The men from mud

Question answered by honorarykid in Scientology

Mr_Rogers asked this question on 10/2/2000:

Do the anti-Scientologists really think life is a fortunate accident where mud, properly electrified, became life? If so, how do rats get into it?

honorarykid gave this response on 10/2/2000:

Mr Rogers, your question seem an awful lot like the same old broken record as did Blank24's questions. Don't you ever get tired of this kind of hostility?

I don't hate people, Mr. Rogers. I don't hate Scientologists. I don't even hate you, as much as I dislike your chosen "questioning" tactics. You insult me and other good people when you continue to falsely allege that we hate people. In my mind, this behavior on your part demonstrates far more hostility than I have ever shown here. Won't you please stop? Please?

I'm a volunteer expert to help people learn about the truth about Scientology. If you don't like my answers, if you want to do a good job of discrediting them, I suggest that you start looking for flaws in my logic or command of facts, and point those out. That would make so much more sense than just making up unsubstantiated and insulting charges and mindlessly posting them as questions over and over and over.

FWIW, I believe that I am 100% meat (call it meat, mud, whatever you like) and that when my brain dies, my consciousness will die along with it, forever. And actually, I hope I'm wrong about that! But I don't believe I am wrong.

I also believe YOU are 100% meat, too, Mr. Rogers. But that belief does you no harm. Just as you're free to believe I'm a Thetan, and that does me no harm.

Rats came about in the Terran ecosystem as an evolutionary branch of mammalian forms, which came to dominate the more complex form niches following the demise of the reptilians, about 65 million years ago (just about when Hubbard claims that Thetans frozen in glycol were brought to Earth by Xenu!).

Rats and humans both evolved from earlier forms. Humans evolved from the primate branch of the mammalian subtree. We're "monkey boys" you and I.

I don't believe in souls and Thetans, because there is no evidence that thetans or souls exist. I can't prove that the soul does not exist. But given the lack of evidence, I simply cannot believe that we are immortal or that we have immortal spirits that survive the death of our bodies. So, as you can imagine, I don't think too much of spiritual movements that denigrate the body and the meat life we have here on Earth.

To my way of thinking, this is all we've got, so we might as well make the best of it.

Now, if an OT Scientologist would ever take the James Randi Challenge, and demonstrate real OT powers, such as you often claim to have to each other, when you know no outsiders are watching, then I'd change my tune in a heartbeat. I'd join right up with Scientology if I saw even one shred of credible evidence that you can really learn to manipulate MEST by doing Scientology drills.

I hope my answer helps you to understand me a little better, Mr. Rogers.

I truly hope you will believe me when I say I don't hate you or any Scientologist.

I hope you'll acutally read this answer...

Mr_Rogers rated this answer:

Mr_Rogers asked this follow-up question on 10/3/2000:

That's too bad you don't believe in the soul, one of the fundamentals of all of the churches on earth. Not believing in the soul is the foundation of psychology and psychiatry. Read up on Professor Wundt. Any religious person knows they have to make their own faith. Only one in darkness asks for it to be shown to him.

You are just fundamentally against religion. Don't you think you should stop hiding it?

honorarykid gave this response on 10/3/2000:

Hi Mr. Rogers,

Thank you for a mostly civil answer. I really appreciate that.

> You stated:
> That's too bad you don't believe in the
> soul, one of the fundamentals of all of the
> churches on earth."

I agree with you that a belief in the immortal soul constitutes the basis for many religious beliefs.

But I would not agree that I am suffering due to a lack of such beliefs.

How do you suppose I am suffering? By not being on the Bridge? That's not a problem for me, since I don't believe in the implant stations or Thetans.

I don't believe Hubbard accurately described reality. Why should I? He lied about so many things. He made up so many stories.

> Not believing in the soul is the foundation
> of psychology and psychiatry.

You cannot use the terms 'psychiatry' or 'psychology' as perjoratives with me. I don't think of these scientific and medical disciplines with the same irrational hatred as you.

And you're wrong if you think psychiatry and psychology have made some form of final determination about the existence of the immortal soul. I assure you they have not.

They simply don't have any reason to study the soul, because it cannot be observed as an entity which is separate from the human (meat) brain. If you can show psychologists any proof of the soul's existence, I'll bet they'd be very interested. But remember, hooking yourself up to an e-meter and seeing a needle move does not prove anything about a soul. If anything, the e-meter and the lie detector only prove that mental stresses in the mind are reflected throughout the meat body (i.e. thought and meat are intimately connected). If anything, this model gives more credeence to the idea that the brain and the mind are one, than it does to a theory that the mind and the brain are separate.

So, since science cannot observe the human soul, these two disciplines correctly make no judgements or predictions about it. They leave a belief in the soul squarely where it belongs, as an non-falsifiable religious tenet. That is the exactly correct response for any scientific disipline.

These fields treat the brain and the body (the meat) because, as far as medical science knows, this is what we're all made from.

But the fact that the fields of psychology and psychiartry focus their studies on the human meat brain does not alter the fact that many psychiatrists and scientists also believe in the human soul.

Also, let me just point out one last thing. Psychiatry is an medical discipline which seeks to help people who suffer from mental illnesses. Scientology doesn't offer to help such people and indeed, it callously rejects them, derisively labeling them as "illegal PCs."

So, perhaps a bit of respect for them for trying is in order, even if they are not perfect.

> Read up on Professor Wundt.

I'll make you a deal. I'll read a reference you give me from Professor Wundt, if you read a reference I give you from Professer Stephen Kent. Okay?

> Any religious person knows they have to
> make their own faith.

Why do you presume that I have not arrived at my own faith? Could it be because you've never stopped thinking of me and others like me as hateful bigots for long enough to consider the question?

In fact, I do have a spiritual belief (unproven by science) about the nature of reality. I believe in "undifferentiated reality."

If you'd like to know more about my belief in "undifferentiated reality", please let me know, and I'll try to describe it to you.

> Only one in darkness asks for it to be
> shown to him.

So, what are you saying? I'm in the darkness? Why? Because to me, you're in the dark.

Which of us is accepting his religious beliefs from a "command grade?" Which of us has superiors ordering us about?

Moreover, the group from whom you receive your religious instruction also runs punishment and reindoctrination camps, and has a whole host of coercive systems in place to get you to agree with them.

Which of us thinks it's important to faithfully and exactly duplicate his religious lessons, without using his own opinions, without using his own ability to synthesize? Which of us believes in a single source of wisdom?

Most importantly, which of us has unwisely decided to unquestioningly follow a liar and con man?

> You are just fundamentally against religion.

No, I am not against religion. While I freely and openly admit that there is no single organized church, anywhere in the world, with whose dogma I would fully agree, I nevertheless have my own sense of spiritual connection to the Universe. My feelings on this matter are based on my observations and experiences, and on my reading the words of other inspirational people.

Be assured that I will not oppose religious beliefs of anyone, including you.

So please don't overgeneralize from my criticisms of Scientology.

I am only against SOME of the political expressions of your church. I want to stop things like the Introspection Rundown, the defining of people as suppressives, the harassing, the suing, the tailing by Private Investigators, the arrogant and oppressive handlings of people defined as suppressive, the lying to new recruits, and the personal manipulations of people without their consent, the abuses of the law and the courts.

Think about that for a second.

If your church does do those things, then that makes my political opposition an admirable thing, does it not?

I want you to please consider the possibility that I am telling the truth about your church, and at least show me enough courtesy to listen to my opinions, without labeling me and dismissing me as a suppressive bigot, in a typical Scientology-conditioned, knee-jerk response. If you refuse to listen to my criticisms, you will never be able to reform the Church of Scientology for the better.

> Don't you think you should stop hiding it?

I am hiding nothing. My opinions on these matters are freely given. If you would like clarification of my views on any particular subtopic, I would be happy to discuss the matter with you further. I hope you ask me. I hope we can continue to have a civil dialog.

Mr_Rogers asked this follow-up question on 10/4/2000:

It's perfectly fine with me if you end up a cinder to prove that you are only a carbon based lifeform and nothing else.

You say psychiatry and psychology have not been able to observe a soul, and thus their organized mayhem is based on that as a fact. You obviously support drug dealing and murder. Perhaps you will go postal at my comments. If they cannot observe humanity surely they should not be in charge of the field of the mind.

You can compute all you wish but I am sure you will never find out Professor Wundt clearly stated that as he could not observe the human soul he would only put methods to the body, and thereafter based all his work on that fact, because you will not look. Any child can tell you man has something different than an animal. And that you shouldn't put your finger in an electric socket.

Spiritual belief requires the existence of spirits which you are sure must never actually be allowed.

You don't have any religious beliefs. That would imply a spirit.

No, you have to admit the existence of at least one spirit to be spiritual and you don't. These are not politically correct terms you redefine to support your agenda of hate of mankind.

Why you choose to spend your days trying to smear and tar some of the finest people on earth was your own decision.

You don't deserve any more courtesy than any other hatemonger. Your words are akin to saying the American Indians were savages or any other similar statement. You smear your lies across a spectrum of people. You never see one person though.

I doubt your views can be clarified. You certainly never want light to penetrate your darkest recesses.

honorarykid gave this response on 10/4/2000:

Hi Mr. Rogers,

> You wrote:
> "It's perfectly fine with me if you end up
> a cinder to prove that you are only a
> carbon based lifeform

It matters not what you or I think will be our ultimate fate, be it cinder or be it immortal spirit.

We don't each get to choose the outcome for ourselves. Whatever happens to me, will also probably happen to you, and visa versa. We're not controlling the Universe in this respect, even if you choose to pretend that you do. I refuse such pretenses. But if I'm wrong, and end up at a Martian Implant station, so be it. ;-)

> You say psychiatry and psychology have not
> been able to observe a soul,

I'm not saying that to piss you off. I'm saying it because it's true.

I know you think that playing with an e-meter proves there is a soul. But it proves no such thing. It proves only that your body is capable of moving the meter.

Here's an experiment.

Put the E-meter cans down on the table, put your hands close to them, but don't touch them. Postulate that every needle movement which would have happened had you actually been holding the cans, should also now happen without touching the cans. Do your normal drills or auditing session. Watch the meter.

Or, get one of your OT members to command a mass or a cluster to pass through the e-meter.

Or get an OT to simply will the meter to move by power of thought.

If you can get the meter to move in any of these ways, it will truly be big news. But I'm betting the meter won't move.

As long as you need your meat hands and your meat brain to create a movement on your E-meter, you haven't proven anything about an entity that is supposed to be separate from your body.

> and thus their organized mayhem is based on
> that as a fact.

This is a personal delusion being passed off as fact.

You haven't demonstrated that mayhem is on the rise. You haven't shown a causal linkage between the belief that man is an animal and organized mayhem. I reject and scoff at your baseless assertions.

> You obviously support drug dealing and
> murder. Perhaps you will go postal at my
> comments.

Your childish accusations are beneath contempt.

You obviously have a deep seated psychological need to portray me as an evil threatening person. I believe you have this psychological need because the Church of Scientology conditioned it into you.

> If they cannot observe humanity surely they
> should not be in charge of the field of the
> mind.

Psychiatrists and psychologists ARE observing humanity. They're just not pulling fiction out of thin air and presenting it to the world as the Absolute Truth, as L. Ron Hubbard did.

> ...Professor Wundt
> clearly stated that as he could not observe
> the human soul he would only put methods to
> the body, and thereafter based all his work
> on that fact,

So what? If you can't observe the soul, you can't observe it. What good does it do, how does it advance the state of science, to make things up out of thin air?

Can YOU scientifically show that there is evidence of the existence of a soul? How?

> because you will not look.

That's not true. I will look, as I explained in my previous response. I'll look the moment someone shows me there's something to look at.

> Any child can tell you man has something
> different than an animal.

Indeed, I feel like a child is telling me this right now.

Anyway, children are not the most reliable observers of scientific truths. I'm not persuaded by your implied claim that children have some infallible preternatual intuition about the nature of existence.

It is demonstrably true that humans are living biological organisms. Whether or not we ALSO have an immortal spirit is not proven, and is eminently debatable.

If you show me some disembodied spirits, I might take your assertions that spirits exist more seriously.

Here's a thought. Aren't you Scientologists frequently claiming to be blowing off masses and charges? Well, let's get some tests done to actually measure these mass/energy phenomenon. If there are apparently supernatural things going on, I guarantee you that science would take an interest.

> ...you shouldn't put your finger in
> an electric socket.

But children DO occasionally put their fingers in sockets. They play with matches. So maybe we shouldn't be relying too heavily for determining the truth about nature, okay?

> Spiritual belief requires the existence of
> spirits

I guess I have a slightly broader, more inclusive definition of spirituality.

Perhaps more to the point, my beliefs that humans are only animals do not promote an irrational institutional tolerance for violence toward the meat bodies of others. To me, our bodies are our only life, and so I respect the bodies and meat lives of all my fellow humans.

That's why I feel it is such a tragedy when zealots like David Koresh, Ashakara, Charles Manson, and Jim Jones embraced violence, killing off innocents as well as their followers. And why the easily avoidable death of Lisa McPherson was so tragic.

> You don't have any religious beliefs. That
> would imply a spirit.

FWIW, I believe that it's exactly this type of contemptuous attitude toward the beliefs of others which enables you Scientologists to feel justified in using your power to harass, faccuse, smear, belittle, and try to oppress and stomp on the dignity and rights of your critics.

Take that for whatever you think it's worth.

> Why you choose to spend your days trying to
> smear and tar some of the finest people on
> earth was your own decision.

You talk of ME smearing you? Shall we compare our various statements in this thread alone? You said that I support murder and you said you think I'm about to go postal. That's so baseless and stupid.

I'm not saying Scientologists aren't good people. I'm just saying that you're confused, and you're being led astray by a con. This sham religion is twisting your sense of ethics around.

If you don't want to listen to reasonable criticism, if you don't respect science and objective truth, and if you refuse to accept that the non-Scientology portions of society have any wisdom to impart to you, then I feel sad for you.

I believe that if the rest of Scientology feels as you do, then there is very little hope for your church. Unless you do something to change your paranoid and elitist institutional mindsets, I think your church will be ridiculed into oblivion (making history in the process, the first church ridiculed into non-existence via the Internet).

> You don't deserve any more courtesy than
> any other hatemonger.

Thanks so much for demonstrating what critics frequently claim, that Scientologists hate their critics, and you feel free to "fair game" us based on your contempt for us.

Mr_Rogers asked this follow-up question on 10/4/2000:

No, things do matter.

Anyone has heard about the experiments done where people were weighed before and after they died by precise scales and there was a loss in weight precisely after the moment of death. Or heard about point fields in kirlian photography. Your ignorance of real facts pointing to the existence of the human soul shows your real inability to know anything. Look it up yourself, scholarly dweet. Even the persistent rumors concerning ghosts should have alerted you to something.

The stats are clearly available that when psychs went into the schools in the late 60's the decline started.

Let me be the first to reveal you to the world: You ARE an evil man.

Your belittling point by point dissertations are endless drivel and nothing else and prove nothing except your hostility.

Your hate for my church is apparent. If anyone anywhere were to make people stronger or brighter I am sure you think you are in the utmost personal danger from that.

Believe it, that "fair game" ruse is gamey by now. You expect the people you are personally attacking to lie still and do nothing. Well, here's one that won't.

honorarykid gave this response on 10/4/2000:

Hi Mr. Rogers,

This Q&A sequence is getting a bit lengthy, so perhaps we should just agree to disagree.

But you mentioned some experiments which you say "anyone" knows about. Why do you assume such things?

I don't know about them. I don't even know what Kirlian photography is. To be sure, I have heard talk of alleged sudden weight loss in corpses at the precise moment of death.

But I have never seen any real experimental protocol, no scientifically collected data on this matter. So I always assumed that such talk was of the category of "urban legend," spread by hopeful True Believers. Sort of like the stories about ghosts. Ghost stories are better proof of human fear and superstition than they are of the existence of immortal spirits.

But, please, if you have some web pointers to more information about these experiments, I hope you would forward those on as a followup. I promise I'll look at any references you provide. Thanks in advance.

BTW, contrary to your claim above, I don't think there is any grand sociological agreement that the spiritual state of the world began declining in 1969. Again, if you have some conclusive stats, I think it's encumbant on you to produce them to support your own claims. So, would you post these stats, or references we can check for ourselves, please?

Finally, I don't hate your church. I am disgusted by many of it's behaviors. I want it to become a better, more ethical church. I really don't see how you can assist me to achieve that laudable goal, if you continually and mindlessly accuse me of "hate" and "evil."

As for you personally, I don't hate you. How can I hate you? I don't even know who you are. And none of my comments are directed at you personally, anyway. They are directed at the processes and behaviors of a trans-national political entity that is an unethical force for oppression and totalitarianism. My disgust with Scientology only applies to you to the degree that you also seek to advance the CoS' goals of oppression and totalitarianism.

So, if you are not in favor of those things, then I truly do hope you get stronger and brighter (but not necessarily in that order).

Mr_Rogers asked this follow-up question on 10/5/2000:

The only urban legend you have is that people don't have a proven spiritual nature and are only a body. But you'll find out someday. But let's suppose you do find it out? How will you recover from your crimes against humanity? From insisting that they had no soul, that they were only a piece of meat? From stopping anyone any way you could from doing something to remedy the actual human condition? Tsk. No, I am sure you could not possibly, if you ever even saw one, allow a Scientologist to just go about life practicing his religion. I am sure you are absolutely compelled to stop them. You've proven it over and over and over. I know you've been at it a long, long while. Even if only from page three of this hatemonger board. Your darkness is proven. You are the stuff of stories of legend. Vampires, the dark side in Star Wars, Hitler's regime, evil. Evil, evil, evil. I am sorry if this is the last time anyone ever reached to you to save you.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.