Scientology cult or Religion...?

Some very interesting clips here. I don't think those Scientology boys do themselves any favors in these interviews.

What do you guys think?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkmBoYxLwVA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWUiQx0tJAM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX7zpfZe5fE

Okay, please forgive me for being VERY anecdotal here and whooping up pseudosceptical/cynical support, but I knew L. Ron Hubbard's chauffer. According to this guy, Hubbard was very aware of his movement being a scam and was quite open about it to his close friends. The chauffer was regularly visited by scientologists after Hubbard's death who refused to accept the movement was a farce and, in the end, just told them what they wanted to hear.

As I said, this type of story is just the sort of thing good sceptics should never take as hard evidence. It's just a bit of gossip among like-minded people that I thought would be interesting.

Jamie Clubb wrote:

Hubbard was very aware of his movement being a scam and was quite open about it to his close friends.

Interesting

Cheers,

Den

Nice one Jamie.

But nothing would surprise me about those nuts.

R.

I think the point about Hubbard being aware of his cult being a scam is a good reason why it never became dangerous in a "Heavens Gate" type way. Scientology regularly appears on "Cause for Concern" lists, but they rarely overstep the mark in a dramatic fashion. Their cynical celebrity recruitment might actually be what stops a truly charismatic leader from stepping forward and becoming venerated like a god. As we have seen from case studies like Charles Manson and Rev. Jim Jones, the con part might be bad but the truly dangerous stuff happens when the conman believes in their own bullshit.

What's the difference between a cult and a religion other than numbers?

Quote :

What's the difference between a cult and a religion other than numbers?

That pretty much is the definition. Criminologist Martin Fido in "Cults that Kill" pointed out that all the major religions began as cults. However, he also used the derogatory definition he found in a dictionary that listed them as "especially transient fads". What I would add is that when we normally think of cults we consider those that alienate their members from the rest of society. If you look at my "Martial Arts Cults" opening post in the Martial Arts section you will see Michael Shermer's complete criteria for a cult.

Jamie Clubb wrote:

Quote :

What's the difference between a cult and a religion other than numbers?

That pretty much is the definition.

I disagree with that. An early "Skeptics Guide to the Universe" podcast discussed this and I think it was Perry who said that a cult was secretive. He explained this by saying that if you go to a Catholic priest and ask about Catholicism he will tell you. However, you are several tens of thousands of dollars into Scientology before they even mention Zeenu (spelling)

Quote :

I disagree with that. An early "Skeptics Guide to the Universe" podcast discussed this and I think it was Perry who said that a cult was secretive. He explained this by saying that if you go to a Catholic priest and ask about Catholicism he will tell you. However, you are several tens of thousands of dollars into Scientology before they even mention Zeenu (spelling)

Well, let me apologize if I cause any offence, it is not my intention, but Christianity at least started out resembling a cult if we are to use that criteria. Early christians met in secret, used secret signs and symbols etc.

I see creationism as a cult. Even if they are out in the open...

Personally, I don't trust any organized religion. Even if appears benign at the beginning.

Let us not forget the old, "bait and switch".

Jamie Clubb wrote:

Well, let me apologize if I cause any offence, it is not my intention, but Christianity at least started out resembling a cult if we are to use that criteria. Early christians met in secret, used secret signs and symbols etc.

Jamie believe me I didn't feel that any offence was intended. Nor should the fear of offence stop you saying what you have to say. I was simply throwing in my two pennies and I do agree more with the explanation that a cult hides information whereas a religion is more open.

But don't you see that the size pretty much dictates the secracy. The mormons, for example, have the attributes of a cult in many ways, but their sheer size discounts them as a cult. I would say that Scientology might not be far off. The bigger a cult gets the less need their is to be secret.

Jamie Clubb wrote:

But don't you see that the size pretty much dictates the secracy. The mormons, for example, have the attributes of a cult in many ways, but their sheer size discounts them as a cult. I would say that Scientology might not be far off. The bigger a cult gets the less need their is to be secret.

Unfortunately I don't know enough about the Mormons to comment but I do think that no matter how big Scientology gets (and it's already pretty big) it will remain a cult because it hides things from the followers until they are well and truly indoctrinated.

Looks like they are loosing a lot of power over the last year or so. Probably due to Cruise acting like a complete idiot, and more and more people are starting to speak out against the cult. Fair play!

Just look at the Jason Beghe interview - it was totally scathing!

[quote]Unfortunately I don't know enough about the Mormons to comment but I do think that no matter how big Scientology gets (and it's already pretty big) it will remain a cult because it hides things from the followers until they are well and truly indoctrinated.[quote]

Firstly I definitely recommend that you look up the mormons and the origins of all the world's major religions. You will see a lot "cult-like" activity at the beginning, including being secretive. I would like to say your average local mainstream religious place doesn't harbour any secrets, but unfortunately we know this isn't always the case. Think Northern Ireland, think paedophile rings, think Al qaeda, think the fraud in the early 1980s associated with the church. Perhaps the larger the Scientologists get the less secrets they will hide.

Quote :

Looks like they are loosing a lot of power over the last year or so. Probably due to Cruise acting like a complete idiot, and more and more people are starting to speak out against the cult. Fair play!

One would hope so, but remember these guys were being exposed and debunked back in the 1950s in "Fads and Fallacies" and that's the very decade where it all started.

Sorry if I sound pessimistic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

read them, compare them and gather your own conclusions

Regards,

Den.

Quote :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

read them, compare them and gather your own conclusions

Although not the most credible source for reliable material on the 'net, it's a spot on idea, Den. And that would would be a nice way to finish this part of the tangent or perhaps we could start another topic on discussiing the definition of a cult?

I think we should get back to Scientology now

Youre right Jamie, this is a scientology thread!

As for credible, I have troofers , ghostbusters, homeopaths etc that say this and that are scientifically proven cos we say so! Anecdotal!

Yet when Iuse a wiki link they discredit the evidence, mmmmmmm

BTW a survey showed that wikipedia fared as well as encyclopaedia britannica for reference reliabilty, standard and overall quality.

So be warned before you shell out a fortune for that one!

Regards,

Den.

I actually do use Wiki more than any other resource on the 'net and I heard that report too. However, I have read a lot of propaganda and uneducated nonsense on there.

Could you recommend a reputable source?

I heard theres a sceptic encyclopaedia on JREF site for free but cant find it

Cheers,

Den

There is a sceptical wiki, then there is the Skeptic's Dictionary online (and in book form). I guess we could argue that there is a bias in these resources. There is also Encarter and numerous objective religious study websites. My point is that Wiki is a pretty good starting place, but it would also be good to find several other objective sources to get an overall picture.

Absolutely agree Jamie, but as you know a forum is not a peer reviewed journal.

We impart mainly anecdotal evidence in debate and if we wish to fortify it supply evidence, then if the other person does not accept this they look for their source of evidence and show their cards and so on.

Scientific debate.

I really do not want toreduce this forum to adding a supporting link of evidence for every sentence we write.

I understand you but this is a place of discussion and we must seek our own evidence as well as supplying some occasional evidence on here.

I own the skeptic dictionary, have dictionaries, access on line encyclopedias and wikis etc, but im sure we do not want bogging down unless we are debating seriously aginst a believer of sat holocaust denial or 9/11 conspiracy.

Then shall we bring all guns blazing?

Regards,

Den.

Understood and I agree. I only discussed other sources because you asked me to recommend them

Hi Jamie,

just ignore my last comments, too much on my plate, reaching burnout and need a break, too much heat off believers gettig to me at moment, please accept my apologies,

Den.

I understand completely. You will notice that I stopped posting on that 9/11 thread once they started going down the "everything is a conspiracy" head wanking path.