable datum is required to eliminate any confusion. <br /><br />Many scientologists use what Hubbard and later Miscavige has spoon-fed them as a stable datum. The problem is, it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, as long as it's stable. <br /><br />My belief is that if something doesn't work, find something that does. Most people in the church are will not do that as long as they have this "stable datum". This is what I feel is true insanity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-16142389322835669812009-12-02T14:56:36.422-08:002009-12-02T14:56:36.422-08:00I think things can get confusing, not knowing whic...I think things can get confusing, not knowing which Anonymous person is whom. Perhaps, for continuity sake, the posters could pick a psuedonym, such as Anonymous1 or something silly like omnom. <br /><br />It doesn't prevent someone from being sneaky and signing as another, but hopefully if the original poster were following the conversation, they could point that out.<br /><br />Anyway, I like reading the discussion. The topic I've found interesting of late is the Scientologists (CoS) vs. Scientologists (Independent) vs. Scientologists (Freezone) vs. Anonymous vs. Those With No Affiliation vs. Who Knows Whom Else. <br /><br />Keep up the good work, Bill, and keep up the good work "disagreers". It keeps us all honest. Just keep in mind that the few Anonymous commentators that said or implied they were Scn may not be the same person who says they are not. Or it may be the same person who is trying to introduce confusion purposely. Who knows - stranger things have happened.omnomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-22524327107958342602009-12-02T13:58:42.933-08:002009-12-02T13:58:42.933-08:00I must say, this is one the most interesting blogs...I must say, this is one the most interesting blogs about scientology's "inside" thinking.<br /><br />Keep up the good work!Paholaisen Asianajajahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12503499980282126425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-40844388515790077772009-12-02T06:56:01.270-08:002009-12-02T06:56:01.270-08:00Thanks for the support. I appreciate it.Thanks for the support. I appreciate it.Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-51475217324338337272009-12-01T16:07:28.378-08:002009-12-01T16:07:28.378-08:00Scientology is great. I like it!Scientology is great. I like it!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-62628712852783390572009-12-01T15:22:58.217-08:002009-12-01T15:22:58.217-08:00Interesting post, Bill. And interesting responses,...Interesting post, Bill. And interesting responses, but I'm not too surprised why some are up in arms since people can easily misread your intent. However, I wonder why this repeat poster is so angry with you and accusing you of demeaning Scientologists. There's this feeling of vehement dislike for you, not just what you say.<br /><br />I've read every one of your posts and some of the lively discussions that have ensued, and as you've said, you have never demeaned, insulted, ridiculed or silenced any poster. All you've done is disagreed strongly with people like this poster who put words in your mouth.<br /><br />Otherwise you are civil to those who disagree with you and I've seen you concede when someone has made a valid point.<br /><br />This person is blowing spoke and trying to stir up something. It's unpleasant and it's not earning them any brownie points.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-90421324083442122652009-12-01T07:02:11.103-08:002009-12-01T07:02:11.103-08:00Dear Anonymous "I'm not a Scientologist&q...Dear Anonymous "I'm not a Scientologist" who hates my blog<br /><br />Like I said, I'm good with whatever you want to pretend. But that doesn't mean you can fool me.<br /><br />I find this very interesting: You objected to my blog <i>because it wasn't pro-Scientology enough</i> and you pointed to sites that were quite pro-Scientology. That's a true believer talking.<br /><br />And I referred to you as a Scientologist from the start, <i>which you responded to without objection</i>. Now, all that makes sense, but <i>then</i> I mentioned <b>responsibility</b> and suddenly you are "not a Scientologist" and are <i>completely disinterested</i> in Scientology, took a few courses, no agenda.<br /><br />Yeah, right.<br /><br />Well, nice talking with you.Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-3428376089345802742009-11-30T22:32:58.192-08:002009-11-30T22:32:58.192-08:00Hmmm... Read what I wrote. I didn't say anyth...Hmmm... Read what I wrote. I didn't say anything that was "pro" Scientology. Didn't say anything "anti" either. But I suppose you can interpret it that way if I don't jump in and yell hurray, that's showing them! <br /><br />You made a point earlier on your blog that bashing the hell out of Scientologists would not be effective. Obviously you believe that what you wrote in this article should be very palatable to them. But honestly, I winced at how your wrote your article and I don't even give a shit one way or another.<br /><br />It's probably a moot point anyway, judging from what you've already written on the blog, and from what I have read on other forums, there's not much chance of any die-hard Scientologist visiting anyway because they wouldn't want to be shunned or kicked out.<br /><br />As far as your erroneous conclusion that I am a Scientologist, yes, I once did some Scientology courses a long time ago but as far as I know that certainly doesn't mean I'm a Scientologist. It doesn't make me an ex-Scientologist either as I never pursued it beyond a few courses. It's really a stretch to say so. But hey, if that's what you want to believe...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-77687918382549057602009-11-30T18:05:18.706-08:002009-11-30T18:05:18.706-08:00Thanks Rachel99!Thanks Rachel99!Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-61361235075774978782009-11-30T17:56:34.197-08:002009-11-30T17:56:34.197-08:00@Mily
Thanks! Yes I did have a very nice Thanksg...@Mily<br /><br />Thanks! Yes I did have a very nice Thanksgiving.Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-27219654534116746312009-11-30T17:55:09.849-08:002009-11-30T17:55:09.849-08:00Dear Anonymous Scientologist who hates my blog and...Dear Anonymous Scientologist who hates my blog and is now claiming not to be a Scientologist.<br /><br />I really do admire how (*not*)Scientologists avoid answering my questions, avoid the thread, divert and sidetrack what we're talking about. I guess I missed that course when I was in Scientology. It really does seem to be the hallmark of (*not*)Scientologists when they post on various forums, including this one.<br /><br />Anyone reading your pro-Scientology posts <i>knows</i> you <i>are</i> a true believer Scientologist, but if you want to pretend otherwise, I'm good with that.<br /><br />Please feel free to post again, it <i>would</i> be nice if you addressed the points I raised when you do (but I guess you won't).<br /><br />And, I must say, if you want to continue to accuse me of "intending" things I never said, of "thinking" things I never thought and of saying things that are, in fact, the <i>opposite</i> to what I have <i>actually</i> said -- I'd prefer you just skip it. That sort of thing is a trick that has been tried many, many times and hasn't worked yet.<br /><br />Thanks for playing.Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-17283802430436805072009-11-30T17:45:52.536-08:002009-11-30T17:45:52.536-08:00What mily said!
Rachel99What mily said!<br /><br />Rachel99Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-79424184094124555562009-11-30T17:25:19.889-08:002009-11-30T17:25:19.889-08:00Seems like you hit a few sore spots with this one,...Seems like you hit a few sore spots with this one, Bill. Keep up the great work! Hope you had a great Thanksgiving!Anonomomilynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-72235725012817960162009-11-30T15:01:29.879-08:002009-11-30T15:01:29.879-08:00"However, because you call yourself a Sciento..."However, because you call yourself a Scientologist..."<br /><br />Excuse me, but when did I call myself a Scientologist?<br /><br />You are reading things that are not there. And how the hell do you know what I do anyway? Mighty presumptuous.<br /><br />Nope. You read my post. You jumped to a conclusion because you think that only a "true believer" would say something like that. <br /><br />I've got news for you, there isn't much likelihood that a "true believer" would even visit your blog. After all, they would be declared suppressive. So who the hell are you writing to? Me? Some angry ex? Someone who is already online and reading up things who is definitely not a true believer? <br /><br />You know the saying... there's three fingers pointing back...<br /><br />Now don't forget to get the last word in and make sure that it thoroughly puts me in my place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-55995723423435277192009-11-30T13:49:50.706-08:002009-11-30T13:49:50.706-08:00Dear Anonymous Scientologist who hates my blog.
Y...Dear Anonymous Scientologist who hates my blog.<br /><br />You misunderstood. I wan't talking about the Church of Scientology. Why would I want you to fix it? I don't want anybody to fix it.<br /><br />You can either work to correct <i>Scientology</i> (not the church) or not as you see fit. However, because you call yourself a Scientologist, the flaws of Scientology are <i>your</i> responsibility; the lies of Scientology are <i>your</i> responsibility; the failures of Scientology are <i>your</i> responsibility.<br /><br />All you seem to be doing is complaining when <i>someone else</i> points out those flaws, lies, bad results and no results -- but <i>you</i> are not doing anything about it. Why aren't <i>you</i> exposing these flaws?<br /><br />No, <i>true</i> Scientologists toe the party line, "all of Scientology is wonderful and perfect". Bah!Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-8399861541286431482009-11-30T11:04:26.844-08:002009-11-30T11:04:26.844-08:00"It should be people like you who do the hard..."It should be people like you who do the hard work to expose and correct these things. But you true believers won't face the facts, so someone else has to."<br /><br />Little problem here. I'm not in the C of S and have not been for nigh on twenty years. Hell if I am going to do that. Of course you are welcome to go in there and set things right, after all you are in the same boat as I am. Should be interesting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-57768987483042185412009-11-30T10:53:27.336-08:002009-11-30T10:53:27.336-08:00@Morris
I can't say one way or the other abou...@Morris<br /><br />I can't say one way or the other about the Freezone. It all depends on what they do and how they do it.<br /><br />I think that there certainly might be good things that could come out of Scientology's technology. But someone has to make that happen.<br /><br />As far as I can tell, there is <i>much</i> less harm coming from the Freezone than from the church. That bodes well.Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-18579146138612452362009-11-30T10:50:15.018-08:002009-11-30T10:50:15.018-08:00Dear Anonymous Scientologist who doesn't like ...Dear Anonymous Scientologist who doesn't like my blog.<br /><br />You can believe what you want, about me, my blog, about Scientology, about everything. That's your right.<br /><br />I <i>do, very much</i>, object to anyone putting words in my mouth. If you "get an impression" <i>but I never said it</i>, then you might consider that "impression" is your own creation, and not mine.<br /><br />I say what I mean. Period. I have no hidden agenda or opinion. What you see is what you get.<br /><br />By the way, I have <i>never</i> "demeaned or being made fun of" anyone in this blog. This is another of your creations that does not exist in reality. Do you think discussion and debate are "demeaning"? Is simple disagreement "demeaning"? What the heck definition of demeaning are you using?<br /><br />I have been a Scientologist. I know many Scientologists. I think quite well of Scientologists in general. Please do not put words in my mouth about that. I have defended Scientologists and defended their right to believe as they wish <i>from the very start</i>. When you, or anyone, claims I have another opinion, <i>it makes me mad</i>.<br /><br />If there are problems with the logic, evidence, results and facts of Scientology, that <i>should be pointed out</i> and not covered up. That has always been my position.<br /><br />If there are problems with the logic, evidence, results and facts of Scientology, it should be people like <i>you</i> who do the hard work to expose and correct these things. But you true believers <i>won't face the facts</i>, so someone else has to.<br /><br />And you get upset when it happens. I believe your upset comes because <i>you know it's your job and you aren't doing it</i>. Instead, you cover up the bad results and no results, the lies -- instead of working to fix things and make Scientology something honestly good.<br /><br />I agree with you about one thing. You don't like what I say, you should <i>go somewhere else.</i>Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-38307396525784550112009-11-30T10:00:05.361-08:002009-11-30T10:00:05.361-08:00Bill,
I had a question. Since I agree with you...Bill,<br /> I had a question. Since I agree with you that reforming the Church of Scientology is probably a hopeless task, and since you seem to feel, like I do, that there is some value in Hubbard's<br />discoveries, do you think that scientology activities outside the church, as as the freezone, are helpful or harmful? Thanks for your time.<br /> MorrisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-87505566726730839552009-11-30T08:42:32.238-08:002009-11-30T08:42:32.238-08:00Once again an interesting and entertaining post!
...Once again an interesting and entertaining post!<br /><br />I guess the same phenomenon must be true of other extreme religious groups as well, young Earth creationists for instance. The rank and file may claim ignorance, but they must be aware that their interpretation runs against scientific knowledge. There are even "creation science" science-books, and some of those writing them have enough scientific knowledge to know that what they write is outright lies. I find it difficult to understand how someone find it so important that people believe something they <i>know</i> is false, to promote a religion that put emphasis on being truthful. At least scientology does not have a truthfulness-dogma.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com