BBC standing up to scientology

It is my understanding that whenever the Police get details of a robbery or accident from an assortment of witnesses, there is almost always a wide variation in the descriptions of people and events.

I don't think that this wide variation in powers of observation and description disproves anything about the event or the people involved.


As to the question of whether an order was sent by an NCO or a General - the point I was making was that someone sent the order - I wasn't really saying that it proved that it was sent by Stephen Fry rather than Tony Robinson ;)
 
Shackley said:
As to the question of whether an order was sent by an NCO or a General - the point I was making was that someone sent the order - I wasn't really saying that it proved that it was sent by Stephen Fry rather than Tony Robinson ;)

Or perhaps, more accurately, that someone could have sent the order.
 
Shackley said:
It is my understanding that whenever the Police get details of a robbery or accident from an assortment of witnesses, there is almost always a wide variation in the descriptions of people and events.

I don't think that this wide variation in powers of observation and description disproves anything about the event or the people involved.

It does sort of lend credence to the fact that the bible then isn't the word of God, but is in fact the word of man (in fact several men).

Shackley said:
As to the question of whether an order was sent by an NCO or a General - the point I was making was that someone sent the order - I wasn't really saying that it proved that it was sent by Stephen Fry rather than Tony Robinson ;)

I can assure you that having held and read a bible I can confirm, as much as I am able, that it does exist. So someone(s) did in fact write it. It's validity though sort of depends upon who wrote it...
 
Shackley said:
Indeed. However, regardless of how meaningless the text may or may not be, the General who issued the original order still exists. The ambiguous and valueless text doesn't prove otherwise.

Likewise, I don't think that the fact that there are different descriptions of the same event in the gospels proves that the event never occurred.

But our only evidence that there was ever a General in the first place is the text itself, if the text is ambiguous and therefore meaningless - then surely the existence of the General also becomes ambiguous.
 
Okay so I've seen the YTMND about Scientology before, but I decided to read more about their practices on their own site. I found some stuff that was interesting.

I believe what they aim to do is morally good, however there is a great deal of paranoia involved which I think stems from this paragraph L. Ron Hubbard wrote in 'The Aims of Scientology':

The Aims of Scientology by L. Ron Hubbard said:
Man suspects all offers of help. He has often been betrayed, his confidence shattered. Too frequently he has given his trust and been betrayed. We may err, for we build a world with broken straws. But we will never betray your faith in us so long as you are one of us.
I interpret this as an underlying threat to all those who dare betray them.

Also in this statement of aims was this paragraph:

The Aims of Scientology by L. Ron Hubbard said:
We seek no revolution. We seek only evolution to higher states of being for the individual and for society. We are achieving our aims.
Again, this I take as morally good. However the rate at which they are gaining followers and the method (which I will talk about later on) they use in persuading potential follwers is quite the opposite to "We seek no revolution". It's almost as if they know their religion is a revolution but don't want to be portrayed as one.

Again, this was taken from their 'Aims of Scientology':

The Aims of Scientology by L. Ron Hubbard said:
A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology.
Like I said, I see nothing wrong with this as I think (or like to believe) that everyone wishes for peace and achieve great things. Not sure if they mean "greater heights" in a spiritual sense, or socially. Because I think the latter might create a sense of greed and arrogance (hence the factor of money).

Another thing that I find interesting is their approach to "Drugs & Chemicals" which they have a section dedicated to on their site. They're pretty much organic eaters and frown upon chemicals in their food which are "poison" (a very strong word to use). Now at first I thought this was a bit hypocritical because it was science that invented these chemicals to preserve our food etc. however I'm not entirely sure if there is any science to Scientology (lol) so I have to be careful about pouncing on them about this. But what I found funny was their procedure for getting rid of these "poisons" in your body. They have what is called a 'Purification Rundown' which is "an exercise to dislodge toxic residues". Okay, nice. So at least they care about your health. However what I find a bit suspicious is this:

[QUOTE='The Effects of Drugs & Chemicals, Scientology.org]Followed immediately by sweating in a sauna, these toxins are flushed from the system. Mega-vitamin and mineral dosages and extra oil are vital factors in helping to repair the body.[/QUOTE]
The sauna bit I found funny because I can just imagine a bunch of Scientologists releasing all their "poisons". If that's the case, I'm sure I do that anyway after each gym session so I don't need to worry about the "poisons" I eat. What concerned me though, were these "mega-vitamin and mineral dosages". First of it's hypocritical to take such non-organic supplements when they are told to get rid of such "poisons" to begin with. But more importantly who's to know they aren't some brain-washing drug to influence a dangerous, radical, cult-like community? This might be one of the biggest reasons for their extreme paranoia, weird stalking, and explanations of their killings in their community.

Now, I thought about the murder (because that's what it was.. not a random death) of Lisa McPherson and the only conclusion I have was that they had to get rid of her (and others they murdered) because she was an imperfection to their community. Now Scientology seeks for the progression of one's self, and since Lisa McPherson had a "psychotic breakdown" as Scientologists call it, they deemed her unfit and had to get rid of her because they seek for a perfect community: "A civilization without insanity". That's my explanation anyway. So basically if you quit their religion, or show traits that are not outlined in their aims, you're either banished, stalked, or murdered. I don't think religions should be so quick and open to welcome new members, but be so harsh should they change their beleifs.

Moving back onto the 'Drugs & Chemicals' point, if you wished to join their religion you'd have to go through "auditing session" with an "Electropsychometer" or E-Meter. Now in theory an "auditing session" sounds nice - you get to talk to a Scientologist who does nothing but listen to problems in your life, then they help you out so you can live a better life. But they also hook you up to an "E-meter" which, and I quote:

The Electropsychometer said:
...measures the mental state or change of state of a person, helping the auditor locate areas of spiritual distress or travail so they can be addressed and handled in a session.
Like the "mega-vitamins" and "mineral dosages" how can you be certain that this won't brainwash you, or transmit some dangerous waves into your head so you lose clarity of mind - something which they seek you to find in the first place. It really sounds suspicious and I certainly wouldn't trust them "experimenting" on me like that. At least I don't know of anything like this happening in any of the major religions - they merely go on speech and prayer to influence so you still have control of yourself. This is another level.

Before I close this post, I'd just like to point out that they promote L. Ron Hubbard's book so much on their site, and it goes for $100 (about £50). £50!? You can buy the Bible or the Qu'Ran for a fraction of that! And with all these reports about their extortion and obsession for money, I wouldn't be surprised if they were an underlying "for profit" business.

Even being on their site and simultaneously searching for related stuff on Google and posting in this thread has got me paranoid that they've logged my IP and keystrokes and are out to get me. :eek:
 
Last edited:
Dolph said:
Or perhaps, more accurately, that someone could have sent the order.
Indeed.

By now, I am very confused myself. However, I think that what I was trying to show was that one could not "logically disprove the existence of particular versions of God or Gods". Someone then suggested that contradictions and/or inconsitentcies in the religion, it's beliefs and texts might do this. I (still) don't agree - they may prove many things, but not the existence or otherwise of particular versions of God or Gods.

As I said, I am now very confused - I need a lie down and a cold (non-alcoholic) drink.
 
Phæte said:
If you read Patrick Holfords Optimum Nutritional Bible he reccomends taking high strength vitamin supplements and omega oil supllements along side a diet of organic food probably because most fruit & veg today only contain a fraction of the nutrients they did 50 years ago thanks to industrial farming techniques. If patrick Holford reccomends it I'd say it's pretty safe to do and if you only read one book on health make sure it's this one http://www.amazon.co.uk/Patrick-Hol...3651640?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179152978&sr=8-1

Phæte said:
Before I close this post, I'd just like to point out that they promote L. Ron Hubbard's book so much on their site, and it goes for $100 (about £50). £50!? You can buy the Bible or the Qu'Ran for a fraction of that! And with all these reports about their extortion and obsession for money, I wouldn't be surprised if they were an underlying "for profit" business.
There probably isn't a single Church or Mosque in this country that wouldn't happily give you a bible or quran for free if you went in and asked them for one.
 
magick said:
There probably isn't a single Church or Mosque in this country that wouldn't happily give you a bible or quran for free if you went in and asked them for one.

Yeah but the other religions are more likely to charge you only for the printing costs or if there is funding from charities, give them away for free. Profiteering is against their principles afaik.
 
manoz said:
Yeah but the other religions are more likely to charge you only for the printing costs or if there is funding from charities, give them away for free. Profiteering is against their principles afaik.

My point entirely. If this ancient lost wisdom that scientology poessess is so enlightening, so important and will bring such good to humanity surely it would be worth omitting profits to get there message out there.
 
magick said:
If you read Patrick Holfords Optimum Nutritional Bible he reccomends taking high strength vitamin supplements and omega oil supllements along side a diet of organic food probably because most fruit & veg today only contain a fraction of the nutrients they did 50 years ago thanks to industrial farming techniques. If patrick Holford reccomends it I'd say it's pretty safe to do and if you only read one book on health make sure it's this one http://www.amazon.co.uk/Patrick-Hol...3651640?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179152978&sr=8-1

Not wanting to derail this thread but as to the credibility of Patrick Holford see the following http://www.badscience.net/?cat=70
 
magick said:
My point entirely. If this ancient lost wisdom that scientology poessess is so enlightening, so important and will bring such good to humanity surely it would be worth omitting profits to get there message out there.


Oh blap I misread you're post, but yeah you're right. :o
 
Last edited:
I always hark back to the fact that L. Ron Hubbard is widely rumored to have said "The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion." There is some confirmation that this is true though hotly denied by Scientologists.

Interesting debate but personally any "belief" system which scaes the maount of "knowledge" or "enlightenment" it imparts to you dependent on how much money you donate is fundementally un-sound.

Its the "little" things like this and reports of members who leave being sent "disconnect" letters from family members still inside and never hearing from them again that has me leaning toward the "cult" view.

Someone may want to google Scientology and charity staus in Uk I have a vague memory of it being relevant but im busy!
 
Back
Top Bottom