Any Raelians in Cork ?

OB1CAN

Hi ,

I am trying to hook up with people who have an interest in learning about or discussing the book 'Intelligent Design'.

Are there any followers here ?

Please PM me if you want to exchange details.

Thanks

OB1

strobe

Huh.....Are you a Raelian yourself Ob1can? Could I ask you a couple of questions about it?

OB1CAN

No.. I am not.. But I am fascinated by the work called 'Intelligent Design'.

Galvasean

Definately not the right forum....

OB1CAN

What forum so Galva ?

Thanks

strobe

Try here Ob1can http://boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=446

Galvasean

Galvasean wrote: »

Definately not the right forum....

Realism is an Atheistic cult. So technically....

It's book "Intelligent Design" just repeats and piggybacks on the usual creationist crap, just replacing God with space aliens.

Galvasean

OB1CAN wrote: »

What forum so Galva ?

Thanks

Acualy the more I think of it the more I think you might actually get a better answer here. (nosey people us atheists)

Pygmalion

King Mob wrote: »

Realism is an Atheistic cult. So technically....

It's Atheistic but it has a lot of hallmarks of religions, such as the hierarchy and the rituals, as well as being faith based rather than based on evidence and reason.

I will acknowledge that at least they don't need to rely on magic for their core beliefs. In a way the "Aliens did it" explanation is actually a more reasonable version of the "God did it" explanation, although many of their beliefs are just as insane as any other religion's.

And no, this doesn't mean I think any of it's true, but at least the basic idea is not a blatant rejection of science :P.

EDIT: Actually, looking at some of their beliefs and practices on wikipedia now, turns out they are a bit more insane than I thought, either I got very bad info the last time I looked them up, or I was thinking of a different cult.

Pygmalion

Pygmalion wrote: »

It's Atheistic but it has a lot of hallmarks of religions, such as the hierarchy and the rituals, as well as being faith based rather than based on evidence and reason.

I will acknowledge that at least they don't need to rely on magic for their core beliefs. In a way the "Aliens did it" explanation is actually a more reasonable version of the "God did it" explanation, although many of their beliefs are just as insane as any other religion's.

And no, this doesn't mean I think any of it's true, but at least the basic idea is not a blatant rejection of science :P.

Oh don't get me wrong I'm not defending their ridiculous beliefs at all.

However they are a atheistic cult.

Atheism isn't the same thing as non religion, some few religions have no god at all. Daoism and some flavours of Buddhism for example.
Furthermore Atheism isn't a embracment of science and reason either, Bill Maher for example.

Atheism is one thing and one thing only, A lack in a belief of a supernatural God.

This is part of the beliefs of Raelism, thus making it an atheistic cult.

Pygmalion

King Mob wrote: »

Oh don't get me wrong I'm not defending their ridiculous beliefs at all.

However they are a atheistic cult.

Atheism isn't the same thing as non religion, some few religions have no god at all. Daoism and some flavours of Buddhism for example.
Furthermore Atheism isn't a embracment of science and reason either, Bill Maher for example.

Atheism is one thing and one thing only, A lack in a belief of a supernatural God.

This is part of the beliefs of Raelism, thus making it an atheistic cult.

Ah yes I was just saying members here tend to be here because they are against the concept of faith-based reasoning moreso than that they don't believe in a god.

robindch

King Mob wrote: »

Realism is [...]

Raelism != realism

Pygmalion

robindch wrote: »

Raelism != realism

He mentioned Raelism in next post so I assume it was a typo.

Dades

King Mob wrote: »

Oh don't get me wrong I'm not defending their ridiculous beliefs at all.

How much more ridiculous is it that aliens planted life on earth, than an all-seeing, all knowing supernatural being that that doesn't gays and has a disproportionate interest in our mating habits?

The instant labeling (correctly) as a cult is somewhat humourous, if you can envisage what an objective observer encounters sitting through a catholic mass, replete with mumbled responses and flesh eating.

That said, OP, you're unlikely to find any like-minded people here, though we did have a thread a few years back started by a Raëlian.

liamw

Dades wrote: »

How much more ridiculous is it that aliens planted life on earth, than an all-seeing, all knowing supernatural being that that doesn't gays and has a disproportionate interest in our mating habits?

The instant labeling (correctly) as a cult is somewhat humourous, if you can envisage what an objective observer encounters sitting through a catholic mass, replete with mumbled responses and flesh eating.

That said, OP, you're unlikely to find any like-minded people here, though we did have a thread a few years back started by a Raëlian.

The ridiculousness doesn't really refute King Mob's point though?

If you look at the definintion of theism as a belief in at least one personal God, then King Mob is technically correct in saying they are atheist. Of course if you twist the definition, then he's wrong. So this is pointless.

And yes, all faith based religions are cults.

liamw

liamw wrote: »

And yes, all faith based religions are cults.

Arrrgghhhh!!

No they're not.

I have no love for any religion, but there is a vast difference between the mainstream ones and cults.

It doesn't do anyone any favours conflating religions and cults.

Dades

Dades wrote: »

How much more ridiculous is it that aliens planted life on earth, than an all-seeing, all knowing supernatural being that that doesn't gays and has a disproportionate interest in our mating habits?

Again, not defending their wacky beliefs, but at least aliens don't have the inherent contradictions god does.

Dr. Loon

King Mob wrote: »

Arrrgghhhh!!

No they're not.

I have no love for any religion, but there is a vast difference between the mainstream ones and cults.

It doesn't do anyone any favours conflating religions and cults.

What's this vast difference? I personally see all religion as dangerous, if that's what you mean. Definition of cult;

1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2.
an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3.
the object of such devotion.
4.
a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5.
Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6.
a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7.
the members of such a religion or sect.

Dr. Loon

Dr. Loon wrote: »

What's this vast difference? I personally see all religion as dangerous, if that's what you mean. Definition of cult;

1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2.
an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3.
the object of such devotion.
4.
a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5.
Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6.
a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7.
the members of such a religion or sect.

That definition is incomplete.
Cults share those qualities with religions however there's a few more characteristics that separate them.

-Huge fees for courses, books, rituals etc. usually with new ones cropping up all the time.

-Claims of controlling supernatural events, usually visions or healings. And of course, for a fee.

-Suggested or forced separation from community or family.

-Secrecy and/or dishonesty about their beliefs, teachings or rituals.

-Direct manipulation of the practitioner into staying it the cult. (it's a bit more than "you'll go to hell" before you jump on it.)

-A figurehead who is revered by the cult as enlightened/possessing greater knowledge etc. usually reaping the benefits.

-Teaching that the members of the cult are superior to normal people due to ancient knowledge/supernatural abilities.

-Often using legal system to silence critics.

-Sometimes strict control over what their members can and can't view on TV or the internet. Sometimes suggested, sometimes enforced.

liamw

Dr. Loon wrote: »

What's this vast difference? I personally see all religion as dangerous, if that's what you mean. Definition of cult;

1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2.
an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3.
the object of such devotion.
4.
a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5.
Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6.
a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7.
the members of such a religion or sect.

Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick for all mainstream religions that I know of.

King Mob, why would you not classify a mainstream religion as a cult? Is there some characteristics that place them outside of what you would call a 'cult'?

Edit: Sorry you just posted, will respond

Dades

liamw wrote: »

The ridiculousness doesn't really refute King Mob's point though?

I wasn't actually trying to refute anything! My bad, King Mob, if I gave that impression.

liamw

King Mob wrote: »

That definition is incomplete.
Cults share those qualities with religions however there's a few more characteristics that separate them.

-Huge fees for courses, books, rituals etc. usually with new ones cropping up all the time.

-Claims of controlling supernatural events, usually visions or healings. And of course, for a fee.

-Suggested or forced separation from community or family.

-Secrecy and/or dishonesty about their beliefs, teachings or rituals.

-Direct manipulation of the practitioner into staying it the cult. (it's a bit more than "you'll go to hell" before you jump on it.)

-A figurehead who is revered by the cult as enlightened/possessing greater knowledge etc. usually reaping the benefits.

-Teaching that the members of the cult are superior to normal people due to ancient knowledge/supernatural abilities.

-Often using legal system to silence critics.

-Sometimes strict control over what their members can and can't view on TV or the internet. Sometimes suggested, sometimes enforced.

The only direct difference I can see from this list is financial gain (and intentional manipulating to achieve financial gain) So your definition of a cult is limited to those belief systems that are set up specifically for financial gain? I don't see why a religion can't be a cult even if it's primary purpose is not financial gain.

liamw

Dades wrote: »

I wasn't actually trying to refute anything! My bad, King Mob, if I gave that impression.

Actually, reading back, I'm not sure why I got that impression My bad

liamw

liamw wrote: »

The only direct difference I can see from this list is financial gain (and intentional manipulating to achieve financial gain) So your definition of a cult is limited to those belief systems that are set up specifically for financial gain? I don't see why a religion can't be a cult even if it's primary purpose is not financial gain.

Well no, there's other differences. I've listed them.

There's nothing to say that cult's can't be founded by true believers, and there's nothing in my definition that excludes this.

Now cults can form from mainstream religions, ie. Jonestown and Waco were Christian cults.

However mainstream, non radical religions such as Catholism or the Church of England do not fit the definition of a cult.
They do not suggest a separation of the believer and the community.
They are upfront about their Beliefs and rituals etc.
They do not require large donations and even then they are not mandatory like they would be in the cult.
And with the exception of transubstantiation neither claim to be able to control supernatural phenomena.

liamw

King Mob wrote: »

They do not suggest a separation of the believer and the community.

No, they just suggest to kill them instead.

They are upfront about their Beliefs and rituals etc.

I guess religions wouldn't be mainstream if they 'hid' their beliefs and/or rituals. Again, I'm not sure if this is a defining factor for a cult?

They do not require large donations and even then they are not mandatory like they would be in the cult.

Financial again, I don't think this is a constituting factor in defining cult vs. non-cult

And with the exception of transubstantiation neither claim to be able to control supernatural phenomena.

Do you mean the leaders need to claim control of supernatural phenomena?

Leads to another point, do you think that a cult requires a human leader with special abilities?

All these 'extra' points you added to define a cult. Where did you source them?

Zombrex

strobe wrote: »

Huh.....Are you a Raelian yourself Ob1can? Could I ask you a couple of questions about it?

I'm not but I'm considering joining :pac:

liamw

liamw wrote: »

No, they just suggest to kill them instead.

Not exactly mainstream is it....

liamw wrote: »

I guess religions wouldn't be mainstream if they 'hid' their beliefs and/or rituals. Again, I'm not sure if this is a defining factor for a cult?

Scientology has actively lied about their beliefs on national television.
Ask one about the Operating Theatens.
Now ask a catholic about confirmation.
Who's more forthcoming?

liamw wrote: »

Financial again, I don't think this is a constituting factor in defining cult vs. non-cult

Yea it is. Cults can charge ludicrous amounts of money for various things, upwards of thousands of Euros.
Courses, advanced courses, healings, books, crystals, gizmos, seminars and so on.
Furthermore they are directly manipulative into coercing their memebers into paying for these things. Threats of explusion, promises of greater powers etc.
A far cry from jangling a collection bag every Sunday.

liamw wrote: »

Do you mean the leaders need to claim control of supernatural phenomena?

Nope. It also mean sthe ability to teach supernatural powers to your members.

liamw wrote: »

Leads to another point, do you think that a cult requires a human leader with special abilities?

No. It's a point of difference for some cults, not all.
Though most of the smaller ones you wouldn't hear about are of this variety.

liamw wrote: »

All these 'extra' points you added to define a cult. Where did you source them?

Experiences in a quasi-cult, a friend in a cult and various casual research on the topic.

liamw

King Mob wrote: »

Experiences in a quasi-cult, a friend in a cult and various casual research on the topic.

Well, this is pointless becuase your idea of what constitutes a cult is different to mine and a lot of mainstream definitions I can see from checking the dictionaries online. So you can keep your definition limited to specific points if you want... but to me the primary factors are there for all mainstream religions.

liamw

liamw wrote: »

Well, this is pointless becuase your idea of what constitutes a cult is different to mine and a lot of mainstream definitions I can see from checking the dictionaries online.

And how many times has the online dictionaries been criticised here for their incorrect definition of Atheism?
You should know well that a dictionary definition is insufficient.

And what exactly are you basing your definition on exactly?

liamw wrote: »

So you can keep your definition limited to specific points if you want... but to me the primary factors are there for all mainstream religions.

Then it's clear you've no experiences or knowledge of the dangers of joining a cult.

liamw

King Mob wrote: »

Then it's clear you've no experiences or knowledge of the dangers of joining a cult.

I was indoctrinated into Christianity, albeit in a moderated society. So ye, I wouldn't really have experienced a true Christian society. Maybe if you went back to the Dark Ages of christianity it might fit your definition better, or even modern day Islam.

sonicthebadger*

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not but I'm considering joining :pac:

Smoking beard of Zeus! Count me in! :eek: Korean ladies are purty. Anyone got a packet of Hunky Dorys?

seamus

King Mob wrote: »

And how many times has the online dictionaries been criticised here for their incorrect definition of Atheism?
You should know well that a dictionary definition is insufficient.

However in this instance, most sources seem to corroborate the correct usage of the word "cult" - a specific system of religious worship incorporating ceremony and ritual.

The perjorative use of cult, which we associate today is largely a recent construct (late 20th century) which refers to any such ritualistic belief system which is not considered mainstream and which is often identifiable by its incredibly loyal and fanatic followers.
This meaning has been further battered and expanded to cover other things, hence "cult movie" or "cult comic".

The idiomatic meaning of "cult" does not necessarily require any kind of money to change hands are fraud to take place. It usually just refers to any small community of people involved in a belief system which differs from (but may be derived from) any of the major religions, and who are obsessive, fanatical and evangelical about that belief system.

However, there is nothing incorrect about using the word "cult" when referring to any ritualistic religion, mainstream or not, because the negative connotation are a societal construct and not part of the word itself. In exactly the same way that it is perfectly correct to call someone born out of wedlock a "bastard", even though we typically associate that with some other negative connotation entirely.

Unknown Unknown

If there is amazon women on the moon count me in

-=-

sink

Unknown Unknown wrote: »

If there is amazon women on the moon count me in

-=-

Death by snu snu?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilk08Yt4huo

liamw

liamw wrote: »

I was indoctrinated into Christianity, albeit in a moderated society. So ye, I wouldn't really have experienced a true Christian society.

Yea, that's not the same thing frankly.

liamw wrote: »

Maybe if you went back to the Dark Ages of christianity it might fit your definition better,

And if you go back far enough Atheists where what Romans called the Christians....

liamw wrote: »

or even modern day Islam.

You realise that their are moderate Muslims as well right?

But the fact is there still is a huge difference between Cults and modern mainstream religions.

Mainstream religions do not charge thousands of euros for courses etc.
Cults do.

Mainstream religions are straight up about their beliefs.
Cults are not.

Mainstream religions do not claim to control or bestow supernatural powers, they don't encourage separations from family and community, they don't use brainwashing and manipulation.

Cults do.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

However in this instance, most sources seem to corroborate the correct usage of the word "cult" - a specific system of religious worship incorporating ceremony and ritual.

The perjorative use of cult, which we associate today is largely a recent construct (late 20th century) which refers to any such ritualistic belief system which is not considered mainstream and which is often identifiable by its incredibly loyal and fanatic followers.
This meaning has been further battered and expanded to cover other things, hence "cult movie" or "cult comic".

The idiomatic meaning of "cult" does not necessarily require any kind of money to change hands are fraud to take place. It usually just refers to any small community of people involved in a belief system which differs from (but may be derived from) any of the major religions, and who are obsessive, fanatical and evangelical about that belief system.

However, there is nothing incorrect about using the word "cult" when referring to any ritualistic religion, mainstream or not, because the negative connotation are a societal construct and not part of the word itself. In exactly the same way that it is perfectly correct to call someone born out of wedlock a "bastard", even though we typically associate that with some other negative connotation entirely.

So Scientology and their ilk are the exact same as mainstream religions?

If not what exactly distinguishes them?

CiaranMT

King Mob wrote: »

So Scientology and their ilk are the exact same as mainstream religions?

If not what exactly distinguishes them?

It's semantics that you seem to be mixing up, KM. Séamus has it clarified quite well there.

ShooterSF

King Mob wrote: »

So Scientology and their ilk are the exact same as mainstream religions?

If not what exactly distinguishes them?

No, one is mainstream and the other is a cult (like movies). So we have mainstream cults and cult cults

ShooterSF

ShooterSF wrote: »

No, one is mainstream and the other is a cult (like movies). So we have mainstream cults and cult cults

So then you're claiming that there is no distinguishing features between Scientology etc and main stream religions?

Doctor DooM

King Mob wrote: »

So then you're claiming that there is no distinguishing features between Scientology etc and main stream religions?

I think his point is that the differences between them are not differences which define if one is a cult or not.

Doctor DooM

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I think his point is that the differences between them are not differences which define if one is a cult or not.

So since Scientology et al are distinguishable from mainstream religions, what would you call them?

ShooterSF

King Mob wrote: »

So then you're claiming that there is no distinguishing features between Scientology etc and main stream religions?

Where did I say that? There are plenty of distinguishing features and not just between one of the weirder religions and others. Every religion has differences. Heck even sects within mainstream religions can seem vastly different. But the word cult applies to them all. Perhaps I could distinguish between them as extreme cult and casual cult but every cult has its fanatics and it's just as they become more mainstream they need to become more moderate to attract a larger casual base.

ShooterSF

ShooterSF wrote: »

Where did I say that? There are plenty of distinguishing features and not just between one of the weirder religions and others. Every religion has differences. Heck even sects within mainstream religions can seem vastly different. But the word cult applies to them all. Perhaps I could distinguish between them as extreme cult and casual cult but every cult has its fanatics and it's just as they become more mainstream they need to become more moderate to attract a larger casual base.

So we agree that there is a difference between cults and mainstream religions then?
Which is my point.

My other point is that say "all religions are cults" leads to issues other than the semantic.
Saying this leads to people equating dangerous cults with relatively benign religions. So when you're criticising cults the general public would respond "people are free to believe whatever they want" etc.

Further more among the atheist scene dismissing cults as just another "crazy religion" likewise glosses over the dangers of cults.

Mark Hamill

King Mob wrote: »

So since Scientology et al are distinguishable from mainstream religions, what would you call them?

Less popular cults.

Mark Hamill

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Less popular cults.

And that's the only difference is it?

Mark Hamill

King Mob wrote: »

And that's the only difference is it?

Oh, they will have different beliefs and rituals, sure, but thats the main difference. The reason for the differences you pointed out (secrecy, money making etc) is less popular cults are, essentially, in competition with the more popular cults, so being less direct with what you are preaching and more direct with accumulating wealth and power is the safest and quickest way to become stronger.

The other differences you claim (cults claim to control or bestow supernatural powers, they don't encourage separations from family and community, they don't use brainwashing and manipulation) are things that modern religions did in their infancy. Jesus claimed to have super powers, encouraged seperation from family:

Luke 12 wrote:

51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

,so I guess another difference between popular and less popular cults is age.

ShooterSF

King Mob wrote: »

So we agree that there is a difference between cults and mainstream religions then?
Which is my point.

Almost. But as I said, at best I can give you is mainstream cult versus cult cult or Mainstream religion versus Cult religion, not Mainstream religion and cult.

My other point is that say "all religions are cults" leads to issues other than the semantic.
Saying this leads to people equating dangerous cults with relatively benign religions. So when you're criticising cults the general public would respond "people are free to believe whatever they want" etc.

But it is semantics. All religions are some form of cult. You can use benign cult versus dangerous cult to distinguish.

Further more among the atheist scene dismissing cults as just another "crazy religion" likewise glosses over the dangers of cults.

Sorry but as an atheist and probably an anti-theist all religions are dangerous if you take them seriously. Even benign ones. Christianity terrifies its members with hell and promotes bigotry against homosexuality. Islam blows some of its believers up in the name of martyrdom. Judaism guilts its members about falling in love with a non Jew.
I have been careful there to focus on the negative effects these cults have on their members.
Yes as mainstream cuts they have a lot of casual followers who aren't too bothered with their religions teachings but that doesnt mean they aren't dangerous and yes I'd consider scientology a wackier religion and more dangerous but thats it. It is a dangerous religion/cult as opposed to more benign (by scientology's standards) religions/cults.

ShooterSF

ShooterSF wrote: »

Almost. But as I said, at best I can give you is mainstream cult versus cult cult or Mainstream religion versus Cult religion, not Mainstream religion and cult.

But it is semantics. All religions are some form of cult. You can use benign cult versus dangerous cult to distinguish.

So we agree that there is a distinction and that we need two names to reflect this.
Why not mainstream religion and cult?

ShooterSF wrote: »

Sorry but as an atheist and probably an anti-theist all religions are dangerous if you take them seriously. Even benign ones. Christianity terrifies its members with hell and promotes bigotry against homosexuality. Islam blows some of its believers up in the name of martyrdom. Judaism guilts its members about falling in love with a non Jew.
I have been careful there to focus on the negative effects these cults have on their members.
Yes as mainstream cuts they have a lot of casual followers who aren't too bothered with their religions teachings but that doesnt mean they aren't dangerous and yes I'd consider scientology a wackier religion and more dangerous but thats it. It is a dangerous religion/cult as opposed to more benign (by scientology's standards) religions/cults.

Again extremist Muslims blow themselves up. Most Christians do not promote bigotry.
These are not mainstream by any definition.

Scientology however is a danger to all it's members from the get go.
At the absolute best you loose a few years of your life, huge amounts of money and alienate friends and family.
And the longer you're in the harder it is to get out.

Mark Hamill

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Oh, they will have different beliefs and rituals, sure, but thats the main difference. The reason for the differences you pointed out (secrecy, money making etc) is less popular cults are, essentially, in competition with the more popular cults, so being less direct with what you are preaching and more direct with accumulating wealth and power is the safest and quickest way to become stronger.

The other differences you claim (cults claim to control or bestow supernatural powers, they don't encourage separations from family and community, they don't use brainwashing and manipulation) are things that modern religions did in their infancy. Jesus claimed to have super powers, encouraged seperation from family:
,so I guess another difference between popular and less popular cults is age.

And the important thing is they don't do it now.
Cults are doing these things right now and under the protection the general public gives to religious beliefs.

It's getting clear here very few people on this forum have much research about cults and their dangers...

ShooterSF

King Mob wrote: »

So we agree that there is a distinction and that we need two names to reflect this.
Why not mainstream religion and cult?

Because it's not correct

Again extremist Muslims blow themselves up. Most Christians do not promote bigotry.
These are not mainstream by any definition.

I said that. There are two types of religious believers, casual and fanatic (and to be fair many shades of grey). Casuals tend to attach themself to a mainstream cult which doesnt demand as much from them and they can cherry pick. Then there are fanatic types who associate with cults off all shapes and sizes. These are the people at risk from cults, mainstream or cult (see mainstream cult vs cult cult). These are the people who I was referring to (the westboro baptist church and likes)

Scientology however is a danger to all it's members from the get go.
At the absolute best you loose a few years of your life, huge amounts of money and alienate friends and family.
And the longer you're in the harder it is to get out.

Yes it is, and all its members are quite fanatical. If someone began to believe in parts of scientology in a casual pick and mix way like most Irish catholics do it wouldn't be anymore dangerous to them.

King Mob wrote: »

And the important thing is they don't do it now.
Cults are doing these things right now and under the protection the general public gives to religious beliefs.

Well, to be fair I would be delighted to see that protection abolished.

ShooterSF

ShooterSF wrote: »

Because it's not correct

But the diefinitions you're basing a cult on distinguishes it from mainstream religions in the first place. I'm using stricter characteristics.

ShooterSF wrote: »

I said that. There are two types of religious believers, casual and fanatic (and to be fair many shades of grey). Casuals tend to attach themself to a mainstream cult which doesnt demand as much from them and they can cherry pick.

So then how can you use them as illustrative of their mainstream counter parts.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Then there are fanatic types who associate with cults off all shapes and sizes. These are the people at risk from cults, mainstream or cult (see mainstream cult vs cult cult). These are the people who I was referring to (the westboro baptist church and likes)

No they are not.
This is one of those ill informed notions that allow cults to operate.

The people they drag in are not mentally deficient. Most aren't what you'd consider vunerable, though these are the juiciest of targets for cults.

They could for example start off in a reiki class or a "better communication" class, then suggest others classes you could attend (even the other people taking the class could do this). And in all these classes you get praise, more confident etc. At no point would you be presented with the wackier beliefs of the cult until you are well stuck in, or from the perspective of the believer, ready to learn.
It's all very subtle and quite sinister.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Yes it is, and all its members are quite fanatical. If someone began to believe in parts of scientology in a casual pick and mix way like most Irish catholics do it wouldn't be anymore dangerous to them.

And then they wouldn't engage in the stuff I list that defines them as a cult, therefore not being one.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Well, to be fair I would be delighted to see that protection abolished.

I didn't mean like legal protections, I meant in the "everyone's beliefs are valid" sense.