Independent Scientology Milestone Two adopts moral relativism. Independent Scientology Milestone Two's adoption of moral relativism is not surprising given that it promotes a religion (or purported religion), Scientology, in which moral decisions are made based on the quasi-Utilitarianism theory of doing the greatest good for the greatest number of Dynamics. It is also not surprising that for Scientologists the ends all too easily justify the means. Milestone Two: The problem of evil https://milestonetwo.wordpress.com/2016/05/09/the-problem-of-evil/ * * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * * The problem of evil Posted by Lana M. May 9, 2016 by Ian The Problem of Evil has plagued mankind ever since he could reason; he has been unable to successfully reconcile the existence of evil with God, and, perhaps far more importantly, he has been unable to resolve evil itself. It is therefore of little surprise that the most common current solutions to this dilemma are to do one of three things: deny the existence of God, claim ignorance of God’s will, or deny the existence of evil. Unfortunately, none of these options actually solves anything, especially not for those suffering the effects of evil. Needless to say, these options above also help to understand why so many reject the idea of a God, especially when evil is undeniable and experienced; at best individuals can claim naivety about God’s will when experiencing or witnessing evil. That isn’t to say that these options do not contain truths in themselves, but it thus far has not posed a solution to the actual reduction or eradication of evil. Therefore, it is absolutely vital to recognize and understand the components and mechanics of evil if man is ever to solve it as a problem and create a better world. After all, any problem demands a solution, and any unsolved problem indicates that one or more components of it have been either ignored or omitted. Once all these factors come into view, only then can a solution arise. In observing acts of evil and acts deemed as evil, the first and foremost component common to all is that a life form must be present for evil to exist. For pain, discomfort, loss, or suffering to persist, regardless of the cause, there must be an organism experiencing these effects either directly or indirectly in the first place. The second component then naturally and logically follows that a viewpoint must therefore be present for evil to exist. A view can be an individual’s or a group’s. Even if that viewpoint is not directly experiencing the effect, one must on some level experience, observe or learn of an evil act for its cause to occur. It then follows that a natural extension of this logic that evil is a consideration; more specifically, evil is something that should not be, per that viewpoint. It is for this reason why some may consider an act to be good, whereas others may consider the same act to be an evil one. It then follows that evil is a relative term, not an absolute. This is not saying that evil does not exist, but rather that one act believed to be evil does not necessarily exist in an absolute, fixed, universal sense for all life forms. But what of things that would be harmful to all of life – at least on this planet? Let us say, for the sake of argument, that a hostile alien race attacked the search and wiped out all of life. Would the act be evil? From our vantage point it certainly would, but not necessarily from the alien race. Taking a slightly more likely scenario, what if a meteor wiped out all life on earth? Would this be evil, considering that the inanimate object – per our knowledge of it at this time anyway – lacks a viewpoint? From our viewpoint, some could construe it as an evil act of nature or of God. But the question then becomes why? The answer lies in the fact that our survival is threatened or destroyed, and so it follows that anything which destroys, harms, threatens or undermines the odds of the survival of one’s own life or group is, to varying degrees, evil, per the viewpoint of that living being. Whether a believer or non-believer, one can see that these definitions involving evil will apply across the spectrum. Even God, if one indeed exists, has a viewpoint (or perhaps a number of viewpoints or even all viewpoints) which itself defines good and evil; yet these definitions still apply even without a God or without knowledge of God’s intentions. It also does not deny the absence of evil, which is insulting to those who experience its effects, although for some it might be troubling to have to face the reality that evil is, always has been, always will be, and can only be, a relativistic term. Nothing is inherently evil outside of considerations on the subject. As a side note, the above article was written prior to my discovery that L. Ron Hubbard simply summed up evil as “A thing which does more destruction than construction is evil from the viewpoint of the individual, the future, group, species, life, or MEST that it destroys” in Science of Survival. I would like to think that I expanded upon his statement and verified it for myself * * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
"Therefore, it is absolutely vital to recognize and understand the components and mechanics of evil" Sad they can't recognize Scientology as evil.
If a company is based in harming the general public with evil principles and business practices is it a evil company?
This may be a little off topic, but I hadn't thought much about Independent Scientology in a while, at least not until this thread popped up in my RSS feed. I’m not much of a philosopher, so I don’t really have anything to say about moral relativism, the topic at hand. I just got onto Alexa.com, one of the Internet site traffic monitoring services, to see just how much traffic a couple of the independent Scientology sites were pulling these days. It turns out that Milestone Two doesn’t even have enough data to rank in the Alexa survey. Freezone.org (which maps to freezone.com) is ranked around 1.25 million globally, about what my blog site ranked after a week of averaging 100 visitors per day, on the back of zero promotion. Most clicks on freezone.com seem to be coming from the Caucasus republics of Armenia and Georgia, so it appears that they are using click generators to boost their dismal statistics. iScientology.org is ranked down at 6.8 million globally, which means basically no traffic at all, not even click generators. It sure looks to me like independent Scientology is completely and utterly dead. When I started looking at Scientology five years ago, it seemed that there was a reasonable chance that there would be a viable and stable independent Scientology movement, though it would clearly never be as large as the "official church." Is this a good thread to discuss what happened to independent Scientology? Or is there a better thread already established elsewhere (I did a search and there aren’t any relevant threads active in the last few months mentioning ‘independent scientology’)?
^ good to hear. The indie 500 List has still not reached 500 LOL! Here's hoping that they all wake up to the con some day and stop wasting valuable time and money on climbing the bridge to absolutely nowhere.
John P: Have you looked at the "CoS Exit Survey"? https://www.scribd.com/doc/23636010/Scientology-Exit-Survey-Results-Advanced-Reports Particularly, the results starting on p. 23 The sample size isn't huge (~400) but of that only 70 had any non-CoS Scientology involvement after leaving and only 20 stayed involved with it for more than five years. And I've seen no evidence that they have any success recruiting people who aren't already Scientologists.
Here's one data point: #434, Mark Shreffler declared his "independence" in July 2012, almost exactly 4 years ago. I remember his story because his defection was apparently a big deal. In the last 4 years, the list has grown by 58 names to 492 today. Not exactly a torrent. I suspect this is partly a function of the fact that scientology-cult.com, which hosts the "Indie 500" list, is probably nowhere near as visible as it used to be, so it may be the case that some people leaving the cult and taking up life as an "indie" don't put themselves on that list because they don't know about it. That said, I am sure the bigger motivator is that people leaving the cult today want nothing more than to get as far away from anything to do with Scientology as they can. They don't believe there is any "good stuff" worth continuing to believe in as defectors several years ago, who may have had less of a miserable time, might have thought.
I remember this survey. It was a really impressive piece of work. It would be interesting to see how the results have changed in the four years since that survey was done. I bet that the already small percentage of people who "go indie" is even smaller now, because those leaving now are so wounded from their time in the cult that they have no interest in trying to "save" any of the "tech." They want to be as far away as possible.
Yeah, the indie people remind me of those with "holiday pillow cases." They love it and then it's back to the staples. I am a white. I understand that offensive to humans, but I was born basic and I go with everything. The indie thing is interesting, it reminds me of when my brother got tie dyed. He was happy for a while, then swore he loved the dye remover (that left him pink.} Next thing you know, it's the early 2000's and Oxyclean. Yeah, he's back to the basics and it's funny cause when we bring up anything "Pink!" he cringes. Me, I kinda knew pink was a phase. We are whites at heart.
Also MANY names on that list should not be on there any more. They have left the Indie movement all together.
I just took a very quick look on the Indie 500 list. Right off the bat, Paul Haggis? Monique and Marty Rathbun? Tiziano Lugli? Matt Pesch? (Amy Scobeys husband) All these people are completely OFF Scientology all together. And that was just with a quick gander of the list. Why would they still want their name on this list? I wouldn't! Wonder what the actual true count is? And how many names on that list should be totally removed? Would be fun to see!
Just like the real Indy 500: running in circles, chasing their own tails, until they run out of gas, while we watch, amused. (Yes, that's too many commas, but I don't care, really, ATM.)
