espritch

The problem is, as far as I can tell, Mr Hubbard didn't actually discover anything. He just made it up. The man was a con artist who eventually got caught up in his own con (I think he actually started to believe his own crap as he got older).

That's because there isn't any actual evidence to support those ideas. So what is to discuss?

fließendes

The point is not whether or not there is evidence to support the concept of the "reactive mind", the question is what ideas are contained in it that make Scientologists believe in it, or want to believe in it. That a bunch of skeptics/atheists like us don't believe in it isn't so surprising.

But why do skeptics or atheists discuss religion if we don't believe in it? Why are we skeptics and atheists hanging out on a board titled "Religion & Philosophy"?

Three people have now replied to this thread by saying that the subject isn't worth discussing 'cause there's no evidence to support it. There's clearly evidence enough for a lot of people.

IsItJustMe

Hmmm...

OK. Here are some reason I can think of that discussing Scientology might be interesting, and why they don't work:

1. It actually will allow me to be healthier, achieve perfect memory, read minds using an e-meter, etc.. This doesn't work because, unfortunately, it isn't true.

2. Scientology contains an interesting and novel perspective on philosophical questions. Again, similar problem: It doesn't do any such thing. It's BAD naive philosophy and naive religion, ignoring 3,000 years of thought on these subjects.

3. Many people are in to Scientology. This is the closest to a hit, but this is almost like a marketing question, isn't it?

fließendes

Why are people into Scientology? That's the only interesting question from a humanist point of view--but clearly not one you're interested in.

Godless Wonder

Because its proponents offer what appears to be help, same as every religion out there.

fließendes

But do you find it absurd to discuss the specific beliefs of other religions? People on this board seem willing only to discuss Scientology in the broadest strokes. There's nothing to discuss, or do you just not know much about the subject? Do you not really want to know anything about the subject?

McD

I have actually tried to read Dianetics twice now. I made it about halfway through back in the 1980s and last month I got as far as page 18. It is absolute bullshit.

The reason I stopped reading it the first time is because, throughout the book, Hubbard says things like "studies reveal...", "our studies have shown...", "researchers have concluded..." etc without even once citing a study or even indicating who the researchers are, where the study was done or the methodology utilized.

This last time I didn't even get that far. I got to page 17-18 wherein Hubbard claims that as one becomes clear, one's vision will improve to the point that glasses are no longer needed. You see, deteriorating vision is not caused by physical problems, but by engrams stored in the reactive mind.

Hubbard says that far from being an optomatrists nightmare, it will be a boon for the spectacle manufacturing industry, as people will have to buy as many as half a dozen pairs of glasses in rapid succession to accomodate their improving vision.

As I said, it's utter bullshit, and Hubbard accidentally exposes it as such a mere 17 pages into his very first book on the subject.

Berthold

For all who don't have ß on the keyboard: In Switzerland they have abolished it and write ss instead. A slightly antique version would be sz.

River

They remind me of the Raelians...

I remember back in the 80's they used to have

these cool commercials for DIANETICS ...As a kid

I was impressed..there were these volcanoes in the commercial...

River

perhaps because it vaguely resembles atheism?