In any case... the theory behind Dianetics is that man is trying to
survive; for himself, his family, groups he is a part of, and mankind.
Action which points to the survival of these four groups (dynamics) is
prosurvival.  Action which point to the destruction of these four dynamics
is contrasurvival.  Very obvious examples of contrasurvival behavior are
murder, theft, suicide, adultery, betrayal of a group, etc.  The human
mind, or analytical mind, understands these precepts and in ideal
conditions is capable of making rational decisions based on these
judgements.

Here we come again to the issue of the e-meter.  The idea of the e-meter is
that it can detect when a person is recalling an incident involving pain
(physical or emotional), because that memory still has mass.  By
confronting memories the mass dissapates and the memory ceased to have an
affect on the person.  Now, one's arm being pinched is quite easy to
confront, but more violent incidents are not, and thus to a certain extent
are relegated to a person's reactive mind, which is the stimulus-response,
non-thinking mind.

An incident which cannot be confronted is called an engram.  Now, it is
patently simple to see the affect incidents involving pain have on an
animal.  If you strike a dog often enough, raising your hand in a
threatening manner is enough to make the dog balk in fear.  The visual
somatic of the raised hand preparing to strike restimulates previous
engrams involving pain and cause the dog to react instinctively
(reactively).  For less intelligent animals this is somewhat useful, but in
humans this rapidly becomes unacceptable, especially since humans
communicate using sound (most of us, anyway) and the words spoken in
painful incidents are stored to and, when restimulated by similar
situations, can have an affect on the person.  When an engram is
restimulated, the reactive mind temporarily takes over for the analytical
mind and the data in the engram is used to command the person (with the
raising of the hand = pain, the dog balks in fear).  Thus statements,
especially idiomatic ones, can have a direct affect on someone when
restimulated.

The purpose of Dianetics is, through auditing, to help the person confront
past incidents involving pain (of whatever kind) so that the memories
become part of the analytical mind and thus ones the person can rationally
use, instead of memories which control him (I use he/him/his as a universal
pronoun, since English unfortunately has none).

Now, all of this could be bullshit, except it works.  I have seen people
run through incidents several times, experience it again until they can
confront it, and seen this amazing weight go off their shoulders and a
smile appear on their faces.  An incident they previously could not think
about (being beaten by their husband, losing their grandmother) suddenly
has no affect on them, and they can look at it comfortably.

Look, I can't tell you all this is true.  I don't ask you to believe it at
all.  Like most atheists you claim to be a rational, reasonable person.  It
would be irrational for you to submit to an easy form of contempt and
dismiss what I have said.  In good faith you must consider it.  Now, I'm
not asking you go and buy their book (god, no, that would be cheap of me),
but it is an exercise in misinformation when you state that Scientology is
a criminal business and that it tortures and murders people.  Never have I
seen an iota of evidence to suggest it.  Now, even given that of course
they would try to hide this from me, they are well aware of the fact that I
have disconnected from them and I still have yet to feel threatened or
harrassed in any way.  I have heard of a case of someone who for eighteen
years was disgusted with Scientology and refused to touch them, and he
never received any kind of threat, etc.

If anything, Scientology charges outrageous prices.  Now, it is easy to
come to the conclusion that they are just like any other cult, which I'm
sure you have, by this piece of evidence.  However, in all the negative
media I've seen about Scientology, not one has challenged specifically
Hubbard's theories in Dianetics.  After all, what does he say?  That man is
basically good, that he is seeking to survive, that crime in all forms is
harmful, and that anyone attempting to reduce someone's ability or
awareness is by definition doing something contrasurvival.  Included in
this last part?  Hypnotism, a form of overwhelming and giving commands to
the reactive mind, which Hubbard early on mildly concluded had not produced
any positive results, and later pointed out as a aberrative and destructive
means of controlling people.  Despite what you may have heard, Scientology
does not practice hypnotism.  As all members of Scientology learn how to
audit (counsel), any form of hypnotism would be known by all, which it is
not.  Not what I'd call a secret form of control.

*Whew* I guess I'm done rambling.  Please pardon me, and please consider
all that I've said.  Please, for godssake, do not dismiss all of this
offhand because of your preconceived notions.

That would not be rational.

In finality, may I note that your dedication to undermining Christianity is
an exercise in futility?  Remember that men all over the world and all
throughout history have practiced bigotry in all its loathesome forms, and
that Christianity is just another medium for creating things to hate.  If
Christianity did not exist, something else would come along.  You give, I
fear, Christians far too much credit.  Do you honestly think the nature of
man would change if we did not have Christianity, Islam, and all the rest
of it?  Of course not.  They'd find or invent other religions, or turn to
ideologies, to give them an avenue for their hatred.

I am also shocked by your presumption that the existence of an afterlife is
a Christian creation designed to control people and keep them in fear.
That is like the Japanese scholar who attempted to explain the evolution of
Japanese thought through its adopted Chinese characters.  There have been
innumerous religions in history which recognized the existence of the soul
without giving it much thought, and certainly not using it to manipulate
people.  I am not a scholar on Christian history, though I've read the
Bible (mostly) and The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, which offers
an extensive history of Christian's early days, but your conclusion about
the cause and affect purpose of the afterlife in Christianity is laughable
and completely without support.  The threat of an eternity in hell (a late
Christian creation) is the threat, not a continued existence.

I believe in no religion, but I certainly not hold your paranoid views
about them.  The Native Americans of North America universally believed in
a Creator and the human soul and the afterlife, but never threatened their
believers with damnation, suffering, or punishment.  There is no moral play
there, nor is there any in Shintou in Japan, nor in the folk religions of
ancient China.  Indeed, even in Hinduism the idea is that "you get what you
ask for", and its entirely under your control, unlike the "Wrath of God"
and other such nonsense.

Thus it is irrational to conclude that religion is the source of evil.  In
many cases it allows people to excuse their evils, but it does not create
them, only direct them.

Thanks for listening,

AFR