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

Hotblack Desiato

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's no difference IMO

Deusexmachina

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Oldtree

IIGeminiII wrote: »

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.

A belief system by its very nature is a limited thinking system. Using a belief system "raison de etre" to dismiss non belief is a mechanism of that belief system, a mechanism of social control.

Deusexmachina wrote: »

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.

The reason for existence is existence itself. Why would we need a reason to wonder at it all.

Deusexmachina

The reason for existence is existence itself. Why would we need a reason to wonder at it all.[/QUOTE]

That’s very unsatisfactory to me. ‘The reason for existence is existence itself’. What does that even mean?

You might as well say ‘The reason for existence is the reason for existance’. Sounds like it should mean something, but doesn’t.

Hotblack Desiato

DickSwiveller wrote: »

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.

Ad hominem attacks is all you got, then.

Oldtree

Deusexmachina wrote: »

That’s very unsatisfactory to me. ‘The reason for existence is existence itself’. What does that even mean?

You might as well say ‘The reason for existence is the reason for existance’. Sounds like it should mean something, but doesn’t.

It's only unsatisfactory if you need, want or are seeking a reason, stemming from a belief system, so of course it dosn't mean somthing to you.

Does it not strike you as egocentric that there would be a reason for you, and you alone in this vast universe?

endacl

DickSwiveller wrote: »

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.

Dawkins: https://neurotree.org/beta/publications.php?pid=2141

Cox: https://atlas.cern/discover/physics, https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0302

Etc.

Oldtree

DickSwiveller wrote: »

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

Point in case where you are applying a belief system to non belief.

DickSwiveller

Oldtree wrote: »

Point in case where you are applying a belief system to non belief.

Atheism is a belief system.

Oldtree

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Atheism is a belief system.

Again you are approaching this from a belief state of mind. You presuppose that non belief is the same (but the opposite) as belief, due to your belief.

However non belief would require proof to move from non belief to belief. Whereas belief inherently does not require proof. Your mind has been usurped, which is what it is all about.

DickSwiveller

Oldtree wrote: »

Again you are approaching this from a belief state of mind. You presuppose that non belief is the same (but the opposite) as belief, due to your belief.

However non belief would require proof to move from non belief to belief. Whereas belief inherently does not require proof. Your mind has been usurped, which is what it is all about.

Can you repeat that in English?

potatohouse

good show shiva! keep up the good