Customize - Scientology's best counter-arguments

Discussion in 'Education, Research and Inside Reports' started by medianonymous, Feb 9, 2008.

  1. - Scientology's best counter-arguments

    Most of the sites I go too, we have been gandering a LOT of positive press. Some others are indifferent, and some need to feel the wrath.

    I got to one site who ploped this, can anyone get me information to refute this, or refute this as a source? Thanks.

    *mod edit*
    This thread has been merged with another, and is therefore a little messy.
  2. Anonamour Member

    This seems a well researched article from everything2everything. It lays out prolly more detail than you need.

    RAH = Robert A Heinlein.

    Embedded links there for more info.
  3. Thanks, I did actually win the debate somehow between this guy, it was fairly simple. Now most of the board mates are on my side lol.
  4. Toonces Member

    This site is sooo.... gnah!!

    Okay, I'm convinced. We are wrong, let's blow this whole thing off.
  5. Its a weird thing these stories about other science fiction writers suggesting it to Hubbard/reporting hearing Hubbard exclaim that there was money to be had in religion, here is Harlan Ellisons version of events in which it was Lester del Rey who suggested it to Hubbard: ... 6.mp3.html
  6. Anonymoist2 Member

    Well, I wouldn't worry about it. If you go to the CONTACT page of and click on the "tell me about it" link, you can see that the administrator's email is:

    "Impartial" my ass. BUSTED.
  7. rasputin Member

  8. Consensus Member ... conception and both list a number of our claims with 'refutations' (or at least denials) of them. Would anybody be interested in a project where we quote each of those sites completely, and offer rebuttals to each of their responses? Be sure to cite sources, provide links, and encourage further, unbiased investigation!

    Once compiled, this is the sort of thing that could go out to investigative journalists. I'm tired of news reports with he-said, she-said 'entertainment'-style reporting. I want news organizations to investigate our claims, to investigate the Co$'s claims, and to report honestly what they uncover.

    My goal is to create a dialogue with scientologists. The mere fact that they have pages 'refuting' our claims means we're *forcing* that dialogue. Let's continue it.
  9. RHill Member

    Re: "scientology myths" Enemies Ploping sites ... eee1421602

    "The website is owned by Scieno Doug Dohring"

    Anybody that dismissed that Lisa McPherson died because of Scientology's "Introspection Rundown" (IR) is more than likely an apologist. There are other instances in which the IR almost killed the individual that underwent it.
  10. Dubber Member

    bah, didn't realize that the thread was out of date.
  11. Most Scientology websites have common themes, but the most common one (even among the less obvious example) is to make a big deal out of (alleged) tax fraud, bigotry, and even note that the subject was "Declared a suppressive person."

    This last one is impressive, like we're supposed to care that the cos no longer "approves" of a critic? Sometimes you have to click on a few names on one of Scientology's smear sites before you find the evidence. There are so many...
  12. Xenuphobe Member

    Re: "scientology myths" Enemies Ploping sites

    That site is sadly hilarious. I like this particular entry:

    Typical Scientologist response to their Space Opera doctrine..."Wow! Where did you hear that? That's really weird. First time I ever heard that!"

    Of course, the TRUTHFUL answer would have been to say that the alien souls that attach themselves to human beings and cause problems are called "body thetans", not just "thetans".

    But that would be an actual truth, and Scientologists prefer to tell "acceptable truths".
  13. namewithheld Member

    since you bring up the thetan thing, I'm kinda wondering if you have any idea what the difference actually is between a 'body thetan' and a 'thetan'. I mean, a thetan is a thetan right? Are there many other consciousnesses just like myself that had the misfortune of being stuck to me and now I get to indiscriminately destroy them? What happens once you get rid of them?
  14. saerat Member

    create scientologymythsmyth? C/D?
  15. rasputin Member

    as I understand it, a thetan is a soul. body thetans are clusters of souls (murdered and brainwashed by Xenu) which latch onto human beings. when you cast them off they are free to do whatever it is thetans do.

    I could be wrong on this tho as I'm not too clear (no pun intended) on how the OT stuff relates to the Dianetics.
  16. Xenuphobe Member

    You're pretty much right about the body thetans - they are merely clusters of brainwashed thetans from Incident II[/url:3prrxz0c] in the Scientology "space opera".

    Dianetics is basically an introduction to the idea of locating and "clearing" bad unconscious memories ("engrams") from your past so that your "reactive mind" (basically the unconscious mind) doesn't influence your actions in daily life. It's essentially a form of regression therapy. In Scientology, Dianetics is expended upon by the use of E-meter auditing to measure the "charge" when a memory is recalled and "cleared". Scientology also introduces the idea that experiences from past lives can also provide "negative charge" that needs to be cleared.

    The OT levels reveal the ultimate cause and extent of the "engrams" that can still affect even those who have already reached the state of "clear" through Scientology auditing. After all, Hubbard had to explain why all the people who had shelled out big bucks to become "clear" were still having problems in their lives, right? So Hubbard introduced the idea of negative charge resulting from an outside source...body thetans, or "clusters". The OT levels reveal that not only do these roaming "BTs" need to be cleared from your own person, but from inanimate objects as well.

    So when Scientologists say that the "space opera" doctrine plays a minor role in Scientology beliefs (which is rare to hear, because they usually just decide to tell a "gradient truth" and claim that there's no such thing as Xenu or BTs in their beliefs), they're being misleading yet again, because the OT levels, particularly OTIII, explains why the clearing process has to go on so long and why the whole earth has to be cleared.
  17. Xenuphobe Member

    That's quite the well-sourced, objective defense from "Scientology myths", eh? :roll:

    Of course, I can debunk the claim that there are no training courses for lying in the CoS, and guess what?... I'll actually provide a source to back up my claim! How crazy is that?

    Or how about the text of the "TR-L" training routine itself?

    So, I'm guessing that the editor of the "Scientology Myths" site has had some "TR-L" training himself. :lrhtalking:
  18. chanson Member

    Their blog ( says:

    I mentioned this in the General Discussion thread already, but this is a really good place to start hammering them with cold, hard documentation. The Fishman Affidavit, Operation Freakout, papers from the case against Bonnie Woods, so on.

    From their most recent post in reply to my question on their 'Fair Game' policy:

    Surely we've got evidence for 'reporting or complaints' in the last 20 years, yeah? 8)
  19. TakeAnonMe Member

    CoS counter-site

    Seems to be set up as a counter-site to youfoundthecard and other quick info sources. It's all blatant propaganda, but worth a look so you know what counter-points the CoS is using.

    FreeZone info from the site:
  20. JoeBlogg Member

    Re: CoS counter-site

    Do the Co$ even realize how bloody ironic this is?
  21. Hostile Member

    Re: CoS counter-site

    lulz, this is great, we can probably get plenty of ideas from that site as to how to mock the church.

    seriously, they expect us to believe that?
    check out their article on psychology on the site, they still believe that it's an anticult
  22. Anonproto Member

    Re: CoS counter-site

    I think that's a good site for people to go to.

  23. anon13 Member

    Re: CoS counter-site

    That's almost as embarrassing for them as Religious Freedom Watch. I just fear that somebody new to the controversy might get suckered in by it. We all know it's full of lies, but somebody not so into it might believe it. :(
  24. Hostile Member

    Re: CoS counter-site

    Mod Edit: Don't post illegal stuff here.
  25. Anonproto Member

    Re: CoS counter-site

    wow this site is a massive failure... I want to put it on my own dox and tell people to read into them... hell this stuff is extremely paranoid and conflicted! look at this page! ... ing-it.php

    it mentions Rick Ross and the "Old Cult Awareness Network" - can't be more than a few steps from admitting that they took down the CAN and reformed it under their management

    don't DoS this shit... it's good
  26. Vort Member

    Re: CoS counter-site

    <mod snip> No. </modsnip>
  27. Hostile Member

    Re: CoS counter-site

    well, we've got the people that already know the evils of the Co$, which would prompt us to keep the site on (by not forcing it off),
    also, anon does it all for the lulz and this is lulz...

    on the other hand, we've got the general populous to look out for (more potential people to give us lulz, scis don't do enough stuff in public to make lulz)
  28. waianon Member

    Re: CoS counter-site

    To prevent them from getting their lies in? After this was all started because their removal of the Tom Cruise video was looked at as a violation of free speech?

    Doesn't seem like the brightest idea to me.
  29. Hostile Member

    Re: CoS counter-site

    Mod Edit: NO
  30. chanson Member

    Re: CoS counter-site

    There's been a couple of other threads about this place already, but yeah. The site owner has scientology[dot]wordpress[dot]com running as well, and she/he apparently welcomes all questions.


    They've been trying to answer things with cool reasonable logical statements (nevermind that most of their sources are Hubbard, surpraise surpraise), so let's see how far we can push that with our own counterstatements until they can't come up with good enough 'answers' anymore.

    The danger of a place like this is that on the surface, to some casual observer, the 'explanatory articles' on all these 'myths' might seem valid. Might.

    Nooo, we don't have to resort to something they can misconstrue against us. "The true facts and explanations are all on this site, just that those evil Anonymous people have made it unavailable/less accessible to you!" Not a card to have them pull.

    Come on, guys, we've got plenty of information, fact, and good writefags/debaters among us. It's not going to be hard to point out the cracks in the content in that site. Even better if we do it *on* that site, since it's supposedly 'neutral' territory; they can't shut out our questions if they want to make a good case for that. And anyone who comes across that place is going to see the questions people are pointing out, and the other sources being provided, and do their own investigation since an 'other voice' exists pointing out that this 'info site' has some errors. 8)
  31. Hostile Member

    Re: CoS counter-site

    he'll be so overworked, he won't be able to update.

    also, we should put someone to put the actual xenu document in one of the comments

    pretty much anything!, overworked = underupdated = not liked
  32. waianon Member

    Re: CoS counter-site

    My thoughts exactly (only put way better than I could have :p). Even if the ¢o$ claims to be "unaffiliated" with that web site, they can still point to it and say we're suppressing information about them that counters OUR supposed "lies."
  33. chanson Member

    Re: CoS counter-site

    If you do spam it up, it might be better to do it with questions that aren't easily shot down. Check your quotes, provide sources to counter theirs, etc. Reinforce your questions and the quality of what they have to argue against holds up just as well, if not better, than having a large quantity.

    Just a suggestion. Good arguments are easier for a third party to respect. :eek:

    EDIT: And above all, let's be polite to them since they're offering to be polite with everyone. Ahem.
  34. Re: CoS counter-site

    If there is anything we need to prove that Scientology doesn't actually understand the concept of religious freedom it's this:

    God I can feel my brain melting every time I read that.
  35. DoctorAnon Member

    Re: CoS counter-site

    Did some poking about. This sucker contains so many ad hominem attacks and blatant prejudices that it's actually kind of sad.

    Also found a couple grammar errors and gratuitous commas in their diatribes. Their PR team could learn a thing or two from our own writefags.

    In short: EPIC FAIL. *headdesk*
  36. anon2600 Member

    Re: CoS counter-site

    well it seems that is already a registered domain with an appropriate website attached :)
  37. Odrade Member

    Re: CoS counter-site

    What Chanson said.
    I think this site is actually well worth a visit from all anon, and could be really useful. It's so obviously affiliated with the COS that it's laughable, so what we have here is essentially a list of all the very BEST answers that COS has to our questions. This means we can use it to figure out the most effective ways of being prepared for all their arguments. It also means we can get an idea of which topics are the hardest for them to deal with, by seeing which issues and question are avoided. The statement on Lisa McPherson, for example, does not even mention the specific accusation that she died while on introspection rundown, a practice isn't mentioned anywhere on the site, and there is also no mention of the censorship of reading materials among Scientologists or Disconnection. This would suggest that these are issues worth highlighting in any debates members of the 'Church'.

    I had a look at that report into the RPF. It's interesting, the academic credentials of the writers seem to add up, but the report itself doesn't seem like an academic research paper. I'm going to investigate further....
  38. chanson Member

    Re: CoS counter-site


    Wikipedia has this to say regarding CESNUR, the team that conducted the so-called 'independent study' on the RPF:

    "Some of these [brainwashing] allegations are presented in Stephen Kent's Brainwashing in Scientology's Rehabilitation Project Force (RPF). Articles which claim to rebutt those charges include Juha Pentikäinen's The Church of Scientology's Rehabilitation Project Force. It should be noted that Juha Pentikäinen's "study" was commissioned and published by CESNUR (, an organisation with strong financial and personal ties to Scientology, and that his "research" consisted primarily of quoting Scientology publications and conducted carefully monitored interviews of model members selected by the Scientology leadership."

    Wikipedia itself shouldn't be construed as a concrete source, of course, but this is a starting point for sniffing out the facts.
  39. anonEmouser Member

    Re: CoS counter-site

    So if I understand this....the CoS have basically given us a cheat sheet on How to Win an Argument with a Scientologist (if they actually enter into a debate with you).

    Um, thank you OSA? I'm touched you cared so much. :lrhcries:

    Someone rip that site and post the topics point by point so we can thoroughly shred their arguments.
  40. chanson Member

    Re: CoS counter-site

    Better if we can do it on the site itself. Makes for a more public spectacle. :teacher:

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins