Are there any differences between having a religion and going to church, to a cult?

the_syco · 16-02-2018 8:09pm

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Yes there must be a why. The alternative is absurd.

Science experiment. Similar to a petri dish. Time is irrelevant.

Deusexmachina · 16-02-2018 8:13pm

the_syco wrote: »

Science experiment. Similar to a petri dish. Time is irrelevant.

Who is running the experiment?

Charmeleon · 16-02-2018 8:18pm

‘Keep holy the Sabbath’ was probably the first pro-worker labour law.

HappyAsLarE · 16-02-2018 8:22pm

Charmeleon wrote: »

‘Keep holy the Sabbath’ was probably the first pro-worker labour law.

Indeed! But we don’t need religious teachings in these modern times, somehow children are just born with these values. As if.

Oldtree · 16-02-2018 8:45pm

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Indeed! But we don’t need religious teachings in these modern times, somehow children are just born with these values. As if.

Well... yes children are born good. And their parents teach them how to behave properly. That religious teachings make a good person is a well proven fallacy, religious teachings make good pedophiles is well proven fact.

DickSwiveller · 16-02-2018 8:46pm

Yawn, another anti-Catholic thread, full of atheist bores regurgitating the same inane crap. Make a similar thread about Islam. Should be interesting.

falinn merking · 16-02-2018 8:47pm

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Yawn, another anti-Catholic thread, full of atheist bores regurgitating the same inane crap. Make a similar thread about Islam. Should be interesting.

Look at page 2 and 3 I trolled them.

And yes I totally agree.

Hector Bellend · 16-02-2018 8:58pm

I love Atheists and all of their smug self importance

DickSwiveller · 16-02-2018 9:01pm

Hector Bellend wrote: »

I love Atheists and all of their smug self importance

They really are an arrogant lot. Even Einstein recognised this:

"You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being".

Oldtree · 16-02-2018 9:02pm

DickSwiveller wrote: »

They really are an arrogant lot. Even Einstein recognised this:

"You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being".

Blah blah blah

Grayson · 16-02-2018 9:55pm

Verpiss dich wrote: »

I have a problem with anybody who has a problem with these.

Strangely Muslims follow the 10 commandments.

I'm an atheist who thinks they're bollox.

Now you'e left trying to figure out who you dislike more, atheists or muslims.

Grayson · 16-02-2018 9:59pm

DickSwiveller wrote: »

They really are an arrogant lot. Even Einstein recognised this:

"You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being".

You dropped the first line of that quote. "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal god is a childlike one. "

falinn merking · 16-02-2018 10:01pm

Grayson wrote: »

Strangely Muslims follow the 10 commandments.

I'm an atheist who thinks they're bollox.

Now you'e left trying to figure out who you dislike more, atheists or muslims.

Pretty sure killing people in terror attacks in the Name of Islam is Murder.

I have plenty of dislike for Islam and Atheists but strangely enough Muslims hate Atheists so I suppose I have some common ground with the Muslims.:D

Andy From Sligo · 17-02-2018 1:48am

Ipso wrote: »

Why do you need religion to have morals?

you definately dont ... i'm living proof

Andy From Sligo · 17-02-2018 1:54am

Verpiss dich wrote: »

The Bible does teach morals.

Look at what we have without it.
Somebody is injured or killed the first thing most people do is whip out their phone to stick it on social media.

not everyone does ... not even most

- and those that do could also be the ones to slow down as they go past a fatal road traffic accident just to be nosy and see the gore - or maybe some do it for the 'fame' aspect ...

BalcombeSt4 · 17-02-2018 5:20am

I was in several Cults back in the 60s & 70s both as a follower & as a leader. You have more fun as a follower but you make more money as a leader.

Koala Sunshine · 17-02-2018 8:29am

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Yawn, another anti-Catholic thread, full of atheist bores regurgitating the same inane crap. Make a similar thread about Islam. Should be interesting.

Islam is just as nonsensical as Catholicism.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 17-02-2018 6:01pm

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Indeed! But we don’t need religious teachings in these modern times, somehow children are just born with these values. As if.

Are you implying that athiest parents are incapable of instilling morals and ethics on their children?

pauldla · 18-02-2018 3:29am

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Wheety wrote: »

That's a ridiculous question. You're asking why the universe exists?

Do you think there has to be a why?

Yes there must be a why. The alternative is absurd.

It’d be interesting to see why ‘no why’ is more absurd than the narrative provided by Christianity.

Deusexmachina · 18-02-2018 9:23am

pauldla wrote: »

It’d be interesting to see why ‘no why’ is more absurd than the narrative provided by Christianity.

That’s not the comparison I made. If you had bothered to read my post, you would have see that I wrote that there must be a reason for existence, for the Universe.
I also said that neither science or religion have any credible answers to this.

IIGeminiII · 18-02-2018 2:01pm

Organised religion is a cult. But so are most other socially acceptable common interests [including atheism].

Most common interests (particularly those that are commercially derived) are cult like, be they television viewing habits, inflections of speech, family traditions, a person's unquestioning commitment to law and order etc.

I have never been religious, but the current orthodoxy of 'progressive', secular materialism is as much a cult as anything else.

Deusexmachina · 18-02-2018 2:34pm

IIGeminiII wrote: »

Organised religion is a cult. But so are most other socially acceptable common interests [including atheism].

Most common interests (particularly those that are commercially derived) are cult like, be they television viewing habits, inflections of speech, family traditions, a person's unquestioning commitment to law and order etc.

I have never been religious, but the current orthodoxy of 'progressive', secular materialism is as much a cult as anything else.

I am not sure 'television viewing habits' etc are cult like - that diminishes the term so much that it loses any real meaning.

However, I totally agree about the cult like behaviour regarding progressine secular materialism. Examples include celebrity driven movements like 'me too', the elevation of gender identity politics to the extreme (eg the new pronouns), diversity and inclusion overriding common sense and fairness and decency, Trump proving truth is optional and that fame is more important than morality in the new world order.
There are many cults emerging - and more dangerous and divisive than Christianity. We should be careful what we wish for.

HappyAsLarE · 18-02-2018 3:31pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Are you implying that athiest parents are incapable of instilling morals and ethics on their children?

No. I am saying that we shouldn’t dismiss the genesis of said morals and ethics.

pauldla · 18-02-2018 3:40pm

Deusexmachina wrote: »

pauldla wrote: »

It’d be interesting to see why ‘no why’ is more absurd than the narrative provided by Christianity.

That’s not the comparison I made. If you had bothered to read my post, you would have see that I wrote that there must be a reason for existence, for the Universe.
I also said that neither science or religion have any credible answers to this.

Yes, I did ‘bother’ to read the two short sentences you posted. I quoted them in my response. Let me reproduce them here again:

“Yes there must be a why. The alternative is absurd.”

So, I consider that my question still stands unanswered. Presuming you subscribe to a broadly Christian theology (a reasonable enough presumption on this forum, though please correct me if I am wrong), can you explain why it is less absurd than ‘no why’?

Guy:Incognito · 18-02-2018 3:53pm

Berserker wrote: »

Or it may be the case that a cure for cancer may be found whilst helping Steve deal with his tumour?

.

We wouldn't need a cure for cancer if God didn't give it to people in the first place...............

banie01 · 18-02-2018 4:01pm

I once heard somewhere that the difference between a cult and religion is fairly straightforward.

In a cult, there is always someone at the top who knows that the whole spiel is a pile of BS.
The gain followers by promising a better life in their hereafter(be it reached thru death or a spaceship) and the head of the cult profits in the here and now.

Whereas in a religion that someone is already dead.

DickSwiveller · 18-02-2018 4:11pm

I don't know what the obsession with religion is anyway. There are far more extreme 'cults' whatever that mean. What about English football? The adherents to that religion are far more fanatical than any religious person I know.

Hotblack Desiato · 18-02-2018 4:16pm

We don't have a constitution that obliges us to worship football though, and football clubs don't run schools. Parents don't sign up babies as football supporters in the hope it'll make it easier for them to get into the local school. Etc etc

DickSwiveller · 18-02-2018 4:17pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

We don't have a constitution that obliges us to worship football though, and football clubs don't run schools. Parents don't sign up babies as football supporters in the hope it'll make it easier for them to get into the local school. Etc etc

I don't see how that's relevant to the original question or my point.

Hotblack Desiato · 18-02-2018 4:18pm

You say that football is more extreme than a cult, while completely ignoring the huge influence religion still has on this country.

Hotblack Desiato · 18-02-2018 4:20pm

IIGeminiII wrote: »

Organised religion is a cult. But so are most other socially acceptable common interests [including atheism].

Stupid post.

Cults have rules, moral codes and leaders. Atheism has none of these.

DickSwiveller · 18-02-2018 4:26pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You say that football is more extreme than a cult, while completely ignoring the huge influence religion still has on this country.

You're talking about the role of religion in the State. That has nothing to with the thread topic. It isn't axiomatic that religion will have an influence over the State. Some countries are religious, but explicitly secular.

Deusexmachina · 19-02-2018 8:29am

pauldla wrote: »

Yes, I did ‘bother’ to read the two short sentences you posted. I quoted them in my response. Let me reproduce them here again:

“Yes there must be a why. The alternative is absurd.”

So, I consider that my question still stands unanswered. Presuming you subscribe to a broadly Christian theology (a reasonable enough presumption on this forum, though please correct me if I am wrong), can you explain why it is less absurd than ‘no why’?

You seem to be hoping that I will posit a Christian rather than Atheistic solution. And then you can have a swipe at the Christian position.
The problem is that I didn’t.
I have stated that neither religion or science can explain why the Universe exists.
And yes, there must be a why.

ohnonotgmail · 19-02-2018 10:26am

Deusexmachina wrote: »

You seem to be hoping that I will posit a Christian rather than Atheistic solution. And then you can have a swipe at the Christian position.
The problem is that I didn’t.
I have stated that neither religion or science can explain why the Universe exists.
And yes, there must be a why.

The difference is that religions thinks it can explain the why. Science isn't concerned with the why. that is left to philosophers.

IIGeminiII · 19-02-2018 11:57am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Stupid post.

Cults have rules, moral codes and leaders. Atheism has none of these.

You appear to be an expert in limited thinking.

Cults and cult-like behaviour are not restricted to explicit canonical rules or structures, they are also comprised of learned behaviours, assumptions and group-think mentality.

And by this definition, it's hardly controversial to see that this is very much the domain of new atheism.

You even have your pseudo-intellectual popular scientists like Brian Cox and Richard Dawkins sermonizing from on-high, reaching morbidly and stupidly into the realm of philosophy as if all of life, present, past and future could be explained as an algorithm.

And as for moral codes, don't make me laugh. The whole neo-atheist movement is a moral movement. The attachment of sciencism to 'progressive' values serves no other purpose.

In this day and age to still openly engage with life metaphorically, as the ancient greeks did, is secretly considered dirty, backwards, and to be open to 'spirituality' makes you a coward, or a bad person, or at the very least less good than the 'rational', non-superstitious, big bang nappy wearing nihilist that is so in vogue today.

Deusexmachina · 20-02-2018 12:41am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The difference is that religions thinks it can explain the why. Science isn't concerned with the why. that is left to philosophers.

Cop out. And untrue anyway. Of course science is concerned with the why. Just doesn’t have an answer.
To me, a creator is as plausible as anything else. We have no idea. There are possibly realms beyond our understanding, that we cannot even perceive or contemplate.
that’s what quantum physics has suggested.

Deusexmachina · 20-02-2018 12:43am

IIGeminiII wrote: »

You appear to be an expert in limited thinking.

Cults and cult-like behaviour are not restricted to explicit canonical rules or structures, they are also comprised of learned behaviours, assumptions and group-think mentality.

And by this definition, it's hardly controversial to see that this is very much the domain of new atheism.

You even have your pseudo-intellectual popular scientists like Brian Cox and Richard Dawkins sermonizing from on-high, reaching morbidly and stupidly into the realm of philosophy as if all of life, present, past and future could be explained as an algorithm.

And as for moral codes, don't make me laugh. The whole neo-atheist movement is a moral movement. The attachment of sciencism to 'progressive' values serves no other purpose.

In this day and age to still openly engage with life metaphorically, as the ancient greeks did, is secretly considered dirty, backwards, and to be open to 'spirituality' makes you a coward, or a bad person, or at the very least less good than the 'rational', non-superstitious, big bang nappy wearing nihilist that is so in vogue today.

Great post.

ohnonotgmail · 20-02-2018 12:54am

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Cop out. And untrue anyway. Of course science is concerned with the why. Just doesn’t have an answer.
To me, a creator is as plausible as anything else. We have no idea. There are possibly realms beyond our understanding, that we cannot even perceive or contemplate.
that’s what quantum physics has suggested.

there is no branch of science that is concerned with WHY the universe exists.

Deusexmachina · 20-02-2018 7:58am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there is no branch of science that is concerned with WHY the universe exists.

Not true. Plenty of physicists have explored the question in their work. Lots of books on the subject from scientists.

ohnonotgmail · 20-02-2018 10:40am

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Not true. Plenty of physicists have explored the question in their work. Lots of books on the subject from scientists.

Physics doesnt explain the why. Some scientists may have strayed into philosophy but they stop approaching things scientifically at that point.

Deusexmachina · 20-02-2018 10:52am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Physics doesnt explain the why. Some scientists may have strayed into philosophy but they stop approaching things scientifically at that point.

I think that's fair.

However, my point remains. Science doesnt answer the why, nor does religion.

In that case, surely the notion of some intelligence behind creation is as equally valid as the notion that 'it just happended for no reason'?

If we assume there is some reason for our existence, for the Universe(s) to exist, then it behoves us to consider it as intelligent, curious beings.

DickSwiveller · 20-02-2018 10:55am

IIGeminiII wrote: »

You appear to be an expert in limited thinking.

Cults and cult-like behaviour are not restricted to explicit canonical rules or structures, they are also comprised of learned behaviours, assumptions and group-think mentality.

And by this definition, it's hardly controversial to see that this is very much the domain of new atheism.

You even have your pseudo-intellectual popular scientists like Brian Cox and Richard Dawkins sermonizing from on-high, reaching morbidly and stupidly into the realm of philosophy as if all of life, present, past and future could be explained as an algorithm.

And as for moral codes, don't make me laugh. The whole neo-atheist movement is a moral movement. The attachment of sciencism to 'progressive' values serves no other purpose.

In this day and age to still openly engage with life metaphorically, as the ancient greeks did, is secretly considered dirty, backwards, and to be open to 'spirituality' makes you a coward, or a bad person, or at the very least less good than the 'rational', non-superstitious, big bang nappy wearing nihilist that is so in vogue today.

Great post.

ohnonotgmail · 20-02-2018 11:22am

Deusexmachina wrote: »

I think that's fair.

However, my point remains. Science doesnt answer the why, nor does religion.

Is that not the whole point of religion? to explain the why?

Deusexmachina wrote: »

In that case, surely the notion of some intelligence behind creation is as equally valid as the notion that 'it just happended for no reason'?

If we assume there is some reason for our existence, for the Universe(s) to exist, then it behoves us to consider it as intelligent, curious beings.

I'll leave the philosophy to others. Not really my area.

evil_seed · 20-02-2018 12:49pm

I'm surprised at all the replies on this thread what with all the hand wringing and all.

There's no difference IMO

Deusexmachina · 20-02-2018 3:30pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Is that not the whole point of religion? to explain the why?

Well, if it is. its not really doing a good job. The Bible tells us that God created the Universe. But there is no reason given (as far as I know).

Aren't you curious?

ohnonotgmail · 20-02-2018 3:49pm

Deusexmachina wrote: »

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Is that not the whole point of religion? to explain the why?

Well, if it is. its not really doing a good job. The Bible tells us that God created the Universe. But there is no reason given (as far as I know).

Aren't you curious?

Why would i be curious about that? It is one religion with an origin story. There are countless others. what makes the bible story so special?

Deusexmachina · 20-02-2018 3:51pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Why would i be curious about that? It is one religion with an origin story. There are countless others. what makes the bible story so special?

Are you not curious about why the Universe exists?

ohnonotgmail · 20-02-2018 4:10pm

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Are you not curious about why the Universe exists?

it isn't something that exercises me a great deal. the answer is either unknowable or beyond our comprehension.

Hotblack Desiato · 21-02-2018 12:24am

IIGeminiII wrote: »

You appear to be an expert in limited thinking.

Cults and cult-like behaviour are not restricted to explicit canonical rules or structures, they are also comprised of learned behaviours, assumptions and group-think mentality.

And by this definition, it's hardly controversial to see that this is very much the domain of new atheism.

You even have your pseudo-intellectual popular scientists like Brian Cox and Richard Dawkins sermonizing from on-high, reaching morbidly and stupidly into the realm of philosophy as if all of life, present, past and future could be explained as an algorithm.

And as for moral codes, don't make me laugh. The whole neo-atheist movement is a moral movement. The attachment of sciencism to 'progressive' values serves no other purpose.

In this day and age to still openly engage with life metaphorically, as the ancient greeks did, is secretly considered dirty, backwards, and to be open to 'spirituality' makes you a coward, or a bad person, or at the very least less good than the 'rational', non-superstitious, big bang nappy wearing nihilist that is so in vogue today.

Complete nonsense with no substance to it whatsoever. Childish in fact.

Why are you calling well-respected scientists 'pseudo-intellectuals'? And what do you really know of their work apart from, shock horror, not being religious believers? Have you ever read any of their books, for instance? And sermonising - really? Have they ever told anyone they need to stop doing X, start doing Y, and don't ask awkward questions or else they'll end up in bad place Z forever? Unlikely...

What's the 'moral movement' behind 'neo-atheism' anyway?' Some e.g. Hitchens on abortion had opposing views from others.

The only thing that unites atheists is a non-belief in a god or gods. That's it.

DickSwiveller · 21-02-2018 12:37am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Complete nonsense with no substance to it whatsoever. Childish in fact.

Why are you calling well-respected scientists 'pseudo-intellectuals'? And what do you really know of their work apart from, shock horror, not being religious believers? Have you ever read any of their books, for instance? And sermonising - really? Have they ever told anyone they need to stop doing X, start doing Y, and don't ask awkward questions or else they'll end up in bad place Z forever? Unlikely...

What's the 'moral movement' behind 'neo-atheism' anyway?' Some e.g. Hitchens on abortion had opposing views from others.

The only thing that unites atheists is a non-belief in a god or gods. That's it.

Cox, Dawkins etc aren't respected scientists. They are respected among the "I ****in love science" crowd. Both have done almost no research and are famous because they have built a career among sycophantic fans who aren't interested in real science. E.O. Wilson, one of the world's leading biologists, recently referred to Dawkins as a journalist, because he doesn't do any original research, and merely comments on work other scientists do.

These people have a huge influence over their sycophantic fans, who worship them.

Are there any differences between having a religion and going to church, to a cult?

Comments