Psychiatry a Pseudo Science? [Archive]

Cheez

28th June 2005, 10:47

Of all people, a scientologist saying that psychiatry is a pseudo science makes me laugh. The whole concept of scientology is based around a kind of crackpot psychology (they call it Dianetics) they use to brainwash members before showing them the advanced stuff about how we are decendants of a 75 million year old race (Load of stuff about it on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu)), I really wouldn't trust anything Tom Cruise has to say on the subject. He has been particularly outspoken against the use of anti-depressants in the past, against Brooke Sheilds, saying it was what brought her career down.

I have had close, personal experience with people who needed psyciatric help. And I can say that, while the system itself has serious flaws (what doesn't when it comes to the govornment) the help can be invaluable for some and make things worse for others.

I wouldn't call it a pseudo science, just one that needs a lot more work, the mind is one of the things we know the least about, even with all our scientific studies we really don't truly know how it works. And psychiatrists can get it very badly wrong sometimes.

^MiNi_D^

28th June 2005, 10:48

mother (the psycologist) says its a science based alot upon statistics :s . whatever thats supposed to mean. anyway wtf would tom cruise know about psycology, he's a thick as pick **** over paid actor. only thing he knows are his lines from his next scene. he doesnt even have a degree.

Afty

28th June 2005, 11:17

Anything Tom Cruise says should be ignored. He's a weak willed, easily manipulated fool who is a member of a whacked out money making scheme which is actually a cult disguising itself as a religion.

Exegesis

28th June 2005, 11:33

Dianetics... I've heard about this. I just thought it was a book about "Controlling the reactive mind". Does it really link directly to scientology, or do the principles just intermingle?

*EDIT*
Just was looking into the Dianetics book and saw "L. Ron Hubbard" is the author. Being the founder of Scientology, i think that's a pretty good direct link.

QBlank

28th June 2005, 11:39

He does make some good points, its easy to jump on him for his choice of religion/cult but (resurrection, water into wine blah blah isnt whacked out?) the drugs used for treating depression are stupidly overused. Its another case of coporate america calling the shots, the more people dependant on Ritalin the more $$$.

*edited, screw you Chris! ;)

Cheez

28th June 2005, 11:52

Surely to treat anti depression they would have to make you depressed? :D

TE-Hellfire

28th June 2005, 13:28

Watching Tom Cruise's cheesy, ostentatious acting is enough to give anybody depression.

Afty

28th June 2005, 13:52

Originally posted by QBlank
He does make some good points, its easy to jump on him for his choice of religion/cult but (resurrection, water into wine blah blah isnt whacked out?) Your statement seems to attempt to debunk my post by implying that Christianity is the same as Scientology (or comparable). Or did I read it wrong?

Nexus

28th June 2005, 14:12

Originally posted by afty
Anything Tom Cruise says should be ignored. He's a weak willed, easily manipulated fool who is a member of a whacked out money making scheme which is actually a cult disguising itself as a religion.

Yeah, but I would class the catholic church and several others as manipulative money making schemes.

Exegesis

28th June 2005, 14:13

I think he's trying to say that Christianity is weird but accepted.
Scientology on the other hand is looked as a cult and not a religion.
Alot of people fail to recognize the difference between a cult and a religion.

bvark

28th June 2005, 14:15

Psychology isn't the same as psychiatry, although the lines are somewhat blurred.

[From wikipedia: Note that psychiatry is practiced by psychiatrists, psychology by psychologists. Psychiatrists are medical doctors and may prescribe drugs. They evaluate patients from a biopsychosocial perspective before prescribing treatment.
Psychology is the broader study of behaviour and thought processes not just in the context of mental health. Clinical psychologists specialize in mental health and have extensive training in therapy and psychological testing. They do not usually prescribe drugs.]

Neither is a pseudo-science, although there are certainly bad practitioners of psychiatry across the world (particularly in America), whose over-reliance on drug prescription makes them an easy target for folks like Tom Cruise.

While I'm sure he's well meaning, the experience of a Hollywood star who's been surrounded for most of his adult life by a devoted entourage, and involved in a extremely intense religion that uses psychotherapy-like methods and seeks total control of its practitioners has *extremely* questionable relevance to 'normal' people.

And he's a shortarse, so basically everything he says is crap.

TE-Hellfire

28th June 2005, 14:28

Originally posted by bvark

And he's a shortarse, so basically everything he says is crap.

Genuine LOL there!

Zenith

28th June 2005, 17:07

Well said bvark about the psychiatry/psychology difference.

Speaking as someone in the past who has used prescribed anti-depressants, I can say that there is nothing wacko about pharmaceuticals being used to modify brain behaviour. I was once on a particularly low ebb and once I started using the pills I was prescribed, I found that my mental processes were somewhat more level than they were before. It stabilised my mood enough for me to start applying willpower to drag myself out out of the funk I'd been mired in for a few months. The proof that it worked is that I didn't need anti-depressants for more than about 4-6 weeks and never needed them since.

On the other hand, I know of some people with serious mental disturbance who could possibly be a danger to themselves and others. That is why the Mental Health Act allows for family, social workers, medics and the Police to forcibly detain someone for a fixed period of time and forcibly administer medication if necessary. Examples of mental illnesses that may require this extreme course of action are severe bipolar disorder (manic depression) and schizophrenia with delusional behavour.

That's my view on psychopharmacology and psychology. I have little faith in psychiatry because what it essentially boils down to is talking over your problems with someone. You hear of Hollywood types saying about visiting their therapist on a regular basis. Whatever happened to talking your problems through with your friends? They're far more likely to give you common-sense advice and support and are a damn sight cheaper than a private psychiatrist. :)

10acious

28th June 2005, 17:18

Has anyone read cheez's link to scientology, I can't stop laughing.

Star wars is a more credible platform for a religion.

RocketKnight

28th June 2005, 17:27

I thought it was funny when it mentioned that the guy was a sci-fi writer before he started his cult. :)

Elbonio

28th June 2005, 20:55

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ad/250px-Xenu_space_plane.jpg

"Artist's impression of one of Xenu's space planes, per Hubbard's description"

rofl

Zenith

28th June 2005, 21:46

Originally posted by RocketKnight
I thought it was funny when it mentioned that the guy was a sci-fi writer before he started his cult. :) The film "Battlefield Earth" was unfortunately nothing but a Scientology indulgence. John Travolta (another of Tom's buddies in Scientology) ploughed a load of his own cash into the film... because it was originally written by L.Ron Hubbard. The pity is that John got writers who shredded the story apart and turned it into a blatant "If you apply yourself, even the underdog can emerge victorious". I've read "Battlefield Earth" cover to cover and I thoroughly enjoyed it... as a sci-fi fantasy. Even the saccharin "good guys win everything" wasn't totally in your face in the book. The film was totally different.

L. Ron Hubbard just took what is now called the Humanist view of the world and put his own feelgood factor into it. What you get is actors/actresses who are isolated from RealLife™, who make a lot of money, subscribing to the Scientology view. It's just another cult IMO in the same vein as the Moonies, Branch Davidians and Heaven's Gate (if you don't know about them, Google for enlightenment).

Strych

28th June 2005, 23:17

When you say "is it a pseudo science?" I have to say it really depends on what branches of psychology you are talking about.

I studied psychology at college (and some neuropathology at university) and it amazed me how broad the subject is.

Things like neuropsychology are very much based in biological disease of the brain, and the subsequent changes in behavior. This is very much a science. This is also where psychiatry fits in - doctors (not psychologists but fully qualified medical doctors) who specialise in mental illness with an underlying physiological cause - organic brain damamge, neurotransmitter imbalance etc - which can often be rectified by medication or surgery.

Then you have things that are less... "concrete" but still apply the scientific method, like, for example Cherry using dichotic listening tasks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotic_listening) to test his theories on the way the brain handles the "cocktail party effect" and then using statistics to test the validity of the results.

Then you get to Freud and company.

Now, here it all gets a bit fuzzy. The stats for treatment with this kind of psychoanalysis don't really show much advantage over not really doing anything. It's all based on random theorising by Freud based on little besides his own personal philosophies. This is what tends to give psych in general a bad name.

I'd say that psychology (certainly psychiarty) is a valid science and in some areas very advanced but certain areas really are outdated. In my humble opinion turn of the century philosophers have no place in the modern study of the human mind.

DaeMord

29th June 2005, 06:32

Originally posted by Zenith
Well said bvark about the psychiatry/psychology difference.

Speaking as someone in the past who has used prescribed anti-depressants, I can say that there is nothing wacko about pharmaceuticals being used to modify brain behaviour. I was once on a particularly low ebb and once I started using the pills I was prescribed, I found that my mental processes were somewhat more level than they were before. It stabilised my mood enough for me to start applying willpower to drag myself out out of the funk I'd been mired in for a few months. The proof that it worked is that I didn't need anti-depressants for more than about 4-6 weeks and never needed them since.

And on the flip side, they can make you worse, in my case i found myself loosing the ability to feel while on anti depresants and going into an almost vegitable like state, combined with a counciler who was the most patrinizing sod i have ever met, i took myself off them for what was one of the worst years of my life, however good friends and alot of personal soul searching im getting there.

Im not dissing it for some it works for others it doesnt, its NOT a pseudo science, but it does need ALOT more work done into it, unfortunately alot of the people "claiming" to understand dont really have the foggiest idea, due to the fact they havent been there themselves, all i can say to Mr Cruise on this is he can keep thinking what he likes, and i hope he keeps on thinking it, because while he thinks it he doesnt understand it, and the only way imo you can understand it is to go through it, and personally, having been through it, i would hope the whole world remain ignorant.

QBlank

29th June 2005, 07:23

You completely atttacked him purely for his choice of religion/cult which is fair enough he is a bit loony, just because Christianity is so widely accepted it doesnt make it or any other religion more sane.
Im going to defend Tom Cruise, i dont know why i just think hes a good actor and seems a good person...if a little confused. Hes being attacked by anyone and everyone recently just because he has the balls to speak his mind which in Hollywood is a rare thing.

PS: Shocking! (http://static.ytmnd.com:8000/78000/78874/image.gif)

Afty

29th June 2005, 08:35

Originally posted by QBlank
You completely atttacked him purely for his choice of religion/cult which is fair enough he is a bit loony, just because Christianity is so widely accepted it doesnt make it or any other religion more sane. It does make it (a little) less evil - though only by intent and not by degree.

Scientology is a cult and a money making scam. They are responsible for the deaths of people in their care because they don't "believe" in many aspects of modern medicine, they brainwash and scam their members out of as much of their cash as possible.

Example : Their religious texts cost a fortune - but you can't buy the more barmy ones (the bits about trillions of people from other planets coming here in a comatose state in Douglas DC-10 alike space planes and being blown up by H-bombs) until you've been into it for a while, and proved it. This prevents people other than the weak willed from getting their hands on the higher scriptures, and thus preventing them from getting "out" too much. The OT III - level 3 I suspect, costs about $25,000 dollars to buy. It's a book, in hardback. Want to know why it costs so much?
So they can own most of the town of Clearwater, Florida, and build things like this:
http://www.fso.org/en_US/flag/tour/index.html
To make more money in perpituity.
Originally posted by QBlank
Hes being attacked by anyone and everyone recently just because he has the balls to speak his mind which in Hollywood is a rare thing. He's not speaking his mind. He's spouting cult mantra which has been indoctrinated into him (read : Brainwashed). Why do they distrust psychiatrists? Apparently psychiatrists sided with the evil Xenu who has all those people shipped here and blown up with H-Bombs all those millions of years ago.

Exegesis

29th June 2005, 09:16

Clearwater is owned by Scientologists...
But Pensacola is owned by Christians (as is most of the Bible belt in a twisted sort of way).
I don't think that's a good way to define the difference between a cult and a religion.
A religion is based upon evidences in our history and scriptures. Whether you believe in Judaism (Christianity and Islam as well), or not, there are more manuscripts to document the evidence that supports it, than any other historical texts.
Cults are based upon half-truths and lies founded in brainwashing and manipulation.
Click here to see Pensacola College (http://www.pcci.edu/)

Afty

29th June 2005, 09:40

£20,000 for just one of them religious texts, written by a guy on acid, coke, weed and amphetamins in the 50s? Printed as a standard hardback? That's not a cult? That's not a money making scheme?

Hell, I dislike and distrust organised religion of any kind, but with Christianity at least there is some mythos, some ancient and slightly imperceptible series of events documented by various people and combined into scripture. With Scientology there is a bunch of books about spaceplanes, galactic battles and H-Bombs written by a pulp sci-fi author going through a drugs binge on a yacht.

TE-Hellfire

29th June 2005, 10:28

I think the obvious difference between Scientology and Christianity is that you aren't charged to attend a mass or read the related scriptures in the latter organisation. The system is based upon donation rather than salvation through having your pants pulled down by some sociopathic nutjob in a gown.

I don't think that following a cult like Scientology is a very convincing way to declare your expertise on psychiatry, either.

And I'd love to fly a plane into that Flag building of theirs! ;)

Er00

29th June 2005, 11:41

There is actually a proper definition of a cult, it's like 4/5 points or something, cant really remember, the only bit I can remembre is that it has to have a dogmatic leader...although it was in RE about 4 years ago so unsurprising that I don't remembre it really :/

TelexStar

29th June 2005, 18:02

I think Hubbard was actually quoted once (before he "invented" scientology) saying something along the lines of "The best way to make money is to invent a religion".

As for Tom Cruise, I think he's a very good actor and I have nothing against him at all.... that's not to say he isn't ****ing nuts though.

Moose

29th June 2005, 18:08

Originally posted by QBlank
Im going to defend Tom Cruise, i dont know why i just think hes a good actor and seems a good person...if a little confused. Hes being attacked by anyone and everyone recently just because he has the balls to speak his mind which in Hollywood is a rare thing.
He has no right to comment on Brooke Shield's or anyone else's personal decision. Especially as he's never going to suffer from post-natal depression.

I doubt very much the interviewer asked directly for Tom's opinion on how Brooke should conducted her life and I seriously doubt any other interviewees were asked that question either.

Tom's entitled to his opinion, but as he's not qualified to make an informed decision about it, he should learn to keep his big mouth shut.

RocketKnight

29th June 2005, 18:12

Google for the definition of a cult:

1. It uses psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain its members
2. It forms an elitist totalitarian society
3. Its founder leader is self-appointed, dogmatic, messianic, not accountable and has charisma
4. It believes 'the end justifies the means' in order to solicit funds and recruit people
5. Its wealth does not benefit its members or society

Multiplay is a cult! :eek:

:p: j/k

Afty

29th June 2005, 22:47

Originally posted by TelexStar
I think Hubbard was actually quoted once (before he "invented" scientology) saying something along the lines of "The best way to make money is to invent a religion". Half right. He actually WROTE A BOOK on how to do it, and what a good idea it was. It's no longer in print (amazingly). This was a scant few years before he decided Scientology, and little ghosts of H-bombed volcano people were The Way, The Truth and The Light.

But life is full of coincidences.

bvark

29th June 2005, 23:07

Originally posted by Moose
I doubt very much the interviewer asked directly for Tom's opinion on how Brooke should conducted her life and I seriously doubt any other interviewees were asked that question either.

Sorry to let the facts get in the way of a good rant, but http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8343367/page/1/ is the transcript of the interview with Cruise that this article references, and http://ww.accesshollywood.com/news/4537415/detail.html is the transcript of the original discussion with Access Hollywood, where he comments on a book Brooke Shields wrote about her post-natal depression responding to a line of questioning about Scientology's view of psychiatry.

10acious

29th June 2005, 23:49

But Phil,

Little ghost people from a volcano induced intergalactic genocide 75 million years ago, how can you get in the way of material this good.

The mere mention of the galactic confederacy has me in giggles, but remeber, if you yourself try and find a way to rid yourself of the ghost people, you'll be struck down with pnuemonia.........

Teehee

Travolta, Cruise and anybody else into scientology is clearly put on the planet for my amusement. (Not by Xemu all powerful galactic confederacy overlord)

TheDon

30th June 2005, 02:09

Originally posted by afty
Hell, I dislike and distrust organised religion of any kind, but with Christianity at least there is some mythos, some ancient and slightly imperceptible series of events documented by various people and combined into scripture. With Scientology there is a bunch of books about spaceplanes, galactic battles and H-Bombs written by a pulp sci-fi author going through a drugs binge on a yacht. So when Scientology is 2,000 years old and the books have been around that long you'll have a different opinion?

It seems to be you're saying Christianity is more.... acceptable (for want of a better word) because it's older? and because several people wrote about it thousands of years ago?

For all anyone knows the bible etc could have been writtern by Hubbard of ancient times. Walking on water, water into wine, parting of seas, resurection, etc, is this not also the stuff of science fiction?

10acious

30th June 2005, 02:24

You cannot seriously compare hubbards amphetimine endorsed looney tune version of star wars to christianity ?

Im not a christian, and im not a scientologist but i consider the the bible a lot more probable then the story of xenu, the hitker of the galactic federations (who btw is imprisoned for all eternity in a mountain somewhere).

Christiainty requires faith,
Scientology requires utter incompetence.

Oh and the bible isnt science fiction, mythology perhaps but definetly not science fiction.

Afty

30th June 2005, 10:02

Originally posted by TheDon
So when Scientology is 2,000 years old and the books have been around that long you'll have a different opinion?If I was born 1980 years in the future, and it was shrouded in mystery, with no-one to give us the real lowdown on the Messiah (or whatevers) crack addled life of leisure on a yacht writing religious texts on 'phets, then yes I might be a little less dismissive of it. However, if religion is still around in 2000 years, I doubt humans will be, in any serious numbers.
Originally posted by TheDon
It seems to be you're saying Christianity is more.... acceptable (for want of a better word) because it's older? and because several people wrote about it thousands of years ago?Let's get something straight, I don't believe in Christianity, and I find the Catholic churches stance on Condoms, prevention and AIDs in Africa to be one of the crimes of our generation, which they should be held accountable for (and for the Pope to receive Sainthood for this reign, frankly pisses on other "saints" who have EARNED it, from a great height). On the other hand, the church are doing this from blind faith and naivety and indirectly. Scientologists lock people away in their retreats who are ill, and many die due to lack of water, medical attention for fairly basic conditions (young woman died of appendicitis IIRC as they would not let her out to see a doctor). They sue people into oblivion and force them to leave their friends, family and country to have any life just for speaking out about the contents of their religious texts, and making public the "fees" they charge.

Christianity is a religion with some issues, Scientology is a money-making scheme disguising itself as a cult which preys on the weak willed and those in need of mental help. Ever wondered WHY they have a disdain for psychiatry? It's not because Hubbard didn't like psychiatrists, it's because he was a pretty clever (and very twisted) guy and had put alot of thought into how to make money off the back of a religion.

Just because Christianity and Scientology both claim to be religions, does not mean they are as "bad" as each other - the world is not black and white, and in this case the shades of grey are quite apparent to me.

And for the record, I believe all institutionalised religion should receive no state support whatsoever (charitable status, tax free land etc.) and should be required to stand or fall on its' own two feet.

Afty

30th June 2005, 10:15

Originally Said By Tom Cruise
You know, Scientology is something that you don't understand. It's like, you could be a Christian and be a Scientologist
...
Here we are today, where I talk out against drugs and psychiatric abuses of electric shocking people, okay, against their will
...
Interviewer : This wasn't against her will, though.
...
Here's the problem. You don't know the history of psychiatry. I do.
...
There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance.
...
Interviewer : So, postpartum depression to you is kind of a little psychological gobbledygook
...
No. I did not say that.
...
Interviewer : I'm just asking what you, what would you call it?
...
No. No. Abso— Matt, now you're talking about two different things.
...
Interviewer : But that's what she went on the antidepressant for.
...
The thing that I'm saying about Brooke is that there's misinformation, okay. And she doesn't understand the history of psychiatry. She doesn't understand in the same way that you don't understand it, Matt.

TelexStar

30th June 2005, 11:25

Originally posted by TheDon
For all anyone knows the bible etc could have been writtern by Hubbard of ancient times. Walking on water, water into wine, parting of seas, resurection, etc, is this not also the stuff of science fiction?

The difference is that the Bible actually has a considerable amount of historical fact to back it up.

Afty

30th June 2005, 11:54

Originally posted by TelexStar
The difference is that the Bible actually has a considerable amount of historical fact to back it up. Well, it backs up some of the circumstantial events/locations in the bible.

In other words there were cities called the right names around the right time, and there is evidence to suggest many of the people existed.

There is no evidence of the supernatural/spiritual events in the bible, nor the miracles, resurrection etc. So while the evidence shows that the bible was written by people who included significant portion of reality in the setting for the scripture, there is no evidence to backup any of the claims or assertions in there that actually pertain to the Christian religion.

TelexStar

30th June 2005, 12:02

Originally posted by afty
Well, it backs up some of the circumstantial events/locations in the bible.

In other words there were cities called the right names around the right time, and there is evidence to suggest many of the people existed.

There is no evidence of the supernatural/spiritual events in the bible, nor the miracles, resurrection etc. So while the evidence shows that the bible was written by people who included significant portion of reality in the setting for the scripture, there is no evidence to backup any of the claims or assertions in there that actually pertain to the Christian religion.

Absolutely, I agree. It probably wasn't clear but by "historical facts" I meant places, political events, kings, people etc. The miracle aspect very much has to be taken on faith by the individual.

Afty

30th June 2005, 12:11

Indeed. The bible is an interesting (set of) piece of work... the scientology baloney is just poppycock :)

Exegesis

30th June 2005, 13:24

...would you ever care to taste the poppycock i'll be at strat24 giving out free samples ;)

TheDon

30th June 2005, 14:41

Originally posted by afty
Let's get something straight, I don't believe in Christianity, and I find the Catholic churches stance on Condoms, prevention and AIDs in Africa to be one of the crimes of our generation, which they should be held accountable for (and for the Pope to receive Sainthood for this reign, frankly pisses on other "saints" who have EARNED it, from a great height). On the other hand, the church are doing this from blind faith and naivety and indirectly.

Never claimed you did, my point is that the church is now 2000 years down the line, and for all we know they could be following a man like hubbard with blind faith and naivety, but because that person is long dead it somehow makes it different? When Hubbard is long dead and people are just blindly following his books will Scientology then be seen in the same light as christianity? I doubt it, yet it's very similar.

Originally posted by afty
Scientologists lock people away in their retreats who are ill, and many die due to lack of water, medical attention for fairly basic conditions (young woman died of appendicitis IIRC as they would not let her out to see a doctor). They sue people into oblivion and force them to leave their friends, family and country to have any life just for speaking out about the contents of their religious texts, and making public the "fees" they charge.

Sounds alot to me like the early church. In the changeover from paganism to christianity the church did far far worse than scientology has ever done. People were burnt at stakes for not conforming and speaking out against the church. Christianity is solely responsible for the patriarchal society we live in, it near enough solely corrupted the ideas of the devine feminine and pushed women back into the dark ages. Whereas under paganism they were held in high regard, the lifeblood of the human race, under christianity they became the second class sex. The things that were held in high regard under paganism were demonized by the church.

Early christianity did as much wrong, if not alot more, than scientology has.

Originally posted by afty
Christianity is a religion with some issues, Scientology is a money-making scheme disguising itself as a cult which preys on the weak willed and those in need of mental help. Ever wondered WHY they have a disdain for psychiatry? It's not because Hubbard didn't like psychiatrists, it's because he was a pretty clever (and very twisted) guy and had put alot of thought into how to make money off the back of a religion.

There's no doubt that scientology exists to make Hubbard a very rich man, and that it has succeeded in doing so. My point is that holding christianity in a higher light than scientology is wrong because they might have both been started in the same way. There are alot of parallels that can be drawn from early christianity and scientology, both worked hard to enforce their "this way is the right way" mentality, and both have been involved in public slanders of their oposition (much worse in the case of the church, they out right destroyed paganism and alot of it's ideologies while taking from it all it could to improve the changeover from it to christianity)

Originally posted by afty
Just because Christianity and Scientology both claim to be religions, does not mean they are as "bad" as each other - the world is not black and white, and in this case the shades of grey are quite apparent to me.

You're right, one is a "religion" that extracts money from the rich and takes advantage of the stupid, while some people have suffered based on it's unwillingless to work with some modern medicine, and the other is a "religion" that has been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, held witch hunts and crusades, fighting wars to protect their flimsy ideals and forcing those ideals onto others. So yes, one is most definitely worse than the other.

Originally posted by afty
And for the record, I believe all institutionalised religion should receive no state support whatsoever (charitable status, tax free land etc.) and should be required to stand or fall on its' own two feet.

Totally agree. The church is not a charity, it shouldn't be treated as such.

(BTW - this post is delibratly demonizing the church to prove the point that time seems to make things more acceptable to people, people will no doubt reply to "but that's in the past, the church isn't like that now", but in 2,000 years people could say the same about scientology, when people have forgot how it was founded then it'll become more acceptable, and suddenly the next money making cult will be viewed as bad and scientology will be a shining example of religion "with a few issues")

TheDon

30th June 2005, 14:44

Originally posted by TelexStar
The difference is that the Bible actually has a considerable amount of historical fact to back it up.

As afty has said, the only evidence for the bible is that the places and names existed, strangely enough, Hubbard's books also include alot of places and names that I can prove exist just by looking in an atlas. It must all be true! :eek:

(BTW - never forget that history is wrote by man)

Steadders

30th June 2005, 15:52

I'll forget that, and remember it was written by man.

Sounds alot to me like the early church. In the changeover from paganism to christianity the church did far far worse than scientology has ever done. People were burnt at stakes for not conforming and speaking out against the church. Christianity is solely responsible for the patriarchal society we live in, it near enough solely corrupted the ideas of the devine feminine and pushed women back into the dark ages. Whereas under paganism they were held in high regard, the lifeblood of the human race, under christianity they became the second class sex. The things that were held in high regard under paganism were demonized by the church.

It's funny how much things have changed, now in a number of places you are more likely to be punished or persecuted for being Christian.

10acious

30th June 2005, 16:36

Originally posted by TheDon
As afty has said, the only evidence for the bible is that the places and names existed, strangely enough, Hubbard's books also include alot of places and names that I can prove exist just by looking in an atlas. It must all be true! :eek:

When you find the galactic confederacy on an atlas, please point it out to me.

When you find anything outside scientology documenting the evil xenu, please point it out to me.

When you find evidence of his transport ships, please po... Oh wait he just said they were (their) modern day aircraft, but with rocket engines.

Look i agree with you on a lot of stuff about christianity (even if you've clearly read the da vinci code), but to say its almost identical to scientology is ridiculous. Christianity has done lots of terrible things, it still does. Dosent mean its comparable TO THE FU**ING GALACTIC CONFEDERACY AND XEMU and his pnuemonia inflicting ways.

Zenith

30th June 2005, 19:44

Originally posted by TheDon
(BTW - never forget that history is wrote by man) QUITE! How can the Bible be the word of God if it was written by men?

Bill Hicks had it exactly right...What we think God *meant* to say was....

Steadders

30th June 2005, 21:32

Don't worry about it Zenith, you don't beleive in God etc, so you don't need to worry about that kind of thing, however surley you can understand that *if* you did beleive in God, you could beleive that he could talk to people?

TheDon

30th June 2005, 21:40

Originally posted by 10acious
When you find the galactic confederacy on an atlas, please point it out to me.

When you find anything outside scientology documenting the evil xenu, please point it out to me.

When you find evidence of his transport ships, please po... Oh wait he just said they were (their) modern day aircraft, but with rocket engines.

Look i agree with you on a lot of stuff about christianity (even if you've clearly read the da vinci code), but to say its almost identical to scientology is ridiculous. Christianity has done lots of terrible things, it still does. Dosent mean its comparable TO THE FU**ING GALACTIC CONFEDERACY AND XEMU and his pnuemonia inflicting ways. Had a long post wrote out but then my computer decided to go and overheat so I lost it, so here's the condensed version.

If you can find any evidance that points to the existance of the 10 commandments, or that jesus ever turned water into wine, parted the red sea, or any of the other events in the bible actually happened then I'll happily take back my point. But my point is that the only evidance that supports the bible is evidance relating to the places things were said to have happened, nothing on the actual occurances. The same can be said for Hubbard's works, the places (well, the places on earth) in them can be proved to exist, the rest, well, that's just there in the world of science fiction, same place as most the bible stories are to me.

I also didn't say the two were almost identical, they aren't, one is semi believable, the other..... well, god knows what Hubbard was smoking when he wrote his books, my point is that, ignoring the content of the religions, there are alot of parralels that can be drawn between the two, and alot of the practices Hubbard used to make his fortunes were also employed by the church, some on a more extreme level, but the fact that it was a fair few centuarys ago seems to somehow mean it doesn't matter and christianity is acceptable, whereas scientology isn't because it's "new". (Pretty much the same as early christians were outcasts actually, as I said, alot of similarities)

Scientology may not make alot of sense, and it may belong more in the realms of science fiction and holywood (maybe that's why so many celebs buy into it?) but what you see with it is pretty much the same as what happened with alot of older religions, the way something new comes along and alot of people immediatly dismiss it based on the fact it's not what they're used to, it's new and different and puts what they are used to into conflict and makes no sense to them (think Egyptions when they were presenting with the idea that their many gods may only be one, it made no sense to them and challenged everything that they believed in, probably in just as much of a way as people will instantly dismiss the xemu and the rest of Hubbard's zany stories) while the followers of it try to dismiss and belittle the existing religions claiming that anyone that doesn't think the same as them "doesn't understand" or "doesn't have an open mind", and then the sane people sit on the outside scratching their heads wondering why anyone believes any of it anyway.

(oh, and yeah, I've read the da vinci code, really good book that nicely fuses some interesting facts with a fair bit of fiction, but my opinions on christianity and religion is something I've had a long time before that book, the way the church took paganism and demonized it is a subject I've held an interest in for years, paganism is an interesting subject if you spend the time to get past the modern layer of bull**** that's built over it to get down to the core ideologies.)

TheDon

30th June 2005, 21:46

Originally posted by Steadders
Don't worry about it Zenith, you don't beleive in God etc, so you don't need to worry about that kind of thing, however surley you can understand that *if* you did beleive in God, you could beleive that he could talk to people? Ever played chinese whispers? Ever had the same thing said at the end as the beginning? IMO that's exactly the same as how the bible would be if it is actually the word of God.

There have been countless translations applied, so countless interpretations, no one actually knows if the meaning that comes out of it now is the real meaning, or 2,000 years of peoples interpretations, each generation it changing slightly based on who was applying their interpretation to it at the time.

I don't see how even if there is a God the bible can be what he wanted it to be. Man is corrupt, man wrote (and has countless times rewrote) the bible, therefore the bible at some stage, will have become corrupt, it's an unavoidable aspect of mankind.

Steadders

30th June 2005, 21:50

Yes, i understand that, but if you did beleive in God, then maybe you could beleive he watched over the bible, to make sure it was ok? to make sure it didn't get to currupt.

The point i'm trying to make i guess is, this doesn't really apply to you if you don't beleive in God. The number of matching copies of the bible however suggest that is has been accuratly translated.

10acious

30th June 2005, 21:59

I prefer Dogma's (Kevin Smith's) view

"God gave man a good idea, and we turned it into a religion" (something like that) Basically we corrupt everything we touch, we're just too greedy as a species not to take advantage of these situations.

Yeah i cant prove jesus turned water to wine and shiz, however i was implying that there is considerable proof of a roman empire, and bethlehem and the time period in general (B.C./A.D.) Thats so much more concrete then the hubbards crack pipe ramblings.

Paganism is fun, its certainly intresting if you look deep enough. Sadly my mother was very intrested in it, so i sort of had it passed on to me (and yes da vinci code is a great fictional novel)

Cheez

1st July 2005, 08:21

Originally posted by 10acious
(and yes da vinci code is a great ictional novel) I wouldn't say that, it's very poorly written, still an interesting book though.

TelexStar

1st July 2005, 08:22

Originally posted by TheDon
it near enough solely corrupted the ideas of the devine feminine and pushed women back into the dark ages.

Be careful when you start quoting pop culture fictional novels in a debate about the validity of religion.

Originally posted by TheDon
alot of the practices Hubbard used to make his fortunes were also employed by the church,
some on a more extreme level, but the fact that it was a fair few centuarys ago seems to somehow mean it doesn't matter and christianity is acceptable

The difference is that scientology was designed as a money making scam, that is its' purpose! Whatever christianity is guilty of, it didn't start out its life with an intent to scam people
The purpose of church was to provide people with a place to meet with other like-minded people and worship God.

Originally posted by TheDon
Ever played chinese whispers? Ever had the same thing said at the end as the beginning? IMO that's exactly the same as how the bible would be if it is actually the word of God.

There have been countless translations applied, so countless interpretations, no one actually knows if the meaning that comes out of it now is the real meaning, or 2,000 years of peoples interpretations, each generation it changing slightly based on who was applying their interpretation to it at the time.

I don't see how even if there is a God the bible can be what he wanted it to be. Man is corrupt, man wrote (and has countless times rewrote) the bible, therefore the bible at some stage, will have become corrupt, it's an unavoidable aspect of mankind.

Would it be possible for you to put down that battered and worn copy of the Da Vinci Code any time soon?
Studies of the dead sea scrolls have shown that the Bible hasn't changed all that much. Od course, it's still up to you to decide if you believe what was originally written however.

Nexus

1st July 2005, 08:55

Originally posted by TelexStar
The difference is that scientology was designed as a money making scam, that is its' purpose! Whatever christianity is guilty of, it didn't start out its life with an intent to scam people
The purpose of church was to provide people with a place to meet with other like-minded people and worship God.

How do you know this?

Were you arounf 2000 years ago?

In 2000 years time will people know that Scientology was a money making scheme? Maybe in 2000 years time someone will be arguing the case of how Scientology wasnt a money making scheme.

Dont lets forget that history is made by man, and is changed over time depending on who is ruling. How many empires have risen and fallen in 2000 years? How many times has the bible been re-written?

Just look at Hitler re-writing history books and the german people swallowing it at the time. Now multiply that by all the empires that have risen and fallen and there is no-way on earth that the story originally told is the same as has been preached the last few hundred years.

That doesnt even take into account translation errors!

Dont forget that 2000 years ago the son of god coming down to live on earth was even more wacky than aliens.

TheDon

1st July 2005, 11:11

Originally posted by TelexStar
Be careful when you start quoting pop culture fictional novels in a debate about the validity of religion. That's a point I've been making since years the da vinci code was published. The church demonized alot of pagan ideology which is what led to the witch hunts. It doesn't take a fiction novel to tell you that, you just have to look into history books.

Originally posted by TelexStar
The difference is that scientology was designed as a money making scam, that is its' purpose! Whatever christianity is guilty of, it didn't start out its life with an intent to scam people
The purpose of church was to provide people with a place to meet with other like-minded people and worship God.

As said in the post above, you don't know that. You only ASSUME that. The fact that the church owns so much land and is one of the richest institutions in the world actually speaks volumes in favour of it being set up as a money making scheme. No one known for sure if it was or wasn't, after all, the people who set it up would be the ones who wrote the history books saying it wasn't.

As for it's purpose being a place to meet with other like-minded people, well, they were only "like-minded" once they'd been converted (dare I say.... brainwashed?), these people started off as pagans remember. The uptake of christianity was in no way peaceful, and in no way down to most peoples free will. During the last few centuaries of the first milenium the churchs aim was clear, to convert as many people as possible to christianity. Why if it wasn't a case of creating a monopoly to optimise profit?

Originally posted by TelexStar
Would it be possible for you to put down that battered and worn copy of the Da Vinci Code any time soon?
Studies of the dead sea scrolls have shown that the Bible hasn't changed all that much. Od course, it's still up to you to decide if you believe what was originally written however.

I can't remember a page in the book that said the bible has changed through peoples interpretations and translations, just aload of pages on how the vatican is apparantly hiding away everything which contradicts the bible (been a while since I read it though, could be wrong) actually, I'm pretty sure Brown steered clear of that argument and instead claims it was completely rewrittern in the 3rd centuary (could be wrong, as I said, been a while) and the church has done all it could to protect that version of the bible ever since then. So no need for me to put down any copy of the book, as afaik the chinease whipsers anagogy is something that isn't in it.

but of course, every argument that deals with the early church is now going to be struck out as being "straight out the da vinci code", even if it's never appeared in the book. Unfortunatly while being a good read the da vinci code has probably severly harmed any religious discussion for the foreseeable future, the way that it takes certain facts then elaboratly extends them into more eccentric ideas, distorting them away from what they actually mean, means that any time anyone brings up any of the facts used they are instantly typecast to Brown's extended version. People who don't have prior knowledge of alot of the things in his book will read it and instantly believe that all he says is true, whereas others will instantly dismiss everything as fiction. Unfortunatly it's not that simple and Brown has used a mesh of fact and fiction and even extended the fact into fiction, so getting anything out of the book that you didn't already know is near enough impossible.

As for the dead sea scrolls, you're having people with an expectation of what they are going to say translate them, people will, intentionally or not, put the modern interpretations over the ancient wording. It's like telling someone what a code is meant to say then asking them to break it, they'll manage it even if you tell them it says something slightly different to what it actually does. They are after all in an ancient language, there's no clear cut translations, language has changed alot since then, and the fact that most the scrolls lack any form of puncuation make it even harder to translate 100% accurately (we've all had to go through the "how a sentance changes with the wrong punctuation" lessons ;-)
I'm not claiming that any modern interpretation of the bible is vastly different to the original, it won't be. But IMO there will be a fair few changes and alterations that made it easier for the church to get people to conform, not core changes that'd show up a mile away from something like the dead sea scrolls, but small changes to the meanings behind the teachings.

TelexStar

1st July 2005, 12:43

[delete - double post]

TelexStar

1st July 2005, 12:43

Originally posted by Nexus

In 2000 years time will people know that Scientology was a money making scheme? Maybe in 2000 years time someone will be arguing the case of how Scientology wasnt a money making scheme.

Originally posted by TheDon

but of course, every argument that deals with the early church is now going to be struck out as being "straight out the da vinci code", even if it's never appeared in the book. Unfortunatly while being a good read the da vinci code has probably severly harmed any religious discussion for the foreseeable future, the way that it takes certain facts then elaboratly extends them into more eccentric ideas,

I'm not hear to debate the validity of the bible, whether you believe in it or not is up to you. I'm trying to draw your attention to the distinction between Scientology and Christianity, and the reason for their inception.

Scientology was created buy ONE guy. The religious texts have also been written by this one guy for the purpose of drawing as much money out of rich, weak-willed people as possible.

The Bible was written by a great number of independent people, over 1500 years. Do you think they all collaborated over this time to invent a weapon to be used by the Church (which incidentally, didn't exist)?

Do I believe that people in the Church institution used the bible to control people many hundreds of years later? Yes, but like I've said, this has nothing to do with how it *started* (which is the condition that you are drawing your comparisons with Scientology)

As for the accuracy of the Da Vinci Code, yes it was quite a good read but a lot of the theories that Dan Brown used to write this book were quite substantially debunked by scientists and historians.

kandy

4th July 2005, 13:19

TheDon, I know you are trying to be philosophical just like the millions of other message board preachers, but don't even bother trying to defend Scientology.

Get yourself down to Saint Hill in East Grinstead and see for yourself the amount of ****** up people running around.

I've seen peoples lives get ruined by it, the worst part is they don't know any different.

When you actually have some first hand knowledge of this dangerous cult then post away.

TheDon

5th July 2005, 01:06

Originally posted by kandy
TheDon, I know you are trying to be philosophical just like the millions of other message board preachers, but don't even bother trying to defend Scientology.

Get yourself down to Saint Hill in East Grinstead and see for yourself the amount of ****** up people running around.

I've seen peoples lives get ruined by it, the worst part is they don't know any different.

When you actually have some first hand knowledge of this dangerous cult then post away. I never defended it, IMO it's aload of crap (and yes, I've experienced it first hand, they have a "church" in birmingham, they have a habit of standing on one of brums high streets and offering people a "stress test" and a nice cup of coffee, I was bored, I went along with it, the amount of crap they came out with was unreal, and the hard sell of the book was ridiculous, even the age old I've got no cash on me and no credit card didn't work, they offered to go with me to the speed bank! The people are obsessed and do try to brain wash and force people into it (and their coffee isn't that nice either, ****ty instant brown) I agree that it ruins people lives, and people don't realise what they are getting roped into, and by the time they do it's way too late.

My point isn't that scientology isn't bad, it's that christianity during it's early days employed far worse hard sell and brain washing tactics, and that you can't just side with christianity because it has 2,000 years on it's side, as in 2,000 years people may not know how scientology started (if it did become mainstream like christianity then no doubt the history books would be changed to wipe all knowledge of hubbard and his brain washing cronies from them) and they may see it as all being fact because it'd been around 2,000 years, much like why most people don't disagree with christianity, it has 2,000 years of history so it must be true!

QBlank

5th July 2005, 07:08

Kind of back to topic, did any of the Cruise haters watch the film 2005 special last night with him and Johnathan Ross? He is a top bloke! :)

Exegesis

5th July 2005, 07:13

nah i didnt get to see that... but after this whole spiel i'm really interested in finding out more about cruise. never seen much of him outside of movies.

TelexStar

5th July 2005, 07:42

Originally posted by TheDon
I never defended it.

My apologies but your intentions don't appear to be very clear (at least not to me).

You're either defending Scientology by saying that it's no different to an accepted religion (like Christianity) or you're using this thread as an opportunity to have a good ol' bash at the religion that everybody loves to hate, by saying "Yes, those scientologists are nuts, but look! - Those crazy christians were more ****ing loopy!!!!!". If the latter is true then you've successfully managed to divert the thread and throw it down a road we've all been down before....many times :)

I do truely understand what you're trying to say but I don't think you've thought it through. No one is "siding" with christianity just because it has 2000 years of history. At the end of the day, we don't *factually* know what happened 2000 years ago but a lot of people are prepared to take what the Bible says on faith. This may not be your style of living your life but it is for others (and who are you to say that they are wrong?).

We do however, have the advantage of being alive now and seeing Scientology for what it really is. On that I think we both agree. :)

Afty

5th July 2005, 08:46

Originally posted by QBlank
Kind of back to topic, did any of the Cruise haters watch the film 2005 special last night with him and Johnathan Ross? He is a top bloke! :) Who is?

Exegesis

5th July 2005, 09:57

Originally posted by afty
Who is?

yeah i was a bit confused, are you talking about cruise or the other guy?

QBlank

5th July 2005, 10:32

Well both but since the topic is on Cruise i thought you would assume i meant him! Ive seen countless interviews and he always come across as such a nice guy (yes hes an actor) but i really believe its genuine.

TelexStar

5th July 2005, 11:39

Originally posted by QBlank
he always come across as such a nice guy (yes hes an actor) but i really believe its genuine.

I don't know the guy personally to make any kind of judgement on his character. I do what I always do with people I don't know and assume he's a nice guy.

I'm not sure you can say either way what he's like from an interview. We need to remember that he has the best PR manager in the business and he's been very well trained in the art of preserving his public image.

Afty

5th July 2005, 11:54

Originally posted by QBlank
he always come across as such a nice guy (yes hes an actor) but i really believe its genuine. He is an actor. He has trained all his life, is paid millions, and has reached the peak of his profession.

What is his profession? Deceiving people into believing he is a person he is not. And you believe him?

A round of applause for you!

10acious

5th July 2005, 11:58

Just because deception is his proffession, dosent mean his not a nice guy.

Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary (the fact his in a nut job cult dosent count).

QBlank

5th July 2005, 16:07

Being cynical about someone is fine Afty, i would be of Cruise if i hadnt seen as many of these docs/interviews/tv shows/press releases/promotional vids and numerous stories from papers all over the world. EVERY director/actor/ress he has ever worked with has only got praise for him.
He is so intense in interviews, takes every question so seriously but also with a pinch of salt, Billy Connolly took the piss out of him for being a Scientologist and he took it on the chin and laughed it off. Hes just doing what he thinks is right and the parts of Scientology that are good (bettering yourself, helping others etc) really shine through for me.

PS: obviously not that well trained for preserving his image with the attack on psychiatry?

TelexStar

6th July 2005, 07:33

Originally posted by QBlank
EVERY director/actor/ress he has ever worked with has only got praise for him.

Do you know why? Because they're probably scared he might sue them for saying anything negative.

Originally posted by QBlank
PS: obviously not that well trained for preserving his image with the attack on psychiatry?

Do you think that's going to stop the the $25m roles landing his way? No. His salary for War of the Worlds for example is 20% of the profit participation. Do the maths on that one and you can see that his image (the image that counts in Hollywood) hasn't been damaged one bit.

Like I said, I'm not saying he's a bad bloke. Just don't go by the "impression" you get from an interview.

10acious

6th July 2005, 18:11

So if his always nice (but in a fake way) and never publically bad, wouldn't it be prudent to assume his a nice guy ?

It just seems we're being encouraged to dislike someone because theyre niceties are PR motivated. Personally i struggle to think of anyone who is selfless and does nice things for anything but good PR (on whatever scale thats appropriate). i.e. taking a girl to a movie you really dont want to see, your not doing it because you enjoy watching Ben Affleck and his amazing acting, your doing it for good PR.

::BR::Cyprio

6th July 2005, 18:33

Originally posted by bvark
Psychology isn't the same as psychiatry, although the lines are somewhat blurred.

[From wikipedia: Note that psychiatry is practiced by psychiatrists, psychology by psychologists. Psychiatrists are medical doctors and may prescribe drugs. They evaluate patients from a biopsychosocial perspective before prescribing treatment.
Psychology is the broader study of behaviour and thought processes not just in the context of mental health. Clinical psychologists specialize in mental health and have extensive training in therapy and psychological testing. They do not usually prescribe drugs.]

Neither is a pseudo-science, although there are certainly bad practitioners of psychiatry across the world (particularly in America), whose over-reliance on drug prescription makes them an easy target for folks like Tom Cruise.

Just finishing my training in clinical psychology and the above is spot on.

Psychiatrists are doctors who think that mental illness is caused (in part) by a chemical imbalnace in the brain and hence prescribe medication that alters the levels of neurotransmitters. Its a very young science and rough. We have no real idea how the brain works... we are getting there but have a heck of a long way to go. :)