Has anyone here read much of LRH's work?

for all intensive purposes, posts like this are a diamond dozen user.

Don't you have an appointment to get your ketones e-audited or something? Piss off.

Don't act like its not suspicious as fuck how none of the ex members have proof of their criticisms against the church. Every other critic is just parroting what they're told to think by those ex members. Their hatred is completely irrational.

It's not suspicious.

Because eye witness testimony is the pinnacle of evidence. No further investigation needed.

I know its been ten years but you're still not going to convince anyone on Veeky Forums.

What are you talking about?

Funny enough, the Kindle version is on sale today.

amzn.com/B01B41I4NI

He was a trashy sci fi author, and wasn't very influential in literature at large.

Dianetics created a short-lived craze of people following his psycho-babble, and in fact that craze was one of the things that inspired him to start scientology.

How much of his fiction have you read?

Battlefield Earth, Mission Earth 1, and Typewriter in the Sky

What didn't you like about Battlefield Earth?

the bit with the battlefield and the bit with the earth

to be quite honest, L Ron Hubbard is possibly one of the greatest authors we will ever read, and i have read quite a few in my time.

You meme but if it weren't for Scientology that's how he would be regarded. Hubbard was the Stephen King of his time.

It's like The Iron Dream without the satire.

if you are not achieving major wins with Hubbard's tech then you must be doing something wrong.

>all these digits
there's definitely something going on in this thread

>trying to imitate chan speak this poorly

I got a free copy of Battlefield Earth after donating blood and now I'm worried that blood's going to some scientologist ritual.

Is it worth reading?

youtube.com/watch?v=RgZKF7Q_ORY

I actually really like this guy because hes a complete nutter. He reviews Battlefield Earth here and talks about how much truth is found within the book. I don't know if most people realize this but Scientologists don't think of Hubbard as a science fiction writer, they think his stories are actual events from his past lives. They think the universe is trillions of years old and that it's possible to recover memories of past lives so its not a crazy conclusion for them. Hubbard also said he never wrote a word of fiction.

It is if you're 13.

My tiny shitty town library has a full collection of Hubbard books, all neatly clean hardbacks as if no one's read them at all. Do Scientologists actually donate this stuff to libraries?

Probably not so much anymore but when the Basics first come out around 2007 people were pressured hardcore to buy multiple sets, if not for themselves then for donation purposes. That's why so many libraries have them.

umm sweetie, are you saying that you dont think that the universe is trillions of years old?

Why believe the universe is trillions of years old instead of eternal? I never understood that. Apparently thetans are eternal but the universe isn't.

>pointing out continuity errors
Hubbard didn't believe in writing second drafts.

The trouble you axiomatically reject any proof by virtue of them being ex members and the Churches leader being infallible.

Any documents they produce are faked, and any personal testimony that is not positive is a lie.

Imagine how the world would function if you tried to apply that same standard of yours to other areas like the justice system or history.

Well first of all, the testimony of ex Scientologists is not a proof of anything, it's evidence. It is evidence that should be held as suspect unless there is also corroborating data to support their claims. These ex Scientologists don't have any corroborating evidence, it's merely their word against the church.

Secondly they're incentivized to lie, distort, and mislead. Do you know any ex Scientologist that hasn't received some sort of compensation for "going public" about their so called experiences in Scientology? The answer is no. Even the small time anti-Scientologists on Youtube have Patreon accounts. The crazier their story the more attention they get. It's pure greed and people like you accept their word on faith.

I have the same standard of evidence as any civilized court of law. There's a reason they consider eyewitness testimony the weakest form of evidence. Try thinking critically for once in your life and ask yourself why you hate Scientology and what reasons you have. You won't have any good answers.

my buddy's mom has to go to therapy to deal with the abuse she suffered under the church in the 80s, she doesn't have a patreon account but she does have psychological issues from growing up in the church and essentially working as a slave for them

You say she has psychological problems now, but how do you know she didn't have them before? How do you know her perception of reality is accurate?

her psychological problem was due to physical abuse and being ostracized by her family, who were scientologists, because she wanted to leave

if you want to play the "How do you know her perception of reality is accurate" game, the same applies to current church member testimony, btw Hubbard and his successors were and are trained Hypnotists

Well I have to admit, you've shaken my world with this bomshell proof that Scientology is evil. Let me lay it out in case anyone is paying attention.

>Anonymous user on the internet claims to have a mom who was abused by Scientology.

BOOM. Scientology is done. Sue them and take them to the cleaners. The evidence is undeniable and irrefutable.

I'm not sure if she sought legal recourse, but I am legitimately concerned for anyone in Scientology, or any other religion that charges you large sums of money or tells your not to question it, I'm not making this shit up for fun or because some anti-scientologist conspiracy is paying me on a Saturday night to talk about it

Most anti=Scientologists aren't getting paid, they're merely parrots who don't question what they believe. Why do you believe that Scientology tells people not to question anything? You don't know the answer to that because they don't. They encourage questions and you get exactly what you pay for. You don't have to buy anything in Scientology, in fact they have many programs to assist people in paying. The only people that pay large amounts of money for services do so because they can afford it, and that money in turn enables the church to provide services for everyone else. You can get to OT8 and not pay a single dime. You wouldn't know that because you've never questioned it. Your concerns are unfounded.

>Why do you believe that Scientology tells people not to question anything?

another scientologist from the last thread essentially said Hubbard and the Church are infalliable, but I guess that's another rando on the internet right?

I've just never seen another religion on the internet that was so aggressively defensive, other than maybe Islam, I remember back during project chanology teenager trolls were getting death threats and insider testimony providers in Florida were getting stalked by people with sunglasses and taperecorders, but I guess I'm just hallucinating that or hundreds of people are collectively making a narrative up

I was that Scientologist and you either can't read properly or you're intentionally taking what I said out of context. I was answering the question of whether or not I would consider David Miscavige infallible when it comes to whether or not the tech is correct as Hubbard created it. I'm sure it's a real wonder why Scientologists get defensive when this is the level of discourse.

Even if I wasn't that guy, you're only reason for believing that Scientology tells people not to question things is that some random guy on the internet said so? You're really setting the bar high.

Can you tell me what evidence specifically you would accept with regards to claims against the truthfulness of Scientology *and or* the function of its leadership?

>These ex Scientologists don't have any corroborating evidence, it's merely their word against the church.

The fact that its plural (ex Scientologist(s)) provides corroboration all the more so when you have people from different levels - high and low.

To see it on the flip side many of Scientologies claims are only corroborated through wittiness testimony alone yet you accept them.

>Secondly they're incentivized to lie, distort, and mislead.

Incentive =/= automatically do. David Miscavige has an incentive to spend money on routing more bodies and getting Sea Org Members up the bridge instead of on a multi million dollar mansion and 50 million on an unused Movie Studio.

>Do you know any ex Scientologist that hasn't received some sort of compensation for "going public" about their so called experiences in Scientology?

John McMaster - One of the first ever Clears
Nick Lister
The various Free Zone Scientologists

>Even the small time anti-Scientologists on Youtube have Patreon accounts

Which didnt exist prior to the mid 2010s.

>It's pure greed
Its a pretty inefficient way of making money. Its kind of like saying that we should never believe the word of any journalist or book writer as they have a financial interest.

Again to flip your logic what would you think of the person who says the words of Scientologists can never be trusted as they have a vested interest in system of thought they have invested money and time in being true?

>you accept their word on faith.
Not in isolation, remember when I linked you the evidence of those clinical trials regarding arthritis not being caused by psychosomatic factors and of engrams not being generated in unconscious people?

Or how about those court cases and the documents from them which showed evidence of Scientologists acting illegally on orders from their executives to subvert the United States Taxation Office and to get critics institutionalised?

>I have the same standard of evidence as any civilized court of law.

Do courts accept individuals and teachings as being infallible based on a judicial officer experiencing a positive effect during a handful of therapy sessions?

> weakest form of evidence

But it is still evidence and a critical part of the justice system. You speak as if they reject all oral testimony out of hand.

>You won't have any good answers.

Its not the answer you are hoping for but I genuinely don't hate the teachings or Scientologists individually. All I am doing is seeing the evidence that's available from personal testimonies, court documents, scientific experiments and books by those inside and outside the group and figuring that on the balance the claims made in DMSMH are not true and that its a bigger act of faith to reject claims about its oranisational culture.

I don't read posts when they do that autistic greentext shit.

so you are that guy? aren't you the same guy that's spent over a $1,000 on this religion in a single year and yet you claim you can achieve OT8 without spending a single penny?

>I'm sure it's a real wonder why Scientologists get defensive

arguing on the internet is one thing, stalking people around their homes and workplaces when they leave the religion is another, btw this kind of thing isn't exclusive to scientology, I also know a friend who left jehovahs witnesses and had similar nasty things surrounding his life at the time

Explain to me how my spending money necessarily means that everyone has to spend money. You can't because me spending money while claiming that there are paths within the church where you don't have to is not the contradiction you wish it to be.

because you're the only one who truly knows whether on not you're spending money, you don't know if you've been lied to about others not spending money, perhaps they had to labor for the church which is the equivalent of giving them their money, anywho it's clear that scientology is bullshit because you truly had this boards interest in mind, instead of wasting your time defending scientology against a naysayer like me perhaps you'd be trying to explain techniques from scientology, Buddhism or Christianity doesn't charge money for learning their techniques you can go online and learn from thousands of years of theology and metaphysics instead of paying for books from a single authorized publisher

Forgive me I forgot that you dont like to respond to green text posts.

My question to you as a critical thinker - Can you tell me what evidence specifically you would accept with regards to claims against the truthfulness of Scientology *and or* the function of its leadership?

When you discuss corroborating evidence you kind of contradict yourself as the amount of testimonies act to corroborate. Its for the same reason you can value the testimonies of Scientologists about the effectiveness of its teachings. The next point you get onto is that you think incentive means automatically do. David Miscavige has an incentive to spend money on routing more bodies and getting Sea Org Members up the bridge instead of on a multi million dollar mansion and 50 million on an unused Movie Studio yet he has. To use a less heated example Christians have an incentive to go to Church but many do not. Next you asked for a list even one person who received no financial benefit as an ex, here you go:

1.John McMaster - One of the first ever Clears
2.Nick Lister
3.The various Free Zone Scientologists

The next point I would like you to consider is that should -If I follow your logic- say that Scientologists would be incentivized to lie, distort, and mislead about problems in their church and teachings because of their vested interest in not getting shunned and giving up on the time and money invested? As for pure greed pateron only came into existence and handful of years ago and being anti Scientology isnt all that lucrative for the overwhelming majority of ex members. Likewise should I think every journalist is a liar as they want to sell newspapers?

Next you accuse me of only accepting their testimonies on faith alone. This doesnt bear scrutiny as my points are not only based on corroboration but and here is the important part not looking at them in isolation. remember when I linked you the evidence of those clinical trials regarding arthritis not being caused by psychosomatic factors and of engrams not being generated in unconscious people? Or how about those court cases and the documents from them which showed evidence of Scientologists acting illegally on orders from their executives to subvert the United States Taxation Office and to get critics institutionalised?

Testimonies are only part of the larger understanding of it and indeed when it comes to those other factors particularly the tests it starts reaching a point where it takes more faith to reject them. Remember testimonies are not the best evidence but they are still evidence and are a critical part of the justice system.

(1/2)

To end I genuinely don't hate the teachings or Scientologists individually (and I would be curious as to what evidence or proof I would need to provide you to convince you of that).

All I am doing is seeing the evidence that's available from personal testimonies, court documents, scientific experiments and books by those inside and outside the group and figuring that on the balance the claims made in DMSMH are not true and that its a bigger act of faith to reject claims about its oranisational culture than to accept them.

2/2

I enjoyed Battlefield Earth, sorry guys.

What if the moon was made of cheese and what if Hitler survived the war and assassinated JFK? I can ask rhetorically leading questions too but the fact that I'm proposing them isn't evidence or reason to believe they're true. If you want to claim that Hitler assassinated JFK you would need to provide evidence or a good reason to believe its true. Likewise if you want to claim that its impossible to progress in Scientology without money then you need to provide evidence or a reason to believe its true. Go to a church and ask for them for policy letters concerning payments and pricing if you want to know how it actually works.

Its the same exact post. Rewrite it and I may give you the time of day.

Battlefield Earth was silly pulp that went on for way too long. LRH was a reasonably talented SF hack but there's really not much reason to read him, there were better pulp writers.

Its not the same post, I rearranged it and added new material to ensure that it would flow as prose. Or do you mean to say that you wont respond to any of the information in it because it was previously in a green text format?

Yeah I noticed that after I posted. Either way I'm not interested in getting into a ten point conversation. You may have noticed that most of my replies in the thread have been fairly short, that's because I'm exhausted. If you want to ask me one question at a time I'll be happy to answer as best I can.

I understand, you see the trouble I have is that in posts like you kind of shot gun me with 10 different accusations/claims/requests many of which are intertwined so responding to them honestly and without trickery is hard to do. As ive stated earlier I genuinely don't hate or hold any grudge against the Church or its members

With that said Ill save that stuff away for another time/thread

My single question -

"Can you tell me what evidence specifically you would accept with regards to claims against the truthfulness of Scientology *and or* the function of its leadership?"

I don't think there is any evidence that can dissuade me from believing that the tech doesn't work because I've experienced it working first hand. All of the tech is built on the same axioms that have proven true for me and many others, so if it works in one area it will also work in others.

As far as leadership goes they're just individuals. I would need more than hearsay to becomes convinced that they're lying but I wouldn't need any more evidence to prove anyone else is a liar. Them being leaders doesn't make them above reproach. However much evidence it would take to convince me that a stranger is lying about something is however much evidence it would take to convince me that Scientology leadership is lying about something. I don't have different standards for these people.

With the tech working how do you go about solidly establishing causation? For instance a lot of Yoga and Meditation techniques can bring benefits not due to influence by Devas or Charkras but simply physiology.

With the leadership then what kind of impact do things like court transcripts have or more deductive type proofs like David Miscavige's use of limited Church funds. For me these were two rather important factors. The first showed extensive co-ordination for hostile ends the latter demonstrated the actions that could only be one of three things - the pure greed you spoke of, a man insanely stupid and foolish or a man sent to destroy the group.

You have these bizzare issues where technological simple devices like E meters are crazily expensive and theres never enough money for getting Sea Org members up the bridge or active marketing + charity but there's millions to spend on the leaders home and fancy buildings (which don't actually boost member numbers) whilst reges put huge pressure people to give donations to the IAS

Related to your approach how would you deal with non violent rape cases?

the tech isn't the e-meter, the tech is word association, hypnosis, and sitting trance, your body is put into a trance state by sitting in one place for a long time and looking at another person, none of that is exclusive to Scientology and it's tragic that you've paid over a thousand dollars for techniques freely available on the internet, look into self-hypnosis

I loved that book.
when I was 14

It's not trillions of years old you absolute moron.

Oh man didnt think there would be a another person here who watched Andy, I was going to use him as an example of an ex scientologist who earns no money from it

I love how the guy in this thread just confirms every negative perception of Scientologists. Or I guess he doesn't because as he said he's just some Anonymous poster so nothing he says has any weight. Wait-

what was his mission earth series like?

What are these negative perceptions?

To be honest the anti-Scientology crowd is as much of a cult as Scientology is, at least when it comes to thought stopping cliches. They don't question their dislike and they accept things with very shoddy evidence. If you ask them to provide reasons to believe the things they do they'll attack you as if they're a Scientologist. They hurt their cause by making radical claims like everyone in Scientology is brainwashed or they'll say that absolutely nothing about Scientology is useful. They don't know anything about any of the books that Hubbard is wrote, fiction or otherwise, they haven't read anything but they KNOW it's all bad. It's a level of intellectual dishonesty that we would never accept when it comes to any other subject.

>this
and why do you have them?
If you haven't read any of Hubbard's work and only know about scientology what you have seen on south park and YouTube then how are you qualified to pass judgement on people?

>irregardless

illiterate peasant.

pretty awesome to be quite honest family

dude if you've never been to australia how do you know it has kangaroos and deserts and shit lmao

well using your example, you can see pictures and videos of kangaroos and deserts but you would still have no idea what they were like in reality.
If you really want to be able to criticise something, you must learn it.

I can look at videos and pictures or DNA to corroborate the witness testimony of kangaroos existence in Australia. None of us are just taking somebodies word for it which is what people are doing when it comes to Scientology.

correct, people who do not actually know about scientology are criticising it.

likewise you're making the claim that the hundreds/thousands of people making abusive claims about the church are simply lying for attention or insincere purposes

whatever dude, keep wasting your money and time on this cult, if you ever feel doing it yourself instead of being spoon fed and slowly hypnotized by a nefarious organization, you could learn about self-hypnotism and actually attempt meditation without requiring someone to manipulate you

I haven't made any claims. I've only asked why people believe the things they do and I criticized them for accepting things for no reason when they inevitably fail to answer. I'm not the Scientologist you're referring to and you have no rational reason to think I am. You want me to be a Scientologist so you can justify dismissing my criticism out of hand.

>I'm not the Scientologist you're referring to
you are A scientologist though because nobody else cares about your silly cult enough to bother giving it the benefit of the doubt, even if all those thousands of people are lying for no reason at all.

>scientologists have shills on 4chins
This shit runs deep my nigga. Do have a shitposting division that just monitors the internet all day?

#
>I'm not the Catholic you're referring to
>you are A Catholic though because nobody else cares about your silly cult enough to bother giving it the benefit of the doubt, even if all those thousands of people are lying for no reason at all.

really makes you think

I suspect actual thinking is beyond you.

This is what's called a thought stopping cliche. If you label me a Scientologist that means you don't have to respond to what I say in an intelligent way.

Again, I don't care because it's stupid and irrelevant. Fight me irl

If you don't care then why are you replying?

I like arguing

If so then why don't you actually argue instead of plugging your ears and telling everyone you don't care?

Because these arguments have been had a million times before and it's of no benefit to put any real effort in. You're retarded, that is clear.

You may be the first lover of arguments that refused to engage in arguments that I've ever met.

>this
>stop liking what i dont like

I don't like to cast pearls before swine and yes that is a euphemism.

A euphemism is when you substitute a term with another typically vaguer term. What that actually is, is a thought stopping cliche.

>i have no winning arguments: the post

Is the phrase "thought stopping cliche" something they teach you on your courses? Maybe I was being too subtle but I was referring to masturbating myself to ejaculation in front of the mother you're no longer allowed to contact.

>winning arguments
>on Veeky Forums

Hey Scientologist guy, you never answered my question about osteoarthritis in the last thread, how can your tech stop and indeed reverse the deterioration of cartilage in the aging body? Bearing in mind the nervous system cannot prevent the effects of physical wear on your body as you previously stated.

The phrase "thought stopping cliche" was popularized by the psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton. Just in case you're not aware, Scientologists don't get along with psychiatrists. I use the term both because it's useful to describe a behavior that you're exhibiting and because I'm not a Scientologist.

>I-I-I'm totally not a scientologist guize! Look I even memorised a phrase from a psychologist, that's PROOF
nigga

I'm starting to think you're a Scientologist that is only pretending to be a retarded anti-Scientologist in order to make them look bad.

They opened their European hub in Ireland there this year near me in Ireland, a massive private sprawling multi million euro site. And there's 87 Scientologists here on the whole island, that's less than the folk who attend my local villiage Sunday mass