Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

Is QAnon type crap the new "religion"?

  • 24-11-2021 11:52am
    #1
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,427 Mod ✭✭✭✭


    Between believing the know the "truth" and the strong need to spread the "truth" or "word" of Q are a new religion?

    • They have a leader (Q)
    • The believe the leader knows the truth
    • They feel the need to spread this truth
    • They will use violence to get what they want or in support of their cause
    • They have writings/scriptures (memes, q drops)

    Interesting hearing the nonsense the come out with and the similarity's with a religious zealot

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAWhOE1PEuY

    So what are your thoughts?



«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 33,337 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Golgafrinchan 'B' Ark


    Morons gotta moron.

    Here's what you could have won.



  • Registered Users Posts: 34,143 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    I'd use the word 'cult' long before religion.



  • Registered Users Posts: 32,579 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    Gotta feel sorry for these people.

    The likes of those folk who turned up at Dallas, hoping a dead man would reappear, really have a mental illness.



  • Registered Users Posts: 33,337 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Golgafrinchan 'B' Ark


    It's like there's a "What's the stupidest crap I can make up, and still have people believe in" competition going on...

    Exactly the same as religion then 😎

    Here's what you could have won.



  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,427 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    This chart seems to be a good guide to just how detached some people can be




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,887 ✭✭✭TheIrishGrover


    And you just have to look at the top and see how they are all aligned and a VERY definite group of people



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,010 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    it is a cult and a death cult at that. expect a Jonestown type massacre soon.

    While the group initially appeared to be waiting for the reappearance of JFK, over the weekend, the tone of Protzman’s comments shifted dramatically. Besides proclaiming that he was God’s representative on earth, he also took part in a video chat where participants openly spoke about having to experience death in order to learn the truth.

    “Ultimately... we have to experience that physical death... let go... come out on the other side,” one of the participants in the video call suggested.




  • Registered Users Posts: 5,887 ✭✭✭TheIrishGrover


    The problem is: their supporters and supporter-in-chief will then scream conspiracy. Their news stations will scream conspiracy. Their representatives will scream conspiracy. They will be all over boards screaming conspiracy. You can write what they will say even now. It's very sad and depressing and only going one way.


    I really hope it doesn't happen. God, SURELY this whole thing should be a wake up call to get SOME grip on sanity. Not for the troubled people deeply entrenched in this. Unfortunately they cannot get the help they need. I'm talking about their cheerleaders here on boards and their cheerleader-in-chief and their "news" stations. These people cannot get the help they need because of the poison cloud of lies and threats that surrounds them. So these cheerleaders are responsible for what happens to these people.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,739 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Wouldn't those characteristics be shared by any assertive or activist political movement? For that matter, wouldn't they be shared by, say, the United States, or any other country with a political culture in which leaders are trusted?

    What most obviously distinguishes QAnon from a religion is the complete absence of any supernatural claims. QAnon's claims may be insane and incredible, but they are completely naturalistic.

    Another distinction is that QAnon doesn't fill any of the social functions that religion normally does - QAnoner's don't gather for meetings, they don't have shared rituals, etc. They don't form any kind of community, except online. QAnon is not a religion in the same way that the person you have only ever interacted with online is not your girlfriend.



  • Registered Users Posts: 33,337 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Golgafrinchan 'B' Ark


    Err they claimed a dead man would come to life and lead them. I think that's been done claimed before...

    I believe their shared ritual is called "owning the libs" and they had a big meeting in Charlottsville and another one in DC...

    After the election of Trump, dismissing crazy stuff as not affecting the real world just because it happens online is a fool's errand.

    Here's what you could have won.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,739 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Their claim, as I understand it, is that he was not dead, but had faked his own death to conceal himself, and therefore protect himself, until The Time Is Right. As I say, that may be a bonkers claim, but it's not a supernatural one.

    I don't know to what extent the "big meeting in Charlottsville" etc were a manifestation of QAnon as opposed to other elements of the alt-right. I'll give you DC, though, although whether a one-off half-arsed attempt at a coup d'etat is really that comparable to the gatherings and ceremonies characteristic of religion is debatable. If it is, are all leader-driven, coup-attempting political movements basically religions?

    And, for the record, i didn't say that what happens online doesn't affect the real world; I said that it doesn't substitute for the kind of real-world relationships and communities that, from a sociological point of view, are characteristic of religions.

    Post edited by Peregrinus on


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,010 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    I said that it doesn't substitute for the kind of real-world relationships and communities that, from a sociological point of view, are characteristic of religions.

    This is a very old fashioned view. for some the online world IS the real world.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,739 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    You're missing the point. I'm not saying that the online world is unreal or irrelevant; I'm saying that it's characteristic of religion that it forms relationships and communities in the physical world - they build churches, they gather in person, etc - and, while they are active online as well, that tends to be marginal and largely ancillary to the physical reality. Even in societies which have become largely irreligious, the public, physical, real-world presence and activities of religion make it highly visible.

    In so far as QAnon is not like this, it's not like a religion. I'm not saying that this makes it not relevant or not real or not signficant or not meaningful; just that it makes it not like a religion.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,967 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    The rich kids have Socialism and Anarchism, some middle class kids are Libertarian, a subset of the working class are into Qanon.


    It's all become a replacement religion and more strident, rejecting any deviation as evil.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,739 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Are you basically saying that any political movement that you aren't a part of is in fact a religion? 😉



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,010 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    and you are missing my point. the idea that a religion requires relationships and communities in the physical world is out of date.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,988 ✭✭✭Stone Deaf 4evr


    I like how they all have their own logo design, its like looking at a poster for a 3 day music festival.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,739 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Can you point to a significant religion - one where there would be general agreement that this is a religion - that doesn't?



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,010 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    now you've moved the goalposts. now it must be significant. how are you defining significant so I dont get caught again by your jesuitry?



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,654 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Yep, I'd agree QAnon could definitely be described as a cult, not so sure about being a religion. The words aren't synonymous.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,739 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus



    Sigh.

    I'm saying it's generally characteristic of religions that they form real-world communities that primarily engage in real-world meetings and practices. You're saying my view is old-fashioned. I'm saying, can you point to examples of religions that don't do that? And I'm looking for examples that (a) are uncontroversially accepted as authentic religions; don't point me to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster; and (b) that aren't tiny, marginal, fringe movements that are too small and too left-field to be credibly offered as an illustration of the general characteristics of religion.

    If the thesis is that QAnon is effectively a religion, that's only interesting if it's like religion as we actually have it, not if it's like what we imagine religion might some day possibly become.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,010 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    the only difference between a cult and a religion is time.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,654 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Not really, if you look at the MW definition for example; https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult the first essential entry is as follows

    : a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous

    The above is a pretty good fit for QAnon for example but wouldn't really work say for Buddhism. The two aren't comparable in my opinion. That said, not sure how you'd classify dangerous sub-sects of a major religion, e.g. Westboro Baptists.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,739 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Oh, the Westboro Baptists etc could be a cult. Per the definition a cult is not a religion, but a religious group. There seems to be no reason why you can't have a group that is part of a major religious tradition and which also has beliefs and practices that mean we can characterise it as a cult. (In fact I think that would account for quite a lot of cults.)



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,010 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous


    they said the same thing about christianity.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,654 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Fair point, but most the vast majority of cults don't grow into major religions like Christianity even if most religions do start out as cults. There's a difference between a massive well established oak tree and an acorn. I'd also dispute that all religions are extreme or dangerous, some I'd categorise as 'Mostly Harmless'



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,010 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    cults generally either die out or they turn into religions.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,654 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl



    True. The vast majority die out rather than becoming religions and even then, most religions also die out. I don't think you can reasonably consider the likes of QAnon to be comparable with a major extant religion such as Christianity on that basis.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,010 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    I don't think the difference between a cult and religion is significant.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,654 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    We'll agree to disagree on that one so. You're not alone in your outlook, where the Wikipedia definition of cult includes the following;

    In the English-speaking world, the term cult often carries derogatory connotations. In this sense, it has been considered a subjective term, used as an ad hominem attack against groups with differing doctrines or practices. As such, religion scholar Megan Goodwin defined the term cult, when it is used by the layperson, as often being shorthand for a "religion I don't like".

    By that definition, if you don't like any religions, you might well consider all of them to be cults. While I have little time for organised religion, for my money, referring to all of them using what most people would consider a derogatory term is divisive and doesn't add much value to the conversation.



Advertisement