Koyaanisqatsi

How so?

His "point?" He was incorrectly using the term "irony."

Let's go once again to the old standby, shall we? I think "2" is the applicable one here, but let's not leave anything out:

I did not use "words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning."

Perhaps "3," then? No, that doesn't apply to me, only to Bookman's response. There was no incongruity between the actual statement, "You are a self-important blowhard" and the expected result of the statement, that somebody like Bookman would misinterpret it as irony.

Regardless, Bookman had no "point" that I could see, other than to comment on what he perceived as the pot calling the kettle black.

No, it does not.

It was a joke, Gurdur. Lighten up. I don't normally go around typing in mid-nineteenth century speech, sir, do you, sir?

Which is?

No an ad hominem, but a snide remark. Your turn.

Oh really? Pray tell.

Do they have that appearance? Could you provide one instance where this has appeared?

Which is why I was so adamant to post the proper, dictionary definition of the term challenging anyone here to demonstrate how I was misapplying that definition.

No one has.

A pox on ye for a clumsy lout, Gurdur, and away with ye. I grow tired of these buzzing gnats.

[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

The Loneliest Monk

The following is a link to an entry for the term "cult" in an online dictionary of social science.


<a href="http://datadump.icaap.org/cgi-bin/glossary/SocialDict/SocialDict?term=CULT" target="_blank">http://datadump.icaap.org/cgi-bin/glossary/SocialDict/SocialDict?term=CULT</a>

This is the meaning of cult that I have been putting forth in my remarks. It captures how the term is commonly applied and indicates the meaning used in the social sciences.

[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: The Loneliest Monk ]</p>

Triple Six

No problems with that if you are talking among social scientists, but you aren't. There are other terms that have sliped into common usage that no longer fit their original narrow definition. Joe Sixpack usually understands mega to be a superlative for example rather than a million times something.

Then again on further thinking this may be a case of social scientists hijacking a common word for their own narrow use.

This could go on forever <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Koyaanisqatsi

This is the exact same thing Bookman posted that I've already addressed, although I didn't realize it was from a Canadian University, which I mention because of the caveat they posted on the same page as their description of the term:

Needless to say, I'm an American self-important blowhard, so what Canadian Social Scientists speculate about the colloquial meaning of any word in relationship to Canadian popular culture has even less interest to me than when I thought all this crap was the opinion of certain American Social Scientists.

Regardless and one more time, because I'm going for the record of most often repeated refutations of the same goddamned bullshit:

So, as before, here's my response. <ol type="1">[*] It's not a definition of the term; it's Robert Drislane's and Gary Parkinson's speculative opinion about how the term (in Canada) has a "rather negative" meaning, "suggesting..." blah, blah, blah.[*] From an atheist's viewpoint, any doctrines that force the worshipping of fictional characters as if they factually existed are "unacceptable or outside cultural norms."[*] "[S]trange beliefs, charismatic leadership, manipulation of members, strong emotional bonding, and slavish devotion to the group" is perhaps the best definition I've ever read of the christian cult, so even your own description demonstrates perfectly that I am properly applying the term.[/list=a]

So, let's recap, shall we? You couldn't offer cogent counter-argument or demonstrate how I was misapplying the term so you resorted to childishly proclaiming what you thought my intentions were, directly contradicting what I have expressly declared my intentions to be.

In short, you have offered little more than your own pious opinion as a kneejerk defensive reaction to the fact that your position is not tenable, rather than simply concede that I am properly applying the term.

Noted.

Done yet?

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

The Loneliest Monk

Koy,

You have been applying the term in a manner that renders the term useless. By your standard the term makes no distinctions and is simply synonymous with "religion". It is "correct" only in the sense that it allows you to lump all religious followers with the followers of Koresh and Heaven's Gate. That is the only "meaning" you are interested in, and your tone makes that very clear. All religions cannot be lumped together regardless of how much you might desire it so. And you application of your definition is based on your own opinion of religions, an opinion that is not even shared by all atheists. People like Michael Martin and Antony Flew do not consider theistic philosophers "cultists". They disagree with them on many fundamental levels, but they do not accuse them of being in a cult. But I suppose you know better than them as well. You have rejected technical definitions of the term and common usage of the term. Your usage is "correct" only in the sense that it is self-serving. You wish to be able to use a term that religious people will find derogatory, so you toture the definition for that purpose. That is the only motivation. Your claims about all religions being cults are no more reasonable than your complaint that these postings are a "witch hunt".

Koyaanisqatsi

Your opinion on this matter carries no weight and is demonstrably incorrect according to every argument that I have posted and you have childishly evaded.

Incorrect. The distinction is entirely religious. "Religion" is the term used by cult members to obfuscate the fact that they are, in fact, nothing more than cult members in a cult.

It is not I that "lump" them together; it is the nature of the cult doctrines they all follow that do. See the definition.

Your assessment of my "tone" also carries no weight here. Address my arguments or concede that you are incapable of doing so.

Quite to the contrary as the definition of the term clearly states.

Again, your pious assertions carry no weight here. Offer cogent counter-refutation or concede that you are incapable of following even the most basic rules of argumentation and debate.

Neither do I. If these "theistic philosophers" (whoever they may be) call themselves "christians" and believe in the doctrines of christianity and worship a god, however, then, by definition, they are members of a cult.

Nor do I. I have never accused anyone of being in a cult. It is a statement of fact based upon the definition of the term.

And I suppose you will never address my arguments directly because you haven't the intellectual capacity or academic integrity to do so.

You have not provided a technical definition of the term. How two Canadian social scientists interpret the colloquial application of the term is not a technical definition of the term.

The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing this speaks volumes.

You have neither established the "common usage" the term nor given a single compelling argument as to why I should reject the proper definition of the term in favor of your own opinion, other than to state that the truth is offensive.

Rest assured that I will rest assured.

For the tenth time now, take it up with Websters.

If cult members find the term "derogatory" then they should reconsider their membership in a cult. It is not my concern that the truth is offensive.

Incorrect. The term is properly applied according to the definition of the term. You have failed to demonstrate that I am "torturing" the definition in any way.

As with the term "irony," it is not my problem that people do not know how to properly apply terms.

Once again, your pious proclamations carry no weight here. If anyone is "torturing" the term, it is you with your ridiculous, comparative demonization of the Branch Davidians. The Branch Davidian cult is based upon the exact same book that all christian cults are based upon.

Whether or not certain members of the Branch Davidians were also gun dealers has no bearing on whether or not they are/were a cult.

It is you (and others like you) that tortures the definition of the term to separate and demonize in order to obfuscate the larger truth that all christians are members of a cult.

I am here to correct that disingenuous, deliberate obfuscation.

You have been demonstrated incorrect repeatedly. Your opinion carries no weight.

Done with your soapbox? Because I'd like to now step up on my own since you are incapable of offering anything other than false accusations and pious assertions.

The Loneliest, you are incapable of counter-argumentation and are making this is an issue because you know I am correct..

The term has been properly defined ad nauseum and is correctly applied even according to your own non-definition.

You are incapable of demonstrating anything to the contrary and must instead rely upon false accusations and pious opinions.

You are continuing with this childish nonsense in order to obfuscate the truth. Christianity is a cult. Anyone who believes in and follows the dogma of christianity is, therefore, a cult member.

You are accusing me of arguments I have never made and intentions that I do not have in a pathetic attempt to redirect the fact that you have no tenable position.

So, my final question is, are you done stuffing your strawman yet, because I can think of one spot you haven't yet stuffed it?

The term has been defined and the proper application demonstrated. The pointless repetition of your opinion has been noted and dismissed accordingly.

Scrutinizer

I understand that I'm stepping into this thread quite late without having read all of the posts, so I apologise if I'm making a point that's already been made.

If we're going to follow Webster's definition of "cult", as Koy wants us to do, I'm quite happy to identify myself as a cult member.

Using the above definition, yes, I belong to a system of religious beliefs and ritual and I have no problem admitting that.

This does not mean, however, that from now on I'm going to go around defining myself as a cultist or telling everyone that I'm part of a cult. It's not because I want to obfuscate the truth -- it's simply because the colloquial, societal definition of a cult is different to the dictionary definition.

Koyannisqatsi seems to admit that the dictionary definition is different to the general usage of the word when he writes:

Under this more colloquial, societal definition, I don't regard myself as belonging to a cult. And I know that if I were to identify myself as a cultist or a cult member in regular speech, I would be mistaken as falling under the colloquial rather than the dictionary definition.

I'm not sure where the obfuscation in my reasoning is meant to lie.

Regards,

- Scrutinizer

Mad Kally

I've never heard of a cult member openly announcing, "Hey, I regard myself as belonging to a cult!"

Scrutinizer

Indeed; that's because the colloquial, societal definition of "cult" is inherently demeaning to the alleged truthfulness of the particular cult under discussion, at least in the eyes of the general community.

Even though the dictionary definition of "atheist" is something along the lines of "a person who doesn't believe in a god(s)", let's say the commonly used definition of atheist in everyday speech and the definition generally understood by the wider community is:
"a person who has been indoctrinated through extreme individualist mentality and fear (either directly or indirectly) to believe in nothing other than impersonal forces; a belief that is not supported by any sound facts or evidence and used as a means to segregate and categorise that person's beliefs from the rest of society."

Would you be comfortable regarding yourself as an atheist under the societal definition?

Regards,

- Scrutinizer

Koyaanisqatsi

Thank you, Scrutinizer.

That comment about obfuscation was not directed at you. It was directed at The Loneliest. You clearly understand the proper definition of the term.

As to whether or not you would "self" apply the term, the lovely Mad Kally effectively addressed that.

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>