Freethought & Rationalism Archive

David Gould · 01-09-2002, 05:40 PM

So you agree that there has to be an external definition that does not rely on power or influence and that the level of power and influence distinction is merely part of a hierachy of things which are in all other respects the same, the power and influence being the only qualifier.

I would not define a cult or a religion as 'bizarre'. I would define both as hierachies of 'an organised spiritual belief system' or something similar. Then the power and influence becomes the qualifier that can be used either way - thus, a cult can be defined as a religion without power and influence and a religion can be defined as a cult with power an influence. Both are legitimate, non circular definitions as both depend on an external to the hierachy definition of cult and religion.

If cult and religion are externally defined differently, then it is not possible to place them in a hierachy with power and influence as the qualifier.

Sociologically, they must be the same thing and as such my definition of religion and yours of cult are valid.

I will try to think of another example.

try this one:

a kitten is a cat that has not yet grown up

a cat is a kitten that has grown up

this relies on an external definition that defines 'cat' (religion) and 'kitten' (cult) as the same thing. The hierachial qualifier is 'has or has not grown up', analagous to our 'has or has no power and influence'.

Both definitions make sense and are correct and are not circular in nature because of the external definition of 'cat' and 'kitten' as the same thing.

If they were not the same thing, the hierachy would not make any sense, as the only difference in the hierachy is 'has or has not grown up'.

David

Heleilu · 01-09-2002, 06:21 PM

Some form of Mandarin. Mandarin-speakers make up 70% of China's population, or over 850 million people, according to the <a href="http://www.ethnologue.com" target="_blank">Ethnologue</a>. It gives the number of Cantonese speakers as 71 million, fewer than Korean or Shanghainese. No figures for languages are accurate, but the Ethnologue is a source of generally reliable information and conservative grouping.

The Loneliest Monk · 01-09-2002, 07:41 PM

David,

You said

Quote:

I would not define a cult or a religion as 'bizarre'. I would define both as hierachies of 'an organised spiritual belief system' or something similar. Then the power and influence becomes the qualifier that can be used either way - thus, a cult can be defined as a religion without power and influence and a religion can be defined as a cult with power an influence.

If you think cults and religions are hierarchies of an organised spiritual belief system, then why wouldn't you say that a cult is an organised spiritual belief system with no power and influence while a religion is such a system with power and influence?

David Gould · 01-09-2002, 07:52 PM

There is nothing to stop you saying that! It is perfectly valid.

However, as the only qualifier is power and acceptance, it is equally valid for me to say that all religions are cults with power and influence (or vice versa).

I do not see why you cannot see that.
We are arguing validity of definitions here - I accept your use of the terms. My usage is simply logically extrapolated from that use.

A cult is an organised spiritual belief system. So is a religion. That is what my use of the words is intended to convey. The difference in the hierachial usage of the words is not relevant to any discussion about them unless we are specifically talking about this hierachial difference.

Cults and religions are the same thing unless we are talking about their power and influence. Likewise, cats and kittens are the same thing unless we are talking about age - I call my cat a kitten all the time, unless someone asks what age he is and then I say - he is a cat of 2 years. That is the only time it is relevant.

David

The Loneliest Monk · 01-09-2002, 08:14 PM

David,

I believe that a more accurate description would be to call a religion "an organized spiritual belief system" and say that a cult is part of the hierarchy of religion. Some religions would have power and some would not. Those without power would be called cults. Those with enough power could be called a church (catholic, anglican, etc). So a church and a cult would both be religions, but a church and a cult would not be the same thing.

David Gould · 01-09-2002, 08:24 PM

And what if the level of power is irrelvant and you want to discuss all 'organised spirtual belief systems'? What term do you use then? You either have to invent one, call all 'organised spiritual belief systems' churches or all of them cults. As some cults under your definition call themselves churches in their proper titles, this leads me to the conclusion that cult is the only possible term that fits.

The Loneliest Monk · 01-09-2002, 08:36 PM

If I wished to refer to organized belief systems without regard to power and influence, I would just use the word "religion".

brighid · 01-10-2002, 05:01 AM

"If I wished to refer to organized belief systems without regard to power and influence, I would just use the word "religion"." - Lonliest Monk

Wouldn't your preferential usage render the word cult useless?

How would you define the following "organized spiritual belief systems"? Especially considering popular culture defines them as cults? If you do not define them as bonified religions, what is the criteria necessary to define them as something other than religions?

Satanism
Santaria
Voodoo
Wicca
Hare Krishnas
Falun Gong
Jehonvah's Witnesses
Unitarians

Brighid

Koyaanisqatsi · 01-10-2002, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Loneliest Monk:
<strong>If I wished to refer to organized belief systems without regard to power and influence, I would just use the word "religion".</strong>

Which is precisely what I have been trying to address. The word "religion" implies a level of acceptance and legitimacy and/or a state of harmlessness (put your dictionary down, Bookman) that is, IMO, disingenuous and serves as a mollifying word to give the illusion that a cult is not a cult, hence my insistance on calling a spade a spade.

Triple Six · 01-10-2002, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi:
<strong>

Which is precisely what I have been trying to address. The word "religion" implies a level of acceptance and legitimacy and/or a state of harmlessness (put your dictionary down, Bookman) that is, IMO, disingenuous and serves as a mollifying word to give the illusion that a cult is not a cult, hence my insistance on calling a spade a spade.</strong>

Koy

I've arrived a bit late on this one but I agree with you 100% on this. Why make theists comfortable? "Cult" is a correct term for all religions and one that theists themselves have cheerfully used to disparage those that don't follow their own particular fantasy variant. It's just they don't like being reminded it applies to them as well.

And as for the start of the post, if pathetic whingers like Kenny don't like facts being pointed out to them, well tough <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

So if you're still around Kenny start answering questions or get lost and take your "god bless", which I find highly irritating, with you.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-09-2002, 05:40 PM	#81
David Gould Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 759	So you agree that there has to be an external definition that does not rely on power or influence and that the level of power and influence distinction is merely part of a hierachy of things which are in all other respects the same, the power and influence being the only qualifier. I would not define a cult or a religion as 'bizarre'. I would define both as hierachies of 'an organised spiritual belief system' or something similar. Then the power and influence becomes the qualifier that can be used either way - thus, a cult can be defined as a religion without power and influence and a religion can be defined as a cult with power an influence. Both are legitimate, non circular definitions as both depend on an external to the hierachy definition of cult and religion. If cult and religion are externally defined differently, then it is not possible to place them in a hierachy with power and influence as the qualifier. Sociologically, they must be the same thing and as such my definition of religion and yours of cult are valid. I will try to think of another example. try this one: a kitten is a cat that has not yet grown up a cat is a kitten that has grown up this relies on an external definition that defines 'cat' (religion) and 'kitten' (cult) as the same thing. The hierachial qualifier is 'has or has not grown up', analagous to our 'has or has no power and influence'. Both definitions make sense and are correct and are not circular in nature because of the external definition of 'cat' and 'kitten' as the same thing. If they were not the same thing, the hierachy would not make any sense, as the only difference in the hierachy is 'has or has not grown up'. David

01-09-2002, 06:21 PM	#82
Heleilu Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Takaliapa, KR Posts: 188	Some form of Mandarin. Mandarin-speakers make up 70% of China's population, or over 850 million people, according to the <a href="http://www.ethnologue.com" target="_blank">Ethnologue</a>. It gives the number of Cantonese speakers as 71 million, fewer than Korean or Shanghainese. No figures for languages are accurate, but the Ethnologue is a source of generally reliable information and conservative grouping.

01-09-2002, 07:52 PM	#84
David Gould Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 759	There is nothing to stop you saying that! It is perfectly valid. However, as the only qualifier is power and acceptance, it is equally valid for me to say that all religions are cults with power and influence (or vice versa). I do not see why you cannot see that. We are arguing validity of definitions here - I accept your use of the terms. My usage is simply logically extrapolated from that use. A cult is an organised spiritual belief system. So is a religion. That is what my use of the words is intended to convey. The difference in the hierachial usage of the words is not relevant to any discussion about them unless we are specifically talking about this hierachial difference. Cults and religions are the same thing unless we are talking about their power and influence. Likewise, cats and kittens are the same thing unless we are talking about age - I call my cat a kitten all the time, unless someone asks what age he is and then I say - he is a cat of 2 years. That is the only time it is relevant. David

01-09-2002, 08:14 PM	#85
The Loneliest Monk Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 96	David, I believe that a more accurate description would be to call a religion "an organized spiritual belief system" and say that a cult is part of the hierarchy of religion. Some religions would have power and some would not. Those without power would be called cults. Those with enough power could be called a church (catholic, anglican, etc). So a church and a cult would both be religions, but a church and a cult would not be the same thing.

01-09-2002, 08:24 PM	#86
David Gould Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 759	And what if the level of power is irrelvant and you want to discuss all 'organised spirtual belief systems'? What term do you use then? You either have to invent one, call all 'organised spiritual belief systems' churches or all of them cults. As some cults under your definition call themselves churches in their proper titles, this leads me to the conclusion that cult is the only possible term that fits.

01-09-2002, 08:36 PM	#87
The Loneliest Monk Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 96	If I wished to refer to organized belief systems without regard to power and influence, I would just use the word "religion".

01-10-2002, 05:01 AM	#88
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	"If I wished to refer to organized belief systems without regard to power and influence, I would just use the word "religion"." - Lonliest Monk Wouldn't your preferential usage render the word cult useless? How would you define the following "organized spiritual belief systems"? Especially considering popular culture defines them as cults? If you do not define them as bonified religions, what is the criteria necessary to define them as something other than religions? Satanism Santaria Voodoo Wicca Hare Krishnas Falun Gong Jehonvah's Witnesses Unitarians Brighid

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.