Namaste gp,
thank you for the post.
As a diplomacist I so hate debates with logicists.
why is that?
The courses I took were excellent. The scientologists I have met seem to reflect that their courses were also excellent. So I am taking for granted that the courses are excellent. Havent the scientologists you met seem happy, focused, clear minded, and capable?
no, quite the contrary. the vast majority of $cientologists demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the Tech. you and i may have had interaction with very different beings and thus may have had very different experiences.
The material for most of the courses that most people take are available in the towns public libraries. The courses you would probably zero in on would compare to PhD level at a college so Im not sure if the same statement can be made. Or in a religion such as catholocism Im guessing it would compare to vatican levels.
Catholics are Christians. that said, i don't know what a "vatican level" means. it seems that you are suggesting that as a being, in any religious tradition, enters into the priest/minister/clergy aspect of a tradition different teachings are made available to them as they progress through the hierarchy. is that a fair summation?
Heehee. True enough.
But of course (get ready for another fallacie) most people tend to operate that way anyway. They will declare that they feel a school or religion or whatever is excellent without having tried every part of it. Most people do not operate by logic-tables. Im taking for granted that there is no school or experience that you would make such a statement about now?
you are correct, i would not make such a claim. i would say, for instance, that Naropa has an excellent Sanskrit and Tibetan language class and the courses related to those are exceptional though the school completely lacks any athletic endeavors and thus is horrible at them. it is, in my estimation, quite difficult to generalize an entity composed of many parts with the same term and come close to the actuality of the entity. some parts may be excellent and others may not be. it would allow a more accurate understanding of the whole to have a proper appreciation of the parts excellent or otherwise.
The problem with this form of debate is that everything can be declared a fallacie. Even if I had taken all of the courses and declared them excellent it would be Argument from Authority. A fallacie isnt a fallacie unless its used as a fallacie. Declaring it one does not remove it from the discussion.
only fallacies can be declared as fallacies. that which is not fallacious is without fallacy by definition. the fallacy remains whether pointed out or not. the difference is that once it becomes clear all parties can avoid it in the course of the discussion whereas they may have not been able to.
Maybe the CIA factbook has a page.
hmm.. i've not checked the CIA factbook pages in quite a while and i didn't figure they would have files on $cientology, perhaps the IAS would be more feasible to me.
Hmmm would that be a Reduction Fallacie on your part? I did not join your conversation. You joined mine. I understand why you would prefer to limit any mention of xxxxxxxx only to such things as they pertain to Scientology. But that is not the conversation I was having.
actually we both joined Alex P's conversation and as near as i can tell his OP isn't asking for a comparison to other religious traditions, it seems to be focused on $cientology, as am i.
Do you feel there are no other sources for the idea that increasing shared expereinces will help raise affinity and therefore communication? You feel that Hubbard made all that up? If so then you give him far more credit than Im willing to give.
why are my feelings relevant to information in a text? i'm simply curious if you know of any that talk about ARC Break or Tone Scale, things which LRH asserts are spiritual or religious in nature. i'm not saying he didn't borrow things from others, quite the opposite in fact, but there are original teachings of his as well.
Ok fine. Then what is the psychiatrist word for a memory which is charged and can affect you when something pings it?
memory.
Memory: 1. The ability to recover information about past events or knowledge.
2. The process of recovering information about past events or knowledge.
3. Cognitive reconstruction. The brain engages in a remarkable reshuffling process in an attempt to extract what is general and what is particular about each passing moment.
Would that be fallacy of composition? By "only one medical doctor" Im assuming you mean that there was only one who involved himself in the claims being made?
i mean that there was only one M.D. involved with the creation of Dianetics and the opening of the Dianetics Institute. when the claims made were demonstrated to be false he left.
Unless you are a moderator here I will take that to be a desire more than a fact.
i am and you should. it is common enough to have tangents arise in an internet discussion and it is often better to start a new thread when the tangent takes on its own conversation since there may be people that would contribute to the new conversation but are not reading the current one.
It seems rather a pre-made argument to demand that people react to how "horrible" something is in the religion of Scientology and disallow any reference to other religions. Or how fraudulent something is in the teachings of Scientology without mentioning the same in other teachings. I guess it would depend on the point you wanted to make, but since you arent the one making the point then that seems moot.
who said that you couldn't mention them? you can and have. it is not the point of the OP which you can re-read for yourself. if you would like to create a thread comparing the horrible and fraudulent things in $cientology with other religions no one will prevent you from doing so.
the argument is premade for the simple fact that the OP was narrow with his questions. he could have started a thread, like you can, that sought to compare and contrast the horrible and fraudulent things of $cientology with other religions but he didn't.
you are, as you've already admitted, wanting to include the other religions and their horrible and fraudulent things in this discussion to water-down the impact such a discussion has upon $cientology. it is a fallacy which you are well aware of now and has no place in our conversation.
i am happy to participate in a thread which seeks to compare and contrast the horrible and fraudulent things in $cientology with those of other religions. i read the forum every day but on some days do not have time to post. if i've not responded to your thread in a few days send me a PM, please, and i'll hop on and give it a go.
vajra said:
i'm sorry, that is totally a non-answer and you well know it.
gp said:
it is since all the courses have specific names and there are multiple courses on the same subject in various degrees. i'm fine with your answer in a general way though.
Xenu.net and other anti-scientology sites make it quite clear that the large majority of people only take the first couple of cheaper courses and then leave. I believe the quote was 62%. With corresponding lesser percentages as you go up thru the courses. Definetly a higher loss than most colleges.
i agree completely.
Auditor? Wow, no. Not at all.
you claimed you were auditing...
In the 70's anyone who had taken a course could assist in the teaching of the course. Im not sure if its true now.
ah.. that is not the accepted practice now though with the release of SOLO NOTS it is somewhat determined on an individual basis.
The only things I did were some across-the-chair items for the communications and study courses. But I do have fond memories of bull-baiting staff going thru refresher courses who felt that I had a particular gift for finding buttons involving the methods people used to defend their personal space.
indeed. i don't find bull baiting to be an effective anything let alone spiritual practice. then again, it's not supposed to be.
Ahhhhh I see. So you are a devout atheist? That makes some things clear. You have no interest in Scientology as it compares to other religions. Just in deprogramming scientology itself.
perhaps your vision is not as clear as you think. i am a devout Buddhist insofar as such labels apply. in this conversation i'm only discussing $cientology. i am happy to discuss $cientology in relation to other religions in the appropriate thread. please start one and i'll join in as i'm able.
Then what was the question? Someone posted that they wish to discuss Scientology in the InterFaith forums on a site called Comparative-Religion.com and you feel that comparisons are inappropriate?
you stated that you are seeking to make the claim that two wrongs are two wrongs. who has disagreed with this notion? any sentient being, provided they share the same understanding of the notion "wrong", would agree that a wrong is a wrong is a wrong, which i have explicitly stated in this thread already. the reason that you gave for wanting to do this is to lessen the impact it will have upon $cientology.
this site does not have a section called "interfaith" we do have a Comparative section, this post is in the Modern Religions section.
metta,
~v
