From: ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Validity of Scn
Date: 16 Nov 1992 10:32:31 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1992Nov15.103159.5467@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>In article <1e4s65INN52e@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov15.043152.25227@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>>In article <1e40e5INN44n@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Nov14.045858.14979@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com
>>>>(J Barbera) writes:
>>>>>In article <1992Nov12.192509.27115@stortek.com> pae@blackcat.stortek.com
>>>>>(Phil Earnhardt) writes:
>>>>>>In article <1992Nov11.091842.3266@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com
>>>>>>(J Barbera) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>>>3. Is Scientology valid?

	THIS was what I was refering to.

[snip: I was talking about validity... Jon, about numbers.]	

>Here's some logic: if Scn churches never audited people, they'd go broke.
>*But*, there are over 400 Scn churches around the world.  They continue to
>exist because of money received for courses and services.  Therefore,
>if money is being exchanged for courses and services, then people are doing
>courses and services.
>
>I've seen stacks of PC folders in the past.  And I mean *stacks*.  If they
>were all filled with blank pages, then it'd mean no one was being audited
>and there'd be a bigger conspiracy than anyone could have imagined.
>
>But *that* would be ridiculous.  Besides, I've been in contact with any
>Scientologists and many Scn organizations.  Being are being audited.
>PC folders are being made.
>
	
	Again (sigh), you miss my point.  My fault for not being clear:).

>>>>>You're questioning the fact that there are tens of thousands of Scn case
>>>>>histories?  Call up your local Church of Scientology and ask them how many
>>>>>people in the past ten years they've audited.  Multiply that number by
>>>>>450 (total number of orgs and missions).  This will give you the number of
>>>>>case histories for just the past ten years.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>	So I call the local "Org", and they say that they have x number
>>>>of case histories, what's to say that they're not lying??  To quote my
>>
>>>Lying?  Sounds like you're already taking a bad view of Scientologists.  How
>>>something ever be proven to you if you refuse to accept it?

>>	You are missing my point.  Why should I accept something
>>that you can't prove?

>I'm surprised that this could be such a big issue with anyone.  Why is it
>so unbelievable that there have been over 10,000 PC's in Scn's history?


	I _believe_ that people have been audited, I beleive that 10,000
people have been audited.  Hell, I'd beleive that 1,000,000 people were
audited if that's what you said.  What I want to know is this:

	Why should I beleive that these x number of people are any better
for the auditing?  Why should I beleive that these people regularly
perform "miracles", such as the ones that Holifield claims.

	Before I start my path to "up the bridge" to clear, I want to
know FOR A FACT that it will be worth the time, money and energy spent.
The fact that there are 10,000 PC's out there means little, if the 
claims of scientology can't be proved unless I have to pay a lot of money
and actually become a scientologist.
 
>>>>favourate lab instructor:"Why can't I say that that's a load of shit?"
>>>>These case histories aren't published, the data's not published, the
>>>>research papers aren't published.  We can't just take your word for
>>>>it.  I don't think that we should have to waste our time and money
>>>>on something that can't be proven.
>>
>>>There are *a lot* of personal success stories published and made available to
>>>the public.  These are attests to the workability and positive results of
>>>Scientology courses and services.  Your local Scn church will have some these
>>>posted on a bulletin board.  Others have been published in various materials
>>>such as the new edition of What is Scientology?

>>	Has the church of scientology published _any_ unsuccessful stories?

>If someone was dissatisfied, the source of the dissatisfaction is found and
>handled.  It doesn't happen too often, but when it does there are several
>things that they check (the Case Supervisor can double-check the PC folder
>to see if anything was missed, etc.)...

>>Why should I believe what's on a bulletin board?   It seems to me that
>>a scientologist has a lot to lose if she goes against what the church
>>says.  If she starts to question the existance of "souls" or the
>>believability of exterorization when she can't do it she could be
>>disciplined.  Whereas if she says yes I just exteriorized, she is
>>accepted by here other scn freinds and auditors.  ie Peer pressure.

>Ha ha ha!  No one is ever disciplined because something like exteriorization
>or the existence of "spirits" (souls?  huh?) isn't real to them.

>It's okay for something not to be real to someone.  I know a Scientologist
>in particular who mentioned this to me ... he's been on staff for about
>twelve years and there are some whole track (past life memories) which
>aren't real to him.  That's okay.  No one is disciplined or pressured to
>believe something like this.

>"What's true for you is true."

from above :
">If someone was dissatisfied, the source of the dissatisfaction is found and
 >handled.  It doesn't happen too often, but when it does there are several
 >things that they check (the Case Supervisor can double-check the PC folder
 >to see if anything was missed, etc.)..."

	"handled"?  Sounds pretty ominous to me.

	It sounds a lot like the blame would be put on the PC for any
dissatisfaction.  


>>>For that matter, the book, Have You Lived Before This Life?, contains 42
>>>cases with details.

	Anecdotes, _selected_ for their incredible stories.


>I offer case histories and you dismiss them without a glance.  You ask
>for this data ("proof") and then refuse to confront it.  How am I suppose
>to take you seriously?


	_Selected_ case studies are not proof!



[snip!]

>>>>	The books provide NO proof that scn works, just outlandish
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>claims of unexplained miracles and vague descriptions of what scn
>>>>does.
>>>Read some of the materials above.  Find out what thousands of others think
>>>of the results of Scn tech.
>>	So we can read about the hits, can we ever read about the misses?

>How about reading about the "hits".  It's a better look at the subject
>than not looking at anything at all.

	But it's all anecdotal, not proof at all. 

[snip!]

>>>>>Jonathon
>>>>>Barbera


Richard Nistuk





Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology