GorillaVee – Research anything you can about Black Dianetics or Black Scientology.

Here are some links that might be helpful:

http://watchfulnavigator.wordpress.com/tag/reverse-scientology/

http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/reverse-processing-from-cultists.htm

+1 Dodo

Old School – Your assertion that there are no OT levels or that no one has acquired improved OT abilities from using L. Ron Hubbard’s Scientology are as provable as Christians saying that God provides all things. It’s a personal reality.

If you didn’t get those gains, well, that is unfortunate and disappointing, I’m sure. But the world isn’t based on your own personal petrie dish of experiences and observations. You may fault Ron for “not doing real research” but aren’t you doing the same, yourself?

You can speak for you but, please, don’t speak for the others.

Odd Thomas, um there are no OT levels (auditing levels that make one OT). THUS, he didn’t find “a way out”. THAT is objective truth. So, your argument isn’t then about much a its based on proven false data…

Well, wasn’t Jesus a criminal? Why else would they have sentence him to have been nailed up like that? Ipso facto…

Well Al, I checked with Plato and some of his cronies including those at Stanford, and they agreed with me.

+ 1

Anon — I have to agree with you, and not simply because it aligns with my thoughts (which it does) but because it makes empirical sense. I have worked with people who were unadulterated dicks and yet in certain areas of their lives were brilliant. They were equal parts good and bad – you just never knew where the madness would leak from.

LRH screwed the pooch more than once, and let his emotions dictate stupid orders and purges – not exactly the first person to do this. He enthralled thousands of staff with his dreams and made it theirs. Curse him for that if you like – some will agree – most I think will accept the fact that there were both good and bad times and that they literally signed on for it. That would include me – three separate times.

So yeah, I can point my finger at him and shake it vigorously while letting loose epithets of various color for all the bad things he did to me. But that’s not how it shook out. I got gains, as described. I had wins applying the Tech, as was described. I had losses because getting humans to agree with certain principles en mass, is like herding fucking cats. I wasted 3/4s of my time on staff doing and redoing the same thing over and over again. Have you heard of Sisyphus – look him up. Frustration as a word, only scratches the surface of what good staff went through trying to get things to work.

He started a movement with an obscene amount of good potential. It attracted great people and complete lunatics. It produced unbelievable theta results and absolute chaos in alternate months. It worked and it failed miserably and at last count there were about 55,713 people over the past 60 years who had a direct hand it making it GREAT and fucking it up beyond all recognition.

Enough with the blame, there’s enough to go around if it means anything. I don’t think it does.

Odd

Kemist wrote:

tl;dr version : I am not certain that there is nothing after death, but the possibility as I evaluate it is so remote, and the ideas proposed by humans about said afterlife so ill-fitting with the rest of our model of the universe, that I have resolved to live my life as if that was the only chance I’ve got at it.

I’m hoping I won’t screw it.

Very well written, Kemist.

Yours is a belief about human mortality that is certainly worthy of respect: It is well fleshed out and clearly expressed.

However, the evidence for your materialistic view lies only in the material, and there is nothing measurable outside of the material. Therefore, you have no evidence for the existence or non-existence of any immaterial phenomena.

The question to ask which dismantles your worldview is “Do immaterial and immeasurable phenomena exist?”

If not, then you’ll need to provide the evidence that the immeasurable does not exist per the limits of science. Which is impossible for science to do as it is limited only to what is measurable.

So your belief system about human immortality is logically inconsistent: Science has limits, and you are attempting to use scientific (measurable) evidence for conclusions beyond the measurable.

If you are going to be logically consistent, all you can say is that any existence beyond death of the body is immeasurable. Therefore, science is incapable of determining an answer to life beyond death of the body.

Period.

But, being a human being, you need an answer. So you cobble together something based on your present scientific worldview that makes you feel consistent and whole, never noticing that your scientific worldview is not capable of answering the questions that you ask of it.

That’s okay, we all do that to a greater or lesser degree.

Scientists just do it a lot more than others who accept that things exist for which there is no measurable evidence.

Alanzo

Valkov wrote:

“No human being knows what happens after death.”

It’s about as meaningful as the statement that “Every human being knows what happens after death.”

Well, it has to do with that word “KNOWLEDGE” which is built into the word “SCIENTOLOGY” but which Scientology fails utterly to define. This is a major flaw for any subject that calls itself a philosophy, and which contains the teachings that Hubbard gave you on KNOWLEDGE.

If you only had Hubbard to tell you what knowledge was, you would have things like “What is true is what you have observed yourself. That is all.”

When you really engage in a study of knowledge, which you can not do in Scientology because it is not actually a study of knowledge at all, you realize that this “stable datum” from Scientology on knowledge is utterly false.

The real study of knowledge comes from the branch of philosophy known as epistemology, of which Hubbard was either totally ignorant, or he omitted its ideas in Scientology intentionally in order to create Scientologists who were ignorant of what knowledge was.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

Alanzo