You forgot to mention that nearly every venue of protestors was down again. A handful in L.A., Boston and Houston. Down again in Clearwater. This is losing steam. What gives?

I will have to disagree with your assessment that Anonymous is downstat this month. There were cities such as San Francisco who had more new people show up than last month. Tokyo had a showing of seven (7) Anonymous. Cities who never protested before like Bangkok, Thailand had a showing.

Make no mistake: the branding Anonymous has been spreading as the most tenacious, yet peaceful, activist movement against the cult of $cientology is working. Millions of people now equate the V for Vendetta mask to opposing the evil corporation of $cientology through peaceful means. The public supports us and that is what's scaring the cult.

In return, cult members have upped the instances of petty violence against OGs (Old Guards) and Anonymous throughout the world.

We have it all on video.

Heh...why are Scientologists bad at math? Because they've been told 80,000=10 million!

Numbers were down in some places, but LA wasn't "a few people." It was a whole lot of people! Heat, work, school kept some away, as usual. But unlike the scilons, we don't count stats. If we did, it'd be number of fliers handed out. We had around 30 anonymous here, and had to make a Kinkos run to print up more material to hand out.

I know you pore li'l true believers would like to think anonymous has run the course and is beginning to lose interest. You just keep on thinking that!

Meanwhile, we are informing thousands of people every month about the fraud, abuses and criminal enterprises that make up the "church" of Scientology.

See ya in July!
Expect us...

From the coverage I saw Anon were upstat.

If you wanna talk downstat though how about Scientology? xD

12 million members to 150,000 members in the space of the 2 months it took to point to people they were lying about membership LOL

And how many of them were out defending Scientology at sea Aargh?

ZERO

How long has it taken scientology from calling itself "the fastest growing religion in the world" to a poor little "minority religion"?

It has taken how long anonymous has been doing their good deeds.

Anons rule.

L Ron Hubbard endured trials and dangers, almost costing his life, to give the world the gift of a scientific technology of the mind. This technology provides the solutions for people to discover the true cause of their fears and insecurities, to find their real selves, to improve relationships, and to live healthy lives. What's there to protest? Protesting Scientology is like protesting math or physics. The protest may go on, but the facts that LRH brought to us will always remain real.

Why pay for your PR when anonymous public will give you all the PR you could ever want?

I see the cult sock puppets are giving their usual show, with their usual sad lack of evidence.

There's nothing scientific about Hubbard plagiarizing and twisting psychological theories from the 1950s and using them to manipulate people. If "scientology" worked scientifically, it wouldn't need to cloak itself as a religion.

The Sea Org is Hubbard's attempt to rewrite history and his own pathetic failures in the U.S. Navy using his brainwashed Scientology followers as props. Why else copy its uniforms?

The next global protest is July 12th. I'll be there. Where will you be?

Do you harbor the same objections to psychiatry and psychology as you do to Scientology? Probably not, despite psychiatry and psychology being the source of many horrors like the Holocaust. Merk and the other big pharmaceutical companies do more to harm than your imagination can ever conjure about Scientology's so-called evils, but do you protest the true violence of the psychiatric industry? I didn't think so.

Scientologists do not live cloistered lives. They do not hide under the cover of a "cult" of anonymity as others might do. The missionaries of Scientology are out in the world, offering help to other Scientologists and to non-Scientologists alike. Scientologists want to discover more about themselves and to share their discoveries about the human mind with others. Anyone who also has this desire is already on the way to being a Scientologist.

Those who know about Scientology only through listening to hearsay on the internet cannot be blamed for being misinformed, but anyone who really wants to know about Scientology should read the books of LRH or visit a local Church. By doing this, one will see that L Ron Hubbard, although he was in many ways a man like any other, was perhaps braver than any other adventurer in human history. With no regard for his own life, L Ron Hubbard explored an uncharted territory and emerged from the danger to bring a comprehensive technology of the mind to the human race. Scientology exists to share this new science with everyone on the planet.

Numbers will fluctuate, and stat alone cannot reflect human spirit. If you have a minute or two to browse through what's happening in the rest of the world, you should be impressed by the spirits of the protesters - no worry about losing steam. Instead, David Miscavige should be flipping out watching this -> http://tenyaka.googlepages.com

"Krosavcheg" you are our best promoter. People read posts like yours and realize that Scientology is more than just a bunch of wacky cultists. They begin to understand how twisted and perverse their personal and worldview would become if they joined. Thank you and a hip hip hooray.

Krosavcheg sadly is one of the people brainwashed by scientology into believing their propaganda against psychiatry and psychology. There is NO evidence (other than made up evidence by scientology) to suggest that psychiatry was behind the holocaust. History shows that the holocaust was caused by a madman intent on wiping out a whole race of inferior beings from the planet. Much like scientology is intent on wiping out anyone who is critical of its doctrine. They call non-scientologists 'wogs', which is hardly a term of endearment, and Hubbard himself (who died with psyciatric drugs in his system) advocated that those who don't subscribe to scientology should be dispensed with (put down in other words).

Scientology calls psychiatry dangerous, and yet one only has to look at scientology's answer to people with mental health problems, and how dangersous scientology's way of dealing with mental health problems is. Google 'Martine Boublil and Lisa McPherson to read about how scientology deals with mentally ill people.

Then go on to their way of dealing with drug addicts - overdoses of Niacin and intense exercise, followed by 5 hours of sauna. Quite dangerous for a healthy person, but to one whose body has been ravaged by drug abuse it could be lethal.

This is NOT a religion we are talking about here, it does NOTHING to help anyone and is only interested in MONEY. Scientology is a dangerous mind-control cult, nothing more.

krosavcheg and Terryeo, we're here just for you guys and the people like you.

We will always be here for you, to help you every step of the way when you feel just like Jenna and Tory did, that you can take no more of the abuses and the con and blow.

We're here to help.

@snark

"You forgot to mention that nearly every venue of protestors was down again. A handful in L.A., Boston and Houston. Down again in Clearwater. This is losing steam. What gives?"

Actually, if the writer whould have mentioned that the numbers were down, he would have interjected false information into the story. The numbers are clearly up. I know first hand that they were up about 25% in NYC alone because I have have been present at the recent protests.

Also, every single city that I checked had increased turnout. Thus, either (1) you are simply full of it, and talk out of your ars, or (2) you are a member of OSA, scientology's internal police force, spreading black PR. Either way, to critize the journalist for not inputting inaccurate information is an asshat manuever. You really should check your facts before you go down that path.

The Scientology religion is about freedom. Its technology helps people handle the things that prevent them from truly being themselves. Scientology enables the individual's journey to freedom. Most of this journey is unique for each person because everyone has a unique history and unique experiences. As you can see, Scientology is opposed to anything like "brainwashing" despite what uninformed critics say. Anyone who is seeking freedom, better relationships, and a healthy life is probably already using some Scientology practices. L Ron Hubbard made a method for the search that humans on this planet have been setting out on for ages. LRH made great discoveries about this search, and Scientology wants to bring these discoveries to everyone.

L Ron Hubbard was unqualified to write anything about the mind. He was quite clearly suffering from mental health problems himself (you only have to read the OTIII documents to see that). The repetetive exercises involved in the TRs and in auditing ARE brainwashing. The last thing scientology wants anyone to do is think for themselves, because when people start to think for themselves (instead of what scientology wants them to think) they realize that it is just one big scam designed to part them from their money.

L Ron Hubbard was nothing more than a hack sci-fi writer who started to believe his own fiction, and then got a whole lot of other people to believe it too. How else would anyone in their right mind believe all that drivel unless they were brainwashed?

Also, ask the people who have been held against their will how much freedom they found in scientology. How much freedom did Lisa McPherson find? What about Martine Boublil? There is no freedom in scientology, mentioning the two in one sentence creates an oxymoron. Then again, there is no science in scientology either so I guess scientologists like the oxymoron.

Hey there, krosavcheg

You know, I would consider visiting a Scientology church and finding out more about Dianetics, but I have a few concerns. I'm worried about how much money it would cost me to purchase these books and auditing sessions... I'm worried about being pressured into donating more and more of my time and money to the church. I'm worried about the lack of transparency in CoS; just where is all this money going to anyway?? I'm worried about Scientology's extremist stance on psychiatry... yes, overmedication is a problem and I don't think every hyperactive child should have Ritalin shoved down their throats, but it would be absurd to think that psychiatry is pure evil, and that psychiatric medication has no merit (I sure as hell wouldn't want to leave a schizophrenic person without their medication, lest I risk getting stabbed to death. Read about Jeremy Perkins). I'm also worried about possibly being raped by a Scientologist - not because Scientologists are rapists, certainly not, but because should such an event occur, I would be persuaded not to go to the police if my rapist happened to be an important Scientologist (read about Tommy Gorman's wife, Jennifer). I'm worried about being declared an SP should I ever decide to unceremoniously leave the church, and I'm worried about being Disconnected from family and friends.

And there is much more to worry about when contemplating becoming a Scientologist, but note that I do not attack Scientology's beliefs anywhere in this post. I have no problem with what you believe, and if the tech and Dianetics works for you, that's fine with me. If you and many other Scientologists have found what works for yourselves, congrats. But there are many other things wrong with the organization, and THAT is what Anonymous protests. Honestly, Anon cares about you guys. We really do, and we worry for you, and we want to make your experience within the church better. You shouldn't have to have your bank account drained to continue with your progress along the Bridge, you shouldn't have to fear being critical of your own church, and you certainly shouldn't have to fear the possibility of being sent to the RPF (Scientology's prison camp).

I tried to be as gentle as I could in this post. I know Anon can be harsh, but I didn't mention CoS being a cult or believers of space aliens or brainwashed. I really hope you or any other Scientologists reading this can at least pause for a second and THINK for yourself. And I know you'll say everything I've said is simply false propaganda, but there has to be a point where you admit that in the hundreds of stories of ex-scientologists, some have to have some truth to them. and if you choose to ignore this and simply encourage me to "come into the church and find out the truth from US", well, I'm going to resort to having to call you brainwashed. There's no way a normal human being can possibly ignore SO MUCH simply because they believe their church is absolutely right and any dissenters/outsiders are wrong.

Scientology is about dealing with life situations, having better relationships, and living a productive life. People on the internet will spit out all kinds of rumors and innuendo. Anyone who truly wants to know about Scientology can visit a Scientology Church or read the books of L Ron Hubbard. Check out a copy of Dianetics from the library, and you don't have to worry about spending your money!

Is psychiatry the answer to problems of the mind? Psychiatric drugs do subdue a person, sure. These drugs that no one even knows the effects of take away people's ability to understand themselves. They push the problem under the cover of a drug-induced stupor, brought about by the trial and error process of prescribing many different drugs if one doesn't "work"! This masks the problem, but the problem is still there, isn't it? Scientology promotes clarifying and understanding problems, as opposed to covering them up with drugs.

I wonder who is thinking for themselves? Scientology is against brainwashing. Scientologists never try to put words into anyone's mouth. This actually goes against the ethical principals of Scientology. Scientology teaches individuals to solve their own problems for themselves, so there is no brainwashing in Scientology!

Scientology is about blindly following the hypnotic suggestions of the madman L. Ron Hubbard.

That man was sick, evil, drug adicted - and you're his follower. Miscavige seems to be just as bad or worse.

Wake up and get out while you can.

Notice how Krosavcheg does not address any of the points we make, just simply trots out the same lines about coming into the church, not being brainwashed and psychiatry being evil. How can you not see how brainwashed you are, that you cannot discuss the allegations against the church, but simply keep on repeating the same propaganda?

Do you honestly believe that the stories about Lisa McPherson and Martine Boublil are just made up? The cases are well documented and not just on the internet. They are prime examples of how the cult 'helps' the mentally ill, by locking them up against their will and treating them like animals! Or, as mentioned by another poster, the people who have died because a schizophrenic relative was taken off medication and killed them! If you weren't so brainwashed into repeating the same old lines you would see that scientology doesn't help anyone.

Scientology's idea of 'helping' tsunami victims was to go over there without any equipment, beg tents and food from the REAL aid organizations, and then try to SELL tsunami victims copies of dianetics!!!!

It's all about the money and unfortunately poor brainwashed people like Krosavcheg above are so much under the control of this cult that they can't see this. You believe everything they tell you and just keep handing over your money.

As others have said, it's time to wake up and get out. The cult will fall and those involved in the deceit and mistreatment of others will end up in jail. Leave now before your life is further destroyed. There are many, many people who know how it feels to finally be free of the cult, who will help you. You won't be alone.

They are NOT protesting Scientology. Scientology is the RELIGION, RELIGION IS FREE. We are protesting the Business and CULT of The CHURCH OF Scientology. There is a difference. Learn about the free zones, they are not protesting the free zones, which is Scientology, therefore they are not protesting scientology itsself, but a branch of it known as The Church of Scientology, do not get it confused.

www. xenu .net

OK krosavcheg, let's say I go to the library and read everything Hubbard has to offer. Scientology will then tell me that it's not enough to read his books; I have to come into the church and PAY for auditing, I have to pay for more books, I have to donate money and time to this and that. It costs THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of dollars to advance within Scientology, to get closer and closer to "clear". It's ridiculous, and THIS is what we protest, along with everything we've been saying that you continue to ignore. I find it very sad that you continue to pump out the same lines about Scientology. aren't you allowed to question your church? I'm not saying your beliefs are wrong... if Scientology has made you a better human being, that fantastic. Continue doing that. But QUESTION your organization, QUESTION where the money is going, QUESTION the way the church handles its critics. It's possible to be a faithful follower who also isn't afraid to question, but unfortunately Scientology tells you otherwise.

poor thing. we will continue to protest for you. See you in July!

Most of the books that you hard working scientologists paid to have donated to libraries went to the trash bins instead.

Why? Because your church did not bother to find out if the libraries would add them or trash them prior to sending them.

Why? Because your church management did not care whether they got added to libraries or not. Well meaning scientology public had already paid for the books being sent out and filled management coffers with their hard earned dollars.

Thousands of white boxes of 18 books got sent out by Bridge Publications that were thrown in the trash.

You paid for that. You could have fed countless starving African children with that money, but instead it pays for parties for Tom Cruise, empty buildings, lawyers and private investigators.

Please, wake up!

krosavcheg - I made the above post so that you know that saying somebody can read the books for free in a library is not factual.

You paid for the books for people to read, unfortunately they got tossed or sold for pennies a copy.

Maybe COB needs to start another books to libraries campaign, as the books are definitely not in most libraries they were sent to - or better yet just post it all on the internet for free. How would they milk more money from you if it was on the net though?

According to Worldcat.org, Dianetics alone, not even counting LRH's many other books, is available in 2853 copies in libraries around the USA. I guess these are the precious few that didn't "get tossed or sold for pennies" like all those others you know about! The same site shows The Cat in the Hat has 3327 copies in libraries around the USA. Does that mean there is a big librarian conspiracy to sell Dr. Suess' books for pennies too? Anyone reading these posts can see who has the facts and who is spewing stuff off the top of their head!

So point me to the non-scientology written 'facts' about psychiatry. Or the non-scientology-written 'facts' about how NarCONon helps people get off drugs. You can't, because there aren't any.

While you're at it, tell us how scientology managed to get tax exemptions that real religions aren't allowed to have, because they would be unconstitutional. The tax exemptions that were obtained by blackmailing IRS officials and the usual frivolous law suits from scientology.

And how about the fact that scientology deliberately bankrupted a volunteer organization that used to inform the public about cults, and now has its own followers running it? A cult giving information about cults to the public, totally outrageous.

Lisa McPherson died while under the care of scientologists, while she was undergoing scientology's treatment of the mentally ill. Martin Boublil was kidnapped and kept in a room where she had no toilet facilities and was forced to defecate in the corner. Another example of how scientology deals with the mentally ill.

Hardly surprising when it's founder was a charlatan who had no background or education in mental health, and bought his degree from a fake university.

krosavcheg-- You will either run away or get thrown out, most everybody does. Until then, "FLUNK, NON-CONFRONT!!!"

Scientology is a technology of living that helps people on this planet understand themselves, their aspirations, and their relationship to others and to the Universe. The discoveries of L Ron Hubbard are technical tools for better living. No reasonable being would protest against this. I am sure only judgmental people with bad information would. Anyone who really wants to know about Scientology should visit a church center or read the books of L Ron Hubbard. Yes, the books are in your local library. I first found them there after all. What people do after these first steps is up to them, not up to the Church of Scientology! Some people will never go into Scientology any more than looking into a Dianetics book. Some people will decide to take Dianetics to heart and follow L Ron Hubbard's guide to a better life. Some will even join the Church of Scientology and support it!

Who told you Scientologists "are not allowed" to hear criticism of Scientology? Scientologists do not live cloistered lives. Any Scientologist who has never heard criticism of Scientology must be living under a rock somewhere! Scientology ethics stop any Scientologist from putting thoughts and words into someone else's head. Scientology is about learning your individual history and becoming independent. I'm sure anyone who reads these posts will be able to tell who is thinking for themselves and who is just repeating conspiracy theories and wild hearsay.

I never said they're incapable of hearing criticism, I'm saying that Scientologists are not allowed to criticize the church.

Yes I am sure the critics of Scientology would like Scientologists to join in the criticism. Why not look at the criticism then? Kams says that even though Scientologists are not rapists, you should worry about being raped by a Scientologist anyway. Ok, that makes sense? Stivbator says money that church memebers think is supposed to go to send LRH books to libraries gets wasted because libraries throw out or sell the books for pennies and that's why it is "not factual" that you can read LRH books in libraries. Huh? I'm sorry that is just crazy talk. AuroraGB says Scientology blackmails IRS officials. Ok, which officials then? Then AuroraGB goes on defending the psychiatric industry which is known to be full of abuses and crimes. I am sure the critics of Scientology are the types who love conspiracy theories and think novels like the DaVinci Code or movies like JFK are real history. What a reasonable bunch of people to listen to! Have a storeroom of canned goods for when the revolution comes, huh guys?

Scientology offers people the technology to be more truly themselves, to have better relationships, and to achieve greater freedom. L Ron Hubbard was able to give the planet a science of the mind that was not entirely new but was expanded with his new discoveries and finalized by him, a great achievement. Look for yourselves at who is brainwashed around here and who makes sense. Who is open to engage with the other and who is not open?

No, I said that a Scientologist raped another member of the church and the church (the Mountain View, CA org specifically) told the victim not to go to the police. They also harassed her after she reported it. Here's a picture of the lovely fellow here (his sex offender registry pic): http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/2717/rapistla2.jpg (you can read the story here http://www.lermanet.com/tomgorman/tommygorman.htm). while it's unfortunate that this girl was raped, the way it was handled by the church is what is truly astounding.

Besides this more extreme example, I find it very unlikely that there is nothing to criticize about the Church of Scientology. There is not an entity in the world that is perfect.

and kros, I do like how you pick and choose some of the points we're presenting while conveniently ignoring others. and please stop giving the same little speech about Scientology; we try to make it very clear that it is not the technology/beliefs we have a problem with, but rather the people in charge of the church . Many people have been critical of the Catholic church; does this mean they are also attacking Jesus' teachings? No, of course not, they simply have a problem the way things are run.

Scientology promotes freedom. Your point about the Catholic Church tells alot. Yes like Scientologists Catholics might understand what it is when the whole group gets attacked for the bad actions of a tiny few who do not even follow the ethics of the church and can't be considered members of good standing. Christians might remember the lies and persecutions in Roman times when Christianity was a new religion too. Scientologists do not jump on board with the prejudiced criticizers who pick and choose their points in order to tell lies. Understanding, communication, and freedom are values of Scientology, and not attacking other groups out of prejudice alone by twisting the facts. Scientologists will not ignore unfair criticism either though because the truth and reality are important in Scientology. If you are set to protest Scientology, I am sure you will even if your imagination runs wild and tells you that the Scientologists are coming to camp out under your bed and spy on you if they find you out. I am sure the average person out there will understand where you are coming from when you explain all these conspiracy theories about the Church of Scientology.

Scientology is the study of knowledge. It helps people gain more independence and control in their lives. Scientology teaches spiritual enlightenment. Anyone who wants to know their spiritual being as an individual can already identify with the goals of Scientology. The Church of Scientology and the books of L Ron Hubbard are a good source on Scientology. Go to the library for an afternoon and find L Ron Hubbbard's Dianetics. I am sure you will come away with a better idea of Scientology.

No, the "a few bad apples ruin the whole bunch" idea does not work here. There is far too much corruption and overall shadiness in Scientology, ranging from local orgs to the top bosses at the Sea Org and David Miscaviage. The leaders of Scientology are actually what most people have a problem with, we do realize that run of the mill Scientologists (like you, maybe) know little about what really goes on up there and thus feel quite offended by these protests.

You (and other Scientologists) will call these allegations unfounded propaganda believed by conspiracy theorists, myself and other Scientology critics will call them truth. I guess the general public will have to make up their own minds. And no, the whole truth cannot be found out by simply going to our local churches and hearing what they have to say. That's like going to the White House's Press Secretary and believing every word they say. There are many, many Scientology critics and it would be ludicrous to assume we are all insane conspiracy theorists.

And for the millionth time, I'm not attacking your beliefs.

krosavcheg wrote:Scientology is the study of knowledge.

The term scientology was first coined in the 1920's, as a pseudonym for pseudo science.

krosavcheg wrote:It helps people gain more independence and control in their lives.

Yeah, kinda like the forced abortions in the Sea Org, and the ordered disconnections from those who espouse the bleeding obvious.

krosavcheg wrote:Scientology teaches spiritual enlightenment. Anyone who wants to know their spiritual being as an individual can already identify with the goals of Scientology. The Church of Scientology and the books of L Ron Hubbard are a good source on Scientology.

Actually, L Ron Hubbard has been downgraded from 'Source' to 'originator' in order to justify DM's fluffy little tail. Btw, do you recommend that I only turn to Phillip Morris for information on cigarettes?

krosavcheg wrote: Go to the library for an afternoon and find L Ron Hubbbard's Dianetics. I am sure you will come away with a better idea of Scientology.
You should go yourself, and try reading Bare Faced Messiah, by Russel Miller.

Scientology helps people understand the painful experiences they may have had in their existence. People in Scientology learn how to handle the everyday experiences of life without reacting based on false feelings and bad information. They are thinking clearly.

It is not thinking clearly to say that any authority should not be trusted just because. Yes I see you mention Roman Catholics and the White House too. You are the types who think everyone is out to get you and is hiding the facts. Facts that only you know and have to get out there for everyone's protection! It is not thinking clearly to confuse truth and make believe. Conspiracy theorists like to think they are so important that they have the real knowledge and the average person does not. I am sure the critics of Scientology know less about what Scientology sources have to say than Scientologists know about what the critics have to say. Scientologists do not live cloistered lives. They are out in the world and see criticism all the time. Have you ever read a book by L Ron Hubbard? How much of what you know comes from the Church of Scientology and how much comes from critics and your own imagination?

You know, there is middle ground between the two extremes of being a conspiracy theorist and a person who puts all their trust into the Church of Scientology (or any authority figure). I find it interesting how you portray me and other critics as being at one far end of the spectrum. Scientology critics come from all walks of life.

The facts are everywhere, and I don't just get them from weirdos who lurk on the dark corners of the Internet. There are many stories from ex-Scientologists, family/friends of Scientologists, law enforcement, the government, and journalists (Time magazine, LA Times, New York Times, amongst many many others). I find it hard to believe all of these people are conspiracy theorists, or that all of them are completely misinformed. No, I don't think every criticism uttered about Scientology is true, but there is quite a bit that is, and there is too much that can't be ignored.

Frankly, it doesn't really concern me what Dianetics is about. I, and many others, have said over and over again that we do not want to impede on your right to religion. However, we are concerned about the way the Church of Scientology is run, and I'm pretty sure that the Sea Org, the OSA, and David Miscaviage are not mentioned in Dianetics. Even if you and many other Scientologists you know have not done things wrong, it happens.

We are fighting for your ability to practice Scientology freely without having to contend with the corruption that exists within the organization of the Church.

Your group has spelled out your true thoughts in your posts. Yes I am sure you are not concerned with what Danetics is about and thanks for saying it yourself. For you the real knowledge is always hidden. "They" are trying to keep secrets from you. Secrets that you think everyone has got to know and only you can help them find out! Government hides this knowledge. Corporations hide it. The Catholics hide it. The Church of Scientology hides it. You have somehow figured out the biggest secret and you are on a mission to let everyone know! The secret is that real knowledge is always hidden through a big conspiracy but you have found it out! Yes admit it protesters. Maybe you would have even more knowledge if you went and read the books of L Ron Hubbard? Would that hurt you? You would know more not less about the Scientology you protest. No you want to keep your heads in the sand and stay in your small world where what is real is hidden and not available from places as simple as a library! For you the alternative source is the true one!

Scientology promotes the freedom of the individual. The Church of Scientology does not hide and offers the technology of Scientology to people. The technology helps explore the past in people's existence in order to free them from anything that might cloud their judgment in the present time. L Ron Hubbard discovered a simple but true idea. As you can see Scientologists do not put all their trust into the Church of Scientology like you say. Scientologists learn to put trust in themselves. This is the goal of Scientology.

Again, you ignore the point of my post and continue to paint me as an extremist.

For one, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I believe we landed on the moon, one shooter shot JFK, and the government did not orchestrate 9/11. I only mentioned the Catholic church earlier to make a point, I don't have a problem with them, and I don't think the government is out to get me or whatever. All you're doing here is conducting an ad hominem attack; by painting all protesters as crazy conspiracy theorists, our arguments can all be easily dismissed. You're not even doing a good job of hiding your technique.

Do you think there is any corruption within the Church of Scientology? Have you heard things you disagree with? Are there any practices you don't care for? I'm not trying to get you to come over to my side here, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Lastly... Dianetics/beliefs of Scientologists IS NOT THE SAME as the leadership/inner workings of the Church of Scientology. Surely you can see the difference, and that one may have concerns about one and not the other?

krosavcheg wrote: "According to Worldcat.org, Dianetics alone, not even counting LRH's many other books, is available in 2853 copies in libraries around the USA."

Actually when I checked WorldCat I got a slightly higher number, 3126. I believe that you may have just searched for book editions, whereas I ran a search for every copy of Dianetics, including audio. For the sake of fairness, I'll use mine since it's higher.

According to the American Library Association:

http://www.ala.org/ala/alalibrary/libraryfactsheet/alalibraryfactsheet1.cfm

there are 9198 and 99783 school libraries in the US. (for the purposes of this post I am excluding academic libraries, special libraries, government and military etc). Now, let's say for the sake of argument that not one copy was sent to a school. 9198 divided by 3126 equals about 2. 95, or, in other words, almost three libraries for each copy of Dianetics. The number gets much worse if we include school libraries, approximately 35 libraries per copy Dianetics.

BTW, I excluded academic libraries because, not being a college kid, I don't know if the normal university library counts as an academic library, or if that's only the stacks. According to WorldCat of the ten nearest copies of Dianetics to me (according to zip code) all but one are in college libraries, and the closest one to me is over 4 miles away. This is important because there is a public library not a mile away from where I live. I could have done the calculations to show what the total number of libraries per copy is, but that would be kicking a guy when he's down. The one copy that wasn't in a university or college was in the county library cooperative services.

So, no, you can't just go to the library and check out a copy of Dianetics. You could probably get one on an inter-library loan, but it wouldn't be there in most libraries if you just walked in.

Oops, that should read "There are 9198 PUBLIC and 99783 school libraries in the US. " Sorry.

Scientologists do not hide or live cloistered lives. The technology of Scientology is not hidden. Scientology provides the tools for everyday living. People join the Church of Scientology freely. People leave the Church of Scientology freely. People are free not to join the Church of Scientology. People who join and stay are better off than people who leave or never join. The Church of Scientology does not make people's decisions for them. Anyone who does not agree with the Church of Scientology is able not to join or to leave. More than likely they do not have true knowledge of the Church of Scientology or they would not leave. Anyone who joins and stays would not be a person who thinks the Church of Scientology is corrupt!

Yes I can see ad hominem arguments. Guyfawkes says "the cult sock puppets are giving their usual show." Guyfawkes says LRH has "brainwashed Scientology followers as props." AuraraBG says LRH "was quite clearly suffering from mental health problems." Stivbator says LRH "was sick, evil, drug adicted - and you're his follower." The comments are not doing anything except saying how bad was LRH and other Scientologists. Then the comments are not arguing anything except how more knowledge is not a good thing. They know the Church of Scientology enough already without even reading Dianetics!

For the libraries Wordcat.org includes only some libraries not all. Anyway all your percent figuring also works for The Cat in the Hat doesn't it? Dianetics shows as many copies as The Cat in the Hat in Worldcat.org, so those two are rare books I guess!

----- Krosavcheg wrote:
> Scientologists do not hide or live cloistered lives. The technology of Scientology is not hidden.

So, if I were to go into a Church of Scientology and ask to see the literature on "The Wall of Fire", it would be supplied to me? Did not L Ron say that giving out this information to anyone who is not ready is a high crime and that the person may die from the truth?

If your organization cannot do this, then it is in fact secretive, as it's not giving everyone the complete truth.

----- Krosavcheg wrote:
> People who join and stay are better off than people who leave or never join.

You of course have third party studies to validate this statement don't you? I'd point out that third party does not refer to scientology front groups like the CCHR or Narconon.

----- Krosavcheg wrote:
> Anyone who joins and stays would not be a person who thinks the Church of Scientology is corrupt!

Well duh. I don't think many people would stay in an organization they thought was corrupt. Are you implying that the people who left did so because they thought Scientology was corrupt?

----- Krosavcheg wrote:
> Then the comments are not arguing anything except how more knowledge is not a good thing.

Knowledge is only good when it's PROVEN. If something is not proven, it's not not good. For example. Let's say you heard someone say "Almonds can cure cancer." So, instead of going for radiation and chemotherapy, you eat lots of almonds. That bit of "knowledge" was very bad. The reason it's bad is because you took something at face value without validating it's claims. Thus the knowledge was UNPROVEN to you.

So, let's take this concept to Scientology. The "tech" itself is unproven, yet people claim that it's helping. There are others that claim it's destructive. However, the truth of the matter is that it's unproven and therefore dangerous.

I have a question for you Krosavcheg. IF Hubbard's standard tech works 100% of the time, why is it that Scientology has yet to publish any sort of study that proves it's claims?

----- Krosavcheg wrote:
> For the libraries Wordcat.org includes only some libraries not all. Anyway all your percent figuring also works for The Cat in the Hat doesn't it? Dianetics shows as many copies as The Cat in the Hat in Worldcat.org, so those two are rare books I guess!

Didn't Scientology claim that it's books are in 100% of public libraries? Doesn't this information contradict that?

----- Krosavcheg wrote:
> People in Scientology learn how to handle the everyday experiences of life without reacting based on false feelings and bad information. They are thinking clearly.

Flunk. Statement without supporting facts.

----- Krosavcheg wrote:
> You are the types who think everyone is out to get you and is hiding the facts.

Flunk. Generalization.

----- Krosavcheg wrote:
> Conspiracy theorists like to think they are so important that they have the real knowledge and the average person does not.

Let me ask you this. Given that the CoS believes Psychs are responsible for the holocost and that they're secretly working against your organization, do you see any parallels between this action and your quote above? Also, doesn't this apply to the quote "The difference between a WoG and a clear is great".

----- Krosavcheg wrote:
Have you ever read a book by L Ron Hubbard?

All 17. It took me forever because the books are so poorly written. I have my university education to thank for allowing me to get through them, as some scientific journals are about as dry and confusing. I found A History of Man actually entertaining. Espicially when L Ron said "If you make a quick motion with your thumb and forefinger and tell someone about a clam moving his shell up and down quickly, they will begin to rub their jaw and be very upset. They may even have to have a tooth or two removed." These books are devoid of any scientific method and literally throw themselves in the face of logical thinking.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me ask you a question Krosavcheg. At the end of this, looking at what I have written, how is it you can disregard what I've pointed out? How can you intelligently ignore these arguements? How do you keep your faith when faced by logic at every turn.

Forget that question. I know the answer already. Let me ask you something else. If OT8 was real, given the scope of the game Scientologists are playing, would there really be any critics in existance? Think about it.

Ghost Bear, I am ok with saying Dianetics is available in as many libraries as The Cat in the Hat. Two hard to find books! If I guessed at things I would guess you live in California but I don't know. Even if you do, I am not going to hide in your closet and spy on you for the Church of Scientology so don't worry!

I am sure your ideas about what is proven are not the way to define all knowledge. You said knowledge is only good when it is proven. When something is not proven it is not good. Like me you and the other people may have read Huckleberry Finn in school. This is knowledge. This is not PROVEN. This is still good though. I am sure you do not really believe what you wrote about knowledge. You made a point that you would not make about everything, only Scientology and maybe like Kams the Government, Roman Catholics, and Corporations! Don't worry I don't drink Starbucks either.

Scientology puts people in touch with the past experiences of their existence. In Scientology people discover knowledge about themselves. Scientologists do not tell anyone what to think. The knowledge of yourself cannot be told to you by anyone else. You have gotten knowledge from scientific journals and your university education. Very important knowledge I am sure. Like it or not you have also found knowledge of other things not in scientific journals. If you have ever truly known anything about yourself, you already have something in common with Scientology and the type of knowledge Scientology brings to people. Most people will say this type of knowledge is real even if it will never be written about in the scientific journals.

Dianetics/beliefs of Scientologists IS NOT THE SAME as the leadership/inner workings of the Church of Scientology. Surely you can see the difference, and that one may have concerns about one and not the other?

Dianetics/beliefs of Scientologists IS NOT THE SAME as the leadership/inner workings of the Church of Scientology. Surely you can see the difference, and that one may have concerns about one and not the other?

Dianetics/beliefs of Scientologists IS NOT THE SAME as the leadership/inner workings of the Church of Scientology. Surely you can see the difference, and that one may have concerns about one and not the other?

Just to make sure you read it.

For Krosavcheg and anyone else who wants to read this:

The problem is not that I haven't read Dianetics. The problem is that you haven't read it showing any comprehension.

Let me point out some passages:

All references are from Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, the Paperjacks edition, published in 1975.

Book 1, Chapter 1, (page 5) We are told that Dianetics is a science like physics or chemistry and works as precisely as they do.

Book 2, Chapter 7, (page 129) Hubbard explains that more than 270 cases were studied in preparing the book.

Book 2, Chapter 7, (page 133) Hubbard emphasizes that we are dealing with facts.

Book 3, Chapter 10, (page 400) It is explained that the book is a product of 15 years of research. (So, I am unwilling to listen to excuses about why things won't happen as stated.)

Book 1, Chapter 1, (page 10) We are told that a clear's eyesight improves a great deal and unless cleared when quite old, will no longer need glasses. (However I know people cleared at a young age who wear glasses. Go to XENUTV.COM and see Jeber Hentzch, former church president, wearing glasses.)

Book 1, Chapter 1, (page 16) Once cleared, a person can work with the information he has, without error. (A clear's spelling, typing and mental arithmetic therefore should be without error.)

Book 2, Chapter 5, (page 92) Colds are a psychosomatic ailment, so clears will be immune to them. (However, clears do get colds then rationalize them. Look for tissues in cold season.)

Book 2, Chapter 5, (page 96) The science of dianetics will extend human life. (Hubbard, himself died of a stroke at age seventy four. Try and find a very old scientologist. Google Ruthie Silverman)

Book 2, Chapter 8, (page 135) Zulus are savage, unable to progress and frequently ill because of their poor mental state. (I admit that this can't be quickly disproved without having a large number of Zulus around to work with, but this does illustrate Hubbards racism, found now and then throughout his work.)

Book 2, Chapter 10, (page 156) Clears don't get morning sickness and women who do, have intentionally or unintentionally assaulted the fetus. (Ask mothers within scientology and outside of it about the relationship between morning sickness and assaulting the fetus. Ask your own mother.)

Book 2, Chapter 11, (page 170) He tells us that a clear can remember everything and has the ability to make use of these memories. (You can ask a clear to quote the precise phrasing from the text, and if he or she can't, there will be no need to find it yourself. You can also go to XENUTV.COM where David Miscavige, the head of the church, forgets someone's name.)

Book 2, Chapter 11, (page 171) We are told that what a normal is to an institutionalized person, is what a clear is to a normal person. A clear, with his perfect memory can do computations, and Hubbard gives the example of a chess player, 120 to 180 times as fast as a normal. (Look for people that become markedly more accomplished after becoming clear. I still haven't met even one. The movie stars were famous or on their way there, before Scientology.)

These are only a few samples from a 436 page book. Is the rest brilliant? No, it is a Gordian knot of nonsense tied into some credible methodology, which is time consuming to disprove, even if scientology allowed their clears to be independently tested.

I say to you again, "Flunk, non-confront."

Krosavcheg, to keep the discussion on track, I've outlined your response in quotes below. I have genuinely tried to keep the context of your statements in mind and visible to the reader. Please, feel free to do the same to me. I find discussions of this type to be most interesting...

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
> If I guessed at things I would guess you live in California but I don't know.

Sorry, but I don't live in California. What would make you guess such a place. I think most people would be hard pressed to discern a dialect that could be linked to a specific area given there is no inflection in voice available through email. You can guess again if you like.

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
Even if you do, I am not going to hide in your closet and spy on you for the Church of Scientology so don't worry!

> I fear the CoS as much as I fear a bowl of warm oatmeal. I genuinely feel that 99% of scientologists are warm and welcoming people who only want to help. However, the reamining 1% of Scientologists are so absolute about their beliefs that they can rationalize harassment as being "the greatest good across all the dynamics". This sort of thinking is akin to what was done during the Spanish Inquisition. And no, I'm not talking about the delightful Monty Python.

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
> Ghost Bear, I am ok with saying Dianetics is available in as many libraries as The Cat in the Hat.

You may be fine with it. I'm not. What you're failing to take into account is the total audience for the book. The cat in the hat is largely a childrens novel. As such, you will probably only find it in the childrens section of libraries. Institutional libraries (Ie, Universities and Colleges) won't have it in stock at all and neither would adult libraries. I guess my point here is that Dianetics will not be selectively removed for it's content because it's a childrens novel. So, if you want a real comparison, you'd have to compare all libraries that would have purpose for Cat in the Hat and see how many stocked Dianetics. This would put both books on equal footing and allow for a true comparison. You see what I'm saying right?

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
> I am sure your ideas about what is proven are not the way to define all knowledge.

You're right, it is only one category of knowledge. One may say "boring or not boring" or "complex or not complex". I chose "proven" and "not proven" because this is the basis for fact. And when you're trying to show something isn't valid, you use facts to prove a point. Now, whether something is "proven" is subjective, as the person may weigh scientific evidence over personal observation (or vice versa). However, for something to be truely proven and understood as fact, the majority of people need to agree with it. So, a crazy man might say "the colour blue tastes like happy". It's proven to him, but it's not a fact.

My attempt here was to question the results that are claimed by the CoS in regards to it's Tech. By questioning I was hoping to force the issue to be proven or disproven. I still do not understand how claims made by Scientology are not provable using the scientific method. Espicially since L Ron Hubbard said "The standard tech works 100% if applied correctly."

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
> Like me you and the other people may have read Huckleberry Finn in school. This is knowledge. This is not PROVEN. This is still good though. I am sure you do not really believe what you wrote about knowledge.

You're missing the point. You can read about Huckleberry Finn. It's a good book and worth a read. And from this you will gain knowledge. As I stated above, you can categorize knowledge into "proven" and "not proven". So, when you read Huck Finn, you can answer questions about the book. These are proven because the book exists and you can point the person to the appropriate page. For example "Did Huckleberry Finn have a friend?". You can say "yes he did, page XXX he met so and so." This knowledge can be proven.

However, there is knowledge that is unproven too. Let's say that Huck Finn treated a chipped tooth with aloe vera (just an example). That sort of information is unproven and dangerous to use. It may not be valid.

I trust you now see what I'm saying.

By the way, why are you sure I don't believe what I wrote about knowledge? Is this because you didn't understand what I was saying?

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
> You made a point that you would not make about everything, only Scientology and maybe like Kams the Government, Roman Catholics, and Corporations! Don't worry I don't drink Starbucks either.

Not sure what you're saying here. But no, I apply the principal of "not proven" to everything, not just Scientology. Believe it or not, I don't really have a strong bias either way for your faith. I apply the same logic to psychology papers, some of which are totally devoid of any scientific method or do not have large enough sample sizes to validate their hypothesis (which is generally proven by the mean of a certain result).

Just because I talk about Scientology in unflattering terms doesn't mean I do so because I'm biased, I may actually have a valid reason for doing so. :P

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
> Scientology puts people in touch with the past experiences of their existence.

There is no way to prove this. There is no way to disprove this. Therefore, it's unproven and dangerous to apply.

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
> Scientologists do not tell anyone what to think.

How do you explain the concept of the "Oxford Capability Test"? Doesn't Scientology directly tell people where their flaws lie? Doesn't this action alone tell people to think "Wow, I'm depressed." or "Wow, I have poor communication skills". The actions of your organization directly refute your statement.

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
> You have gotten knowledge from scientific journals and your university education. Very important knowledge I am sure. Like it or not you have also found knowledge of other things not in scientific journals. If you have ever truly known anything about yourself, you already have something in common with Scientology and the type of knowledge Scientology brings to people. Most people will say this type of knowledge is real even if it will never be written about in the scientific journals.

You attribute this "non scientific, personally validated" knoweldge to Scientology indirectly here. People find deep, inner truths about themselves all the time without the aid of Scientology. Therefore, the comparison between me and scientologists is moot. Wouldn't you agree?

Please don't misunderstand me. I respect the right of everyone to believe what they want to. However, I do not believe that organizations should be allowed to withhold information from people, thereby influencing their decisions to either join or not to join. You would have to admin Krosavcheg, that because your organization is not 100% forward with people, they actually benefit. I mean, how many people would actually join if they were provided with an audio tape of L Ron talking about the upper levels of Scientology.

Do you agree with that statement? If not, why don't you?

Scientology accepts that humans are spiritual beings. In Scientology people progress as spiritual beings and gain knowledge of their true existence. A math teacher starts with basics, 1+1=2. A math student who does not know 1+1=2 is not going to understand a2+b2=c2. A math student whose teacher says solve a2+b2=c2 is not going to want to do any more math that's for sure! A math student whose teacher says you are good at addition and later I will show you multiplication is going to work harder at addition because of the knowledge of multiplication promised. What is knowledge? For something to be truly proven the majority of people do not have to agree with it. For something to be understood as fact a person does have to agree with it because only a person can understand something but a person does not make it a fact by understanding and agreeing with it. Let's say Huck had a friend and this is proven on page XXX when he met so and so. Let's say Huck healed a toothache with plants and it is not proven that Huck's plants heal toothaches. These are your two examples ok. But now let's say Pap should not have beaten Huck. This is real knowledge but it is not proven in the way you want things to be. It is knowledge. It is not dangerous to use just because it is not to be proven in the way you say things have to be proven in order to equal knowledge. I am sure you do not apply your principles of "not proven" to everything.

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
> Scientology accepts that humans are spiritual beings. In Scientology people progress as spiritual beings and gain knowledge of their true existence. A math teacher starts with basics, 1+1=2. A math student who does not know 1+1=2 is not going to understand a2+b2=c2. A math student whose teacher says solve a2+b2=c2 is not going to want to do any more math that's for sure!

You and I agree completely on this one point. However, the problem is that this example only addresses one small aspect of a much larger situation. Let me provide you with another example.

"We find that the poorest people in the US are people with low levels of education. They are poor and hungry. The people in Africa are poor and hungry as well. We can conclude that this problem is because of the total lack of schools, thereby lowering their average level of education."

Education is a problem for the poorest people in Africa. The fact is, they don't have schools. And while having more educated people in their countries would help to overall boost their living situation, education is not the only factor in their situation. There is warfare, lack of infrastructure and governmental corruption.

I trust you see my point now. But let's follow your example to see if it holds water. Jimmy will be the student, Ms. Stephens will be the teacher.

Jimmy: "Wow, that's cool Ms. Stephens"
Ms. Stephens: "Yes it is. I'm glad you like math."
Jimmy: "Ms. Stephens, my brohters told me that there is this hard math called Calculus."
Ms. Stephens: "Yes, it's very difficult to understand. But you'll get there."
Jimmy: "What is it used for."
Ms. Stephens: "It's used to figure out very difficult problems like how much things should cost and how big things are."
Jimmy: "Oh! I hope I learn about that one day."

Now, let's change roles. Jimmy is a PC and Ms.Stephens is an Auditor (Class VIII)

Jimmy: "Wow, that's cool Ms. Stephens."
Ms. Stephens: "Yes it is, I'm glad you like Scientology."
Jimmy: "Ms. Stephens, my brohters told me that there information about aliens in Scientology."
Ms. Stephens: "That's a lie. You'll need to go and get your sec check now."

There's the difference. Ms. Stephens knows that there is mention of aliens in L Ron's courses, but she lies to cover it up.

Completely different, as you can see. And yes, I've actually heard L Ron's tapes regarding this.

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
But now let's say Pap should not have beaten Huck. This is real knowledge but it is not proven in the way you want things to be. It is knowledge. It is not dangerous to use just because it is not to be proven in the way you say things have to be proven in order to equal knowledge.

Real knowledge? All knowledge is real because it exists. I have no idea what you mean by "real".

I have no idea what point you're trying to get across here. Are you saying Pap shouldn't have beaten Huck? What if Huck threatened Pap's sister or his family? What if Huck hit Pap earlier and told him that he'd be back to "finish the job" later?

Furthermore, how would one apply this knowledge? It's awfully specific wouldn't you say? "Gee, if I go back to the 1800's, I better not beat anyone up. That'd be wrong."

If you're suggesting people should base their actions on "morals" written in Huckleberry Finn on future events, I'd have to say that's one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard. I mean, what if someone is coming at you with a knife? Gee, I better not beat up this guy because in Huck Finn Pap broke Huck's tooth.

Not sure what you're saying here. Perhaps you can try again.

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
I am sure you do not apply your principles of "not proven" to everything.

Why do you believe this. How long have you known me?

Is this one of your "cognitions"? You were wrong about California and you're wrong about this. 0 for 2. Maybe you should retake some courses there. :D

Scientology promotes a knowledge of life. Pap should not have beaten Huck. Jim should not have been made into a slave. Prove it in a scientific journal. Slavery is wrong. This is knowledge isn't it? Show a scientific journal that proves it or else all knowledge is not proved in the way you want to say it is. Scientology is not needed for these ideas, just knowledge. Your protest of Scientology might mess up your ideas of knowledge. If you do not know whether you love your child or your parents then maybe you also do not know what knowledge is. Maybe though you do know that you love your child or your parents. Like you said, how would you apply this knowledge?! I am sure you do not live by the idea of knowledge you are using to protest against Scientology.

Are the principles important? Maybe a math teacher yells at a student who is not able to do calculus. Maybe a math teacher tries to teach calculus to a student who does not know addition. Does this teacher's mistake mean the principle is wrong that calculus should not be taught to a student who does not know arithmetic? You talked up the principles. They are important more than any one person. They stay no matter what any one person does to break them. Is this true? Is this knowledge? Is this proved in the scientific journals?

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
> Scientology promotes a knowledge of life. Pap should not have beaten Huck. Jim should not have been made into a slave. Prove it in a scientific journal. Slavery is wrong.

@@@ The Concept of Context when applied to Knoweldge:

In the example you give above, you say "Slavery is wrong." I disagree with that blanket statement. In ancient africa, tribes would war against each other for food. The people they captured were either sold as slaves or they were killed. In this example, the system of Slavery is actually good for the individual.

Let me give you another example. Let's say you and I are talking about a paid boxing event. You say "They shouldn't be fighting because in Huck Finn, Pap beat up Huck and broke his tooth." Do you think people are going to look at you oddly? Do you think they're going to accept your arguement? This is because they are applying context to your statement and find it's not matching. Now, if you had said "They shouldn't be boxing because professional atheletes that take blows to the head are at risk to develop concussions." they'd be more receptive. The reason? The context of the knowledge you are providing is on target.

So, what do we learn from this? The context of the knowledge is important. I believe I said this in my previous post as well, but I suppose I need to explain it again so people understand the concept.

@@@ The Concept of Proven vs. Unproven knowledge:

Now, you challenge me to prove the statements above in a scientific journal. I think we'd both agree that we can do no such thing. As such, it would be unproven knowledge according to my definition. Correct?

In your arguement above, you attempt to show that "unproven" knoweldge by my definition can actually be good and safe knowledge. However, your arguement is flawed. You are attributing your own personal feelings to knowledge to prove that they are accurate. You believe Pap should not have beaten huck. Others may sit back and believe that he was justified in doing so. Others may be indifferent.

Knowledge does not have a "frame of reference". It does not determine good or evil. It simply exists as information. A person forms their frame of reference based on the knowledge they have obtained throughout their life. From the basis of this knowledge, they form morals and base their actions. For example, someone who has grown up with bigotry doesn't view it as evil (or as evil as someone else).

@@@ Combining the Two Concepts:

So, we have proven and unproven knowledge and we have the subject of context. When information is proven, for example, a2+b2=c2, we do not have to apply context. It's a fact and can be attributed across many different situations. For example..

Christians believe in Jesus Christ. You can use this in an arguement where someone is talking about theology, you can use this information on a game show, you can use this information to relate with other Christians.

However, when information is unproven, context has to be applied when applying knowledge to different situations. For example... if you read in a novel "Wow, that slice of apple pie cured my cancer." You have to know what type of cancer it cured. What stage was it in? Had it spread to other locations? Was it considered terminal?

The key concept here. ***** Unproven information requires context to be reasonably applied to different situations. Proven knowledge does not. *****

So, take Hubbard's writings. He provides no context for his claims. He says things like "the tech works 100% of the time when applied correctly". Yet, he provides no proof.

So, we have information that claims to be scientific but is not proven (Title: Dianetics, the modern science of mental health), where no context is applied. That's dangerous. You do not know what negative effects are present in this training and you take it on "good faith" that it actually works. That's a sort of gullibility that I don't prescribe to.

Not sure if my follow up post made it through. I apologize for the double post if it occurs.

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
Scientology is not needed for these ideas, just knowledge. Your protest of Scientology might mess up your ideas of knowledge. If you do not know whether you love your child or your parents then maybe you also do not know what knowledge is. Maybe though you do know that you love your child or your parents. Like you said, how would you apply this knowledge?! I am sure you do not live by the idea of knowledge you are using to protest against Scientology.

I have no idea what your actual point here is. Try using paragraphs and explaining your examples.

Now, I FIGURE that you're questioning how I could "prove" that I love my mother, child, family, etc. The answer is quite simple. I know for a fact that I feel a certain way about certain people. How do I know? Because all the "proof" that exists is contained exclusively in my head. Hell, you could say I'm the authority on the subject.

I have a quesiton. You say "Your protest of Scientology might mess up your ideas of knowledge." On what basis to you say this. Logically explain this to me. I want to understand your viewpoint.

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
Are the principles important? Maybe a math teacher yells at a student who is not able to do calculus. Maybe a math teacher tries to teach calculus to a student who does not know addition. Does this teacher's mistake mean the principle is wrong that calculus should not be taught to a student who does not know arithmetic? You talked up the principles. They are important more than any one person. They stay no matter what any one person does to break them. Is this true? Is this knowledge? Is this proved in the scientific journals?

This is so poorly written that I cannot even begin to interpret your meaning. Allow me to simplify my position to you.

The teacher who teaches math DOES NOT deny the existance of calculus. But acknowledges the question and gives a knowledge appropriate question.

The auditor who DOES deny the existance of aliens. She is being directly deceptive.

Someone who has grown up with bigotry does not view it as evil. Is bigotry not evil then? Does this person's view of bigotry change the truth that bigotry is evil? Is evil really found this way? Is the statement "genocide is evil" a dangerous statement because it has no context? A Nazi does not view the killing of Jews as evil. Is the gas chamber good whenever the Nazi operator calls it good and evil whenever the Jews inside call it evil? Or is it evil no matter what the Nazi or the Jews for that matter say? Do not tell me "context." If you understand the number pi, you understand this knowledge in context. You could not actually show me the number pi if you wanted to, you could only show me its application.

Let's get to the bottom of your ideas Ghost Bear. They go past arguing Scientology. Your argument is not just with Scientology, like Kams and the others you have a bigger agenda. Different maybe, but still bigger than Scientology. Scientology acknowledges the spirituality in existence. Your argument against this side of things is not an argument against just Scientology but against all religion and philosophy. Like Kams who distrusts all types of institutions in general and so distrusts the Church of Scientology too, you deny spiritual knowledge generally and so deny Scientology specifically. To be fair you should say you are a skeptic of all religion since they all claim to have knowledge past your little definition of knowledge. You can get to the point faster this way. If you do not agree spirituality is a kind of knowledge generally, there is no point to arguing Scientology specifically because the first disagreement is already a stumbling block.

"Like Kams who distrusts all types of institutions in general and so distrusts the Church of Scientology too, you deny spiritual knowledge generally and so deny Scientology specifically."

No, you continue to do nothing but twist my words around. I've tried to explain myself multiple times but you choose to selectively read what I write. I'll give another example but odds are you won't read this or you'll find a remarkable way to interpret it that bends the rules of logic. From this site (http://www.pollingreport.com/institut.htm):
"Do you think that quite a few of the people running the government are crooked, not very many are, or do you think hardly any of them are crooked?"
Quite a few - 52%
Not Very Many - 28%
Hardly Any - 10%
All - 5%

Is over half of the country full of insane conspiracy theorists? The people who populate our protests come from all walks of life and I know you want to portray us as weirdos who believe in the New World Order and hate all religion, but it isn't true. We come from all different faiths, ages, political affiliations, and different levels of experience with Scientology. I know you don't believe me (or maybe you do but need to keep this argument going) and I'm sure your Church has told you otherwise, but it's true.

Oh, and I trust my government way waaaay more than I trust the Church of Scientology.

Oh, and your argument is still full of ad hominem, since you basically say "these people distrust everything so of course they would distrust Scientology, too." And I'm sorry if other people here have also used similar fallacies but that doesn't mean you can use them too :)

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
> Someone who has grown up with bigotry does not view it as evil. Is bigotry not evil then? Does this person's view of bigotry change the truth that bigotry is evil? Is evil really found this way? Is the statement "genocide is evil" a dangerous statement because it has no context?

Did you read my point at all. I do not know how I could possibly explain it any simpler for you to pick up. Either you're being intellignetly dishonest by trying to represent my point or you simply cannot grasp what I'm saying. I hope it's the latter. I would encourage you to look back at what I had written, put your bias aside and really think on what it is that I'm saying.

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
> They go past arguing Scientology. Your argument is not just with Scientology, like Kams and the others you have a bigger agenda. Different maybe, but still bigger than Scientology. Scientology acknowledges the spirituality in existence. Your argument against this side of things is not an argument against just Scientology but against all religion and philosophy.

You again misinterpret my point. You try to attribute my points as part of an "agenda" against all philosophy and religon. This isn't true, as I am in fact a Roman Catholic and I'm quite happy with my faith. I find it to be rather humerous that you attempt to interpret my motivations through my arguements which you cannot or will not comprehend.

I'll try one last time to explain this to you. Knowledge that isn't proven is dangerous to apply. I'll give you an example.

Jesus advocated the use of the 10 commandments. One of those commandments is "Thou shalt not kill." Now, while I agree with the commandment, it's not proven. Because it's not proven, it's dangerous to use this concept across all different situations. So, let's say there is a terrorist with 500 people on a plane. By killing him, you save 500 people. Do you kill him?

So, to summarize. When you are applying unproven knowledge to a situation, you have to ***CONSIDER THE CONTEXT***. If there is no context given and the knowledge is not proven, by what means can you qualify the positives and negatives.

Scientology, Astrology, Catholism, Buddism, Supersition all of these are NOT PROVEN. Therefore you need to apply ***CONTEXT TO THE KNOWLEDGE***.

Krosavcheg. Address my points if you dare. Scientologists are supposed to be much smarter given the advantages of Dianetics and Auditing. Prove it. You have yet to disprove a single point or provide any rational explanation for why you feel certain ways. I have quite literally crushed your every arguement.

I challenge you to disprove the concept that knowledge is not just proven or not proven. I challenge you to prove that any claims that scientology are true. I challenge you to find fault in the concept of "applying context to unproven knowledge."

Until you do Krosavcheg, a wog has beaten you in an intellectual bout.

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
> If you understand the number pi, you understand this knowledge in context.

Pi is proven knowledge. It does not require context. Pi is 100% correct
regardless of situation.

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
You could not actually show me the number pi if you wanted to, you could only show me its application.

22/7. Welcome to grade 9 math.

Ghost Bear I am glad you are amused. You seem frustrated too, a strange combination. As you no doubt know from university or maybe 9th grade math, 22/7 is not even a representation of pi, at best it is an approximation. Pi requires context more than any of those other things you name because pi does not exist as a thing and there are not even any things that exist to show pi to perfection.

I find humor in you as well. That you are a Roman Catholic and do not believe there is a moral law that can be known apart from context! Also that Roman Catholics believe in divinely given knowledge don't they, so how do put knowledge into just two categories, proven and unproven? Any truly religious person should not look past your ideas. Your ideas are a real danger to religion. You may not even know this but in your way the situation creates the morals. Your ideas say the morals cannot really be valid first and then be applied to situations. The morals get validity only when they show up in a life context. Whether you like it or not the life context could not be judged by the morals unless the person judging had knowledge of the morals first. If the person had knowledge of the morals first but could not trust this knowledge until a situation came up, then the person would never have valid grounds for judgment. This is truly dangerous, it is an agenda, and goes against all religions.

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
> 22/7 is not even a representation of pi, at best it is an approximation.

Bingo, we have a winner. You are correct sir and you have proven me wrong. I would have also accepted "22/7 is invalid becauase pi is an irrational number and cannot be expressed as m/n format." Or I would have also accepted "22/7 is actually an overestimation of Pi and therefore invalid."

But wait. If I have such understanding of Pi, why would I claim 22/7 is an appropriate representation? Odd thing to do wouldn't you say?

We now know that you know how to disprove points in arguements. You saw something that is invalid and you quickly shot it down. Perhaps you'd like to do the same for my real arguements. If you shoot those down, I'll admit you're correct. But I don't think you can.

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
Ghost Bear I am glad you are amused. You seem frustrated too, a strange combination.

I am frustrated. I have to consistently type out the same statement to you over and over to have a decent conversation. You have shown some willingness to address points given above. And because of that I want to continue posting. I'm hoping we can reach consensus on items. Prove me wrong if my position is so incomprehensible. Show me the error of my ways and show me how to think. Address my challenges. :D

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
> I find humor in you as well. That you are a Roman Catholic and do not believe there is a moral law that can be known apart from context!

Moral law? Let me get this straight. You combine an item that is subjective (that is to say, your morals are not mine), with a term that is for lack of a better word, absolute. I've shown you some of the "moral law" that exists in the bible, that is "thou shalt not kill" in particular. With benefit of context, we can see how this "moral law" does not apply to all situations, just the majority of them. As such, it's no longer a law now is it? The subjective element subverts the absolute.

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
> that can be known apart from context!

No. That cannot be applied apart from context. You can KNOW Jesus approved of the commandments. Applying that knowledge to your daily life requires context.

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
Also that Roman Catholics believe in divinely given knowledge don't they, so how do put knowledge into just two categories, proven and unproven?

I didn't say just two categories. If you read my post above, I said knowledge can be categorized in many ways. Boring and not boring, complex and not complex. Proven and non-proven is interesting because we determine what is proven to be a fact or law and what is not. If you read my posts again, you'll see the point. Proven knowledge does not require context to be applied. Because they are true. Unproven does.

I'll also point out that not all Roman Catholics believe in the same things. For example, the use of condoms is not allowed in the Catholic Church. I disagree completely and use them. The catholic church says "Don't watch Dogma." I watch it anyways. There is a difference between the spirit of the faith and the rest of the religous nonsense. Hubbard said it best (and I'm paraphrasing) "What is true for you is, what is not, isn't."

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
You may not even know this but in your way the situation creates the morals. Your ideas say the morals cannot really be valid first and then be applied to situations. The morals get validity only when they show up in a life context.

No, I say that morals are founded on the person's frame of reference. A person's frame of reference is built upon the knowledge they currently have. As I said in my previous post, if I'm brought up to be a bigot, I will not see anything wrong with being one. Every single person on this planet has a unique frame of reference, as they are shaped by the unique events that unfold before them. As such, everyone sees events in different shades of good and evil.

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
Whether you like it or not the life context could not be judged by the morals unless the person judging had knowledge of the morals first.

I'm confused as to what you are saying here. Morals are not an entity and cannot judge anything. If you are implying that you need morals BEFORE knowledge, I will have to disagree. Infants do not have a knowledge of right and wrong. If you had a son, you'd realize what I'm saying. Children (when they are young) do not know good and evil. They do what they like. They will smash mommy in the mouth with a toy if they are praised for it. Is that "EVIL" to the child? Or is it seen as good.

Knowledge (experience, life lessons, information), shape our ideas and our actions as we age.

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
If the person had knowledge of the morals first but could not trust this knowledge until a situation came up, then the person would never have valid grounds for judgment. This is truly dangerous, it is an agenda, and goes against all religions.

I have no idea what you're saying here. If you're asserting that someone can have morals before knowledge it's a moot point, because it has been disproven above.

Ghost Bear why I said pi was not understood. Pi is unable to be represented. Pi is true knowledge. Pi is true knowledge that cannot be shown except in context. The context will always be approximate, for example I draw a crude circle on paper, you say 22/7, and so on. The context will always be approximate or at best incomplete, still pi will always be more true and more proven then the context! Me and you are in a room with paper and pencils. I tell you to show me pi, you draw a circle, you write 22/7, etc. I say no pi is not proven knowledge because you never showed me the real pi, only approximate representations. You say no the bad circle I drew is the way to show pi, pi was not proven until I drew the circle! I say the circle is so bad that if anything it disproves pi! Show me pi dammit! Pi is not proven knowledge in the way you say things have to be proven. All this shows your so called unproven knowledge is sometimes more real than the examples. The context is deficient and actually false, what cannot be shown completely is full and true. Does the context stop anywhere Ghost Bear? You use condoms, good for you. So and so is Roman Catholic and says there is no God. Is it possible? Is anything there to stop So And So from really conforming to Roman Catholic no matter what So And So says?

You killed this robber who broke into your house. So then the killing is not a bad thing even if you are not a bad person for doing the killing? No the context does not change the bad of the killing even if the killed person is the robber and you are innocent of the killing. The killing is still a bad thing. Because the bad thing is the robber is killed and dead, the good thing is you protected yourself. Still
the killing is a bad thing even in the context of you protected yourself.

All spiritual people will take note here and see what is Ghost Bear's meaning compared to mine.

What is Scientology? Scientologists approve the spiritual side of human beings. What is life? It happens that the episodes of life are less proven than the spiritual being and the spiritual knowledge of things. This is Scientology. Scientology helps people to truly find themselves, to have clear understanding, and to gain freedom.

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
> Ghost Bear why I said pi was not understood. Pi is unable to be represented. Pi is true knowledge. Pi is true knowledge that cannot be shown except in context. The context will always be approximate, for example I draw a crude circle on paper, you say 22/7, and so on. The context will always be approximate or at best incomplete, still pi will always be more true and more proven then the context! Me and you are in a room with paper and pencils. I tell you to show me pi, you draw a circle, you write 22/7, etc.

&

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
> Pi is not proven knowledge in the way you say things have to be proven.

Is PI a mathematical law or is it a theory? You'll have your answer as to it being proven or not proven right there. Let me know what you find out. If it's not a law, then it's unproven. If it is, you'll have the evidence before you.

I'll add this. By denying my statement that "Knowledge is proven or not proven" you're in essence saying "Knowledge can be proven AND not proven." Care to explain how this could occur and give an example?

Once we have agreement on this point, I figure we'll be able to make headway through the rest of the discussion.

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
All this shows your so called unproven knowledge is sometimes more real than the examples. The context is deficient and actually false, what cannot be shown completely is full and true. Does the context stop anywhere Ghost Bear? You use condoms, good for you. So and so is Roman Catholic and says there is no God. Is it possible? Is anything there to stop So And So from really conforming to Roman Catholic no matter what So And So says?

How is the context of my arguement deficient and actually false? You list the example of PI as proof that my definition of "unproven" is actually invalid. How does it apply? Is PI not a mathematical law? As a law, is it not proven? And if it's not, how does that disprove that knowledge is proven or not proven?

You're arguement hinges around the concept of "you can't show me what it is, so it can't be true". This is not valid. If you study science, you'll notice that there are things that are "observable" and things that are "not observable". Physicists use the term "observable universe" to term everything that they can see.

In science, there are in fact ways to prove something is occuring without proving what it exactly is. For example. We know that gravity bends time-space. It's a fact and provable by experiments. The method in which this occurs is not fully understood. However, this does not change the fact that it occurs.

Oh, and you'll note that I have never said that unproven knowledge is invalid. I have only said that unproven knowledge is unproven. I may have provided odd examples, but those are not the arguement, merely examples. :P

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
> You killed this robber who broke into your house. So then the killing is not a bad thing even if you are not a bad person for doing the killing? No the context does not change the bad of the killing even if the killed person is the robber and you are innocent of the killing. The killing is still a bad thing. Because the bad thing is the robber is killed and dead, the good thing is you protected yourself. Still the killing is a bad thing even in the context of you protected yourself.

I'm assuming english is your second language. No shame in it, but I figure this is where we may be getting our lines crossed.

This is about "morals". Not about knowledge. You cannot prove one person's morals are more correct then anothers. It's impossible as they are subjective. So, I don't know what you are in fact arguing here.

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
All spiritual people will take note here and see what is Ghost Bear's meaning compared to mine.

Umm, I consider myself spiritual. I'm in church every sunday and I study the bible and pray. Define spiritual. And define what "all spiritual people will take note" of. Broad generalizations suck by the way. Don't they teach you to avoid those in scientology?

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
What is Scientology? Scientologists approve the spiritual side of human beings. What is life? It happens that the episodes of life are less proven than the spiritual being and the spiritual knowledge of things. This is Scientology. Scientology helps people to truly find themselves, to have clear understanding, and to gain freedom.

Scientology misrepresents itself. Scientology denies it's own dogma to it's members. Scientology attacks it's critics. Scientology harasses via lawsuits. Scientology lies to prospective new members.

These are all PROVEN. Here's a few examples:
- The Oxford capability test wasn't developed by Oxford. It was developed my L Ron hubbard.
- Scientology denies the "Wall of Fire" text to it's own members. Leaked tapes show L Ron talking about "Space Opera".
- Scientology attacks it's critics. Watch Bob Minton's "angry protest" video on youtube. Is this how a church acts?
- Scientology harassed several ex-scientologists through lawsuits. Read up on Gerry Armstrong, who was L Ron's autobiographer.
- Scientology lies to prospective members. It says it's compatible with all faiths, yet L Ron is heard in lectures saying "Jesus Christ was an alien implant" and "Those who have been infected - I mean christians."

This whole movement is to stop the lies. I don't care if you believe in space aliens, just don't lie to people about it.

That's called FRAUD. What does your morals say about that?

Krosavcheg, maybe you'd also like to explain how Gays and Lesbians are 1.1 on the tone scale. And what is supposed to happen to all those below 2.0 on the tone scale.

Why do you have to lie about your faith?

Why I said pi was not understood again. I did not say that pi is unproven, I said that pi is not proven in the way you claim things have to be proven. What is pi? Either pi is a real thing that exists, or pi is just a deduction invented by human beings looking at round things in the nature like stones, planets, and so forth. The round things exist, pi is deduced by humans from the round things and does not exist else, only in human invention. I do not believe this but explain this line of thoughts to show where your way of thinking leads. All intellectual knowledge is like this from your point of view. The knowing of things like pi is a best guess about the way things are. Proven knowledge or unproven knowledge, the things not the knowing come first. This is your mindset, this is your agenda. The truly spiritual people will see this for what it is. The view of humanity as a bunch of cells, etc, thought of after the fact by human fantasy as spiritual beings.

In a room with paper and pencils, I ask you to show me pi, you draw a circle, you write 22/7, you explain irrational numbers, and so on. I say no pi is not proven knowledge because you never showed me the real pi, only approximate representations. You only showed me your badly drawn circle, an approximate equation, a theoretical idea, but you showed no pi. You showed me a context, and the context does not even represent pi perfectly. Does it make pi unreal? Pi is real. The question of proven or unproven as you offer it is irrelevant. You cannot show me pi except within a deficient context, yet pi is real, and pi is there existing even without the context.

Scientology promotes the spiritual reality of human beings, all religions do the same, in different ways yes. A doubter of religion tells to me, "Show me the spiritual nature of a human, or else I cannot know for certain the spiritual side exists." Do I answer to them, "See that person does good, has morals, this proves the spiritual being"? No it is inadequate, this person does bad too, has no morals at times. The other person says more, "Show me the spiritual nature of this being dammit!" Unfortunately for me who has to answer this person, the life of the person in the physical body is a context, a deficient context, it will never show perfectly the spiritual being just like the fraction you wrote will never show pi perfectly. Pi exists despite your circle's imperfection. The spiritual being exits despite the body's imperfection. Pi while always existing will never actually be seen by itself on this planet. The spiritual being while always existing will never be seen by itself either.

An infant does not know bigotry is wrong, so bigotry is not right or wrong until the infant decides whether it is? An infant does not know the earth is round, so the earth is not flat or round until the infant says it is? The fact does not depend on the infant, still Ghost Bear says, "You cannot prove one person's morals are more correct then anothers. It's impossible as they are subjective." Good, the ideas of the Nazis were just as right as the ideas of those who fought the Nazis. You cannot prove the gas chamber man was less correct than the man who fought him. The Jews should not be exterminated. According to your way, this "opinion" of the Jews is "unproven knowledge," this is impossibly subjective morality, just as correct one way or the other. Here we arrive. Go to the final end of your way of thought and you come to the impossibility of spiritual knowledge. I said times before that your agenda is bigger than Scientology, you are a skeptic of spirituality and of morality, even of knowledge in general, scientific or not. If you do not see this, it is not because you are not saying it, only because you do not understand what you are saying. Any truly spiritual person will see this, not just Scientologists. Then next time they hear Scientologists saying how Scientology is persecuted for being spiritual or the next time they hear Scientologists offering that the big-scale ideas of Scientology are the important part of Scientology, they will know why Scientology is protested against by the skeptics of knowledge. They will see then who are their enemies and who are their friends to keep religion free and not persecuted.

I come down. There is no reason arguing Scientology in particular when the division is so wide between what is subjective and what is objective, what can be considered with certainty to exist, and what can only be called "unproven" knowledge. You are on the side that denies not allows the certainty of spiritual knowledge. As you can see, this is the grounds of Scientology's fight because all else depends on it.

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
> In a room with paper and pencils, I ask you to show me pi, you draw a circle, you write 22/7, you explain irrational numbers, and so on. I say no pi is not proven knowledge because you never
showed me the real pi, only approximate representations. You only showed me your badly drawn circle, an approximate equation, a theoretical idea, but you showed no pi. You showed me a context,
and the context does not even represent pi perfectly. Does it make pi unreal? Pi is real. The question of proven or unproven as you offer it is irrelevant. You cannot show me pi except within
a deficient context, yet pi is real, and pi is there existing even without the context.

I showed you a specific example of how science can prove that something exists without knowing the exact dynamic of how it occurs. I'll ask you again. Is PI a mathematical law or is it a theory.
It can only be one.

I draw crude circles and I say it's 22/7. Fine. You say "That's not valid". I say "I'm not knowledgeable. But I believe it's been proven." We then go and look it up. If it's proven, then
it's proven. If it's not, it's not. Period.

Do you accept the concept I have just laid out in front of you? If not, explain why. If so, we can dig deeper and debate the more complex stuff. I think we're getting hung up on the basics.

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
> "You cannot prove one person's morals are more correct then anothers. It's impossible as they are subjective." Good, the ideas of the Nazis were just as right as the ideas of those who fought the Nazis.

Oooo, interesting point. See what happens when you actually target people's responses? Although, you could have spaced properly so it's easy to read.

Now, whether you like it or not, you cannot prove anything is subjective. It's like saying "Which is better, Pizza with mushrooms or pizza with pepperoni."

CHALLENGE ISSUED: Let's say you can go back in time and you can talk to a teenager who's going to become a Nazi. He's extremely logical, so if you present him with one undenyable fact, he won't become one. What would be your point?

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
> An infant does not know bigotry is wrong, so bigotry is not right or wrong until the infant decides whether it is? An infant does not know the earth is round, so the earth is not flat
or round until the infant says it is? The fact does not depend on the infant, still Ghost Bear says, "You cannot prove one person's morals are more correct then anothers. It's impossible
as they are subjective." Good, the ideas of the Nazis were just as right as the ideas of those who fought the Nazis. You cannot prove the gas chamber man was less correct than the man who
fought him. The Jews should not be exterminated. According to your way, this "opinion" of the Jews is "unproven knowledge," this is impossibly subjective morality, just as correct one way
or the other. Here we arrive. Go to the final end of your way of thought and you come to the impossibility of spiritual knowledge. I said times before that your agenda is bigger than Scientology,
you are a skeptic of spirituality and of morality, even of knowledge in general, scientific or not. If you do not see this, it is not because you are not saying it, only because you do not
understand what you are saying. Any truly spiritual person will see this, not just Scientologists. Then next time they hear Scientologists saying how Scientology is persecuted for being spiritual
or the next time they hear Scientologists offering that the big-scale ideas of Scientology are the important part of Scientology, they will know why Scientology is protested against by the skeptics
of knowledge. They will see then who are their enemies and who are their friends to keep religion free and not persecuted.

I'm amazed at your ablity to ramble on endlessly without having anything to say. Do you even have a point here?

You talk about infants, then you talk about subjective morality and then you talk about how because I present the concept of subjective morality it somehow justifies your delusions that the church is persecueted by people who are skeptical about knowledge. I'm not skeptical about knowledge. I know what is valid and what isn't. I think you don't to be honest.

Let's look at what you wrote a bit at a time.

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
> "An infant does not know bigotry is wrong, so bigotry is not right or wrong until the infant decides whether it is? An infant does not know the earth is round, so the earth is not flat
or round until the infant says it is? The fact does not depend on the infant, still Ghost Bear says, "You cannot prove one person's morals are more correct then anothers. It's impossible
as they are subjective."

What are you saying here? The world isn't flat because an infant doesn't know that it is or isn't? The world is round. It's proven to be round. When the infant argues with you, you can point
him/her to the atlas and the scientific studies that prove it. I don't like to be insulting, but this is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever read. Furthermore, you compare a concept
that I have presented to a statement that deals with specifics. Do you honestly believe that makes any sense at all? Like, really.

----- Krosavcheg Wrote:
> still Ghost Bear says, "You cannot prove one person's morals are more correct then anothers. It's impossible as they are subjective." Good, the ideas of the Nazis were just as right
as the ideas of those who fought the Nazis. You cannot prove the gas chamber man was less correct than the man who fought him. The Jews should not be exterminated.
According to your way, this "opinion" of the Jews is "unproven knowledge," this is impossibly subjective morality, just as correct one way or the other.

You cannot prove that Hitler's morals are better then L Ron Hubbards. Because you can't crawl into their mind and know what they were thinking.

What if Hitler was so crazy that he thought he was genuinely helping. What if he actually believed that he would be killed in his crusade and that he was prepared to make the sacrifice to help his people.
Can you argue his morals were not well intentioned?

Good and evil are subjective. They are subjective to