WEATHER »

Comments by Lake

Previous | Page 2 of 2

Posted on November 19 at 12:49 p.m.

Money first states "NIH has absolutely nothing to say about Scientology" ... and then later cites nih.gov which provides independent research into Hubbard's "sauna detox" protocol.

Sounds like someone can't make up their mind.

So Money, does independent research at NIH.gov not describe the "sauna detox" protocol as developed by Scientology's founder as "very effective for certain cardiovascular problems and as a means to enhance the mobilization of fat-soluble xenobiotics"?

And shall we dig into Crinnion's paper further (and numerous independent books by doctors and scientists) where this protocol is described as stemming from Hubbard and where Hubbard is acknowledged as the prime developer of "sauna detox" as it is practiced today in untold numbers of non-Scientology-related clinics around the world?

On The Science of Scientology

Posted on November 19 at 11:23 a.m.

Money wrote: "all of these web-sites ... are funded and run by the Church of Scientology"

Oh, so the "National Institute of Health" is funded and run by the Church of Scientology? And philly.com (The Philadelphia Inquirer) is also run by the Church of Scientology?

I guess in the world of fantasy and conspiracy theories (which most of the anti-Scientology websites mentioned above tend to resort to), you might just be right.

On the other hand, the websites http://scientologymyths.info and http://liveandgrow.org are funded and run by private Scientologists. The former provides independent and verifiable documents and records which debunk most of the Scientology myths. And for those interested in Scientology's *actual* spiritual roots, I would recommend these websites ... funded and run by a Hindu/Scientologist (and MIT alum):

http://www.geocities.com/Vinaire/Reli...
http://www.geocities.com/Vinaire/Reli...
http://www.geocities.com/Vinaire/Reli...

On The Science of Scientology

Posted on November 19 at 10:11 a.m.

Ah Artoo ... our little wind-up Scientology hater.

It must really get your goat to see people jumping on the Scientology bandwagon ... having great success in life and acknowledging Scientology and Hubbard for providing the help and inspiration they needed ... despite all these years of your trying to ward them off.

On The Science of Scientology

Posted on November 19 at 10 a.m.

RichardRosen wrote: "Forgive me if I don't check out the other studies."

Oh Richard, so predictable. Ever hear of reproducibility in the scientific method? Apparently not.

If we're not happy with the independence of the original work, don't you think looking into followup double- and triple-blind studies is valuable? For example, the later ones done by SRI and SAIC. And of course the analysis done by statistician Jessica Utts.

But it's ok, Richard. Your mind is clearly made up. You don't need to look any further.

To everyone else, please feel free to do the research I suggested. It's very insightful.

On The Science of Scientology

Posted on November 19 at 9:52 a.m.

equus_posteriori wrote: "Can you imagine, investing all kinds of money, to be told this "secret"?"

And can you imagine learning about and appreciating the world's religions by using South Park as your basis?

On The Science of Scientology

Posted on November 19 at 9:45 a.m.

Boy longele, are you talking about Scientology and Hubbard, or are you talking about Buddhism and Buddha ... or Christianity and Christ .... or Mormonism and Smith ... or [hated religion here] and [hated religious leader here] ... ad infinitum.

Every one of your arguments, longele, could be made about every religion out there.

On The Science of Scientology

Posted on November 18 at 8:50 p.m.

PeterShilte wrote "Scientology has NO scientific basis whatsoever."

I disagree. Past lives have been scientifically validated for many years (do some research on the research done by Dr. Ian Stevenson in the 70s, for example).

"Exteriorization" (aka out-of-body-experiences and "remote viewing"), along with other paranormal functioning, have been scientifically validated. Look into the research of Stanford's SRI and SAIC, and the meta-analysis done by UC Davis' Jessica Utts. Not surprisingly, it turns out that the "acknowledged father of remote viewing" is Ingo Swann, an individual who reached a high spiritual level in Scientology in the early 1970s.

And if you want to stay closer to earth, then start doing some of the independent research that has been done on "sauna detox" as first developed by Hubbard. The results of independent research continue to validate the effectiveness of the sauna detox approach.

Search on "sauna detox" at:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/ent...

On The Science of Scientology

Posted on November 18 at 8:32 p.m.

The article was ridiculous. Most of the complaints and myths surrounding Scientology have been debunked endlessly over the years (including the ones mentioned here in the comments). Many of the most common ones can be found addressed here:

http://scientologymyths.info

The Church itself has addressed many of the most Common Misconceptions here:

http://faq.scientology.org ("Common Misconceptions" section.)

The anti-Scientology websites mentioned in the above comments are endlessly juvenile and self-contradictory -- written not with an honest attempt to understand and explain Scientology and Hubbard, but clearly with a desire to remain polarized and hateful. As Scientology goes more and more mainstream, their childish approach looks more and more based on the unfounded fear and ignorance that it is.

And finally, for the "ex-staffer" who was apparently not happy with his results in Scientology, fair enough. There are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) who are very satisfied with the benefits that Scientology has given them.

http://liveandgrow.org

On The Science of Scientology

Posted on November 17 at 2:07 p.m.

There's another misunderstood religion out there called .... name escapes me. Anyway, it was also started by this science fiction writer a few decades ago and their most advanced belief, Elena, is this idea that little green martians have visited Earth and are still in hiding in the frozen tundra of Alaska or Canada or something -- ready to do an alien invasion of mankind, and/or were part of human history, or some such. Anyway, this religion has been able to convert some big names and is raking in all kinds of money ... even using public money to gain converts, if you can believe it.

Anyway, no it's not Scientology. I just remembered the religion's name. It's called Cosmology. And Cosmologists all worship this dead scifi writer named Carl Sagan. He authored their bible called "Cosmos".

What a hoot!

(Funny how easy it is to spin something and make it look bizarre. More info at: http://scientologymyths.info )

On The Science of Scientology

Previous | Page 2 of 2

event calendar sponsored by: