The Loneliest Monk

David,

The age of the animal does not determine if it is a cat. A kitten is a young cat, all kittens are cats. It is not the case that a cat is a grown kitten, since a kitten also qualifies as a cat. It is simply false that cat and kitten are hierarchies. The same applies to religion/cult. A cult is a special case of a religion, but it is a religion nonetheless. All cults are religions, but all religions are not cults.

David Gould

If it is false that cat/kitten is a hierachy, then this definition (statement) must be false:

A cat is a kitten that has grown up.

However, this is obviously true. Therefore, cat/kitten must be a hierachy.

Unfortunately, I no longer have the time to debate this point.

I will simply restate my position:

If the sociologist definition of a cult is valid (that a cult is a religion with no power) and all religions start out with no power then the definition 'a religion is a cult with power' must be valid.

Thanks for your time



David

Koyaanisqatsi

Since you're asking me directly how I would use the term "religion," I would only use it to describe what cults call themselves in order to obfuscate the fact that they're cults.

To me, the word "religion" is a nothing more than a spin term used to make it sound like there is something relatively harmless going on.

Thus, cults aren't indoctrinating people into their cults, they're "preaching their religion." In my book, it's little more than propaganda.

The Loneliest--

As to your comments about acknowledging comparative degrees of cultism, that's still little more than an excuse for a demonizing whitewash, IMO.

Let me put it this way. When I was in my High School Humanities class, everyone readily called George Orwell's 1984 a dystopian novel, yet did not apply the same term to Alduous Huxley's Brave New World, yet, they are both dystopian visions of society.

When asked why they didn't consider Brave New World to be equivalent to 1984, most of the students around me said, "Because I wouldn't mind living in Brave New World."

As I'm sure you can imagine (as I did), Huxley rotated so quickly in his grave he most likely achieved escape velocity.

One is overtly "evil," while the other is, arguably, far more subtly "evil," yet they are both dystopian visions of society, but comparatively speaking, many people did not see what was so wrong with Huxley's take on the same horrific future of State control and manipulation; of turning vibrant, self-assured individuals into mindless slaves to the will of the State/Cult.

Does that analogy better serve your understanding of my insistance upon using the correct terminology without prejudice across the board?

The Loneliest Monk

Koy,

If you wish to proclaim that all religions are dangerous, and that Swinburne's position isn't any more rational than Koresh's, then fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But your pronouncements about your opinion being "the truth" are simply laughable. All you are concerned with is offending the religious posters. This is evident from the tone of your responses to religious posters. I am simply pointing out the implications of the term "cult", implications of which everyone is aware (including you). If you honestly cannot make distinctions between more and less reasonable forms of theism, then you have my sympathy. All atheists are not able to approach theism rationally. Sadly, you seem to be one of those that cannot. Your views are to your discredit, not theism's.

PopeInTheWoods

Howdy, Monk,

I'm well aware of the terms sect and denomination, but I think you missed my point. The mostly Catholic populace of my hometown DID consider Baptists, SDA's, and such to be cultists. And you need only do a quick web search to see that many Protestants think the same of Catholics. I think I understand that you wouldn't agree, but that doesn't change what these others think.

My objection to your arguments is that you are implying the existence of a uniform consensus among all American xians as to what defines a cult (for this purpose I'm temporarily conceding to your more negative definition of cult), when the reality is much more complex. You're painting with too broad a brush.

Andy (PITW)

The Loneliest Monk

Pope,

I am aware that some protestants call catholicism a cult. Some of them also claim that the pope is in league with the devil. The majority of protestants do not take this view however.

Triple Six

Lonliest Monk

You seem to think the some atheists bunch all theists together without some sort of pecking order, well I admit to being half guilty of that charge. This is why, all cults are wrong because they are founded on proven untruths.

I will concede that there are differences in the damage caused, and will use criminals as an analogy. Most people would consider a serial thief less harmful than a pscychopathic axe murderer and given the choice would rather be locked in a room with the thief. This in no way makes the thief a fine example of a human being and a valuable member of society. They are both still wrong and remain criminals.

So tough luck, any theist system is fundamentally wrong and will get little respect from me.

The Loneliest Monk

Proud Atheist,

It is of no concern to me whether you respect theists or not. My point all along has been that not all religions are in the same position in society or as rational in their beleifs.

If you wish to inform everyone of your disdain for theists, knock yourself out. Just don't pretend that your remarks are addressing any of my points.

Koyaanisqatsi

The Loneliest, do you think it would be possible for you to actually address my arguments as they are written instead of incorrectly summarizing my arguments and then addressing your own summary with little more than pious opinion?

I don't and never did. I correctly label them for the cults they are. What's "dangerous" about cults like christianity is the use of indoctrination through inculcation.

Nor did I "proclaim" this.

Well, thanks for pointing out the bleeding obvious. Now, would you care to address my arguments or just continue to make up your own?

Well, considering I never made any "pronouncements" about my "opinion being the truth," the only thing I find laughable is your attempt to avoid addressing my arguments as they are written.

If they find the truth offending then they should reconsider their membership in a cult.

Just keep painting your picture with broad strokes, The Loneliest. That way you won't have to address the specifics.

And I am simply pointing out that if the shoe fits, wear it.

How quaint. If you honestly cannot understand how to properly use a term or how to directly address someone's arguments, then you have mine.

And just exactly what would "rational" theism be? Just out of curiosity. I'd like to get your words on this so that I don't make the same mistakes you do.

Is there any argument here, or just your unsupportable piousness?

Well, now I see what your problem is. You just can't seem to recognize who is making proclamations based on opinion.

You see, the difference between us is that I take great pains to detail my arguments and demonstrate how those arguments are legitimate, justified and applicable. You, on the other hand, seem utterly incapable of offering any kind of direct counter-argument, so you instead rewrite my arguments and then falsely accuse me of what you are most guilty.

I'd say I pity you, but then I'd have to stoop too low to your level.

[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

The Loneliest Monk

Koy,

That remark was not a claim about the rationality of theism. It dealt with the behavior of atheists. There are good objections to theism, but frequently one sees atheists employing weak arguments against it instead. This could be because of some prejudice they harbor towards religion or simply a lack of knowledge about the topic. Just as some theists are more reasonable that others, there are more and less reasonable atheists. If you are honestly interested in rational forms of theism, then I would direct you to people such as Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga. But you are clearly not interested in that. You would prefer to label all religious people cultists simply because you know the religious posters here will be offended by the reference. Calling all religions cults is no different than some crazy fundamentalist calling Catholicism a cult. Your interest is denigration of the religious (Christians in particular) not correct usage of terminology. I suppose it is to be expected. Every group has members that become zealous and seek to demonize those outside the group. You see it among different Christian demonimations, political parties, and even sports teams at times. It seems that "freethinkers" can even fall into this trap.

Nice touch.

[ January 22, 2002: Message edited by: The Loneliest Monk ]</p>