[Shaddim]

Well, there was a Scientology center in a city close to me, but they were burned out several years ago. No one found out who did it, but the reasons were clear. They'd f***ed with too many people and were run out of town.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

I don't see the point of this rambling. If there is hard enough evidence Scientology abuses human rights and uses fear and intimidation against individuals, companies and government, then just go out and organize a squad to firebomb Scientology centers. Much better than posting lame threats as "Anonymous". If anarchists can attack harmless McDonalds branches surely someone must have the balls to attack a positively harmful franchise.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying you should do that. And none of you will say you will

In today's world, what they're doing is about as close to civil disobedience as you can get. We're all too self-absorbed to worry about the millions of people that can't take care of themselves. At least they're not just blogging about it and feeling selfrighteous or harrassing random believers on obscure forums...

[olePigeon]

Here's the story of Hubbard's war history. It reads like a real life version of McHale's Navy, I couldn't stop laughing.

[ryaxnb]

I need pyschology to live. (I have bipolar and Asperger's; I'd get sent to a mental hospital without pills and studies). I believe in alternative medicine; but only as a supplement and for treating light cases. I take fish oil and melatonin to help me get to sleep; but the E-Meter is a piece of S***. Their "Psychology Test" is nothing more than a test designed to invent problems. When someone really has problems, like I do, that's when they throw them out (or kill them, or SP them, or whatever). They don't know how to deal with people with actual problems.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by ryaxnb 

They don't know how to deal with people with actual problems.

They don't want to deal with anybody's actual problems -- they want to take advantage of those problems so they can extract cash from them.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Well, there was a Scientology center in a city close to me, but they were burned out several years ago. No one found out who did it, but the reasons were clear.

Terrrstsss!!

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Latest news: Scienologist attempting to silence anon and other anti-scientology articles on Digg, Reddit, etc. They're calling Anonymous 'terrorists'. The leader of Scientology has possibly fled the country.

[Tyre MacAdmin]

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO 

Latest news: Scienologist attempting to silence anon and other anti-scientology articles on Digg, Reddit, etc. They're calling Anonymous 'terrorists'. The leader of Scientology has possibly fled the country.

Link?

[Chongo]

Unconfirmedsources.com

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by ryaxnb 

I need pyschology to live. (I have bipolar and Asperger's; I'd get sent to a mental hospital without pills and studies). I believe in alternative medicine; but only as a supplement and for treating light cases. I take fish oil and melatonin to help me get to sleep; but the E-Meter is a piece of S***. Their "Psychology Test" is nothing more than a test designed to invent problems. When someone really has problems, like I do, that's when they throw them out (or kill them, or SP them, or whatever). They don't know how to deal with people with actual problems.

I don't get it. On the one hand, you say you need psychology to live, but then you imply that the treatment for your conditions consists of drugs.

That's essentially the same phenomenon that CoS and other critics of psychiatry are critical of, shrinks being incapable of actually helping anybody, and just prescribing drugs when they've run out of ideas.

Not saying that Dianetics would work for you, but if you have to take pills anyway, what difference does it make whether you're seeing some head doctor with a psych degree, some hippie Reiki master or some arsehole with an e-meter?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Not saying that Dianetics would work for you, but if you have to take pills anyway, what difference does it make whether you're seeing some head doctor with a psych degree, some hippie Reiki master or some arsehole with an e-meter?

If you're going to wind up taking prescription medication for a painful physical disease, what's the difference between going to a proper doctor who specializes in your illness and asking your cat for advice?

[red rocket]

False analogy. ryaxnb wasn't talking about physical ailments, he's talking about getting prescription drugs from a psychiatrist. If psychiatry worked, there'd be no need to medicate the patient.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

False analogy. ryaxnb wasn't talking about physical ailments, he's talking about getting prescription drugs from a psychiatrist. If psychiatry worked, there'd be no need to medicate the patient.

What an utter crock. There's a broad spectrum of problems people have to deal with -- not all include medication, some include medication AND therapy, but in general, a psychiatrist is working in the patient's best interest. There are problems with brain chemistry that can be ameliorated by medication, so to say that medicating a patient for psychological problems is automatically a failure of medicine is patently absurd. I think some drugs are over prescribed, but some people really need them -- bad cases of OCD, schizophrenia, etc.

An e-meter is more like a wallet-meter.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

False analogy. ryaxnb wasn't talking about physical ailments, he's talking about getting prescription drugs from a psychiatrist. If psychiatry worked, there'd be no need to medicate the patient.

This is nonsense.
There are endogenic and exogenic reasons for psychological problems (e. g. postpartum depression is caused by a hormonal imbalance whereas PTSD is caused by traumatic events) and treatment often includes both. This is similar to surgery and physiotherapy: you don't say surgery doesn't work, because you still need physiotherapy.

The important difference between dianetics and psychological therapy as well as medication is that the latter has a proven effect on the medical condition (all drugs have to be tested first) whereas dianetics doesn't.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by chris v 

What an utter crock. There's a broad spectrum of problems people have to deal with -- not all include medication, some include medication AND therapy, but in general, a psychiatrist is working in the patient's best interest. There are problems with brain chemistry that can be ameliorated by medication, so to say that medicating a patient for psychological problems is automatically a failure of medicine is patently absurd. I think some drugs are over prescribed, but some people really need them -- bad cases of OCD, schizophrenia, etc.

An e-meter is more like a wallet-meter.

If you're seeing a psychiatrist, you're doing so because referring doctors have decided that your problems are psychosomatic. If there's a physical cause, you should have been referred to a neurosurgeon. If the psychiatrist prescribes drugs to alter your behaviour, he is resorting to a method of treatment that is outside his field of expertise. Psychiatry is not about modifying the patient's symptoms through chemical substances.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

This is nonsense.
There are endogenic and exogenic reasons for psychological problems (e. g. postpartum depression is caused by a hormonal imbalance whereas PTSD is caused by traumatic events) and treatment often includes both. This is similar to surgery and physiotherapy: you don't say surgery doesn't work, because you still need physiotherapy.

The important difference between dianetics and psychological therapy as well as medication is that the latter has a proven effect on the medical condition (all drugs have to be tested first) whereas dianetics doesn't.

The medication may very well have a measurable effect, but whether standard psychiatric therapy by itself has any more merit than faith‑healing, meditation, magic, or in fact dianetics, is eminently unclear.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

The medication may very well have a measurable effect, but whether standard psychiatric therapy by itself has any more merit than faith‑healing, meditation, magic, or in fact dianetics, is eminently unclear.

That has also been subject to countless studies.
Certain methods in psychotherapy have a measurable beneficial effect on the subjects health -- this is the big difference to faith healing or dianetics.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

If you're seeing a psychiatrist, you're doing so because referring doctors have decided that your problems are psychosomatic.

As someone who has seen a psychiatrist, that is incorrect.

Originally Posted by red rocket 

If there's a physical cause, you should have been referred to a neurosurgeon.

Not all physical problems can be solved by slicing someone open.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

If you're seeing a psychiatrist, you're doing so because referring doctors have decided that your problems are psychosomatic. If there's a physical cause, you should have been referred to a neurosurgeon. If the psychiatrist prescribes drugs to alter your behaviour, he is resorting to a method of treatment that is outside his field of expertise. Psychiatry is not about modifying the patient's symptoms through chemical substances.

This is incorrect: psychiatrists (not to be confused with psychologists) know full well about the possibilities of neurology, the two fields are intimately related (note that a neurologist is not necessarily a neurosurgeon) and they are medical doctors. If you are in psychological treatment, the first thing that is done is exclude obvious endogenic reasons (e. g. brain tumors), but most of time, your psychiatrist cannot decide whether the cause is endogenic or exogenic.

The education of neurologists and psychiatrists (at least where I come from) is very similar. A neurologists who is a friend of my family once said that the education during specialization is very similar, but emphasis is different (1/3 to 2/3 vs. 2/3 to 1/3).

Psychologists are not to be confused with psychiatrists: psychiatrists are medical doctors who have specialized in a subfield of neurology, psychologists are not medical doctors. Psychologists and psychiatrists work hand-in-hand, similarly to your orthopedic surgeon and your physical therapist: one cannot replace the other.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

If psychiatry worked, there'd be no need to medicate the patient.

Oh dear God, red, someone has filled your head with lies.

Originally Posted by red rocket 

If you're seeing a psychiatrist, you're doing so because referring doctors have decided that your problems are psychosomatic. If there's a physical cause, you should have been referred to a neurosurgeon.

If neuroscience has discovered a way to treat the problem. For instance, recent trials of direct brain stimulation (ie, a newer form of electroshock therapy) have been successful at treating depression. However, no doctor is going to recommend carving your head open and implanting electrodes into it without first attempting less invasive practices like antidepressants and cognitive-behavior therapy.

If the psychiatrist prescribes drugs to alter your behaviour, he is resorting to a method of treatment that is outside his field of expertise.

No he's not. A psychiatrist is a medical doctor with training in psychopharmacology.

Psychiatry is not about modifying the patient's symptoms through chemical substances.

Correct. Psychopharmacology is about modifying the patient's symptoms through chemical substances. Psychopharmacology is only one aspect of psychiatry.

Originally Posted by red rocket 

The medication may very well have a measurable effect, but whether standard psychiatric therapy by itself has any more merit than faith‑healing, meditation, magic, or in fact dianetics, is eminently unclear.

Rubbish. Google "cognitive behavior therapy" and read up on the endless studies. It's the most scientifically-measured therapy ever.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That has also been subject to countless studies.
Certain methods in psychotherapy have a measurable beneficial effect on the subjects health -- this is the big difference to faith healing or dianetics.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

This is incorrect: psychiatrists (not to be confused with psychologists) know full well about the possibilities of neurology, the two fields are intimately related (note that a neurologist is not necessarily a neurosurgeon) and they are medical doctors. If you are in psychological treatment, the first thing that is done is exclude obvious endogenic reasons (e. g. brain tumors), but most of time, your psychiatrist cannot decide whether the cause is endogenic or exogenic.

The education of neurologists and psychiatrists (at least where I come from) is very similar. A neurologists who is a friend of my family once said that the education during specialization is very similar, but emphasis is different (1/3 to 2/3 vs. 2/3 to 1/3).

Psychologists are not to be confused with psychiatrists: psychiatrists are medical doctors who have specialized in a subfield of neurology, psychologists are not medical doctors. Psychologists and psychiatrists work hand-in-hand, similarly to your orthopedic surgeon and your physical therapist: one cannot replace the other.

That one way of approaching the subject has an official stamp of approval on it, does not mean alternative approaches cannot yield results. Obviously, practitioners of one discipline like to think they're the ones who've got everything right, and everybody else is automatically a witch doctor, but this does not logically make a worthier or superior discipline of psychotherapy. The mind is poorly understood, one school of thought gets replaced by another, and another. Remember Freud? There were times when his theory was all the rage. It's a bit of a joke, now. Left hemisphere, right hemisphere, dualistic personality, repressed personality, amalgamate personality, individual archetypes, universal archetypes, who knows? There were times when people believed in possession. Some still do. You can't even say that exorcism doesn't work, because it all depends on the patient. You can mess up your mind by all sorts of methods, and there are all sorts of ways of fixing it, changing it, or at least convincing yourself that you're somehow better, or worse.

You'll notice I'm focusing on the psychological side. That's to keep the drugs out of it. Psychiatric hospitals used to be the domain of psychologists, and in my view, psychoanalysis is the proper core of psychiatry, with electroshock therapy and drugs constituting crude outside elements that have found their way in due to the lack of easy results from non‑invasive methods. If you get right down to it, I suppose I consider psychiatry that's centred around psychopharmacology to be something that's more closely allied to the pharmaceutical industry than to psychoanalysing the patient. Since ryaxnb specifically mentioned ‘needing psychology to live’, I assume he actually meant psychoanalytical psychology rather than psychopharmacologocentric clinical psychiatry.

To bring Scientology back into it, there were two reasons Hubbard was opposed to the psychiatric profession: (1) It trashed his book about Dianetics. (2) Drugs and electroshocks, which he saw as cruel and barbaric. Since Dianetic rundowns don't involve prescribing or administering drugs or electroshocks to the subject, you can't compare Dianetic auditors to psychopharmacology oriented psychiatrists, you can only compare them to those who don't prescribe drugs or electroshocks, meaning those who treat the patient via hypnosis/regression therapy/counseling/etc.

[OreoCookie]

You still mix psychology and psychiatry at random, they're distinct. (E. g. psychologists are not in charge of a psychiatric hospital, psychiatrists are.)

The reason why psychology and psychiatry are superior to alternatives are the fact that they have been tested scientifically. The success of a therapy (be it new medication or a psychological therapy) is compared to a control group, so one that effectively hasn't been treated (e. g. by giving a placebo to the control group). This is the big difference to exorcism and dianetics, none of them have been scientifically tested. This is not to say that every form of psychotherapy helps. But we have an exact way of determining when a program works and when it doesn't. Psychotherapy works, I've seen it work. Not everybody can be cured, but that's the same with other chronic diseases -- and in the same way, lack of a miracle cure doesn't mean the whole discipline is bogus.

And lastly: of course you can compare `auditors' to both, psychologists and psychiatrists: after all, they claim to be a better alternative to both.

[jokell82]

So is red rocket a Scientologist?

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

1. As I understand it, OT III and the Xenu story aren't key to current Scientology, the whole nonsense has long been superseded by New Era Dianetics for Operating Thetans and functions as mythological icing on the cake, more specifically the only reason it's still in there at all is to give the operation its financially required religious gloss.

2. If you view ‘Thetans’ as an abstraction, the notion isn't particularly absurd. At any rate, I find it more realistic to view the human psyche as consisting of a multitude of personalities than as a monistic or dualistic entity. If you can accept that your personality might be more complex than you can understand, trying to work out some type of regimen to bring the multiplicity under your control, or at least introduce some order into the mess, seems like the only sane pathway if you're interested in self‑therapy/improvement.

3. The Scientology cross isn't a modified Christian symbol, it's been adapted from an illustration on a tarot card by early 20th century occultist Aleister Crowley. The points of the cross there are representative of magical concepts, in the CoS's simplified version they represent their fundamental eight ‘dynamics’.

Well well... our very first Scientologist. All the excuses you write here are thinly veiled excuses for a scentologist.

How about you take down that signature, now that you're not antheist. You're a scientologist.

You should also seriously consider where your life is heading.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

So is red rocket a Scientologist?

You need to ask?

[chris v]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

If you're seeing a psychiatrist, you're doing so because referring doctors have decided that your problems are psychosomatic. If there's a physical cause, you should have been referred to a neurosurgeon. If the psychiatrist prescribes drugs to alter your behaviour, he is resorting to a method of treatment that is outside his field of expertise. Psychiatry is not about modifying the patient's symptoms through chemical substances.

I think you still have some auditing of engrams to do in regards to this subject. I wish you luck with that, and watch that mortgage note.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by jokell82

So is red rocket a Scientologist?

I'm an atheist thelemite with a keen interest in psychological modification and chaos magick.

[jokell82]

Cool. Say hey to Xenu for me.

[Macrobat]

According to Scientology's own history, the Scientology cross was "modeled after" a cross LRH saw in a Mexican mission, not a tarot card, so YES it is a rip-off of the Christian cross.

Source's Apprentice - The Scientology Cross

Hubbard claimed that he unearthed a sand casting of a Roman cross from a very ancient Spanish mission in Arizona, from which he created the official Scientology cross. He apparently revealed his find in 1955, around the time he gave his Phoenix lecture series.1

Unless, of course you know more than the "religion's" founder.


The only cult I can think of that has altered it's hostory more is LDS.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

According to Scientology's own history, the Scientology cross was "modeled after" a cross LRH saw in a Mexican mission, not a tarot card, so YES it is a rip-off of the Christian cross.

Source's Apprentice - The Scientology Cross



Unless, of course you know more than the "religion's" founder.


The only cult I can think of that has altered it's hostory more is LDS.

Well, the issue here is that LRH has in many cases altered his own history, changing the telling of an event every time he told it. He also had ghostwriters invent his own life story a few times under his name.

So it may be hard to take Hubbard's own account as fact.

RON THE "WAR HERO" - L. Ron Hubbard: his struggle with truth details the difficulty LRH had with the truth and his history in the US Navy.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Cool. Say hey to Xenu for me.

Are you stupid, or something? The stuff I mentioned has f*ck all to do with Scientology.

[red rocket]

Those still entertaining the delusion that the Scientology cross is a rip‑off of a Christian crucifix may do well to educate themselves as to whence and how Hubbard obtained his occult ‘education’.

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

A little background doesn't hurt.

[Weyland-Yutani]

What is sad is that you treat Scientology as a serious thing, Red Rocket. It isn't a religion. It's a scam.

Wake up.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

I'm an atheist thelemite with a keen interest in psychological modification and chaos magick.

Off topic I know, and it's not meant as a personal attack -- I just thought this was too funny:



especially the bit about the layout and design being "significantly improved..." Heh.

Keep in mind, the entire Wiccan phrase was Do what thou will, but harm none.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

I'm an atheist thelemite with a keen interest in psychological modification and chaos magick.

An atheist Thelemite, that's interesting. I must confess, I've met several agnostic Thelemites (we have a couple in our temple), but I've not met a true atheist follower of Thelema.


and yes, LRH ripped off Crowley (and the OTO and G.·.D.·.), not Christians.

[Chongo]

atheist thelemite is an oxymoron.

[Shaddim]

Well, not exactly, I can see it.

If one believes in the spiritual forces as only a part of him/herself, thus the magician would be their own god. Their will would be the only force that guides their lives.

or

They believe that certain forces are simply a part of the universe and were not created by a supreme being. Of course, that would mean that they don't believe in the divinity of Nuit (also known as the Shekhinah or Holy Spirit), a principle that is central to Thelemic doctrine.

Now that I think about it, initiates in the IOT could likely embrace either philosophy.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by chris v 

Off topic I know, and it's not meant as a personal attack -- I just thought this was too funny:



especially the bit about the layout and design being "significantly improved..." Heh.

Keep in mind, the entire Wiccan phrase was Do what thou will, but harm none.

Why would I feel attacked by the fact that some other guy's fortunecity page looks like crap? (It looks fine in Safari 1.3.2 with JavaScript off, incidentally, although I appreciate the irony about the layout.)

What are you suggesting, ‘Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.’ is some license or invitation to harm other people? It's not. Like Lon Milo DuQuette says, ‘The only person I can change is myself.’

Just because Gardner inserted a qualifier into his Rede, doesn't mean it has any implications on other movements' credos. Most Wiccans aren't that involved in magickal study, and Liber AL isn't exactly intended for laypeople.

Love is the law, love under will.

[ebuddy]

Some good information here all. I'll be taking this thread back to some local evangelists here. It seems the only problem with Christianity is that it's simply not interesting enough.

Thanks.

[lpkmckenna]

Thelema makes wicca look normal.

[ryaxnb]

Just to let you know, I agree with "asking your cat for advice" analogy; I tried many different pills and have seen how side effects and such can be very painful (one pill worked but gave me severe stomaches; one pill worked but gave me severe weight gain; another pill worked but dropped out of my body too fast) and how you need a proper doctor to advise you on what to do with medication.
Incidentally, I don't like the medicine companies; I think they focus too much on "one-a-day" medications (like mine, restless legs, statins, etc) instead of vaccines, antibiotics, a vaccine-live cure for AIDS and bacterial infections, and of course, cures for cancer.) But they're big business and it makes them more money; besides they're what I've got and they make my life livable to the point where I don't have to be in a mental institution and can lead a good life.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Thelema makes wicca look normal.

Interesting perspective, what makes you say that?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

What are you suggesting, ‘Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.’ is some license or invitation to harm other people? It's not. Like Lon Milo DuQuette says, ‘The only person I can change is myself.’

Just because Gardner inserted a qualifier into his Rede, doesn't mean it has any implications on other movements' credos. Most Wiccans aren't that involved in magickal study, and Liber AL isn't exactly intended for laypeople.

"Do what thou wilt" is actually more difficult to follow than any other spiritual instruction. It's a very rare person who knows their will. Gardner's qualifier weakens the message and is redundant.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Interesting perspective, what makes you say that?

Thelema is pretentious paganism. People like Aleister Crowley might have creative personalities, but they are not serious intellectuals.

[jokell82]

Anyone heard of the R2-45 auditing process?
R2-45 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scary stuff.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Thelema is pretentious paganism. People like Aleister Crowley might have creative personalities, but they are not serious intellectuals.

I will say that Crowley was not a positive role model, he was dominated by his passions and ego and ultimately allowed them to rule him. However, it's ignorant to claim he wasn't brilliant. I dare say he was one of the most intelligent individuals of his era, but it's quite obvious that he lacked an equal portion of common sense.

As for Thelema, I doubt your gripe is with the philosophy itself, but more with many of it's followers. One thing I want to make clear though, is that it is a philosophy, by itself it isn't a religion or even a system, unlike Wicca. Thus, it's impossible to say that it's pagan. Usually most people automatically lump Enochian magick and the Kabbalah in with it, and that's not always the case. I know Thelemic Taoists who don't practice anything more racy than yoga and feng shui.

Ceremonial magick is a different kettle of fish. If I had my way, I'd rather all who pursue such practices be well grounded and have a better understanding of themselves. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case. Most people who approach this brand of mysticism are searching for a way to control their lives and the lives of others, and that is a recipe for personal destruction. To put it bluntly, if you don't know who you are you shouldn't be dicking around with ceremonial magick (especially Enochian magick). This is what I tell everyone who petitions our group, and most aren't capable of advancing beyond the first interview.

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Well, the word is that the raids were successful today.

"Beware of the Ides of March, Scientology" <-- next protest before hubbard's b-day.

[Kerrigan]

These guys are nuts:

YouTube - Scientology Crazy Followers

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

These guys are nuts:

YouTube - Scientology Crazy Followers

C'mon Kerrigan…what are YOUR crimes? What are you afraid of?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Anyone heard of the R2-45 auditing process?
R2-45 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scary stuff.

That is, theoretically speaking, quite hilarious.