It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Scientology a Cult?

page: 11
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 08:07 AM

Originally posted by cybertroy
TI can see from these posts that there is some serious misunderstanding, bad information sources, etc. going on. The best way to get the knowlege of Scientology is to read a real Scientology book, listen to a Scientology tape, etc. The thing about the net, you don't know if the information is reliable or even true for that matter. And the information on the net can be altered from its original form.

And if you are having trouble understanding the texts, then be sure to look at the note in the front of the book, about looking up the words you don't understand. Don't worry, it doesn't make you less of a person or a nerd, if you need to use a dictionary, it is actually a very wise thing to do.

And those "serious misunderstanding"s would be...?

Using a dictionary "doesn't make you less of a person or nerd" and it "is actually a very wise thing to do".

O-kay...thanks...I think...???

[edit on 3-10-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]

posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 09:39 AM

also the $cientology Sucks cd is here: (Warning, content is offensive towards Scientologists, and contains vulgar language)

The music does a good job of breaking it down.

Also you should look up "Jack Parsons", the guy who founded the JPL... He had some connection with L. Ron Hubbard, in that they both took part in the Bablyon(Babalon) Mysteries.

What's funny is this....

"There are interesting similarities between Crowley's writings and the teachings of Hubbard. Dianetics' Time Track, in which every incident in a person's life is chronologically recorded in full in the mind, is quite similar to Crowley's Magical Memory. The Magical Memory is developed over time until ''memories of childhood reawaken which were previously forgotten, and memories of previous incarnations are recalled as well'. Hubbard gives examples in the Philadelphia Doctorate Course of several people remembering lives earlier on earth, some up to a million years ago. The similarity between the Magical Memory and Time Track, then, is that they both can recall every past incident in a person's life, they both can recall incidents from past lives, and they both must be developed by certain techniques in order to make use of them. Both Hubbard and Crowley consider it important to have the person recall his or her birth."

- Jeff Jacobsen, _The Hubbard is Bare_

"According to Ron Jr., his father considered himself to be the one 'who came after'; that he was Crowley's successor; that he had taken on the mantle of the 'Great Beast'. He told him that Scientology actually began on December the 1st, 1947. This was the day Aleister Crowley died."

Brent Corydon - _Messiah or Madman_

There's a weird video of a psychiatrist claiming that she's not an expert or doesn't know enough about the "church", yet she's over here talking as if she's an expert on Scientology... All she's really doing is giving those nuts a reason to believe more in what they believe...The irony..

I suggest looking up links on The O.T.O. and The Church of Scientology. (notice how they both look alike)

[edit on 6-10-2005 by boombye]

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 07:29 PM
If ya want to know what Sicentology is all about, just look at who Hubbard worked with: Jack Parsons, a once head of the OTO(roots in the Illuminati, Grand Temple Orientis, Templars, etc) and associate of Crowley.
Hubbard married a girl Parson's kidnapped, who he later claimed was actually Pason's daughter.

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 10:38 PM
Sory if I offended anyone in my earlier comments regarding a dictionary. It's just a fact of life that many of us are going to come by things we don't understand. Me included. And the difference between understanding something and not understanding something can be a dictionary.

And i'm telling you folks, these negative links on Scientology are lot leading you toward the truth about Scientology. The truth is within the real Scientology books, tapes, etc.



[edit on 7-10-2005 by cybertroy]

[edit on 7-10-2005 by cybertroy]

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 11:10 PM

Originally posted by cybertroy
Sory if I offended anyone in my earlier comments regarding a dictionary. It's just a fact of life that many of us are going to come by things we don't understand. [...]

Apology very much accepted and your point is taken..

The dictionary thing was condescending because it implied that having issues with scientology is due to midunderstanding. Especially at ATS it is usually the opposite. The issues often come as a RESULT of understanding what is going on.

The problem is that Dianetics is DESIGNED to be confusing. There is absolutely NO argument or defense that justifies the ridiculous sentence structure from the start. AND where to look up scientology words but in yet another scientology book? It's a horribly tangled web of horrible grammar.

Writing or speaking in this way is a form of what sociologists and psychologists and others call weakening of a person's Generalized Reality Orientation (GRO). "General Reality" being every day commonalities that society needs to function and cultural and linguistic "standards" or "understandings".

Inventing new words to be used in a group that are defined within that group and that group alone does just that. So does speaking in a deliberately (or indiliberately way) confusing manner.

Writing in circles is a technique used to weaken a subjects GRO. For example, listen to almost any Louie Farrakhan speech, and especially his "Atonement" schpiel. Anyone weighing his rhetoric in a realistic factual basis is quickly buried beneath Louie-speak. People are unfortunately taken in by this method when it is used by speakers because it is actually trance-inducing and hypnotic. To follow the speaker, reason has to be lowered and as such the brain can become susceptable to word repitition, vocal patterns, and hand gestures, etc.

People who study this have also used some poetry of the Romantic period as examples of this at work. For example, in America, Poe's "Annabel Lee". Poems like this were favorites of literati opium smokers because the musicality and alliteration of the poems added to the drug's effects like a modern day acid laser show and increased the quality of visions and sensations.

[edit on 7-10-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]

posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 04:06 AM
That's quite a well-reasoned argument, 2nd Hand, much truth in there.

I'm not sure, however, that Dianetics was "DESIGNED to be confusing". Bear in mind when it was written; I'm sure any text book from the 40s would "sound" a little odd to the modern reader.

Then there's the concept of "coined words". This was done deliberately, for two reasons: to describe new concepts, and to avoid terms that already had deeply ingrained misconceptions associated with them. Scientology certainly isn't the first or only religion to have its own words.

This also explains why you're directed to a Scientology dictionary to look up a Scientology word. This isn't analogous to a "circular argument", it's just common sense: a Scientology dictionary is the only place to find a definition to a Scientology word. As long as all the normal English words contained in the definition are understood, then you can understand (and either accept or reject) the Scn term.

It's also worth noting that a standard dictionary is considered a vital part of any Scn "study kit".

I do take your point about GRO, though. That idea did occur to me, way back when I worked in a Scientology Mission; I did find myself becoming more "remote" from the "normal" populace. Whether or not this is a Bad Thing is debatable, and in any case it was a very mild manifestation and is certainly duplicated in other groups (both religious and non-religious...I had a similar experience when I was a cop...)

posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 01:22 AM
L Ron Hubbard also had an amazing vocabulary. And he had a pretty funny sense of humor.

I appreciate the knowlege he left.


posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 12:27 PM

Originally posted by cybertroy
L Ron Hubbard also had an amazing vocabulary. And he had a pretty funny sense of humor.

Yes. And his sense of humor keeps on giving. Just watch the shenanigans of hollyweird stars. How funny is it that a raised Catholic hottie like Katie Holmes has scientology handlers following her around all the time? I also love watching John Travolta explain so "eloquently" his fascination with the public space program (x-prize).



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 11:30 AM
Yep, it's a cult. a $300,000 cult, to be exact

And a slave shop, too!

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 11:58 AM
As the scholarly definition of a cult is an organization with a system of existential belief which is sustained around a living charismatic figure, I would not call Scientology a cult since Hubbard (the charismatic figure) is now dead. I also would not yet call it a religion, since it is yet to be seen whether the religion can "advance" beyond the concrete teachings and practices of Hubbard. If it does so, then it will become a religion.

But regardless of its status as a cult (or not), that does not mean it does not use "questionable" methods of recruitment and practice of theology...

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 09:39 PM
Scientology is a cult as is christianity, islam, buddhism, hinduism, jewdism etc

posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 07:52 AM

Originally posted by Dark_Ace
Scientology is a cult as is christianity, islam, buddhism, hinduism, jewdism etc

Oh I'm sorry, but your hatred of religion is blinding you. The world religions are by definition not a cult. Some of them never even had a charismatic leader, and those that did (like Christianity) have survived long past the death of their leader and have progressed autonomously with their theology without the leader having any influence on it.

Perhaps you'd like to take "Religious Hatred" for 200 dollars?

posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 08:02 AM

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
The world religions are by definition not a cult.

I would have to disagree. From a technical standpoint, all religions are by definition "cults". In popular usage, the term "cult" may require a charasmatic leader, but the technical use of the term does not. The word is derived from the Latin "cultus", literally, "worship" or "honor".

cult /kʌlt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhlt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.
–adjective 9. of or pertaining to a cult.
10. of, for, or attracting a small group of devotees: a cult movie.


[edit on 10-12-2007 by Masonic Light]

posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 10:09 AM
reply to post by Masonic Light

I am talking about the scholarly definition of a cult, as I previously indicated. Words have different meanings, but I tend to believe the definitions of the experts. For example, the term "brief" in the dictionary will tell us that it means to be short or concise. If, however, I was talking on a matter of legal concern I would turn to the legal definition of brief, which is completely different than what the average dictionary tells you (to file a response or motion in court - completely different from the typical dictionary definition, and I can assure you briefs are never concise or short).

I am speaking here on the nature of religion, which is by its nature philosophical and academic. I have as such turned to the academic definition of cult, which is quite simply: a system of existential belief which heavily relies on a living charismatic leader to propel the system forward.

A religion, as such, is a system of existential belief which relies on no charismatic figure or has a deceased figure which has not stopped the system of belief from materially changing. Christianity fits this because the "leader" is technically "dead," and the numerous councils of churches and branches show that the theology has changed and fragmented. Conversely, scientology is not the definition of a cult because its charismatic leader is deceased - and yet - it is not fully a religion yet because we have not seen whether the theology can progress and mutate or whether fear of disrupting Hubbard's "teachings" will ultimately cause a religion failure.

So I think you are wrong, and not all religions are cults. I could cite dozens of peer reviewed articles that agree with me if you'd like to continue this discussion.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 10:32 PM
what is the difference between a cult and a religion

posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 10:53 PM
reply to post by Dark_Ace

I answered that question directly in the post above you. In fact, I addressed the issue directly.

Those that hate religion will claim no difference, those of us with no agenda define it as above.

posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 07:12 PM
I was in it for 2 years.I don't care to talk about it but I would recommend you investigate on your own if you want to know anything about it. 1) the already mentioned xenu site has good widely known facts if your just getting interested in it.The site is not as accurate as I'd like it to be though and I wouldn't base them on that site alone. 2) The actions of the people appointed working for the church are relative to who they are.Not everyone is the same or would have enough loyalty to kill for them obviously. 3) Cult is an understatement, its more like a terrorist cell if you ask me.Also just wanted to throw this out, the people who audited me were paranoid and thought I was leading them on to get more information on them, which wasn't true at the time.So if you try to do that it isn't going to work, don't waste your time.To any scientologists out there who are gonna get mad at me or something: I have nothing against you or what you want to believe, leave me alone. My problem is with the church and its extreme attacks on me and several others and no that doesn't make me your enemy, if I'm your enemy its you who made me so.

posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 05:36 PM

Originally posted by cybertroy
L Ron Hubbard also had an amazing vocabulary. And he had a pretty funny sense of humor.

I appreciate the knowlege he left.


I appreciate how he lied about his past and was a criminal
That's pretty funny too

L. Ron's entire past is made up

Hail Xenu !!!!

posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 05:13 AM
Is Scientology a cult? If a sign of a cult is it brainwashing it's adherents: YES! But then, doesn't any and every organization around, from the Boy and Girl Scouts, to both major parties in the US, to all major religions do the same thing to a degree? Yes, as well. But unlike the others, who will tolerate to a certain degree dissent and people just getting up and leaving the group/organization, Scientology does everything in it's power to keep dissent stiffled. and to those who will not be silenced, they go that extra mile to destroy whoever questions them. And that is the biggest difference.

posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 09:33 AM
$cientology is shady hands down.One of the main reasons that they hate psychiatry is that when they do auditing sessions they are doing generic psychotherapy, where the person being audited may be forced to bring up painful or unpleasant past experiences so that they can rectify them, their fears,etc.However everything that they bring up is recorded, and in the event that one decides to leave $cientology , these are often used against them.Also a psychiatrist or psychologist is going to recognize signs of brainwash/mind control, and disconnects from reality.

Here is why $cientology is not a religion, say for example that you go to a Catholic church, and attend confession devoutly,and bare your soul in the booth.You later decide that you will become Bhuddist,and that Christianity is not right for you.The priest does not keep a list of everything all of the parishioners have done that was "sinful" and potentially embarassing and then threaten you with disclosing it when you say you are leaving.Religions do not make you pay exhorbinant fees to learn their version of the truth.OT8 in $cientology will cost you upwards of 250,000-300,000.True religions and denominations pass collection plates but they do not force you to pay a quarter of a million dollars to advance.

Real religions respect their parishioners right to believe as they see fit, and do not use "fair game" policies to destroy those who leave,follow them around,etc.

new topics

top topics

<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in