xaxxat

The E meter testing is crap. It's just a Wheatstone Bridge, a simple circuit that any first year electronics student should know. There's nothing magic about it. It's just a prop. Results can be faked. I know because I faked them and my E Meter auditor at the DC church totally bought it! You too can build your own meter for thousands less than the new mark 7 or whatever it's called. Then you can play with how much pressure you apply to the cans and see how the needle swings...

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/E...heatstone.html

RED DAVE

STILL WAITING

The existence of Xenu is a major point in the Scientology/Dianetics belief system. It is rather like Jesus in the xtian system.

Do you, whichphilosophy, believe that Xenu existed in the same way that George Washington existed?

Yes or no.

RED DAVE

Nice Squirrel

Does Xenu really exist out there? Or is there a little Xenu inside all of us?

swamp

Can't we just say fuck it and cut to the chase? The "idea" that people ought to participate in extremely expensive sessions and read confusing mythology seems to be somehow connected to L. Ron Hubbard's statement that religion is "where the money is."

Christianity could be considered stupid on a lot of the same levels as Scientology. But it's old enough to be pretty entrenched, and, perhaps as a consequence, we don't have Jesus on record as saying "they believe I'm God incarnate, now I can get all the chicks!"

In conclusion, I choose not to dignify the following questions with a response: "are you just afraid of scientology?" "what if it works?" "do you really think you know enough about scientology to make an informed decision?"

RED DAVE

I find whichphilosophy's bullshit and waffling about Xenu to be extremely instructive and somewhat entertaining. He will continue to crap around because, as has been pointed out, to admit that this is true is to admit one's own insanity. To admit that it's bullshit is to question the holy ron's holy writ.

Everything you need to know about Xenu (but only if you care)

RED DAVE

Tom Sawyer

Then why are you accepting it as a possibility? If you're told something as inane as that all of our problems are caused by disembodied spirits hijacking our bodies, wouldn't the logical response be to have the guy clarify just what he means by that before moving on?

It seems unbelievable to me that you'd just accept that premise based on the promise of "more evidence later". Especially when "later" is defined as after you give them more money for additional courses.

While it's true that the possibility of us existing as spritual beings is not wholely dependent on an evil interplanetary warlord blowing people up in volcanos, the evil interplanetary warlord is what Scientology is all about. Your argument is akin to a Muslim asking why someone who's questioning his religion keeps bringing up that Mohammed guy, because he doesn't see Mohammed as relevant to Islam. In other words, your argument is fairly nonsensical.

I don't really see the enlightened part.

No, this depends on the proponents of Scientology backing up the statements they have made about how and why their methods work with reliable data (including reliable data about whether or not their methods actually work).

Oh, OK. I thought it was just because you were getting sucked into a cult that was interested in stealing your money.

Dargo

For anyone interested, here's a link to a 10 page thread from last year where whichphilosophy was asked to give us examples of peer reviewed studies backing Scientology's claims. Apparently Scientology offers amazing mental benefits, but it's hard for anyone outside of their church to measure these benefits objectively. You'll find a lot of anecdotes and evasions but ultimately about the same amount of proof any other religion can offer for its claims. At least, apologists for other religions are usually honest enough to admit faith is required, and that their religion's benefits can't be scientifically measured.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...ht=scientology

whichphilosophy

My question was that Dianetics and Scn are different subjects than the medical and psycological researchers. Who is qualified to peer review this subject.
It's not medicine, psychology or psychiatry but a different field.

It makes sense to state that something through individual application works, rather than relying on the opinions on others. Obervation and application are required and not faith. If something does not work then don't use it and of course judge the results on own observations.

Therefore it is difficult if not impossible to judge the effectiveness of the claims withouth actually applying the subject and seeing for oneself first hand.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...27.html?nav=E8

whichphilosophy

I haven't done the courses mentioning the topics you refer to. The courses I've done will point to the individual resolving their own problems.

Where did I say that. The only person who can see if it works is the individual. Sure if the first course is okay why not the second. If the second doesn't work then the person just won't continue.

Whether or not we are spiritual (and we can only observe this for ourselves) is not dependant on whether we blow ourselves up. If we are spiritual then our existence came before our actions.

Dianetics and Scientology preceded the writings which you are talking about. So something cannot be created out of something that came after it.


I don't really see the enlightened part..[/QUOTE]

Okay how about unenlightened then?

My own philosophy is enjoy life. Take a look at India where 10,000 children die each day to see how well off we are even at the worst of times.


It's a subject which includes individual observation and evaluation of results they have achieved. Anyone who has doubts should not pay for courses as this will cause problems for both parties.

....Too late I paid for these years ago. Anyway I've seen the Taj Mahal last week and have some photos to take back home.:wave:

whichphilosophy

Then your auditor was not properly trained, that is assuming you had auditing. Squeezing the cans or wetting your hands will reduce the reads that shows up easily.

However this is not what an e-meter reads on.

Thinking of something else to avoid answering is one thing that is a little harder to detect but spotted very quickly by a properly trained person.

It is based on the Whetstone bridge as the instruction book states.

What auditing did you have then and why did you need to falsify the reads.