Scientology: Good or Bad?

Many years ago when I read the book dinanetics , I called the 1-800 number in the book. I was interested in auditing as it is called in the book , I wanted to watch them do some one else first , but they would not let me. It sounded a bit more like brain washing than any kind of therapy to me any way. desert rat
 
To radamark , I could not figure out how to respond to a p.m. This forum is set up a bit diffrent. I live just west of Phoenix . When I called the 1-800 number it was many years ago , before this wounderfull internet. Even way back then I had some mistrust of them and wanted to watch them work on some one else first . desert rat
 
No sweat. I had similiar experience (also bw.... before web). Did you know that L. Ron founded Dianetics right after he wrote about a science fiction author who made a fortune by founding a new religion?

Pax et amore vincunt omnia--Radarmark
 
Vajradhara said:
that article was mostly about the Pope and the Catholic Church. she wasted her time with $cientology and got some information wrong to boot. perhaps she should have asked Anonymous for some help :)
Click to expand...

I believe science can explain religious events and realities. My question is does scientology function in this way or is it an attempt to control misusing science?
 
Absolutely riveting Nick. The man shares his great granddad's talent for mesmerizing story telling.

Passerby, It has always been of fascination to me how we choose to define our religions. Is it a religion? Or is it a cult. Point of view? Or is there more to it than that. Not that there is any doubt that Scientology is a Con job of the first order. There are plenty of others though including the Christian Mega-Churches.
 
Hubbard was always a con artist: read about him and Jack Parsons at Wikipedia. I've never read his SF, but I do remember a funny review (well, it's an insider joke) that just said he displayed the characterisation skills of Doc Smith, the plotting ability of A. E. Van Vogt, and the moral sensibility of John Norman.
 
GK,

You said,

"The man shares his great granddad's talent for mesmerizing story telling."

--> A cult often has a very charismatic leader. But the fact that members are punished for leaving clearly marks it as a cult.

"There are plenty of others though including the Christian Mega-Churches."

--> Can you spell "Tammy Faye Baker"...?
 
Well It IS a recent religion and we all pretty much know its creator Ron Hubbard, so I would make the conclusion that it's blatantly invented.
 
Which brings up the concept I question, PW. How many of the older religions were blatantly invented? Too much time has passed to know the true origins like we do with Scientology. How do we know, really, whether older religions are just as bogus?
 
Gordian Knot said:
Which brings up the concept I question, PW. How many of the older religions were blatantly invented? Too much time has passed to know the true origins like we do with Scientology. How do we know, really, whether older religions are just as bogus?
Click to expand...

It depends on when they were introduced and the person responsible for it, religions established many centuries ago have a tougher starting point to find.
 
...that's like sidestepping the myriad of questions we have about religion and just demanding proof of something unprovable!? What religions are you talking about, all of them? Did someone make up Christ? Muhammed? Siddhartha? Or did they make it all up themselves? Proof is irrelevant when it comes to religion, to my mind, it's a recent invention.

This is your oddest question yet..
 
There's always been proof of all manner of things, back and forth it goes. From where I'm sitting, it will always be easier to prove something existed then to prove something didn't exist.
 
A proof requires starting with a set of axioms and rules of deduction. In the context of religion, there's no common ground on what those are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top