Customize

"Scn = religion" meme inculcated

Discussion in 'Situation Rooms' started by Anonymous, Aug 8, 2013.

  1. Random guy Member

    Fighting the cult by definitions:

    In principle yes, in practice no. No matter how irrefutable your definition is, you can't force people to adopt it. Religion isn't a natural phenomenon that can be clearly described and neatly captured in a watertight definition. The concept of religion is by it's nature wishy washy, and you'll probably not find two authorities who fully agree.


    Xenu:

    LOL Xenu is a valuable and very effective mean of inoculation. It will however not give os much inroad here, as the Xenu story is among the most real religion-like aspect of the whole cult.
  2. Anonymous Member

    Easily avoided. Ignore as far as possible any temptation to engage in arguments framed in a religious context. Rather, stick to the truth as evidenced by DOX. Repeat as often as needed the facts confirming Scientology is a criminal conspiracy to employ dangerous hypnotic-like techniques as a distsraction from systematic fraud based on and protected by pseudo science, lies, blackmail, violence, public pillory, corruption, burgalry, and, and, and . . . while also mocking the spiritual teachings regarding Xenu. It places Scientology operatives and dupes into an indefensible position in public dialogue and helps identify the tactics and personalities involved in that cloaking work. IMHO.
  3. Anonymous Member

    You will never force a Scientologist to adopt it, and nor will you ever convince them. Wogs, however, can be swayed by reason and humour hightlghting the utter, utter idiocy of Scientology itself.

    Please explain.
  4. Anonymous Member

    You can tell just by looking at it . . . sharpen up.

    ot3-data-1.gif
  5. Anonymous Member

    There's not much point in engaging with Scientologists inside or outside the cult on the religious cloaking aspect. In that debate they are opposed to truth, or even an examination of what the truth might be. Hence the manipulative tactics. I just fake ARC, and talk around them by addressing comments to the gallery of lurkers.
  6. Anonymous Member

    True. Scientologists "know" the truth is what's true for them even if that means L Ron Hubbard was genius who "discovered" fundamental truths concerning the spiritual nature of humans which, if correctly applied, will create in an individual a new state of being and the recovery of mighty spiritual powers which defy the laws of physics on a whim.
  7. Random guy Member

    You can't convince people who has an interest in their definition rather than yours being applied. You can put the whole cult apologist crowd in that category, and likely most other religion scolars too.

    But, by all means go ahead. Do you have any good definition lined up? Come on, convince me, I'm actually on your side and shouldn't be too hard to convince.

    A typical aspect of religions is creation myths. The Xenu story, stupid and banal as it is, comes fairly close to fitting the bill.[/quote]
  8. Anonymous Member

    A definition of Scientology? Its the unaltered works of L Ron Hubbard with KSW at its core. That's the definition as Scientology is applied and delineated by LRH, other than in dissemination. The various other, watered down acceptable truth definitions are easily disposed of. My attempt to provide something of a starting point for a "religion or not" debate was for this audience. I had no ambitions of altering anyone's position except my own on the unlikely chance I would encounter an argument I couldn't refute. It happens every now and then and I love it.

    Outside of our wee cloister, in the five or so years I've been doing on-line inoculation activities, the people who offer any real defence of the religion angle are Scientologists. The few times when I've run into a sturdy defence of the concept from non Scientologists have involved people who defend all religions on the basis that an attack on one is an attack on all. In those cases, the "there was no Christ" video and Xenu have been very handy. Last week I found some appeal in an argument I hadn't properly explored: that the term religion was neutral, it doesn't by definition mean an acknowledgement of positive spiritual matters (good) so applies equally to the negative aspects (evil). Accept this and Scientology, if it does involve a spirituality, has a partial valifity, IMHO. I kinda went with it for while but keep returning to the unambiguous parallels between fraud and Scientology, especially at the semantic and linguistic definition levels, along with Hubbard's biography and the fact that the the fundamental concept which drives the spirituality aspect - the Engram - has been proved scientifically to no exist. Unlike, for example, God.

    I'm prattling on because this issue bugs me. The problem, as I see it, is that the public's association of Scientology with religion is almost a default setting yet when I've probed it only a very few actually believe Scientology is a valid religion as such, its association has, instead, become embedded in the syntax. I blame the media which, especially in the US, is scared so shitless of alienating the powerful lobbies it has adopted the lie, very few consumers/advertisers object and its, like I said, become the default setting. This is exactly what Scientology set out to achieve and its success in this respect is fundamental to the turning of a blind eye to the abuses. So far as the Indies are concerned, I'm not especially worried about they practise because to call it Scientology is to apply a misnomer. What I object to is their slippery dissemination and forwarding of the religious cloaking. When challenged on it, even when I'm trying really hard, my discussions with them inevitably degrade into standard tech ad hom with the additional "discovery" of my overt that I am seeking to interfere with their human rights . . .

    TL/DR: IMHO, it is too early to get into the provision of supporting Indies in their "Scientology" and religiosity, first the cult, then KSW, then what's left they call what they like and I will wander off and find some more windmills to tilt against.


    [/quote]

    Huh? The Scientology creation myth is Incident One with the chariot and all that. You are repeating the ill informed acceptable truth purchased from the academic schill Melton, who, in displaying his ignorance of the subject upon which he was pontificating, also presented Xenu as a metaphor. Such a position completely negates the Axioms upon which the entire subject is predicated and state that for charge to be blown the incident holding in place must be duplicated exactly with time, form, place and event. With that information in hand, it becomes immediately apparent that Xenu is not a metaphor but a literal truth of Scientology and simultaneously a scientifically proven physical impossibility. You should see the shit people like Jim Logan and Steve Hall and that crowd come up with to obscure both those facts. Srsly dude . . .

    TL/DR: lurk moar.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. The Internet Member

    There are many thousands of religions in the world and probably scores of new ones invented daily. Yet where are all the big discussions concerning which ones are or are not genuine religions?

    Apart from Scientology I don't see people going back and forth for years debating whether some self-defining religious group is actually religious.

    For most believers all religions are bullshit apart from the one they happen to embrace. But they don't want to fight so they allow all the misguided suckers to call themselves "religious" if that makes them happy.
  10. Anonymous Member

    Way to a) completely miss the point of what I was saying and b) fall for the very same equivocation I was warning about.

    Whether you like it or not, the average person considers ‘religion’ to involve ‘what a person believes’ on some level. What the cult is doing is playing on that starting point and then, in the person’s mind, getting them to equivocate attacks on the cult with attacks on personal beliefs. Until you grasp that, and manage to explain to them that opposition to the cult has fuck all to do with beliefs but rather abuses and fraud, you may as well sit and sing dixy.

    Trying to simply all of this down to ‘scientology is a fraud’, but expressly failing to make the differentiation needed for people to truly recognise the group aspect, the cult aspect, the criminal aspect and the abusive organisation aspect is incredibly counterproductive, intellectually lazy and utterly useless when trying to communicate what the cult is bad to the public.

    Here is a classic example of just how ineffectual (not to mention illogical) your argument is: “Scientology is NOT a set of beliefs because Scientologists don't believe anything . . .”. I have witnessed more than a few occasions where other anons used this same reasoning only to be met with the (bloody obvious) response of “how can you claim you know what they do and do not believe?”. The very fact that such a question was even asked is because the asker has not made the differentiation needed between ‘personal beliefs’ and ‘wholesale organised fraud’.

    TLDR
    Lazy reasoning is lazy and just leads one into the very quagmire you allegedly trying to avoid. Assuming the public shares, or will be receptive to, your particular definitions is a silly silly assumption.
    I think you really need to look up the meanings of the words ‘definition’ and ‘logically’, because you are using those terms in a manner that is compatible with the rest of the English speaking world. A definition, by its very nature, cannot be either ‘logically’ nor ‘illogical’. A definition can have many criteria, such as being ‘useful’, ‘accurate’, ‘relevant’, ‘widely accepted’, but certainly not ‘logical’.

    This just sums up the flaw in your entire approach. You are failing to grasp the misconceptions within the public mind that the cult is exploited with religious cloaking, which is a pretty detrimental if you are hoping to be in any way persuasive in your attempts to convince that public.


    Biggest irony in this thread? Some folks going hell for leather about how easy it is to discuss this topic by not making it about ‘religion’ and have only succeeded in making the thread about beliefs. Given that you have failed so fucking hard ITT, bearing in mind the time delay between posts which allow you to consider your thoughts and the structure of your argument, I shudder to think how ineffectual you would be out actually talking to the public. I feel embarrassed for you.
  11. The Internet Member

    So are you saying we have to tell people Scientology is not a religion?

    But what if that is not true?
  12. Anonymous Member

    Read my comment where I answered this point fully by using the Hare Krishna as a real world example for comparison, a talking point I have used with immense success for years now.
  13. The Internet Member

    Okay I got an argument by practical example:

    A Scientologist goes to the ER with chest pain and gets admitted for observation. The admissions clerk hands the patient a form to complete which asks about religious affiliation. The guy puts down, "Scientologist."

    Now, should the admissions clerk tell the patient, "No that answer is not acceptable because Scientology is not a religion"?
  14. The Internet Member

    Maybe you are talking to people who don't give a fuck. If so, that's not much of a win.
  15. Random guy Member

    No, a definition of religion which is irrefutable and logical that includes all manner of things normally seen as religions, but excludes Scientology.

    Yeah, for the physical universe, sure, but according to the some tapes he dis with Mary Sue in the 50s, thetans precede the physical universe and are yedda, yadd, yadda. Point is taken, but the Xenu story goes int this whole space opera bullox, which is about as close as the cult comes to have an actual mythos. Thus, if your aim is to persuade scientology is not a religion, the Xenu story may not be the best way to go about it. For raging christfags, yes, but not for scholars and authorities.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Anonymous Member

    ? I have put plenty of folks who had bought the "we're a minority religion so we get unfairly attacked" and similar lines and put them straight on it. That includes far more journalists that should have been necessary too.

    So...??
  17. Anonymous Member

    FLUNK FOR BEING A FAGGOT - I'll ask the question again . . . if Scientologists don't believe anything, what has any belief system got to do with them other than prove those trapped in that manifestation of the reactive mind are less evolved? Also, recall a time when you were so far up your own arse you disappeared.
  18. Anonymous Member

    Missing the point once is forgivable. Twice is getting fairly bad.

    Oh look - you're now having a discussion about beliefs and dragged your own argument into a right quagmire.

    Here is a clue - if the cult didn't abuse folks you would not be protesting them. The reason you protest has nothing to do with what they do or do not believe. Do you think you could manage to bring yourself to grasp the immense relevance of that point?
  19. The Internet Member

    I think your argument fails even if it seems superficially convincing to many people. So I can't embrace your strategy even if it would mean the death of Scientology, because I'm one of those annoying fuckers who wants to get at the truth of the matter no matter what.

    As Random Guy said, to win you need a definition of "religion" that keeps all recognized religions in while excluding Scientology.
  20. no one really knows what is going on with Rinder mind now as (same than Rathbun) these guys change their minds about everything so fast it is difficult to keep up. Mike Rinder is not changing his mind ... only changing his tune depending on what is going on to suit his own agenda and his own benefit.

    Indies also change their tune depending on what they benefit them.

    Prove me wrong
  21. Anonymous Member

    As I said up-thread, the provision of an acceptable definition of religion has escaped scholars for thousands of years. Why don't you have a go. In the meantime, religion can be defined, in part, by identifying those things which it is not, like fraud and Scientology, for example.



    Huh? What about the arsyclus (sp) brick layers, the obsene dog, the gorilla, the bubble gum incident . . . TonyO's just done a post on the book "What To Audit" which opens with “This is a cold-blooded and factual account of your last 76 trillion years.” and goes on to detail an array of Hubbard crazy more than sufficient to provide the mythos of a dozen religions. Tell me you've read the book, please. I may have made the mistake there are a few people left at WWP who know what they're talking about.
  22. Anonymous Member

    I think you really need to re-read my comments again, because you have seriously and grossly missed the point.

    To be it simply – I don’t give a flying fuck whether or not they qualify for any definition of ‘religion’. It was not the reason I began protesting the cult, and has never at any stage factored into any of the reasoning for why I continue to protest.

    The Hare Krishna example (which you seriously need to re-read because you have missed the point big time on that) is to illustrate the abuses committed by the cult – abuses on a scale and severity that other groups simply do not do. When I am discussing this the person I am talking usually has that ‘penny drop’ moment where they realise the complete and utter red herring that the topic of religion represents when it comes to Scientology.

    Srsly, you need to re-read my posts because they are not saying what you seem to be reading in them.

    Ffs, in another thread I wrote reasons why I think moving back to the gold standard is pointless and, for reasons that escaped me then, you read my posts as being in favour of the gold standard. Don’t do the same thing here…..

    Let me put it even clearer - I would have no objection to labelling baseball a religion, such is how little meaning the term 'religion' has for me.
  23. Anonymous Member

    A majority of people I encounter while protesting would disagree with this.
    Demons, the fall, the garden,…..
  24. Anonymous Member

    He made a public statement encouraging his fellow amateur hypnotists to carry on whole heartedly and with Tone 40 Intention the religious cloaking which was the greatest gift to mankind, other than Xenu, and had been delivered unto the flock by Swami Marty who, without that gift enduring would have no reason to ever look positively upon his entire life's work. In the 12 months since that statement, it has not been modified, let alone recanted, and, in fact, has become essential to the functioning of Cult II so as to avoid taxation and the provision of informed consent and accountabilty to any victims suckered into continuing the mind fuck outside the cult.

    Now, go to your room.
  25. Anonymous Member

    NOTE: Another attempt to define a solution that is impossible to achieve, detracts from staying on target, and perpetuates the framing of Scientology within a religious context. Slipperly little fuckers, ain't they?
  26. The Internet Member

    Fraud and religion go together like peanut butter and jelly. Tons of examples.

    And what are you doing saying, "religion can be defined by what it is not, like Scientology" as a way to convince me that Scientology is not a religion. I hope that's a joke.
  27. The Internet Member

    Oh please.
  28. The Internet Member

    Dude you are posting "Anonymous." I have no way of knowing what you said in some other thread.

    Aren't you the guy who wants us to tell the public Scientology is not a religion? Please answer yes or no because you are confusing me with your tl;dr.
  29. Anonymous Member

    FLUNK for argumentum ad populum.

    Christianity is a religion because it is so little else another thing. Plus, it qualifies under the "belief system", it practises worship, it provides services without charge to any and all who seek it and, and, and . . . Sure, there are parts of it which could be considered fraud but one would have to duck down the denominition alley ways (Catholic confession, for example) but, unlike Scientology it is not from start to finish, top to bottom, and left to right fraudulent.
    • Like Like x 1
  30. Anonymous Member

    Just like fresh raw meat, they are fucking with your mind and you don't even know it.
  31. The Internet Member

    Why is it necessary to insult me? Why not simply prove to me that you have a definition of "religion" that keeps all recognized religions while excluding Scientology?
  32. Anonymous Member

    Yes or no.
  33. The Internet Member

    Lol, so Imma nigger posting in a troll thread, eh?
  34. Random guy Member

    The very fact that a suitable definition has escaped scholars so far is at least to me a hint that a suitable definition won't be found. As I wrote further up, ''religion'' is not a natural phenomenon. It seems to my limited mind to be a sack category for a number of more or less closely social and cultural phenomena. If my understanding is right, there won't ever be a coherent definition, because the subject isn't coherent in the first place.

    Read ''A history of man''? Good grief, I have better things to do with my free time! I'm not PZ Myers, but even I'm able to pick out the same things he pointed to. Myers makes the error of comparing Hubbard's knowledge with what was established science in the 1950s though. The stories seem to chime more with the state of knowledge of the 20's, back when Hubbard went to school. His views of evolution is not only Haeckelian, it is also Lamarckian. Back in the 1920s, these two were not yet entirely ruled out as fitting with current knowledge.

    /philosophy of science
  35. Anonymous Member

    Another request for an impossibility and demonstration of a lack of both the required knowledge and, more importantly, goodwill to participate positively in this discussion. In fact tones of victim tech with a hint of overt hunting are filtering through now. Why not be a good little faggot and either go play somewhere else or just sit quietly and read Hugh Urbans last book. Hmmm?
  36. The Internet Member

    If you want to argue that Scientology is not a religion, you are obligated to provide a definition of the word, "religion" which excludes Scientology while keeping every other recognized religion.

    So it's not me, personally, wanting a definition.
  37. Anonymous Member

    Seeking a definition of religion is a distraction from working towards an increase in public consciousness of Scientology being a criminal organisation which has played the IRS and all other religions to nestle itself in their company (but with additional, special priviledges) and bask in reflective respect which, were other religions suitably informed of the full truth, would be recognised as an action which detracts and sullies that which they represent.

    Yet you feel confident enough in stating that the Xenu is the sole source of Scientology's mythos? I'd love to hear your theories of what might have happened to Pat Brice, Julia Watson, and June Lake.
  38. Anonymous Member

    No.

    Follow how it works.
    Anon 1 posts.
    Anon 2 posts disagree with anon 1.
    Anon 1 reports in response to anon 2.
    etc.
    By following how posts are quoted you can see the discussion progress.

    I referenced the other thread because it was a great example of how you don't read what a poster is saying closely enough, and then later in the thread you get completely lost as a result.
  39. Anonymous Member

    I see you've been drilling TR3. Doesn't work, BTW.
  40. Anonymous Member

    ITT the useless debate about whether the Scientology corporation is a religion or not is rehashed for the nine thousandth time.
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins