Counterarguments to Scientology

[bomba923]

What are some counterarguments to "scientology"--i mean, the stuff it says on the website seems somewhat appealing...somewhat suspiciously logical

There are counterarguments; i have counterarguments, but they're mostly vague or too specific at an unimportant aspect.

I know counterarguments exist! Now what are some counterarguments to scientology? How can I describe essential or important aspects of the reactive mind?

But really, what are some counterarguments to scientology? I know they exist!

 

[the_truth]

Unfortunately I cannot disprove something if I don't know what it is. I also can only disprove one thing at a time, I cannot say scientology is wrong because they may be right about something and I cannot say scientology is right, because they may be wrong about something.

If I want to find out about any religion, except scientology, I can go to a library. I have to pay to learn about scientology.

That's all I can counter right now, as I don't want to pay.

Come back with something more specific.

 

[the_truth]

P.S. I've been to the site already and I wasn't impressed. Just some stuff about motivation and why it is a good idea to read a dictionary.

P.P.S. "But really, what are some counterarguments to scientology? I know they exist! :)" What the hell is up with that smiley. You haven't put forward any argument for me to disprove. It's like saying, blarborism is correct, disprove it. What the hell is blarborism you ask, well I'm not telling you! Haha you cannot disprove blarborism! You are stupid. :)

aaargh

Go annoy someone else, unless of course you return with a fundamental argument for scientology to discuss.

 

[Mentat]

Don't be so harsh, truth.

Bomba923, is there any specific claim, made by scientology, which you feel to be incorrect, but can't see why?

 

[the_truth]

Sorry, I should have just asked what specific claim he thinks people don't believe in.

..

...

I don't think he's going to reply.

 

[bomba923]

Well, for example, as a specific claim---

About the "split" made between the reaction mind, and analytical mind, for example; what are some aspects of the "reactive mind" that scientology does not address?

Classical conditioning, for example, can link a neutral stimulus to a prior experience/action/feeling. Like Pavlov's experiment, the dog would salivate simply by hearing a bell--even without the presence of meat. According to scientology, the reactive mind would pair such neutral stimuli with past experiences/feeling/responses. However, as scientology points out, this causes problems in which the link is obsolete--i.e., the neutral stimulus really doesn't mean much, but our association with it and a negative response would likely cause problems.

Thus, a somewhat "clearing" of this reactive mind is encouraged in scientology, to my understanding, to bring out the analytical mind. Is this "clearing" theoretically healthy? (seems unhealthy, but that's actually my query) Can it be done?

My question is that, are there any aspects of this reactive mind that scientology does not address? I mean, the positive aspects--sometimes we need such a link between neutral stimuli and previous experience. If something, for example, if something appears suspicious according to our "reactive" mind, it might as well be best to avoid that "thing", even if we may not be able to fully conclude danger from our "analytical" mind (subtle signs).

In the above paragraph, which is very vague, I ask if there are positive aspects to the "reactive mind," which, apart from its definition by scientology, may be essential to our survival (may not, or may be survival-related..., but nevertheless "essential" in a certain way; vague)//

About my question (which, i admit, appears scattered throughtout this post ), which was regarding scientology ; should I clarify further (the question that is, not a specific paragraph), or not? (do you have an idea..well, as to what I'm asking?)

 

[the_truth]

A common mistake, intentional or not, by ideals which claim that they are backed by reason and science is that of applying morality to certain ideas. In this case the assumption that the reactive mind is corruptive. They also assume they cannot be changed and probably do not comment on the huge amiguity between the reactive and analytical mind.

I beliee the reactive mind consists of instinctive, emotional and learned reactions. Shiverring when you are cold is instinctive, getting angry at somone for attempting to steal from your store is emotional (if it happenned to someone who was apathetic he would not get angry) and someone using concepts in maths he has learned to complete an equation.

I have already cited 3 examples where reactions are not corruptive and 1 example where the analytical mind is dependant on previous learned reactions.

ab=2
a+b=4

Without my preprogrammed 'reactions' on algebra I would not be able to complete this. If I had to do this from scratch I would need to prgoram some new reactions, basically memory, hence the extreme (and suspicious(irony?)) ambiguity of the idea of reactive and analytical minds.

a=2/b=4-b } b=2(4-b)=8-2b } 3b=8 } b=8/3

(8a)/3=2 } 8a=6 } a=6/8=3/4

I had to constantly use previous knowledge to complete this. I'm sure this applies to trillions of other situations, which require charisma, skills and all sorts of memories and instincts. Very few of which are corruptive and I am free to alter and change as I choose to.

Do I understand?

 

[bomba923]

Do I understand?

Well, you do ((