Koyaanisqatsi

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />
Again, that has no bearing on whether or not they're a cult. They aren't a cult because they sold guns or allegedly took shots at ATF agents (BTW, all survivors were acquited of murder charges), nor did they "form a compound," but that's irrelevant propaganda.

They are/were a cult because of their beliefs and the indoctrination of those beliefs.

Which is why they were hypoctritically demonized, but, again that has no relevancy to my proper use of the term.

Most atheists do not consider belief in fictional characters from ancient mythology to be reasonable, so if that is the defining qualification, then, once again the use of the term across the board is justified.

And that is what makes the whole shooting match, if you will, a cult. Jews, Muslims, Christians; all cults.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I need to get my mind off SingleDad's departure. I would contend that Methodists are only "popularly" accepted in any relevant, qualitative sense by other Methodists.

Regardless, if "popular acceptance" is your barometer, then by atheist standards there is no such qualitative "popular acceptance."

So, where are we now? Same place where we began. The use of the term is both justified and applicable across the board.

Heleilu is right. We could go on arguing this forever, so, let's not. I've certainly had enough of this, so The Loneliest, if you want it, you've got the last word.

I've justified the use of the term and find it applicable without prejudice across the board accordingly.

That's all I need do.

sentinel00

As a curiousity, Koy, when (if ever) do you use the word Religion? Would you consider it interchangeable with Cult?

The Loneliest Monk

Koy,

I am well aware that lots of atheists view all forms of religion as absurd. Some even go so far as to claim that they are all equally unreasonable. It is ridiculous to lump all religions together. Some are certainly more reasonable than others. The religious ideas of theistic philosphers such as Alston and Swinburne are far more reasonable than the ideas of the Heaven's Gate cult. This should be obvious to any open-minded atheist. If an atheist wishes to insult christians by calling them cultists, then he can do so to his little heart's content. But he shouldn't pretend that there is anything to the remark other than an insult.

And any atheist who claims that Swinburne and Koresh are equally reasonable is damaging his own credibility far more than Swinburne's.

copernicus

Monk, I understand where you are coming from. I see how Koy's equation of "cult" with "religion" is insulting to many people who consider themselves members of a mainstream religion. I even agree with your distinction between the meanings of "cult" and "religion". What I think you fail to understand (or acknowledge) is that, from an atheist's perspective, the only difference between a so-called "cult" and a mainstream "religion" is pure serendipity. Full-blooded religions have no greater credibility or justification than hare-brained cults for atheists. It may be true that Swinburne was reasonable, and Koresh unreasonable, by conventional standards, but conventional standards are not always rational. From an atheistic perspective, it is very difficult to see a big difference between cults and mainstream religions, except on a scale of popularity. Koresh was not all that insane when compared with the leaders of the Taliban. He was just an extremist Christian when compared with leaders of conventional churches.

If you are looking for respect and courtesy here, I can't fault you for that. You are entitled to it. On the other hand, don't be so surprised if you hear mean-spirited and disrespectful remarks about religion. In many respects, atheists are no different those who profess religious faith. Atheists receive disrespectful treatment on religious boards. On this board, disrespectful remarks about religion are given wider latitude. I, for one, appreciate the fact that you are willing to tolerate the tone and engage in rational discussion anyway.

The Loneliest Monk

copernicus,

It is not difficult to see that some religious views are more reasonable than others. Some groups teach that the world was created in six days. Surely those groups are not as reasonable as those that believe the universe to be at least twelve billions years old are they?

I personally do not believe that any version of theism is correct. But that does not prevent me from distinguishing between more and less reasonable forms of theism.

David Gould

I do it all the time so, yes, I obviously believe it is appropriate', whatever that means. However, that is irrelevant.

You had made the claim that my use of the definition:

a religion is a cult with power

was circular as a cult was defined as:

a religion without power

I provided the cat/kitten example to refute your claim.

Can I assume that you therefore regard your claim as refuted and have fallen back on the 'appropriate' attack?

I do not know what appropriateness has to do withthe meanings of words. Either a word means something or it does not. Either a cat is a kitten that has grown up or it is not. Either a religion is a cult with power or it is not.

If age is irrelevant to the discussion, the words cat and kitten are interchangeable for the hierachy to have any meaning at all and if and only if all cats began as kittens, which is my contention.

If power is irrelevant to the discussion, cult and religion are interchangeable for the hierachy to have any meaning at all and if and only if all religions began as cults, which is my contention.

Again, you did not answer any of the points in my post. From that, I assume that you have no real interest in the matter and I will therefore let it drop.

David

(As an excercise, if you are interested, define the words 'cat' and 'kitten' with no mention of age in either definition. However, make sure you define them differently in some other way. Substitute these definiion into the two hierachial definitions. I will be interested in your conclusions...)

The Loneliest Monk

David,

In your kitten/cat example, you used the following definition:

a kitten is a cat that has not grown up

An adult cat has indeed grown up. So by the definition you gave, an adult cat does not fit the definition of "kitten". Therefore, "kitten" cannot be reasonably applied to an adult cat.

David Gould

And where did I use the word 'adult'?

Again, you misdirect the point...

If I say that a kitten is a cat that has not yet grown up, am I stating a falsehood?

If so, what is the falsehood and what is the true definition of kitten?

The Loneliest Monk

David,

In an earlier post I asked you if you thought that it was appropriate to refer to an adult cat as a kitten. You responded by saying that you have in fact referred to an adult cat as a kitten. It is no more reasonable to refer to all religions as cults than it is to refer to all cats as kittens.

[ January 13, 2002: Message edited by: The Loneliest Monk ]</p>

David Gould

Everytime I refute a point you make you fail to acknowledge it. Every time you misdirect, unintentionally or otherwise - I do not know -, and I point it out you fail to acknowledge it: worse, you misdirect furthur.

Can you answer my question as to why this definition is wrong:

a cat is a kitten that has grown up

If you cannot give me a reason as to why this is wrong, you have to accept this definition:

a religion is a cult with power

I am proceeding logically from the sociological definition of:

a cult is a religion without power

I am using the assumption that all religions began without power and were thus cults under the above definition.

I would like an answer to some of my questions at some point. All that seems to be happening is that I answer your questions and then you ask more or you ask the same ones again.

Just for the record, i will again state that there is no circularity: anything that is part of a hierachy can be defined in terms of anything else in that hierachy.

The catch is that all things in the hierachy must be the same thing except for the qualifier of the hierachy, which in the cat/kitten case is age and the cult/religion case is power.

David

p,s: please answer one question! Just one! It would make me a lot less