From: nyet@cco.caltech.edu (n liu)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: recent FAQ postings
Message-ID: <1991Sep10.173747.25809@cco.caltech.edu>
Date: 10 Sep 91 17:37:47 GMT
References: <GOEHRING.91Sep10092703@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 39

goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring) writes:

>The FAQ postings which eastin@locus.com has posted recently are >heavily biased toward the Church. He leaves out all of the very >negative aspects of Scientology. I have a almost complete archive of >this newsgroup (229 articles and counting - only 21 articles missing >from the beginning) which I would be glad to share with anybody who >would like to see it. There have been several discussions which I feel >are much more indicative of the true nature of the Church of >Scientology than the recent postings by Mr. Eastin, who is merely >transcribing material from the Church's advertisements.

This brings up an interesting point.. Clearly, there should be TWO FAQ listings - one for scientologists, one for non-scientologists, considering both groups seem to have completely differing views of reality. Most FAQ's are maintained by peer review - "Excuse me, but this info is incorrect" or "may I add something to that". However, the majority of non-scientologists I have met feel that scientologists are either hopelessly brainwashed or being blackmailed, and most scientologists feel non-scientologists know absolutely NOTHING about scientology and therefore have nothing useful to say about it. This complete disagreement on even the most basic "facts" makes the ideal of a conclusive FAQ quite unrealistic. Since both camps feel the other is misguided, ignorant, and/or narrowminded, how can they POSSIBLY agree on ANYTHING? I realize this argument can be applied to almost any controversy, I feel this one is particularly divided and quite impossible to resolve. In addition, the basis of "absolute truths" that both parties agree upon can probably be counted on one hand. And "myth debunking" is equally impossible. Scientologists can easily dismiss anything as bad press, and non-Scientologists merely quote P.T. Barnum. Personally, I may just unsubscribe to this group altogether, unless a useful debate ensues soon. I was hoping to find any reasonable evidence that Scientology is NOT a scam, but sadly, none surfaced. And I fancied myself open-minded. Perhaps that was a mistake. -- nyet@cobalt.cco.caltech.edu nyet@aerospace.aero.org

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank