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:
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
> That's too bad you don't believe in the
> soul, one of the fundamentals of all of the
> churches on earth."
> of psychology and psychiatry.
> make their own faith.
> shown to him.
> "It's perfectly fine with me if you end up
> a cinder to prove that you are only a
> carbon based lifeform
> been able to observe a soul,
> that as a fact.
> murder. Perhaps you will go postal at my
> comments.
> should not be in charge of the field of the
> mind.
> 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,
> different than an animal.
> an electric socket.
> spirits
> would imply a spirit.
> smear and tar some of the finest people on
> earth was your own decision.
> any other hatemonger.
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.