TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Scientology, Autism and the Death of Jett Travolta.My Take On It + The Cor Version
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by RJT Everything is a dangerous cult these days. iPods, Scientology, Jimmy Dean Microwavable Breakfast Sandwiches, birth control methods - it's all just so delightfully cultish.

You forgot Techno

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN stating that scientology is a dangerous cult that tells lies about brain medicine is pretty factual however.

I don't deny that in the slightest. Scientology IMHO is the worst type of "religion" out there because not only does it misinform, but the misinformation is potentially harmful physically.

I guess my thinking is that there are many, many things that can kill a 16-year old boy that have absolutely nothing to do with the perverse beliefs of a Scientologist. Prematurely blaming Scientology for his death before we have a full explanation of what happened (which we know we will have) seems a bit naive and spiteful to me.

Where do scientologists keep to themselves?...I want to find and torture one...

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Scientology IMHO is the worst type of "religion" out there because not only does it misinform, but the misinformation is potentially harmful physically.

Nevermind most other major religions which have little to no practical approval of pluralism, hamper social and scientific progress and unify people to support socially acceptable forms of ideological and physical annihilation. Yeah, celebrity misconceptions are far worse, you're right.

quote:

Originally posted by Aortik Nevermind most other major religions which have little to no practical approval of pluralism, hamper social and scientific progress and unify people to support socially acceptable forms of ideological and physical annihilation. Yeah, celebrity misconceptions are far worse, you're right.

However, very few of the major religions show an outright rejection of medical science. (There are exceptions however, and I know that.) That was the point of what I was saying; Scientology does have an outright rejection in regards to certain medical practices that can be directly dangerous. Celebrity misconceptions didn't enter the picture as a perceived issue. The other "dangers" you listed are indirect at best.

there's no doubt those scientologists have a few screws loose. they were probably treating his epilepsy with scriptures from l ron hubbard.

Holy crap.
I was trying to learn more about the cult and came across this.

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

quote:

Originally posted by evol Holy crap. I was trying to learn more about the cult and came across this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White

jesus christ, they are weirder than I thought.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono However, very few of the major religions show an outright rejection of medical science. (There are exceptions however, and I know that.) That was the point of what I was saying; Scientology does have an outright rejection in regards to certain medical practices that can be directly dangerous. Celebrity misconceptions didn't enter the picture as a perceived issue. The other "dangers" you listed are indirect at best.

Indirect? It's clear you didn't actually think this out. Good day.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I guess my thinking is that there are many, many things that can kill a 16-year old boy that have absolutely nothing to do with the perverse beliefs of a Scientologist. Prematurely blaming Scientology for his death before we have a full explanation of what happened (which we know we will have) seems a bit naive and spiteful to me.

whilst i certainly agree, i would be curious to hear what kind of medical attention the boy received in the previous 16 years, and whether needless suffering occurred because of the unsubstantiated superstitions of a dangerous cult.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN whilst i certainly agree, i would be curious to hear what kind of medical attention the boy received in the previous 16 years, and whether needless suffering occurred because of the unsubstantiated superstitions of a dangerous cult.

I agree. I just find it silly to try to guess as to what the boy may have had and how his parents may have mistreated him. I dislike Scientology as much as the next guy, but I fail to see the logic in using the dislike of a person to reach a conclusion with next to zero actual proof in order to further your disapproval. (I'm not speaking to you specifically, but in a general sense.)

Aortik - yes, I said "direct" and I meant it. "Direct" as in a belief or practice having a direct impact on a persons health by either directly causing harm or directly preventing the treatment of harm. If you can show much how any of your examples directly harm an individual by physical means and without intermediate steps, I'll stand corrected.

Is John Revolta friends with Tom Cruise?

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Aortik - yes, I said "direct" and I meant it. "Direct" as in a belief or practice having a direct impact on a persons health by either directly causing harm or directly preventing the treatment of harm. If you can show much how any of your examples directly harm an individual by physical means and without intermediate steps, I'll stand corrected.

No. You'll first demonstrate your "correctness" by explaining why it is required for a religion to have some sort of direct effect on people in order to measure its harm or benefit, much less the way that we regard it as a subjective faculty for tolerance. I'd start by outlining just how, specifically, Scientology indeed does have a direct or more direct effect on people than other religions and, by your own terms, without intermediate variables.

quote:

Originally posted by Aortik No. You'll first demonstrate your "correctness" by explaining why it is required for a religion to have some sort of direct effect on people in order to measure its harm or benefit, much less the way that we regard it as a subjective faculty for tolerance. I'd start by outlining just how, specifically, Scientology indeed does have a direct or more direct effect on people than other religions and, by your own terms, without intermediate variables.

you are orbax aren't you

quote:

Originally posted by Aortik No. You'll first demonstrate your "correctness" by explaining why it is required for a religion to have some sort of direct effect on people in order to measure its harm or benefit, much less the way that we regard it as a subjective faculty for tolerance. I'd start by outlining just how, specifically, Scientology indeed does have a direct or more direct effect on people than other religions and, by your own terms, without intermediate variables.

"Correctness?" What does that mean?

Anyway...if a belief system physically harms people by a) requiring believers to directly harm themselves or others or b) requiring that believers withhold reasonable medical care from themselves or others, then I do believe that is on another level from belief systems that preach closed-mindedness or just simply deny science or logic. I'm not saying belief systems that fall into the later category don't still have problems, but at least they're not directly telling their followers to kill themselves or others.

I find a religion that says "kill all nonbelievers" or "deny yourself life-saving medical treatment" to be much more reprehensible than one that might say "evolution is fake" or "homosexuals are sinners and going to hell." While I don't agree with any of those statements, at least the last two aren't going to cause anyone physical harm unless perverted beyond their context. I think they're all wrong, but directly preaching physical harm is the worse of the evils.

What is even MORE sad is - Autism can be cured through therapy programs and not so much as specific "medications"

So I don't know why they can't accept Autism is REAL!

quote:

Originally posted by MeLLyMeL What is even MORE sad is - Autism can be cured through therapy programs and not so much as specific "medications" So I don't know why they can't accept Autism is REAL!

There's no "cure" for autism (yet). Just treatments to help with the symptoms from it. I agree with you about the meds though, most autistic kids I have worked with were on stimulants, but it seemed most benefited from therapy and close supervision, than any combination of drugs.

quote:

Originally posted by amp3 There's no "cure" for autism (yet). Just treatments to help with the symptoms from it. I agree with you about the meds though, most autistic kids I have worked with were on stimulants, but it seemed most benefited from therapy and close supervision, than any combination of drugs.

I know there isn't a cure - i almost edited it but I didn't know what to replace it with.

I know that ABA + Speech & Occup. Therapy can help them out and learn to be more social.

Much better than any stimulant or medication.

quote:

Originally posted by MeLLyMeL I know there isn't a cure - i almost edited it but I didn't know what to replace it with. I know that ABA + Speech & Occup. Therapy can help them out and learn to be more social. Much better than any stimulant or medication.

Definitely

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono "Correctness?" What does that mean?

You set a condition for my response with your last post - you said that if I could demonstrate that religions inflict direct harm on people, you would "stand corrected", as if to imply that you are already correct in your assertions.

quote:

Anyway...if a belief system physically harms people by a) requiring believers to directly harm themselves or others or b) requiring that believers withhold reasonable medical care from themselves or others, then I do believe that is on another level from belief systems that preach closed-mindedness or just simply deny science or logic. I'm not saying belief systems that fall into the later category don't still have problems, but at least they're not directly telling their followers to kill themselves or others. I find a religion that says "kill all nonbelievers" or "deny yourself life-saving medical treatment" to be much more reprehensible than one that might say "evolution is fake" or "homosexuals are sinners and going to hell." While I don't agree with any of those statements, at least the last two aren't going to cause anyone physical harm unless perverted beyond their context. I think they're all wrong, but directly preaching physical harm is the worse of the evils.

Whilst I do indeed agree with many of your views, I believe there to be a chasm of difference between systems which encourage infliction of harm and systems which discourage what is believed to be harmful - both things that most any religion has been guilty of at some point. I am defending neither, but the conscious choice to abstain from treatment is a personal decision that has little effect upon anyone else - one truly indicative of belief based upon supposed "evidence" of faith, a fault, but still resembling thought; possession. More affecting are those faiths which seek to polarize people through violence - a dangerous separation humanity has never known release from. Yet more dangerous still is an amalgam of these two: the violence of faith to proselytize people into desiring asceticism, shame, self-denial, all the while denouncing desire in the first place. It is indirect and slow, but far more affecting on a mass scale, even more so than the most advanced weaponry we can conceive of, as it is mnemonic in transmission, memetic in the face of opposing fact.

The directness of effect is a deceptive thing, which is why I deem it important to consider objectively. Physical violence is a surface effect - direct as could be, but religion is merely a conveyor of the polarization which incites violence on a social level, rocket attacks and rape all being an extension of our innate wills to consume or annihilate on an ideological level. When faith however espouses not only science or evidence, but the very process of distilling truth through the world we live in as opposed to the lofty descriptions of ancient bedouin scribblings - that is a far more dangerous, detrimental thing.

I am no expert on scientology, and I do not agree with most all of their tenets, but their crusade against psychiatry in general is not a black and white issue so far as I am concerned. Modern medicine is a product like any other, an enormous machine that sells both fact and myth alike, its own best interest supported by convincing people it's in their own interest to adhere to it at all times - hence this thread. People take what doctors say as fact for fear of illness, but how often are the maladies of mental illness cured through prescription? And how many of those could have easily been treated by other means and to more positive effect? I am not arguing with science nor with medicine, as I am not a scientologist, but their beliefs stem from the evidence of medicine's psuedo-economic appeal and subsequent over-prescription of what could totally be imagined or untreatable illnesses. Action taken by those who call themselves Doctors in the interest of themselves and their organizations, rather than the needs of people; another memetic transmission of cultural science gone awry.

Don't mistake me though, I am not professing to know more about medicine than anyone, much less Doctors, nor am I saying that the particular case in question was untreatable by current medicinal standards. Personally, I feel as though it was quite wrong for them to refuse the chance of alleviation despite their obvious beliefs that it would be dangerous to appeal to pharmeceuticals. But is Scientology as a whole more damaging, more dangerous, than religions that denounce personal belief, flourish in hegemonies, incite personal violence and destruction of individual freedoms when considering it is merely a secular faction critical of popular practice that, by their definition, has resulted in great harm to people and continues to do so? They may be fanatically critical, but their reach scarcely exceeds their weighty bank accounts and there's no indication that they seek to convert the world into their vision of reality, as with other, more vehement, tax-exempt superorganisms.

quote:

Originally posted by Aortik I am no expert on scientology, and I do not agree with most all of their tenets, but their crusade against psychiatry in general is not a black and white issue so far as I am concerned.

then you're just wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Aortik Modern medicine is a product like any other, an enormous machine that sells both fact and myth alike, its own best interest supported by convincing people it's in their own interest to adhere to it at all times - hence this thread. People take what doctors say as fact for fear of illness, but how often are the maladies of mental illness cured through prescription? And how many of those could have easily been treated by other means and to more positive effect? I am not arguing with science nor with medicine, as I am not a scientologist, but their beliefs stem from the evidence of medicine's psuedo-economic appeal and subsequent over-prescription of what could totally be imagined or untreatable illnesses.

being skeptical about modern medicine is not the same thing as telling obvious lies and misrepresenting the entire mental health knowledge base. scientology works from a premise that psychiatry is universally wrong and mental disease is caused by unhealthy "thetans" in the body. of course paying the church thousands of dollars helps cleanse you of these thetans.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN being skeptical about modern medicine is not the same thing as telling obvious lies and misrepresenting the entire mental health knowledge base.

When did they misrepresent the entire mental health knowledge base?

quote:

scientology works from a premise that psychiatry is universally wrong and mental disease is caused by unhealthy "thetans" in the body. of course paying the church thousands of dollars helps cleanse you of these thetans.

Yeah, well, I never said I was one of them and there's more than a few reasons for that.

The issue was whether or not they pose more of a threat than other religions do to this supposed knowledge base people value so highly, and I don't think they do.

Dissent from popular theory is a healthy faculty and theirs, however foolish and misguided it may be, is not a detrimental thing as it calls into question something that most everyone accepts as truth merely out of habit.

In addition, dicks.

http://www.tmz.com/2009/01/24/travo...caught-on-tape/

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.