Scientology - harmless fun or dangerous cult

Well, scientology is in the news at the moment, with poor little Katie Holmes duped into giving birth silently, with silent midwives and silent nursing staff to hand, (however I do believe she desperately gestured to be given an epidural :dry: ), so big TC has reported back to his scientology church with the details of the birth, so they can determine how much "auditing" is needed for the mother and baby following the trauma.

I think this is really scary stuff. These people are nutters. It's especially scary that with all these celebrities endorsing this nonsense that more and more impressionable teenagers and that will think this sort of thing is OK.

Also, here's a funny article.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/sc.../scien410.html

For balance, here is the official website.

http://www.scientology.org/

I just wondered what everyone thinks about all this.

Harmless and fun fun fun.

Must be something to do with the air in Hollywood that turns normal, sensible human beings' brains into playdoh.

I actually read one of L Ron Hubbard's books a few years back (before I knew anything about Scientology) and it seemed like a fairly standard sci-fi/fantasy work.

And Battlefield Earth is one of the most ridiculous films ever made!

The fact it's foremost practitioner is Thomas Cruise Mapother the IV tells you all you need to know.

L. Ron Hubbard's own personal idiot.

BTW-did you know Kwanzaa dates all the way back to the ancient 1960s?

No wonder U.S. culture has such a bad/dumb reputation. :dry:

Scientology holds as much legitimate credibility as any other religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Scientology holds as much legitimate credibility as any other religion.

---

Legitimate credibility?

As opposed to what other kind?

In any case, "legitimacy" and "goofiness" are not mutually exclusive qualities; witness Pat Robertson...

Dangerous cult, absolutely agree. You only have to read the accounts of those who have managed to be de-programed from the brainwashing. Or to examine their financial interests to see that it is a money making venture, exploiting those who it manages to "recruit".

To call it a religion is nonsense, unless for tax purposes and then you can see the point.Lafayette Ron Hubbard, who made the whole thing up, was a liar and a fraud.


Pseudo Science is great

http://img2.scientology.org/pics/en_.../how-mind3.jpg

I quite enjoyed his SciFi books though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Scientology holds as much legitimate credibility as any other religion.

---

Legitimate credibility?

As opposed to what other kind?

In any case, "legitimacy" and "goofiness" are not mutually exclusive qualities; witness Pat Robertson...

---

Hocus-pocus is Hocus-pocus whatever guise it takes or however many believe in it.

I haven't voted because there is no suitable option for me. I would say harmless fun, but any religion can be used in the mind of a nutcase to justify dangerous actions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Legitimate credibility?

As opposed to what other kind?

In any case, "legitimacy" and "goofiness" are not mutually exclusive qualities; witness Pat Robertson...

---

Hocus-pocus is Hocus-pocus whatever guise it takes or however many believe in it.

I haven't voted because there is no suitable option for me. I would say harmless fun, but any religion can be used in the mind of a nutcase to justify dangerous actions

---

The main difference with Scientology is the pseudo-science it uses on it's victims. Can I suggest you read a bit more about it before you judge it as harmless fun. It's a dangerous organization and shouldn't be taken lightly.

I'll give you one guess who said this ""Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion""

They have a "church" in amsterdam, they stand on the main street, lurring in the cliche "open" international youth.
I entered once for fun, did the psko garantueed exam, they told me i would die by the age of 25 if i did not use them.
after some arguements i left.
Their window is often broken.

HAIL XENU!!

its a cult, and a expensive one at that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Legitimate credibility?

As opposed to what other kind?

In any case, "legitimacy" and "goofiness" are not mutually exclusive qualities; witness Pat Robertson...

---

Hocus-pocus is Hocus-pocus whatever guise it takes or however many believe in it.

I haven't voted because there is no suitable option for me. I would say harmless fun, but any religion can be used in the mind of a nutcase to justify dangerous actions

---

I believe you are still impaled upon the hook of (Il)legitimate credibility, sir...:huh:

Please explain if your use of the term was within a stone's throw of serious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I believe you are still impaled upon the hook of (Il)legitimate credibility, sir...:huh:

Please explain if your use of the term was within a stone's throw of serious.

---

The quality, capability, or power to elicit belief may not be based on fact/reality.

Being accepted widely may legitimise something in ones mind but that doesn't make it fact/reality.

example:

The world was once stated to be flat and any scholar stating this in his day was "credible". Did his credibility have any legitimate basis in fact?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I believe you are still impaled upon the hook of (Il)legitimate credibility, sir...:huh:

Please explain if your use of the term was within a stone's throw of serious.

---

The quality, capability, or power to elicit belief may not be based on fact/reality.

Being accepted widely may legitimise something in ones mind but that doesn't make it fact/reality.

example:

The world was once stated to be flat and any scholar stating this in his day was "credible". Did his credibility have any legitimate basis in fact?

---

That may be true, but how does it relate to the actual "teachings" of Scientology. We know what they are, we know that they are nonsense. That is not the same as an "incorrect fact" being popularly believed centuries ago.

If you wish to demonstrate that Scientology is "harmless fun" would you not do better to concentrate on what it "teaches", rather than posting about centuries old beliefs which we have subsequently learned to be incorrect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by What'spunk.

That may be true, but how does it relate to the actual "teachings" of Scientology. We know what they are, we know that they are nonsense. That is not the same as an "incorrect fact" being popularly believed centuries ago.

If you wish to demonstrate that Scientology is "harmless fun" would you not do better to concentrate on what it "teaches", rather than posting about centuries old beliefs which we have subsequently learned to be incorrect.

---

That post was in reply to a question about syntax from J2.

My views on scientology can be read in previous posts on this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by What'spunk.

That may be true, but how does it relate to the actual "teachings" of Scientology. We know what they are, we know that they are nonsense. That is not the same as an "incorrect fact" being popularly believed centuries ago.

If you wish to demonstrate that Scientology is "harmless fun" would you not do better to concentrate on what it "teaches", rather than posting about centuries old beliefs which we have subsequently learned to be incorrect.

---

That post was in reply to a question about syntax from J2.

My views on scientology can be read in previous posts on this thread.

---

Yes, you described it as "harmless fun". I really do find it difficult to see how someone would come to that conclusion. I have read a few books about it and done some research on the internet, including their own site and I think it is obvious that it is far from being harmless fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by What'spunk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

That post was in reply to a question about syntax from J2.

My views on scientology can be read in previous posts on this thread.

---

Yes, you described it as "harmless fun". I really do find it difficult to see how someone would come to that conclusion. I have read a few books about it and done some research on the internet, including their own site and I think it is obvious that it is far from being harmless fun.

---

I would probably not have responded so, had you not quoted my reply about syntax to J2.


However in reply my words were

Quote:

---

I haven't voted because there is no suitable option for me. I would say harmless fun, but any religion can be used in the mind of a nutcase to justify dangerous actions

---

To expand for you all religion can be used to justify good or bad actions. Being a Scientologist does not make a person a danger to scociety, just as being a christian , jew, muslim etc. does not make someone a danger.
Interpretation of the teachings can.

religion in the hands of a "normal" person can have very good concequences, in the hands of a nutter can be very dangerous indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by What'spunk.

Yes, you described it as "harmless fun". I really do find it difficult to see how someone would come to that conclusion. I have read a few books about it and done some research on the internet, including their own site and I think it is obvious that it is far from being harmless fun.

---

I would probably not have responded so, had you not quoted my reply about syntax to J2.


However in reply my words were

Quote:

---

I haven't voted because there is no suitable option for me. I would say harmless fun, but any religion can be used in the mind of a nutcase to justify dangerous actions

---

To expand for you all religion can be used to justify good or bad actions. Being a Scientologist does not make a person a danger to scociety, just as being a christian , jew, muslim etc. does not make someone a danger.
Interpretation of the teachings can.

religion in the hands of a "normal" person can have very good concequences, in the hands of a nutter can be very dangerous indeed.

---

I'm not arguing with anything you say. I'm just saying that Scientology is demonstrably a dangerous cult, based on making money and controlling people. It uses pseudo science which actively damages people's sanity, removes them from their families, takes all of their money away and ruin's their life.

I just don't see how you can conclude that is "harmless fun". Whatever you may think of other groups of people. You may argue there are others as bad, I would almost agree, but they are not "harmless fun" either.

Yeah, and your syntax still sucks.

I would much prefer you endorse my own formulation:

"pseudo-credibility"

I demand you submit to my superior construct.

Do it now. :angry:



















:P

it's probably unsuitable for weak-minded, follow the herd , type people...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thewizeard

it's probably unsuitable for weak-minded, follow the herd , type people...

---

Why would anyone else be intereted in getting involved.

there are enough memebers, so you can probaly better address that question to them... Strangely, it is often "well to do members" that join Ron's scam...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thewizeard

there are enough memebers, so you can probaly better address that question to them... Strangely, it is often "well to do members" that join Ron's scam...

---

Yeah, kinda like "Skull and Bones" for liberals. :dry:

selfosophy!

also: scientology is a religion started by an author of bad sci-fi novels, who seems to have been a misanthropic drug-abusing psychopath. they copyright, trademark and sell their religious materials like free marketeers, shuffle the money around their various companies till the money (the part that hasn't been reserved for starting lawsuits and buying spiffy sea org uniforms, anyway) ends up in who knows whose pockets, behave pretty much like a for-profit business, yet scientology's companies pay no taxes. they insist that psychology & psychiatry are evil, yet scientology itself is just an abusive application of psychological theories obscured by a complicated insular vocabulary to protect it from outside scrutiny. then there's the mumbo-jumbo about aliens and thetans and engrams, which is possibly the most orthodox and least interesting part of the whole thing.

it's a scam, yeah. but it's a brilliant scam, considering how successful it's been, despite being so recently invented and so farcical in every aspect. i'm divided between disgust and admiration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by What'spunk.

I just don't see how you can conclude that is "harmless fun". Whatever you may think of other groups of people. You may argue there are others as bad, I would almost agree, but they are not "harmless fun" either.

---

I said I would vote "harmless fun" and when it comes to normal people, it is, then if you notice I put a "but".


Any religion is dangerous when it comes to the unhinged. I will say that religion isn't the only dangerous thing when it comes to the unhinged but it happens to be the subject in this thread.
My stance is clear, Scientology is no more dangerous or safe than any other religion, the danger is in the individual.

So, sorry, but I shall not single it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

My stance is clear, Scientology is no more dangerous or safe than any other religion, the danger is in the individual.

---

Similar statements are made in reference to firearms when comes time to argue about gun control laws, as I remember...:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

My stance is clear, Scientology is no more dangerous or safe than any other religion, the danger is in the individual.

---

Similar statements are made in reference to firearms when comes time to argue about gun control laws, as I remember...:)

---

Well I will suggest a distinction.

A religious nutcase as annoying as he/she may be, isn't a danger to me............unless he/she has a gun of course. (disclaimer: I realise that any other type of weapon could be used and by using gun as an example I am not ignoring other weapons or other physical dangers that may exist or dangers to personal freedoms that religious zealots may pose)

What an interesting thought though, a background check before you can have religion :shifty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I haven't voted because there is no suitable option for me. I would say harmless fun, but any religion can be used in the mind of a nutcase to justify dangerous actions

---

So you are now saying that it's not harmless fun, is that it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by What'spunk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I haven't voted because there is no suitable option for me. I would say harmless fun, but any religion can be used in the mind of a nutcase to justify dangerous actions

---

So you are now saying that it's not harmless fun, is that it?

---

My position hasn't changed, I simply repeated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by What'spunk.

So you are now saying that it's not harmless fun, is that it?

---

My position hasn't changed, I simply repeated.

---

So what is it, harmless fun, or not harmless fun?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by What'spunk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

My position hasn't changed, I simply repeated.

---

So what is it, harmless fun, or not harmless fun?

---

Ok last repeat:

To a normal person- someone capable of reaosnable thought and personal behaviour control- harmless fun


To an unhinged person- someone perhaps with low mental capacity and easily influenced to accept and perhaps act in a way any normal rational person would not- dangerous.

While I believe the vast majority of people belong to the first group I am not ignoring the latter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by What'spunk.

So what is it, harmless fun, or not harmless fun?

---

Ok last repeat:

To a normal person- someone capable of reaosnable thought and personal behaviour control- harmless fun

---

So you think that it's harmless fun to a normal person. Thanks for clearing that up.

On a whimsy, I sat their psychological test many years ago (1975 I think). It took a while and was in itself a tad tedious. They then kept me waiting two hours while the analysed the results. I had a train to catch so I left before finding out that they could have undoubtedly helped me if I followed their directions and joined.

Fortunately, I caught my train, although it was touch and go. However, they subjected me to two hours of boredom - perhaps not dangerous but certainly a pain the butt. I skimmed through one of Ron's books whilst waiting - I was unimpressed. I never went back.

I would classify as "best avoided"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

I would classify as "best avoided"

---

Like any Tom Cruise movie.

Y'know, when he pissed off Brooke Shields with his ill-chosen remarks a while back, I remember wishing she'd challenge him to a duker.

I think she'd have kicked his ass, the little pip-squeak. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

On a whimsy, I sat their psychological test many years ago (1975 I think). It took a while and was in itself a tad tedious. They then kept me waiting two hours while the analysed the results. I had a train to catch so I left before finding out that they could have undoubtedly helped me if I followed their directions and joined.

Fortunately, I caught my train, although it was touch and go. However, they subjected me to two hours of boredom - perhaps not dangerous but certainly a pain the butt. I skimmed through one of Ron's books whilst waiting - I was unimpressed. I never went back.

I would classify as "best avoided"

---

I really, really wish you hadn't posted that. It saddens me more than you can ever imagine.

Wasnt the creator or Scientology convicted of fraud?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fromagepas

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

On a whimsy, I sat their psychological test many years ago (1975 I think). It took a while and was in itself a tad tedious. They then kept me waiting two hours while the analysed the results. I had a train to catch so I left before finding out that they could have undoubtedly helped me if I followed their directions and joined.

Fortunately, I caught my train, although it was touch and go. However, they subjected me to two hours of boredom - perhaps not dangerous but certainly a pain the butt. I skimmed through one of Ron's books whilst waiting - I was unimpressed. I never went back.

I would classify as "best avoided"

---

I really, really wish you hadn't posted that. It saddens me more than you can ever imagine.

---

I think we need more of the "why" of that sentiment. :huh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fromagepas

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

On a whimsy, I sat their psychological test many years ago (1975 I think). It took a while and was in itself a tad tedious. They then kept me waiting two hours while the analysed the results. I had a train to catch so I left before finding out that they could have undoubtedly helped me if I followed their directions and joined.

Fortunately, I caught my train, although it was touch and go. However, they subjected me to two hours of boredom - perhaps not dangerous but certainly a pain the butt. I skimmed through one of Ron's books whilst waiting - I was unimpressed. I never went back.

I would classify as "best avoided"

---

I really, really wish you hadn't posted that. It saddens me more than you can ever imagine.

---

I am saddened that you are sad.

Like J2, I am intrigued as to why though. It was, after all, a minor event over 30 years ago (notwithstanding butterflies and hurricanes).

You, a respected person (and I mean by me and others whose opinions matter, not someone who has been here for a certain time) have effecively trivialised something I see as dangerous and insidious.

I have had some personal experience with cultism (close family member) and we managed to nip same in proverbial bud. However that highlighted even more to me just how easy it would be for someone to become part of that type of thing. I have taken to researching things I previously laughed at, or mocked in an off-hand manner.

Scientology is a dangerous cult, it is not harmless fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fromagepas

You, a respected person (and I mean by me and others whose opinions matter, not someone who has been here for a certain time) have effecively trivialised something I see as dangerous and insidious.

I have had some personal experience with cultism (close family member) and we managed to nip same in proverbial bud. However that highlighted even more to me just how easy it would be for someone to become part of that type of thing. I have taken to researching things I previously laughed at, or mocked in an off-hand manner.

Scientology is a dangerous cult, it is not harmless fun.

---

Fair point - although in my defence I did say "best avoided" - something I actually meant. I voted dangerous cult although I felt that perhaps over-stated things. There are more dangerous. I never liked the Moonies or the Children of God who I would definitely class as more dangerous. They want you body and soul - the Scientologists are more interested in your wallet (and continued donations). I also find the Gouranga mob a tad scary although I don't know much about them. I think it is the anoraks and clip board that worries me.