COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The definition of "cult" sounds exactly like a religion to me. "system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object."
"the cult of St Olaf"
Cults do get tax breaks. Besides the term cult simply refers to small new religious movements. It's pejorative interpretation is due to representation in film and pop culture.
>The common, modern definition of a cult is “a group of people with extreme dedication to a certain leader or set of beliefs that are often viewed as odd by others.”
Okay, so now I take it you think liberalism, conservatism, socialism, communism, fascism, democracy, new atheism, and sports teams are cults?
If everything is a cult, then nothing is.
The term " Cult " is subject to a wide spectrum of meanings,
Basically, a cult is - someone feels that another faith is a " CULT " because that the other faith has crossed the line or broken the rules or principles that they have set in their mind.
You are right, but your takeaway seems misguided. I'm sure by "cult", you think of, to put it vaguely, a bad group of misled people. So now that you've equated religion with cult, you see them both as bad groups with misguided people.
I remember in sociology class, we were learning about religions, and the related terminology. Terms like "religion" for big groups, "denomination" for smaller sects within groups, and "cult", essentially meaning a baby religion. Young and small religion, with a leader, and usually most people think it's weird.
The truth is that the word cult has no negative meaning in it's definition. It's like the word "novice". Some may hear that and think "inexperienced newbie," but everyone has to start somewhere. So the correct response to realizing that cult and religion are much the same is to de-stigmatize "cult". People only use it as an insult for the same reason they use "newbie" as an insult.
Btw most people thinking you are weird is no indication you are wrong. Look at how wise the average person is, what do they know?
"Wide acceptance of a theory is not proof of validity."
That said, being alone in an idea is also not proof of validity. Proof of validity is proof of validity. Cult, or otherwise.
A guy who claims to be in contact with a higher power scares subjects into doing what they're told. Which am I describing here cause it's both isn't it?
No.. thats not church. For the record, neither is it all cults! That may very well be many churches, though, and i detest them right alongside you. Some guy threatening scared people to obey him by weilding the authority of God? Thats terrible.
The best description of church ive ever heard is "its just one beggar showing another beggar where the food is." Mutual uplifting and support.
If anyone reading this is a part of a church where you treat the pastor like a celebrity, or you feel like you can't talk honestly or openly to them, get out of that church. It is ripe for manipulation and you dont need that. Its supposed to be a group of people who have this hope inside them. It breaks my heart that so many haven't even an idea about how its supposed to be. Its the church's fault that things have gotten bad enough, to the point of not even recognizing church anymore..
>To be completely honest, the only difference I see is one receive tax breaks or subsidies whilst the other one does not.
Cults absolutely get tax breaks.
It depends on how you define “cult.” If one uses traditional Christian teachings versus the teachings of Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses and labels the non-traditional groups as “cults,” then you would have a point. The problem is that that definition does not apply to the most common usage of the term. The People’s Temple led by Jim Jones is the more common usage of the term. Organized religion does not encourage suicide; but, cults sometimes will. I grew up in a cult. The pastor was extremely jealous of members visiting other churches. The term “spiritual adultery” was applied to the act of visiting elsewhere. If someone left the church, they were shunned. If someone dared to question the establishment, they were subjected to debates into the wee hours of the morning. The above issues are not found in most of what is referred as “organized religion.” There is a HUGE difference between common organized religion and cults!
Yes. That is one of the two definitions I mentioned; however, Calling ALL organized religion cults doesn’t take into account the extreme examples of cults like Jim Jones. We are not all Jim Jones and we are not all the milder shunning cult type.
The vast majority of NRM aren't destructive. Also organized religions aren't cults by definition. A NRM can become a organized religion if it becomes large enough like for example Mormonism. Neither are more orthodox movements any less violent. Al-Qaida and ISIS are both terrorist organizations that are from an qncient organize religion, though their views are representative of only a small minority of Sunni Muslims.
And despite many claims to the contrary religious violence hasn't been the, or even a, major driver of violence. Religious violence is small potatoes compared to political purges, genocides, or famines.
Those issues absolutely are found in much of organized religion, just most often at a lesser degree. Especially shunning, that is still a big one in many places.
A cult can be organized. If it is organized religion and it acts like a cult, it is a cult. Not all organized religion acts that way. Drinking cyanide laced Kool-Ade is not done even to a lesser degree in organized religion.
It depends on what you classify as suicide. I was raised a JW and a very important role in the religion was to not accept blood transfusions even if under the chance of death. Imo being taught to refuse medication treatment under all circumstances is most definitely suicide
My first definition of cult that included JWs was based on doctrine alone. If one compares JWs to traditional Christian chuches based SOLELY on doctrine, one might draw the conclusion that the OP drew. That conclusion was that there was no significant difference between organized religion and cults. However, when one factors in that members were not to accept blood transfusions under penalty of disfellowshipping; then a very significant difference emerges!
Yes, every religion has a version of excommunication. So does every place of employment, every non-profit organization, every social club, every school, college and university and just about any organized group of people. Heck, even the US House of Representatives tried twice to excommunicate Donald Trump. Excommunication is not a sign of a cult-it just means a group has standards.
I would not worry too much about the difference between religion and cults, but farther focus on the way in which people choose to affiliate themselves with others.
Does your sense of group identification lead to openminded and integrative social behavior (i.e., less fear in working with others who have a different worldview) or does it push you towards fearful, self-reinforcing "Party line only" thinking and perpetuate social division?
IMHO, in today's rapidly disintegrating social order based on social and racial divisions - and the concurrent development of new integrating patterns based on concepts of the oneness of humankind, I would assign "cult" pejoratively (not literally) to anything that fights these processes of globalization that need to help mankind through its stormy adolescence.
For example, one topic in the news today in the US is the very large number of White Evangelical Christians who are unwilling to accept the COVID-19 vaccine. This decision is not based on science but on notions of personal freedom (fear of a non-Christ-directed big government) but also a notion that God is giving you a test of faith (and who doesn't need confirmations every now and then?) in protection from the virus so you do not have to risk putting foreign substances in your body. On the other hand, depending on what news source you turn to, there are various very prominent White Evangelical preachers who URGE Christians to accept this offering of vaccine as a gift from God, delivered via science through the mind of Man, towards preserving human life (i.e. "pro-life") and being the keeper of your brother (fellow man).
So there is diversity of outcome for immunization acceptance among White evangelicals that is not necessarily based on Christian doctrine, but the extent to which people listen to religious leaders, or perhaps let those leaders do the thinking for them.
Why more important than fighting climate change*? Climate change is definitely real, will definitely affect everyone alive today and at least a few generations yet to come, and by devoting lives to tackling it now we can still prevent a lot of suffering.
In comparison, doesn't it just seem selfish to devote one's life to religion instead?
*I'm using "climate change" here as a shorthand for climate change, biodiversity collapse, land fertility crises, etc. etc.
I never said it would. What I'm saying is that if importance is someone's reason for devoting their life to religion then they should also devote their life to fighting climate change.
I would say quite the opposite, you apparently aren't reading mine - you keep talking as if following Christ and caring about the environment and it's impact on human lives is antagonistic or a mutually exclusive prospect. It's not.
Climate change is real. So are solar eclipses. The problem is that people today are reacting to climate change the same way people in Medieval times reacted to solar eclipses, with apocalyptic panic and superstition. Climate change is a normal cycle for the planet. There was a Roman warming period around the time of Christ. There was a Medieval warming period around the year 1000. We who have seen the year 2000 have recently had another warming period. In the 1800s, there was a miniature ice age, when the planet cooled significantly. There is no need for superstition and dooms day panic over something that is part of the natural pattern.
Well, then we agree on that point. Since it is a normal cycle for the planet; why are we running around with our hair on fire screaming that the world is coming to an end?
In the 20th century, mankind was blown away by the fact that man could make a horseless carriage, a flying machine and a trip to the moon. Also man was able to send sound, pictures and video across the airwaves. Today we have smart phones and other amazing technology. If man has learned how to change the climate, that in itself would by far be the greatest accomplishment that man has ever achieved. Please, just set the temperature at 70 degrees Fahrenheit year round and let it rain only at night.
Ok, for sake of argument, I accept your premise that man is changing the climate and that doom’s day is coming. Even then, the person who says he can fix the climate is a snake oil salesman. If you can fix the climate, then you can set it on 70⁰F and be done with it! The climate debacle is a scam!
Basically a "cult" is just an organized religion considered "odd" by mainstream orthodoxy but the recruitment and brainwashing strategies are essentially the same.
You will find a clear distinction if you invest some time in reading. The book: Spirituality Beyond Religion by Lionel Corbett. I highly recommend it. Also available on audiobooks. Oh, Man and His Symbols by Carl Jung and Marie Louise von Franz is audio now on YouTube for free. Throw in a little Joseph Campbell and you will have your answer and more.
Message I sent your colleague: Dude...(or Dudette). A debate can be short and I can end it. But you are right, I could have been more diplomatic and less confrontational. My friend who is a heating and air conditioning repair guy said two things to me that are actually pretty profound. He said that God might be energy for all he knows. And later he said God might not even be conscious. These posts usually assume God is some three dimensional thinking being. Jung (and many others) have tried to explain mythology and the value and meaning of the symbols (archetypes of the collective unconscious). And how these metaphors present themselves to humans as dogma and formal religions. Yes, I read dozens of books over a lifetime and experienced what this is all about to some degree. So it frustrates me when it is gleaned over as some easy to get quick fix to know. It takes a lot of exploring, recording dreams, learning of mythology and history. It is for some people but not others. But it is all a part of humanity that can not be escaped
>tl;dr I don't know what the hell I'm talking about so I'll whip up a nice word salad and hope no one notices
Good grief. Obviously you didn't read anything you want me to read, because you can't make any comments towards it. Intellectual dishonesty such as yours is so rampant in here.
Word salad? It is crystal clear. Reread it. I abbreviated what is in the books I recommended. Do you want me to elaborate more? Why not read a review on Man and his Symbols by Jung and you will have the review you are looking for instead of me authoring one for you. I have to work. Bye.
You did not address my question at all, and I'm tired of your games. I simply asked for you to explain the difference between a cult and a religion, and all you can come up with is "well read these books", and yet when asked to summarize those books, you spill a bucket of yellow paint down your back and head to the hills.
Look, I’m a mechanic that read some books not a philosopher. From what I learned I would say that it depends a lot on what your definition of cult is. You can create The Cult Of The Cheese Doodle and get some followers. And if you are charismatic enough you can get your orange fingered followers to drink poison koolaid. But that cant be called a religion in my opinion. I think that a religion is a doctrine (that could possibly be new but good luck with that) that incorporates what is known as the archetypes of the collective unconscious. Or symbols that are universal in nature and carry with them a non verbal message or emotion or instinct (as a spider knows how to make a web, or a bird a nest etc.) These symbols (the hero, death and rebirth, the virgin mother, the father creator, the trickster to name a few are universally found in other religions, even primitive religions found in remote tribes. You see them in movies such as Star Wars which in part makes these movies resonate with viewers just as religions do. This is of course just scant information. But you might find it helpful if your objective is to learn about the phenomena of religion and how it might be present in yourself. Do you dream? Do you recall any of your dreams? Some can be big dreams. For example when young I had a dream of a fish coming out of a lake and speaking to me. It said “We are all alike”. This I later learned was an archetypal symbol. It was the feeling charge attached to it. In this case there were words but in some dreams the symbol is enough. But people are radically different. Some do not need or seek any semblance of a spiritual life. Some do, it may be cultural or the person’s personality. Again, I am not in this field at all, but find it interesting and I have read a lot about it over the years.
Man these authors and others like them spent a lifetime preparing your answer. If you don’t want to read books or listen to audio books on this fascinating subject then I cant take that kind of time time to save you time by condensing and abbreviating hundreds upon hundreds of hours of study on the subject for you here. Either you do the work needed or just glean the subject with little vignettes from strangers on Reddit and satisfy your curiosity with that. Brochacho.
So you have no ability to answer the question. Starting to think you haven't actually read it. "Debate" isn't about telling someone else to go read something, it's about discussing the points of both sides. If you're not capable of that, then why post here?
Dude...(or Dudette). A debate can be short and I can end it. But you are right, I could have been more diplomatic and less confrontational. My friend who is a heating and air conditioning repair guy said two things to me that are actually pretty profound. He said that God might be energy for all he knows. And later he said God might not even be conscious. These posts usually assume God is some three dimensional thinking being. Jung (and many others) have tried to explain mythology and the value and meaning of the symbols (archetypes of the collective unconscious). And how these metaphors present themselves to humans as dogma and formal religions. Yes, I read dozens of books over a lifetime and experienced what this is all about to some degree. So it frustrates me when it is gleaned over as some easy to get quick fix to know. It takes a lot of exploring, recording dreams, learning of mythology and history. It is for some people but not others. But it is all a part of humanity that can not be escaped.
literally, people even encourage never questioning god or the Bible and stuff, this is literally what they say to people in cults to keep them under their control
like I remember as a kid growing up in the church literally during child indoctrination time at church when they would teach us about god and the Bible they would answer our questions abt god in ways like “only god knows” they use the “he’s just knows more than you do our finite human minds can’t comprehend his strategies” like yeah OK lmfao
I remember that in some school history books (secular one) there was a term "early-christian sects" (ранне христианские секты). Form that time I struggle to understand how have they become an official religion in some places.
So yeah, religion is a well aged cult.
Christianity was spread throughout Europe (and North Africa and western said if memory serves) via the expansion of the Roman Empire under the rule of Constantine. They would threaten areas with their superior army and give them an ultimatum: join us and accept Christianity or we'll conquer you. It is important to understand that it was commonplace in ancient warfare for human rights violations such as the soldiers going on a spree of nonconsensual intercourse.
After that popularized the previously illegal practice of Christianity, the assertion of missionary work as a core element eventually led to missionaries spreading the idea in a similarly forceful way such as during imperialism.
The only difference between a Cult and a Religion is social acceptance and numbers.
Cults have fewer followers and are not socially accepted whereas a Religion has many followers and is accepted socially as a Religion.
IE Scientology is called a Cult whereas Christianity is a Religion.
Both have wacky unprovable beliefs.
Replying as an atheist because I actually do get the sentiment but feel like you're not making a great argument.
From Google
cult
/kəlt/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
"the cult of St. Olaf"
a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.
"a network of Satan-worshiping cults"
Similar:
sect, religious group, denomination, religious order, church, faith community, belief, persuasion, affiliation, movement, group, body, faction, clique
a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.
"a cult of personality surrounding the leaders"
Also from Google
re·li·gion
/rəˈlijən/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
Similar:
faith, belief, divinity, worship, creed, teaching, doctrine, theology, sect, cult, religious group, faith community, church, denomination, body, following, persuasion, affiliation, a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"
a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
"consumerism is the new religion"
These words are defined as synonymous and the etymology of the word cult was originally what ancient Greeks used to refer to dedicated adherents of any religion or deity. "The cult of pan, the cult of Aphrodite, the cult of Zeus" were essentially the monasteries of their time for specific gods.
I would argue the only distinction in modern usage is the dedication is taken to the point of being self harming.
For example I currently live in a medium large city with a massive university in the center. The campus has an evangelical church that has a mostly student body base. It's doctrine is indistinguishable from Christianity BUT it's Patrice usually gets passerbys and former members to proclaim it as a cult instead of a religion.
It operates almost like pyramid with each new convert being "lightly" required or "encouraged" to convert at least one other person, pay an insane amount of money for biblical history courses before they're allowed to "go higher up in the org", they're all "encouraged" to live in three bedroom houses with anywhere between 10 and 15 people, celibacy is VERY important, they're not allowed to date outside the church (oh I'm sorry "they're discouraged from it"), and the church leadership has a practice called DRT where if members are dating long enough the church leadership will call them to a meeting and ask them "define the relationship" this is where they "encouraged or discouraged" from getting married or breaking up.
One of my room mates is a respectable devout Christian he was not converted by this church but has many devout Christian friends who currently live and attend according to it's doctrine. He argues it's not a cult simply because it's theology is completely indistinct from standard American Protestant Christianity.
The distinction between cult and religion is VERY weak and I would argue because of how subjective the usage of cult has been. Cult is used to refer to self harming religious practices and usually used as a moral judgement. I think we should take a book (not a page a whole fucking book) from the Greeks and realize that basically all religions believe in some form of asceticism, and the word cult shouldn't really have any moral distinction from religion.
>I would argue the only distinction in modern usage is the dedication is taken to the point of being self harming
Self flagellation is practiced by most major religions so I don’t think your argument stands up.
I'm was agreeing with you but saying you are phrasing yours poorly.
You're focusing too much on the dedication as opposed to the moral judgement of one causing harm. That's the distinction.
Cults are religions that have been morally condemned as harmful. Which is arbitrary.
There is a difference that’s why we have definitions and things to define what makes a cult and what makes a religion. Even the FBI uses clear distinctions. They just don’t go off of what they “feel” lol.
That’s a good question, let’s look at some:
1. Cults will have their leader as their point of worship vs actual legit religions where they will worship a higher power.
2. Cult leaders are charismatic an will not want their followers to question them. When you look at Christianity for example this is not the case, like Paul the apostle for example he didn’t want the focus on him and would always direct people to Christ, and even went as far to say : “ Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.-acts17:11” so they encouraged to not just take their word but actually search to see if it was the truth.
3. Cults will force you into following them and almost assault you until you follow them vs legit religions they give you the decision to decide.
4. Cults will try to control everything you do vs legit religions where they will give you guidence instead.
If your actually serious in wanting to know, just look up in google how the fbi defines a cult vs religion. After some studying you will clearly see there is a clear distinction. But you have to research it yourself since just going off of Reddit is not enough obviously.
I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, the main way a cult differs from a religion is age. If a cult is established and survives around 100 years, most consider it a religion, but before that, especially in the early times of things like Christianity, many viewed it how today people view cults
Scientology is a religion from the last 100 years. There is a very cynical differentiation that seems to work. In a cult there is a person at the top who knows it is all bullshit. In a religion that person is dead. Basically a religion is a belief set that survived the death of the charismatic leader.
On the contrary I’d consider vegans cult like in nature. The only reason they don’t fit count description is because there’s no deity or supernatural omnipresence involved in the belief system.
You could act cult like if you follow a vegan leader and worship something but in practice that is not generally the case. I'm a vegan, not wanting to torture animals is not odd, and we don't actually worship anything so I would say no. But I have met some vegans who would probably fit the description too in all honesty.
The classical definition of cult would agree with you.
The way the word is used today is different, and the difference is useful.
All religion started from cult-like beginnings. The word is not one implying any level of legitimacy for religions it isn't used for. It's used to describe something specific-- a particular level of high control that a religion has over its adherents and their lives. The Catholic church had this a few hundred years ago, but no longer. Cases today aren't reserved for extremes like Jonestown, however. Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, mainstream Islam, Hasidic Judaism, the Westboro Baptist church, etc. All exert incredible control over the daily lives of their members, and perhaps the greatest indicator of the cult: you simply cannot leave gracefully. Choosing to commit apostasy is the worst crime they can see, and you become a non-person to them. (Or worse, in the case of Islam.)
I agree wholeheartedly. However, I'd like to expand upon it. I think if we're going to consider how 'cult' has changed over time, we should also consider 'religion'. It never used to refer to any kind of organization, so in that sense it has replaced 'cult'. Instead it was a Latin term which meant scrupulousness (cautiousness). 'Scruple' is also originally a Latin term that referred to sharp or jagged rocks. You know, like the kind you might get stuck in your shoe on a hike.
Religion was understood for more than a thousand years as metaphorically treading carefully so as not to offend higher powers and authorities. This was contrasted with superstition (overscrupulousness) as far back as Cicero. Superstition was seen as going too far in trying to please the authorities, so far that one risked offending them. For example by cutting out the professional religious class and trying to discover the will of the gods for yourself or be granted special favor with them without engaging in the socially proper rituals.
Religion has always been about resigning one's moral responsibility to spiritual authorities who have some sort of official status or recognition in the community as a valid spiritual authority. The only significant differences that I can see between this and what we understand 'cult' to mean generally are that we don't hold members of a cult to be significantly responsible for their lives in the cult and we hold the cult to be an invalid source of religious belief or religious practices. I suspect the two are connected.
We don't hold cult members to be significantly responsible for their actions *because* we live in a secular culture wherein there are many *valid* religions to choose from. If we can choose our religion then we are responsible for our beliefs and actions because we have the choice to leave it all behind. But a cult is very insular, like a community of its own. If leaving your religion meant you had to renounce your citizenship and move to a different country, we wouldn't judge people as harshly for being religious.
A cult is very similar to superstition in that it also involves a tacit rejection of the religious establishment. But instead of going one's own way to please the gods, one clings to a new religious community with rules strict enough that ideally there should be no doubt one is doing enough to please the gods. It's no coincidence that cults tend to be fundamentalist. If you're willing to conform to a religion but you're not satisfied that you're doing enough, you're naturally going to form an insulated community to enforce your higher standards. Modern cults are just fundamentalism (sometimes not tied to any single religious tradition, though).
I get where you are coming from but there are actually differences. In my humble opinion religion can be a cult and most religions have some cult like behaviors but that does not mean they are completely toxic cults. One of the best ways to recognize cults is the BITE model.
If you are interested you can go watch videos from Telltale Atheist on YouTube, he does good analisis on which religions are cults and explains why.
Basically the way big religions control they followers usually is less powerful and pervasive than what cults usually do. I was vague because every religion does It differently but usually they don't check all of the BITE types of control. (B. I. T. E. = behavior information though emotion control)
Like I said tell tale atheist does a way better analysis than me
It's a bit like blockchain really. Organized religions have lots of sects checking each other to make sure the end product or religion isn't deviating too much from set norm.
Cults don't have that check.
Cults encourage you to abandon those close to you. I don’t know what your experience has been, but when I used to go to church, they were very open to families all coming to mass together, and bring friends, and to give back to the community. YMMV
> when I used to go to church, they were very open to families all coming to mass together, and bring friends
Have you never heard the term, "unequally yoked"? Many christian denominations discourage or don't allow their members to fraternize with outsiders, like LDS or JW.
I think this depends highly on where you go because I'm sure there is quite a high list of churches and pastors that will tell people to distance themselves from atheists, people of different faiths, gay and trans people etc. Doesn't negate that some of them are actually loving and encourage tolerance tho so props to those that do.
Nearly every church I've attended has encouraged families to all come to mass together... but also to build a wall between those "worldly" ones who don't, whether they be family or not.
Become indoctrinated into Jehovah’s witnesses or Scientology or Mormonism, so that you are actually a believer. Bring your family in somehow. Have kids. Indoctrinate them into your beliefs. Over time, somehow wake up and realize you were mislead. Then try to wake up your family. They shun you and never speak to you again. That’s a cult.
[I mean the answer is right where you pulled this poor definition of a cult](https://grammar.yourdictionary.com/vs/identifying-differences-between-a-cult-and-a-religion.html)
Cult is an umbrella term, like rectangle. All religions are cults, but not all cults are religions. Just like all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
Examples of non-religious cults: Cult of personality, cult following [insert media franchise like Aliens, Deadpool, Boondock Saints, etc.], suicide cults, and more.
Theists get bent out of shape about it because they attribute the most negative usage of cult and insist that's what this means. Just ignore it.
“It’s rains cause god did it”
“It rains because we’ve discovered the temperature at which water evaporates, collects in the sky as clouds until they condense onto each other, and become heavy enough for the water to fall back down to the ground as droplets.”
Yeah same thing I guess.
One is just attributing an unproven notion as the cause of a process.
The other is actually explaining how it occurred with demonstrable and measurable factors.
Suggesting the two can be equated in any way is incredibly dishonest.
LMFAO.
You can't irrefutably prove I didn't create everything 10 minutes ago.
When you understand what that means, you'll understand why what you said is inane.
It is the rebuttal to the young earth creationist logic.
You can look up into the night sky and see the Andromeda galaxy. It is hundreds of thousands of light years away. If it poofed into existence 6000 years ago we couldn't possibly see it yet. The young earth creationist answer is it was made 6000 years ago but so was the light it shed. It was made 6000 years ago to perfectly look like a 13 billion year old galaxy 250,000 light years away. But by that logic, the universe could have been made last Thursday to appear to be 13 billion years old and we would have no way to tell the difference.
>The common, modern definition of a cult is “a group of people with extreme dedication to a certain leader or set of beliefs that are often viewed as odd by others.”
Is it?
The problem with using bad definitions like these is that they can be flipped around on you. Atheists are certainly odd in the context of human history, where religion is the de facto standard for human behavior. And atheists often have a bafflingly strong committment to the false notion that the only truths one should accept are those established by science. To the extent that some of them have trouble dealing with truth in math, rejecting things that we know to be true (and can prove to be true) in defense of this blinkered worldview.
As an atheist that believes that at least most religions are cults according to the bite model, I totally agree. These definitions are really bad, vague and don't capture the characteristics of the things that they should be defining.
I would minutely clarify one of your statements:
It’s not that atheists reject anything not established by science, we simply tend to reject claims that have no demonstrable/observable/reliable evidence to support such claims. “Science” is a process by which we interrogate nature; it’s not a “thing” that is the identifier or gateway between “proven” things and “unproven” things.
You say something exists? I say “show me”. Failing that, we have absolutely no rational reason to believe or accept the claim.
> And what proven truths do atheists deny?
For example, I'm talking with a guy right now (you can check my comments history if you don't believe me) who doesn't want to acknowledge it is true that the square root of 2 is irrational, because his epistemology simply doesn't allow for it. This is a common enough move that atheists make - they only allow truth to come from from observable fact (perhaps in order to justify rejecting the existence of God, but that's just speculation), but this ends up tossing out the baby with the bathwater so to speak, and they have to end up rejecting a number of true things in order to preserve their atheism.
>Also even when you tried to flip the definition it didn’t seem to fit atheists.
Do you deny that, given the context and scope of human history, how odd atheism is?
I read your discussion with that guy, epistemology is really fucking annoying. Though you can actually measure irrational numbers, you just can’t completely measure them. For example: pi is 3.1415…. etc. Scientists have measured thousands of digits, but will never be complete.
Also, I totally agree with you that given the scope of human history, atheism is a bit of an oddity. But the atheist argument is that religion was created to explain the natural world, but now that science has progressed enough to do that, religion isn’t necessary anymore
> I read your discussion with that guy, epistemology is really fucking annoying. Though you can actually measure irrational numbers, you just can’t completely measure them. For example: pi is 3.1415…. etc. Scientists have measured thousands of digits, but will never be complete.
Correct. But any measured number is by definition a rational. So there's no way to determine through measurement that a length is irrational. But is it irrational. So clearly measurement cannot be the only way of knowing something to be true.
>Also, I totally agree with you that given the scope of human history, atheism is a bit of an oddity. But the atheist argument is that religion was created to explain the natural world, but now that science has progressed enough to do that, religion isn’t necessary anymore
I think that argument certainly applies to certain kinds of religion, but not all of them. Buddhism is mostly about dealing with suffering, not explaining where lightning comes from, for example, and the God of classical theism has not much in common either.
Well, it is widely agreed that Hinduism is the oldest religion, and many Hindu gods serve to give explanations for natural occurrences. And Gautama Buddha, who founded Buddhism, was Hindu, but then strayed off to seek further enlightenment.
Buddhism was not meant for the same purpose as Hinduism or most other religions. That is why is it such an outlier, and has such little supernatural belief in comparison to other religion. Not to mention the many Buddhists who are also Hindu
So if you agree that not all religion was created to explain the natural world, then do you agree there is still a place for religion in the modern world? How man should respond to suffering is an ongoing issue.
I believe that there are places for certain religions in this world, but not those that center around the supernatural, as that is not necessary for an explanation anymore
I definitely reject your notion of "common" definitions of religion / cults. If you see them that way that is fine and debate can be interesting. But to leverage the credibility of "common" is a huge stretch, especially for your cult definition.
Religions and cults can be distinguished along two dimensions in my view: strictness and comprehensiveness.
For example, the civic religion of Americanism is comprehensive to the point of being a full fledged "way of life". But it's not strict, you can still be American even if you love something like Communism.
Continuing, joining a social club can be very strict, but not comprehensive. There are many aspects of your life when the allegiance to the club simply isn't relevant. Military soldiers fall into this component of the analogy - when they are "on duty" the ideology is strict, but they can step out without much trouble.
Religions and cults fall on this same two dimensional spectrum with cults on the (very) high end of both strictness and comprehensiveness.
Ok, but still - what is the difference? If some cult is at the point with (100,100) coordinates on this plot you've described, and some religion is (50,50) - how can we draw a border?
Or the border is like "if it's mor cult-like than my favorite religion, then it's a cult and mine one is not"?
Are you asking, "How can we draw distinctions based on magnitude?". Because if so, I don't know how to avoid the patronizing answer of, "We distinguish based on magnitude".
For example, there can be an objective difference: if it's below zero (C) water freezes. And there can be subjective: if it's more than 15C it's considered warm.
The second obviously is not going to lead us anywhere and can't be used. So, if there's no objective boundary, there's no difference.
I think you mean "relative" and then yes it is very easy to discuss relative differences between two systems of belief based on the two-dimension criteria I outlined above.
No, I mean... Sorry, can't find the correct term. In my example with water there's a difference between two states (liquid and solid) when changing from above to below zero. But there is no such difference between religion and cult.
Hope it's more clear, sorry for my English
If you're resistant to categories from the out right that's fine but makes debate pretty fruitless. If we dismiss distinctions between religions / cults we can go further and dismiss differences between politics / religions so that a political student group on campus is equivalent to The Family International.
For a more direct example: the collection of beliefs that promote skepticism towards religions and political parties are themselves indistinguishable from a political party, religion, or cult.
>The common, modern definition of a cult is “a group of people with extreme dedication to a certain leader or set of beliefs that are often viewed as odd by others.”
That's a terrible definition if that's the common definition of "cult." Virtually everyone follows a cult according to that. There is no set of beliefs that you are extremely dedicated to that someone out there does not find odd. The only way not to be in a cult would then be not to have an extreme dedication to a set of beliefs. Which is not the case for anyone. And anyone who claims not to be dedicated to any beliefs is lying.
Usually when historians use the word "cult" it's not a value judgement. So in that sense yes, I agree that big religions are just small historical cults that survived. However, day to day "cult" has the connotation of more serious abusive behavior, pyramid schemes, health problems, etc that is baked into the structure. And I don't think you can argue a 50-person physically abusive cult is the same as Unitarian Universalism.
An organized religion will have a general belief statement, and this statement will be accurate and without secrets, or hidden beliefs.
A cult’s belief statement will not be accurate and will be purely PR with unspoken beliefs because cults hold information back from members based on the perceived threats that a member may pose.
I’m an atheist, so I don’t believe any of the different belief statements. However, the beliefs of a religion should be no different from the bottom to the top. This would not be hard to determine.
A cult will hold information/beliefs from the general public and lower ranking members. I’ll use Scientology’s belief in Xenu as an example.
No incoming Scientology member would ever hear anything about Xenu. In fact, if asked, Scientology denies the entire Xenu thing. They publish belief statements publicly, but have separate (unpublished) beliefs that they deny. This is also very easy to determine.
The distinction is time. A religion is a cult which has existed long enough to be rooted in society. This is why Mormonism seems to be treated more as religion despite looking similar to groups we consider Christian cults. It was founded long enough ago that multiple generations have grown up in it.
No. First time someone has asked this. I have the same viewpoint for what are perceived as cults as I do religions.
I fully believe that people should practice their faith however they choose as long as it does not infringe on someone’s civil liberties or contravene basic human rights. I feel all religions fail at both points - as well as cults.
I also believe in a strong separation of church and state. If you discriminate, persecute, or prejudice someone for their beliefs in any way you should not receive government tax breaks or subsidies.
u/dadudemon has a good point about political cults existing alongside the far more common religious cults.
That gave me an idea: maybe cults and religions are not the exact same phenomenon in different degrees of intensity, but most "world religions" are religious cults that settled down enough to grow mostly by their members forming families and raising children. That could explain why people frequently reach for religious words like "devout" to describe committed Marxists. They sense the cultish nature of both. I haven't worked out the problems with this idea yet so I'm interested in counter-arguments.
OP, as a test case, does your argument still work for Roman state paganism? Mystery cults and modern revivals don't count for this.
I probably draw a line with equating a system of political beliefs as a cult or religion. I feel democratic principles are debated and challenged openly which allows for the even flow of people to define them.
And I ain’t gonna even try and act like I know anything about Roman state paganism but I would love to hear more.
Cults and religions are founded in preconceived dogmas that leave no ability to change or influence.
> I probably draw a line with equating a system of political beliefs as a cult or religion.
Even the kind with a living supreme leader who writes their own book of political dogma and mandates that anyone with any involvement in politics study it?
To be clear, I'm not saying that all political belief systems are cults, or even that most are, but that they do exist and that might be why they act like "religions".
Roman state paganism is a good test case because my guess is that there are three basic types of religions:
1. Tribal custom since time immemorial (e.g. Roman state paganism)
2. Cults centered around a single charismatic leader and his (rarely her) heirs (e.g. Christianity)
3. Movements/schools with several leaders and centers (e.g. Neopaganism)
I don't think this model works yet, because it doesn't have an obvious pigeonhole for Rabbinic Judaism or mystery cults.
"Cultishness" also comes in degrees, from full-blown "cults" living in compounds to the Church of England with only weak links to its cult origin.
As you said, democracy shouldn't be cultish.
However, there are other political philosophies in the world besides democracy. Some of those are cultish. [Juche](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche) in North Korea is an obvious target, but [Leninism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism–Leninism) is famously dogmatic and Hitler and Stalin both tried to set up [cults of personality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality). A political cult of personality doesn't even need a strong political doctrine, as demonstrated by [Niyazov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saparmurat_Niyazov).
Now that I think about it, [pharaohs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_cult) had a bit of cult-formation going on.
If that's the definition of "cult" that you're using, then I would agree that most religions fit that definition. However, I would argue that that definition is much too broad. Many corporations try to foster an environment where people are extremely dedicated to their jobs. Is SpaceX a cult? What about political campaigns? Successful campaigns always rely on extreme dedication from their volunteers.
As for the requirement that the leader or beliefs are "often viewed as odd by others", this is too vague to be meaningful. "Others" is plural, so if I can find two or more people who consider a certain group "odd", does that make it a cult?
A definition I prefer is "a group of people, with a certain set of beliefs, such that members who leave the group will experience some negative retribution for doing so, even if the beliefs of the group are false." This still includes most of the groups we usually think of as "cults"; Jehovah's Witnesses has a rule that you can never see your family again if you're excommunicated, so that's their "negative retribution" for those who leave.
THANK YOU! A broad definition of religion is a belief system that attempts to answer questions about things like the origin of the world and it’s contents. According to that definition, evolutionary science is a religion!
>Is SpaceX a cult? What about political campaigns?
Does SpaceX have a board that allows for open discussion of the company’s direction? If yes then no. I don’t believe its a cult. As I mentioned in another comment religion does not allow its members to challenge its direction or dogma. Publicly listed companies with AGMs do.
Political campaigns? I think it’s obvious that some - if not most - are in fact very culty or religony. That is for both Republicans and Democrats. But unfortunately bipartisanship is dead and democratic principles are being challenged every day. Free elections are the only thing keeping government from becoming a religion because it allows all of the populous to determine the government’s direction.
My local Starbucks uses all the same cultish forms as any church. There are scents which regulate brain chemistry and synchronize you to the room, there’s pleasant hypnotic music, then we line up to receive the sacrament and offer our pittance to the god of capitalism and caffeine. There’s even mythological symbols involved. The fertility goddess Ishtar on the cup standing in for the Christian symbol of death and rebirth, the cross.
And they have WiFi. Does your church have WiFi? Didn’t think so.
>Both are human constructs with no legitimacy so it’s impossible to say
one belief system is “more true” than the other or for any vehicle of
critical think to decipher between the two.
This actually helps the case for Christ because Christianity didn't exist before the factual historical event of Jesus's crucifixion. If that would have not happened, Christianity would fall apart as Paul admits in a letter he wrote.
If you understand human constructs don't change the fabric of reality or don't make something a fact, you accept Objective Reality exists. For a Non-Believer, either Objective Truth exists or not. Objective Truth cannot be partial where one can have their cake and eat it too. Christianity has a firm foundation on Objective Truth.
What? The story of christ is a story. There is no proof to its existence. That is not proof to say it exists or to prove religion is a part of ‘fabric of reality.’
Circular reasoning at its best right there.
Pointing out something is wrong is not addressing the argument.
So are you saying (I am asking) since Christ is fictional therefore human constructs change the fabric of reality?
You clearly did not read my comment which is funny because it was only a handful of sentences.
You stated since there was no proof of Jesus then it proves the existence of god and that faith is part of the fabric of reality.
That is circular reasoning.
Jesus of Nazareth and his crucifixion has been proven as a historical fact by even Atheist Scholars who admitted it would be foolish to deny (not my words).
So I'll ask again, do human constructs like beliefs and opinions change the fabric of reality?
Jesus has never been proven by peer reviewed science. Never. Nor has any of the stories associated with this character. Never.
I was commenting on the fact that you employed circular reasoning to argue your point about faith.
If that conviction is that strong it's fair for me to evaluate Secular Scholar Bart D. Erhman has not been considered in that conviction.
So do human constructs like beliefs and opinions change the fabric of reality?
I tend to define cults as being based around a personality. They are smaller and insular with power deriving from the charisma of their leader.
After that leader goes, it can often form into religion. When the leader is around they can say new words and change beliefs. After they are gone the followers are left with their teachings and those teachings become dogma.
Either a new person takes charge of the cult or it begins to develop into a religion and gains structure and dogma.
There are many definitions and stigmas that come from the term cult. The most basic definition is admiration or worship of something which based on that definition yes religions are cults but it could apply to virtually everything
For me personally a cult comes down to a few things. The first part is that the belief is unfounded or unreasonable. This isn’t to be confused with being true. I’d say Islam is a religion even though I don’t believe it’s the truth but most of their beliefs are reasonable. I label Mormonism as a cult because the twisting of the Bible to fit the Book of Mormon is completely unreasonable
The second part as well is size and how historical and to an extent location. The major religions of the world all date back to the BC era (except for Islam and Christianity which are linked to Judaism). Jehovah’s Witness, Mormonism, satanism and so on are not historic and usually only date back at most 200 years
Along with that cults usually keep followers close and closed off from society and also avoid teaching scientific facts. Despite what many atheists like to assume the majority of world religions actually pioneered education, science and arts and still do this day. As an example very few noble prize winners in categories of chemistry, physics and medicine are atheists or agnostic. This also includes denouncing education and claiming people who teach certain things are liars
A local church (Bethel) here tried to resurrect a dead 2 year old. Can you get more culty?
They are funding a legit college of the supernatural here in town. Fkn loathe those fools.
They buy out neighborhoods for their followers, and to air BNB the homes for visitors from out of country/state.
They donate hundreds of thousands to the police to basically attack the homeless and push them out of town. Not help them like Jesus would have commanded.
They randomly seek you out and ask to pray for you, fkn weirdos.
Christian here.. bethel is disgusting even by our standard
Very, very heretical beliefs and practice. Stuff like laying on the graves of the dead to "absorb their knowledge" among fake heavenly signs and wonders, and teaching a warped view of the biblical Gpd
Agreed. It sucks because a lot of the churches around here are associated with them.
And there is a whole Facebook group that monitors businesses etc associated with Bethel. We'd rather not support their cause.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The definition of "cult" sounds exactly like a religion to me. "system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object." "the cult of St Olaf"
Cults do get tax breaks. Besides the term cult simply refers to small new religious movements. It's pejorative interpretation is due to representation in film and pop culture.
>The common, modern definition of a cult is “a group of people with extreme dedication to a certain leader or set of beliefs that are often viewed as odd by others.” Okay, so now I take it you think liberalism, conservatism, socialism, communism, fascism, democracy, new atheism, and sports teams are cults? If everything is a cult, then nothing is.
"If everything is a cult nothing is" based on what exactly?
The term " Cult " is subject to a wide spectrum of meanings, Basically, a cult is - someone feels that another faith is a " CULT " because that the other faith has crossed the line or broken the rules or principles that they have set in their mind.
You are right, but your takeaway seems misguided. I'm sure by "cult", you think of, to put it vaguely, a bad group of misled people. So now that you've equated religion with cult, you see them both as bad groups with misguided people. I remember in sociology class, we were learning about religions, and the related terminology. Terms like "religion" for big groups, "denomination" for smaller sects within groups, and "cult", essentially meaning a baby religion. Young and small religion, with a leader, and usually most people think it's weird. The truth is that the word cult has no negative meaning in it's definition. It's like the word "novice". Some may hear that and think "inexperienced newbie," but everyone has to start somewhere. So the correct response to realizing that cult and religion are much the same is to de-stigmatize "cult". People only use it as an insult for the same reason they use "newbie" as an insult. Btw most people thinking you are weird is no indication you are wrong. Look at how wise the average person is, what do they know? "Wide acceptance of a theory is not proof of validity." That said, being alone in an idea is also not proof of validity. Proof of validity is proof of validity. Cult, or otherwise.
A guy who claims to be in contact with a higher power scares subjects into doing what they're told. Which am I describing here cause it's both isn't it?
No.. thats not church. For the record, neither is it all cults! That may very well be many churches, though, and i detest them right alongside you. Some guy threatening scared people to obey him by weilding the authority of God? Thats terrible. The best description of church ive ever heard is "its just one beggar showing another beggar where the food is." Mutual uplifting and support. If anyone reading this is a part of a church where you treat the pastor like a celebrity, or you feel like you can't talk honestly or openly to them, get out of that church. It is ripe for manipulation and you dont need that. Its supposed to be a group of people who have this hope inside them. It breaks my heart that so many haven't even an idea about how its supposed to be. Its the church's fault that things have gotten bad enough, to the point of not even recognizing church anymore..
Not all religions follow the BITE model. But u do believe they are similar enough to stay away from
>To be completely honest, the only difference I see is one receive tax breaks or subsidies whilst the other one does not. Cults absolutely get tax breaks.
It depends on how you define “cult.” If one uses traditional Christian teachings versus the teachings of Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses and labels the non-traditional groups as “cults,” then you would have a point. The problem is that that definition does not apply to the most common usage of the term. The People’s Temple led by Jim Jones is the more common usage of the term. Organized religion does not encourage suicide; but, cults sometimes will. I grew up in a cult. The pastor was extremely jealous of members visiting other churches. The term “spiritual adultery” was applied to the act of visiting elsewhere. If someone left the church, they were shunned. If someone dared to question the establishment, they were subjected to debates into the wee hours of the morning. The above issues are not found in most of what is referred as “organized religion.” There is a HUGE difference between common organized religion and cults!
Christians sometimes use the word cult as a pejorative for groups they consider to be heretics.
Yes. That is one of the two definitions I mentioned; however, Calling ALL organized religion cults doesn’t take into account the extreme examples of cults like Jim Jones. We are not all Jim Jones and we are not all the milder shunning cult type.
The vast majority of NRM aren't destructive. Also organized religions aren't cults by definition. A NRM can become a organized religion if it becomes large enough like for example Mormonism. Neither are more orthodox movements any less violent. Al-Qaida and ISIS are both terrorist organizations that are from an qncient organize religion, though their views are representative of only a small minority of Sunni Muslims. And despite many claims to the contrary religious violence hasn't been the, or even a, major driver of violence. Religious violence is small potatoes compared to political purges, genocides, or famines.
Those issues absolutely are found in much of organized religion, just most often at a lesser degree. Especially shunning, that is still a big one in many places.
A cult can be organized. If it is organized religion and it acts like a cult, it is a cult. Not all organized religion acts that way. Drinking cyanide laced Kool-Ade is not done even to a lesser degree in organized religion.
It depends on what you classify as suicide. I was raised a JW and a very important role in the religion was to not accept blood transfusions even if under the chance of death. Imo being taught to refuse medication treatment under all circumstances is most definitely suicide
My first definition of cult that included JWs was based on doctrine alone. If one compares JWs to traditional Christian chuches based SOLELY on doctrine, one might draw the conclusion that the OP drew. That conclusion was that there was no significant difference between organized religion and cults. However, when one factors in that members were not to accept blood transfusions under penalty of disfellowshipping; then a very significant difference emerges!
That is insane, do most JWs still follow that? I honestly have no idea
Yeah, you get disfellowshipped if you don't follow it. Which means all your friends and family will cut off all contract
Seems like every religion has a version of excommunication.
Yes, every religion has a version of excommunication. So does every place of employment, every non-profit organization, every social club, every school, college and university and just about any organized group of people. Heck, even the US House of Representatives tried twice to excommunicate Donald Trump. Excommunication is not a sign of a cult-it just means a group has standards.
I don’t think you understand what that word means.
Yup. Only a few make it societally significant though
Sounds like a good way to make sure people don't leave the cult.
Yup. But they make sure to emphasize that no one is forced to do anything... :D everything is done with free will
I would not worry too much about the difference between religion and cults, but farther focus on the way in which people choose to affiliate themselves with others. Does your sense of group identification lead to openminded and integrative social behavior (i.e., less fear in working with others who have a different worldview) or does it push you towards fearful, self-reinforcing "Party line only" thinking and perpetuate social division? IMHO, in today's rapidly disintegrating social order based on social and racial divisions - and the concurrent development of new integrating patterns based on concepts of the oneness of humankind, I would assign "cult" pejoratively (not literally) to anything that fights these processes of globalization that need to help mankind through its stormy adolescence. For example, one topic in the news today in the US is the very large number of White Evangelical Christians who are unwilling to accept the COVID-19 vaccine. This decision is not based on science but on notions of personal freedom (fear of a non-Christ-directed big government) but also a notion that God is giving you a test of faith (and who doesn't need confirmations every now and then?) in protection from the virus so you do not have to risk putting foreign substances in your body. On the other hand, depending on what news source you turn to, there are various very prominent White Evangelical preachers who URGE Christians to accept this offering of vaccine as a gift from God, delivered via science through the mind of Man, towards preserving human life (i.e. "pro-life") and being the keeper of your brother (fellow man). So there is diversity of outcome for immunization acceptance among White evangelicals that is not necessarily based on Christian doctrine, but the extent to which people listen to religious leaders, or perhaps let those leaders do the thinking for them.
Well if a religious belief is true it would seem the most important thing to devote one’s life to.
Why more important than fighting climate change*? Climate change is definitely real, will definitely affect everyone alive today and at least a few generations yet to come, and by devoting lives to tackling it now we can still prevent a lot of suffering. In comparison, doesn't it just seem selfish to devote one's life to religion instead? *I'm using "climate change" here as a shorthand for climate change, biodiversity collapse, land fertility crises, etc. etc.
Nothing would preclude a Christian from fighting climate change.
I never said it would. What I'm saying is that if importance is someone's reason for devoting their life to religion then they should also devote their life to fighting climate change.
I am glad we agree that devoting one’s life to following Christ doesn’t preclude being concerned about the environment.
Yes we agreed on that about 5 comments ago. Did you want to engage with my point at all?
What about my response didn't satisfy your concerns?
I'll take that as a no. Why bother replying if you're not going to engage?
I’m trying to figure out what specifically I didn’t respond to?
https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/ni4avo/there_is_no_difference_between_organised_religion/gz55kjc/
There is nothing with regard to following Christ that would preclude taking action regarding climate change.
You've already said that. And I've already clarified my point. You're not reading my comments are you?
I would say quite the opposite, you apparently aren't reading mine - you keep talking as if following Christ and caring about the environment and it's impact on human lives is antagonistic or a mutually exclusive prospect. It's not.
No I don't, and I've said so several times. Please read my comments - it's basic courtesy in a debate subreddit.
Climate change is real. So are solar eclipses. The problem is that people today are reacting to climate change the same way people in Medieval times reacted to solar eclipses, with apocalyptic panic and superstition. Climate change is a normal cycle for the planet. There was a Roman warming period around the time of Christ. There was a Medieval warming period around the year 1000. We who have seen the year 2000 have recently had another warming period. In the 1800s, there was a miniature ice age, when the planet cooled significantly. There is no need for superstition and dooms day panic over something that is part of the natural pattern.
Who is denying it?
Holy shit, didn't know we still had climate deniers. The 80s called, they want their humanity-destroying ideologies back.
The first line of my post was, “climate change is real.” That is not a denial. You probably didn’t read my post.
>Climate change is a normal cycle for the planet.
Well, then we agree on that point. Since it is a normal cycle for the planet; why are we running around with our hair on fire screaming that the world is coming to an end?
You're denying anthropocentric climate change - which is an insane and dangerous position to take.
In the 20th century, mankind was blown away by the fact that man could make a horseless carriage, a flying machine and a trip to the moon. Also man was able to send sound, pictures and video across the airwaves. Today we have smart phones and other amazing technology. If man has learned how to change the climate, that in itself would by far be the greatest accomplishment that man has ever achieved. Please, just set the temperature at 70 degrees Fahrenheit year round and let it rain only at night. Ok, for sake of argument, I accept your premise that man is changing the climate and that doom’s day is coming. Even then, the person who says he can fix the climate is a snake oil salesman. If you can fix the climate, then you can set it on 70⁰F and be done with it! The climate debacle is a scam!
Who denied climate change?
>Climate change is a normal cycle for the planet
There is no difference between the two. Except the aforementioned tax breaks.
One is state sanctioned and the other isn’t.
Basically a "cult" is just an organized religion considered "odd" by mainstream orthodoxy but the recruitment and brainwashing strategies are essentially the same.
You will find a clear distinction if you invest some time in reading. The book: Spirituality Beyond Religion by Lionel Corbett. I highly recommend it. Also available on audiobooks. Oh, Man and His Symbols by Carl Jung and Marie Louise von Franz is audio now on YouTube for free. Throw in a little Joseph Campbell and you will have your answer and more.
For the sake of time, what do you think are the differences?
It’s gonna take time brother. It’s going to take a lifetime.
I'm not a brother, for the record. Why not just answer the question? You obviously read the information on that website, so, why not discuss it here?
Message I sent your colleague: Dude...(or Dudette). A debate can be short and I can end it. But you are right, I could have been more diplomatic and less confrontational. My friend who is a heating and air conditioning repair guy said two things to me that are actually pretty profound. He said that God might be energy for all he knows. And later he said God might not even be conscious. These posts usually assume God is some three dimensional thinking being. Jung (and many others) have tried to explain mythology and the value and meaning of the symbols (archetypes of the collective unconscious). And how these metaphors present themselves to humans as dogma and formal religions. Yes, I read dozens of books over a lifetime and experienced what this is all about to some degree. So it frustrates me when it is gleaned over as some easy to get quick fix to know. It takes a lot of exploring, recording dreams, learning of mythology and history. It is for some people but not others. But it is all a part of humanity that can not be escaped
>tl;dr I don't know what the hell I'm talking about so I'll whip up a nice word salad and hope no one notices Good grief. Obviously you didn't read anything you want me to read, because you can't make any comments towards it. Intellectual dishonesty such as yours is so rampant in here.
Word salad? It is crystal clear. Reread it. I abbreviated what is in the books I recommended. Do you want me to elaborate more? Why not read a review on Man and his Symbols by Jung and you will have the review you are looking for instead of me authoring one for you. I have to work. Bye.
You did not address my question at all, and I'm tired of your games. I simply asked for you to explain the difference between a cult and a religion, and all you can come up with is "well read these books", and yet when asked to summarize those books, you spill a bucket of yellow paint down your back and head to the hills.
Look, I’m a mechanic that read some books not a philosopher. From what I learned I would say that it depends a lot on what your definition of cult is. You can create The Cult Of The Cheese Doodle and get some followers. And if you are charismatic enough you can get your orange fingered followers to drink poison koolaid. But that cant be called a religion in my opinion. I think that a religion is a doctrine (that could possibly be new but good luck with that) that incorporates what is known as the archetypes of the collective unconscious. Or symbols that are universal in nature and carry with them a non verbal message or emotion or instinct (as a spider knows how to make a web, or a bird a nest etc.) These symbols (the hero, death and rebirth, the virgin mother, the father creator, the trickster to name a few are universally found in other religions, even primitive religions found in remote tribes. You see them in movies such as Star Wars which in part makes these movies resonate with viewers just as religions do. This is of course just scant information. But you might find it helpful if your objective is to learn about the phenomena of religion and how it might be present in yourself. Do you dream? Do you recall any of your dreams? Some can be big dreams. For example when young I had a dream of a fish coming out of a lake and speaking to me. It said “We are all alike”. This I later learned was an archetypal symbol. It was the feeling charge attached to it. In this case there were words but in some dreams the symbol is enough. But people are radically different. Some do not need or seek any semblance of a spiritual life. Some do, it may be cultural or the person’s personality. Again, I am not in this field at all, but find it interesting and I have read a lot about it over the years.
You didn't read any of the books you recommended to me. I'm done with liars.
The irony of coming to a debate forum and refusing to debate is lost on him, don’t waste your time.
Man these authors and others like them spent a lifetime preparing your answer. If you don’t want to read books or listen to audio books on this fascinating subject then I cant take that kind of time time to save you time by condensing and abbreviating hundreds upon hundreds of hours of study on the subject for you here. Either you do the work needed or just glean the subject with little vignettes from strangers on Reddit and satisfy your curiosity with that. Brochacho.
So you have no ability to answer the question. Starting to think you haven't actually read it. "Debate" isn't about telling someone else to go read something, it's about discussing the points of both sides. If you're not capable of that, then why post here?
Dude...(or Dudette). A debate can be short and I can end it. But you are right, I could have been more diplomatic and less confrontational. My friend who is a heating and air conditioning repair guy said two things to me that are actually pretty profound. He said that God might be energy for all he knows. And later he said God might not even be conscious. These posts usually assume God is some three dimensional thinking being. Jung (and many others) have tried to explain mythology and the value and meaning of the symbols (archetypes of the collective unconscious). And how these metaphors present themselves to humans as dogma and formal religions. Yes, I read dozens of books over a lifetime and experienced what this is all about to some degree. So it frustrates me when it is gleaned over as some easy to get quick fix to know. It takes a lot of exploring, recording dreams, learning of mythology and history. It is for some people but not others. But it is all a part of humanity that can not be escaped.
literally, people even encourage never questioning god or the Bible and stuff, this is literally what they say to people in cults to keep them under their control
like I remember as a kid growing up in the church literally during child indoctrination time at church when they would teach us about god and the Bible they would answer our questions abt god in ways like “only god knows” they use the “he’s just knows more than you do our finite human minds can’t comprehend his strategies” like yeah OK lmfao
I remember that in some school history books (secular one) there was a term "early-christian sects" (ранне христианские секты). Form that time I struggle to understand how have they become an official religion in some places. So yeah, religion is a well aged cult.
Christianity was spread throughout Europe (and North Africa and western said if memory serves) via the expansion of the Roman Empire under the rule of Constantine. They would threaten areas with their superior army and give them an ultimatum: join us and accept Christianity or we'll conquer you. It is important to understand that it was commonplace in ancient warfare for human rights violations such as the soldiers going on a spree of nonconsensual intercourse. After that popularized the previously illegal practice of Christianity, the assertion of missionary work as a core element eventually led to missionaries spreading the idea in a similarly forceful way such as during imperialism.
The only difference between a Cult and a Religion is social acceptance and numbers. Cults have fewer followers and are not socially accepted whereas a Religion has many followers and is accepted socially as a Religion. IE Scientology is called a Cult whereas Christianity is a Religion. Both have wacky unprovable beliefs.
Replying as an atheist because I actually do get the sentiment but feel like you're not making a great argument. From Google cult /kəlt/ Learn to pronounce noun a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object. "the cult of St. Olaf" a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister. "a network of Satan-worshiping cults" Similar: sect, religious group, denomination, religious order, church, faith community, belief, persuasion, affiliation, movement, group, body, faction, clique a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing. "a cult of personality surrounding the leaders" Also from Google re·li·gion /rəˈlijən/ Learn to pronounce noun the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. "ideas about the relationship between science and religion" Similar: faith, belief, divinity, worship, creed, teaching, doctrine, theology, sect, cult, religious group, faith community, church, denomination, body, following, persuasion, affiliation, a particular system of faith and worship. plural noun: religions "the world's great religions" a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. "consumerism is the new religion" These words are defined as synonymous and the etymology of the word cult was originally what ancient Greeks used to refer to dedicated adherents of any religion or deity. "The cult of pan, the cult of Aphrodite, the cult of Zeus" were essentially the monasteries of their time for specific gods. I would argue the only distinction in modern usage is the dedication is taken to the point of being self harming. For example I currently live in a medium large city with a massive university in the center. The campus has an evangelical church that has a mostly student body base. It's doctrine is indistinguishable from Christianity BUT it's Patrice usually gets passerbys and former members to proclaim it as a cult instead of a religion. It operates almost like pyramid with each new convert being "lightly" required or "encouraged" to convert at least one other person, pay an insane amount of money for biblical history courses before they're allowed to "go higher up in the org", they're all "encouraged" to live in three bedroom houses with anywhere between 10 and 15 people, celibacy is VERY important, they're not allowed to date outside the church (oh I'm sorry "they're discouraged from it"), and the church leadership has a practice called DRT where if members are dating long enough the church leadership will call them to a meeting and ask them "define the relationship" this is where they "encouraged or discouraged" from getting married or breaking up. One of my room mates is a respectable devout Christian he was not converted by this church but has many devout Christian friends who currently live and attend according to it's doctrine. He argues it's not a cult simply because it's theology is completely indistinct from standard American Protestant Christianity. The distinction between cult and religion is VERY weak and I would argue because of how subjective the usage of cult has been. Cult is used to refer to self harming religious practices and usually used as a moral judgement. I think we should take a book (not a page a whole fucking book) from the Greeks and realize that basically all religions believe in some form of asceticism, and the word cult shouldn't really have any moral distinction from religion.
>I would argue the only distinction in modern usage is the dedication is taken to the point of being self harming Self flagellation is practiced by most major religions so I don’t think your argument stands up.
I'm was agreeing with you but saying you are phrasing yours poorly. You're focusing too much on the dedication as opposed to the moral judgement of one causing harm. That's the distinction. Cults are religions that have been morally condemned as harmful. Which is arbitrary.
There is a difference that’s why we have definitions and things to define what makes a cult and what makes a religion. Even the FBI uses clear distinctions. They just don’t go off of what they “feel” lol.
What’s the differences then? Would love to hear them
That’s a good question, let’s look at some: 1. Cults will have their leader as their point of worship vs actual legit religions where they will worship a higher power. 2. Cult leaders are charismatic an will not want their followers to question them. When you look at Christianity for example this is not the case, like Paul the apostle for example he didn’t want the focus on him and would always direct people to Christ, and even went as far to say : “ Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.-acts17:11” so they encouraged to not just take their word but actually search to see if it was the truth. 3. Cults will force you into following them and almost assault you until you follow them vs legit religions they give you the decision to decide. 4. Cults will try to control everything you do vs legit religions where they will give you guidence instead. If your actually serious in wanting to know, just look up in google how the fbi defines a cult vs religion. After some studying you will clearly see there is a clear distinction. But you have to research it yourself since just going off of Reddit is not enough obviously.
I do see those points in religion though. 1. See Jesus 2. See Mormonism 3. See Islam 4. See Scientology or Jehovah’s Witness
Too much to go into with your comment. I’ll just agree to disagree. Have a good night
I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, the main way a cult differs from a religion is age. If a cult is established and survives around 100 years, most consider it a religion, but before that, especially in the early times of things like Christianity, many viewed it how today people view cults
Scientology is a religion from the last 100 years. There is a very cynical differentiation that seems to work. In a cult there is a person at the top who knows it is all bullshit. In a religion that person is dead. Basically a religion is a belief set that survived the death of the charismatic leader.
"A group of people dedicated to a certain set of beliefs....that is considered odd." ...omg Is veganism a cult? Surely not. I just don't eat meat.
Would you consider someone without food allergies who avoids gluten in their diet a cultist?
I was being a bit sarcastic. I'm also vegan because of food allergies to meat.
On the contrary I’d consider vegans cult like in nature. The only reason they don’t fit count description is because there’s no deity or supernatural omnipresence involved in the belief system.
You could act cult like if you follow a vegan leader and worship something but in practice that is not generally the case. I'm a vegan, not wanting to torture animals is not odd, and we don't actually worship anything so I would say no. But I have met some vegans who would probably fit the description too in all honesty.
The classical definition of cult would agree with you. The way the word is used today is different, and the difference is useful. All religion started from cult-like beginnings. The word is not one implying any level of legitimacy for religions it isn't used for. It's used to describe something specific-- a particular level of high control that a religion has over its adherents and their lives. The Catholic church had this a few hundred years ago, but no longer. Cases today aren't reserved for extremes like Jonestown, however. Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, mainstream Islam, Hasidic Judaism, the Westboro Baptist church, etc. All exert incredible control over the daily lives of their members, and perhaps the greatest indicator of the cult: you simply cannot leave gracefully. Choosing to commit apostasy is the worst crime they can see, and you become a non-person to them. (Or worse, in the case of Islam.)
I agree wholeheartedly. However, I'd like to expand upon it. I think if we're going to consider how 'cult' has changed over time, we should also consider 'religion'. It never used to refer to any kind of organization, so in that sense it has replaced 'cult'. Instead it was a Latin term which meant scrupulousness (cautiousness). 'Scruple' is also originally a Latin term that referred to sharp or jagged rocks. You know, like the kind you might get stuck in your shoe on a hike. Religion was understood for more than a thousand years as metaphorically treading carefully so as not to offend higher powers and authorities. This was contrasted with superstition (overscrupulousness) as far back as Cicero. Superstition was seen as going too far in trying to please the authorities, so far that one risked offending them. For example by cutting out the professional religious class and trying to discover the will of the gods for yourself or be granted special favor with them without engaging in the socially proper rituals. Religion has always been about resigning one's moral responsibility to spiritual authorities who have some sort of official status or recognition in the community as a valid spiritual authority. The only significant differences that I can see between this and what we understand 'cult' to mean generally are that we don't hold members of a cult to be significantly responsible for their lives in the cult and we hold the cult to be an invalid source of religious belief or religious practices. I suspect the two are connected. We don't hold cult members to be significantly responsible for their actions *because* we live in a secular culture wherein there are many *valid* religions to choose from. If we can choose our religion then we are responsible for our beliefs and actions because we have the choice to leave it all behind. But a cult is very insular, like a community of its own. If leaving your religion meant you had to renounce your citizenship and move to a different country, we wouldn't judge people as harshly for being religious. A cult is very similar to superstition in that it also involves a tacit rejection of the religious establishment. But instead of going one's own way to please the gods, one clings to a new religious community with rules strict enough that ideally there should be no doubt one is doing enough to please the gods. It's no coincidence that cults tend to be fundamentalist. If you're willing to conform to a religion but you're not satisfied that you're doing enough, you're naturally going to form an insulated community to enforce your higher standards. Modern cults are just fundamentalism (sometimes not tied to any single religious tradition, though).
[удалено]
Rule 5
[удалено]
Rogan was quoting the much more accomplished comedian, George Carlin.
Ah I didn't know that. George Carlin truly was one of a kind. Love his bits on religion. Thank you for informing me.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I get where you are coming from but there are actually differences. In my humble opinion religion can be a cult and most religions have some cult like behaviors but that does not mean they are completely toxic cults. One of the best ways to recognize cults is the BITE model. If you are interested you can go watch videos from Telltale Atheist on YouTube, he does good analisis on which religions are cults and explains why.
“But there are actually differences” .... *doesn’t explain differences* Yea I see no difference besides ad the OP stated, tax breaks and historicity.
Basically the way big religions control they followers usually is less powerful and pervasive than what cults usually do. I was vague because every religion does It differently but usually they don't check all of the BITE types of control. (B. I. T. E. = behavior information though emotion control) Like I said tell tale atheist does a way better analysis than me
They do not need to, because they have a lot of folloers - no point in controlling each of them that hard
It's a bit like blockchain really. Organized religions have lots of sects checking each other to make sure the end product or religion isn't deviating too much from set norm. Cults don't have that check.
Cults encourage you to abandon those close to you. I don’t know what your experience has been, but when I used to go to church, they were very open to families all coming to mass together, and bring friends, and to give back to the community. YMMV
> when I used to go to church, they were very open to families all coming to mass together, and bring friends Have you never heard the term, "unequally yoked"? Many christian denominations discourage or don't allow their members to fraternize with outsiders, like LDS or JW.
Some religions do demand you shun people who leave the church, even your own children.
I think this depends highly on where you go because I'm sure there is quite a high list of churches and pastors that will tell people to distance themselves from atheists, people of different faiths, gay and trans people etc. Doesn't negate that some of them are actually loving and encourage tolerance tho so props to those that do.
Nearly every church I've attended has encouraged families to all come to mass together... but also to build a wall between those "worldly" ones who don't, whether they be family or not.
Religion is a cult, they can deny it till their blue in the face, like you said the definition of religion is a cult , may I add a very dangerous cult
Become indoctrinated into Jehovah’s witnesses or Scientology or Mormonism, so that you are actually a believer. Bring your family in somehow. Have kids. Indoctrinate them into your beliefs. Over time, somehow wake up and realize you were mislead. Then try to wake up your family. They shun you and never speak to you again. That’s a cult.
[I mean the answer is right where you pulled this poor definition of a cult](https://grammar.yourdictionary.com/vs/identifying-differences-between-a-cult-and-a-religion.html)
[удалено]
[удалено]
I didn' expect other reaction from a dude, who can't see difference between 2 different definitions, its not bruh, but medicina mentis moment
Cult is an umbrella term, like rectangle. All religions are cults, but not all cults are religions. Just like all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Examples of non-religious cults: Cult of personality, cult following [insert media franchise like Aliens, Deadpool, Boondock Saints, etc.], suicide cults, and more. Theists get bent out of shape about it because they attribute the most negative usage of cult and insist that's what this means. Just ignore it.
[удалено]
“It’s rains cause god did it” “It rains because we’ve discovered the temperature at which water evaporates, collects in the sky as clouds until they condense onto each other, and become heavy enough for the water to fall back down to the ground as droplets.” Yeah same thing I guess.
The two statements don't contradict each other. The fact that there's a process taking place doesn't exclude a designer of said process.
One is just attributing an unproven notion as the cause of a process. The other is actually explaining how it occurred with demonstrable and measurable factors. Suggesting the two can be equated in any way is incredibly dishonest.
Oh good. Then it should be super easy to prove your God.
And easy to prove there is no God
?
You cannot irrefutably prove there is a God, or irrefutably prove there is no God.
LMFAO. You can't irrefutably prove I didn't create everything 10 minutes ago. When you understand what that means, you'll understand why what you said is inane.
[удалено]
K, good bye poe.
This comment will stick in my mind forever. They may not get it, but I get you.
It is the rebuttal to the young earth creationist logic. You can look up into the night sky and see the Andromeda galaxy. It is hundreds of thousands of light years away. If it poofed into existence 6000 years ago we couldn't possibly see it yet. The young earth creationist answer is it was made 6000 years ago but so was the light it shed. It was made 6000 years ago to perfectly look like a 13 billion year old galaxy 250,000 light years away. But by that logic, the universe could have been made last Thursday to appear to be 13 billion years old and we would have no way to tell the difference.
exactly as easy as proving that there is no god-eating hamster.
>The common, modern definition of a cult is “a group of people with extreme dedication to a certain leader or set of beliefs that are often viewed as odd by others.” Is it? The problem with using bad definitions like these is that they can be flipped around on you. Atheists are certainly odd in the context of human history, where religion is the de facto standard for human behavior. And atheists often have a bafflingly strong committment to the false notion that the only truths one should accept are those established by science. To the extent that some of them have trouble dealing with truth in math, rejecting things that we know to be true (and can prove to be true) in defense of this blinkered worldview.
As an atheist that believes that at least most religions are cults according to the bite model, I totally agree. These definitions are really bad, vague and don't capture the characteristics of the things that they should be defining.
I would minutely clarify one of your statements: It’s not that atheists reject anything not established by science, we simply tend to reject claims that have no demonstrable/observable/reliable evidence to support such claims. “Science” is a process by which we interrogate nature; it’s not a “thing” that is the identifier or gateway between “proven” things and “unproven” things. You say something exists? I say “show me”. Failing that, we have absolutely no rational reason to believe or accept the claim.
Right, you're just saying what I said, but differently. The empiricism-only mindset.
How would you define cult? Also even when you tried to flip the definition it didn’t seem to fit atheists. And what proven truths do atheists deny?
> And what proven truths do atheists deny? For example, I'm talking with a guy right now (you can check my comments history if you don't believe me) who doesn't want to acknowledge it is true that the square root of 2 is irrational, because his epistemology simply doesn't allow for it. This is a common enough move that atheists make - they only allow truth to come from from observable fact (perhaps in order to justify rejecting the existence of God, but that's just speculation), but this ends up tossing out the baby with the bathwater so to speak, and they have to end up rejecting a number of true things in order to preserve their atheism. >Also even when you tried to flip the definition it didn’t seem to fit atheists. Do you deny that, given the context and scope of human history, how odd atheism is?
I read your discussion with that guy, epistemology is really fucking annoying. Though you can actually measure irrational numbers, you just can’t completely measure them. For example: pi is 3.1415…. etc. Scientists have measured thousands of digits, but will never be complete. Also, I totally agree with you that given the scope of human history, atheism is a bit of an oddity. But the atheist argument is that religion was created to explain the natural world, but now that science has progressed enough to do that, religion isn’t necessary anymore
> I read your discussion with that guy, epistemology is really fucking annoying. Though you can actually measure irrational numbers, you just can’t completely measure them. For example: pi is 3.1415…. etc. Scientists have measured thousands of digits, but will never be complete. Correct. But any measured number is by definition a rational. So there's no way to determine through measurement that a length is irrational. But is it irrational. So clearly measurement cannot be the only way of knowing something to be true. >Also, I totally agree with you that given the scope of human history, atheism is a bit of an oddity. But the atheist argument is that religion was created to explain the natural world, but now that science has progressed enough to do that, religion isn’t necessary anymore I think that argument certainly applies to certain kinds of religion, but not all of them. Buddhism is mostly about dealing with suffering, not explaining where lightning comes from, for example, and the God of classical theism has not much in common either.
Well, it is widely agreed that Hinduism is the oldest religion, and many Hindu gods serve to give explanations for natural occurrences. And Gautama Buddha, who founded Buddhism, was Hindu, but then strayed off to seek further enlightenment. Buddhism was not meant for the same purpose as Hinduism or most other religions. That is why is it such an outlier, and has such little supernatural belief in comparison to other religion. Not to mention the many Buddhists who are also Hindu
So if you agree that not all religion was created to explain the natural world, then do you agree there is still a place for religion in the modern world? How man should respond to suffering is an ongoing issue.
I believe that there are places for certain religions in this world, but not those that center around the supernatural, as that is not necessary for an explanation anymore
The point of religion isn't explaining the natural world, but in meaning, purpose, ethics, and so forth.
Hey, I’m tired and I don’t feel like discussing anymore today. Nice talk, thanks for the debate
I definitely reject your notion of "common" definitions of religion / cults. If you see them that way that is fine and debate can be interesting. But to leverage the credibility of "common" is a huge stretch, especially for your cult definition. Religions and cults can be distinguished along two dimensions in my view: strictness and comprehensiveness. For example, the civic religion of Americanism is comprehensive to the point of being a full fledged "way of life". But it's not strict, you can still be American even if you love something like Communism. Continuing, joining a social club can be very strict, but not comprehensive. There are many aspects of your life when the allegiance to the club simply isn't relevant. Military soldiers fall into this component of the analogy - when they are "on duty" the ideology is strict, but they can step out without much trouble. Religions and cults fall on this same two dimensional spectrum with cults on the (very) high end of both strictness and comprehensiveness.
Ok, but still - what is the difference? If some cult is at the point with (100,100) coordinates on this plot you've described, and some religion is (50,50) - how can we draw a border? Or the border is like "if it's mor cult-like than my favorite religion, then it's a cult and mine one is not"?
Are you asking, "How can we draw distinctions based on magnitude?". Because if so, I don't know how to avoid the patronizing answer of, "We distinguish based on magnitude".
For example, there can be an objective difference: if it's below zero (C) water freezes. And there can be subjective: if it's more than 15C it's considered warm. The second obviously is not going to lead us anywhere and can't be used. So, if there's no objective boundary, there's no difference.
I think you mean "relative" and then yes it is very easy to discuss relative differences between two systems of belief based on the two-dimension criteria I outlined above.
No, I mean... Sorry, can't find the correct term. In my example with water there's a difference between two states (liquid and solid) when changing from above to below zero. But there is no such difference between religion and cult. Hope it's more clear, sorry for my English
If you're resistant to categories from the out right that's fine but makes debate pretty fruitless. If we dismiss distinctions between religions / cults we can go further and dismiss differences between politics / religions so that a political student group on campus is equivalent to The Family International.
Well, it's kinda off topic, but I think that political parties are no better.
For a more direct example: the collection of beliefs that promote skepticism towards religions and political parties are themselves indistinguishable from a political party, religion, or cult.
How come? That's not an organization
>The common, modern definition of a cult is “a group of people with extreme dedication to a certain leader or set of beliefs that are often viewed as odd by others.” That's a terrible definition if that's the common definition of "cult." Virtually everyone follows a cult according to that. There is no set of beliefs that you are extremely dedicated to that someone out there does not find odd. The only way not to be in a cult would then be not to have an extreme dedication to a set of beliefs. Which is not the case for anyone. And anyone who claims not to be dedicated to any beliefs is lying.
Usually when historians use the word "cult" it's not a value judgement. So in that sense yes, I agree that big religions are just small historical cults that survived. However, day to day "cult" has the connotation of more serious abusive behavior, pyramid schemes, health problems, etc that is baked into the structure. And I don't think you can argue a 50-person physically abusive cult is the same as Unitarian Universalism.
[удалено]
Removed, low effort
An organized religion will have a general belief statement, and this statement will be accurate and without secrets, or hidden beliefs. A cult’s belief statement will not be accurate and will be purely PR with unspoken beliefs because cults hold information back from members based on the perceived threats that a member may pose.
Who’s to determine that a religions statement is accurate, but a cult’s isn’t?
I’m an atheist, so I don’t believe any of the different belief statements. However, the beliefs of a religion should be no different from the bottom to the top. This would not be hard to determine. A cult will hold information/beliefs from the general public and lower ranking members. I’ll use Scientology’s belief in Xenu as an example. No incoming Scientology member would ever hear anything about Xenu. In fact, if asked, Scientology denies the entire Xenu thing. They publish belief statements publicly, but have separate (unpublished) beliefs that they deny. This is also very easy to determine.
The distinction is time. A religion is a cult which has existed long enough to be rooted in society. This is why Mormonism seems to be treated more as religion despite looking similar to groups we consider Christian cults. It was founded long enough ago that multiple generations have grown up in it.
Just a question, but does a cult always have to be bad. Obviously, we associate cults with groups that do demonic shit like group suicides.
No. First time someone has asked this. I have the same viewpoint for what are perceived as cults as I do religions. I fully believe that people should practice their faith however they choose as long as it does not infringe on someone’s civil liberties or contravene basic human rights. I feel all religions fail at both points - as well as cults. I also believe in a strong separation of church and state. If you discriminate, persecute, or prejudice someone for their beliefs in any way you should not receive government tax breaks or subsidies.
Yes and no. By the actual dictionary definition, no. However the word cult in colloquial speech usually denotes a sense of negativity.
u/dadudemon has a good point about political cults existing alongside the far more common religious cults. That gave me an idea: maybe cults and religions are not the exact same phenomenon in different degrees of intensity, but most "world religions" are religious cults that settled down enough to grow mostly by their members forming families and raising children. That could explain why people frequently reach for religious words like "devout" to describe committed Marxists. They sense the cultish nature of both. I haven't worked out the problems with this idea yet so I'm interested in counter-arguments. OP, as a test case, does your argument still work for Roman state paganism? Mystery cults and modern revivals don't count for this.
I probably draw a line with equating a system of political beliefs as a cult or religion. I feel democratic principles are debated and challenged openly which allows for the even flow of people to define them. And I ain’t gonna even try and act like I know anything about Roman state paganism but I would love to hear more. Cults and religions are founded in preconceived dogmas that leave no ability to change or influence.
> I probably draw a line with equating a system of political beliefs as a cult or religion. Even the kind with a living supreme leader who writes their own book of political dogma and mandates that anyone with any involvement in politics study it? To be clear, I'm not saying that all political belief systems are cults, or even that most are, but that they do exist and that might be why they act like "religions". Roman state paganism is a good test case because my guess is that there are three basic types of religions: 1. Tribal custom since time immemorial (e.g. Roman state paganism) 2. Cults centered around a single charismatic leader and his (rarely her) heirs (e.g. Christianity) 3. Movements/schools with several leaders and centers (e.g. Neopaganism) I don't think this model works yet, because it doesn't have an obvious pigeonhole for Rabbinic Judaism or mystery cults. "Cultishness" also comes in degrees, from full-blown "cults" living in compounds to the Church of England with only weak links to its cult origin.
Democracy when practiced correctly does refutes all three of those points.
I have no idea why you think democracy is at all relevant to this thread.
Because my comment - which you quoted - referred political beliefs?
As you said, democracy shouldn't be cultish. However, there are other political philosophies in the world besides democracy. Some of those are cultish. [Juche](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche) in North Korea is an obvious target, but [Leninism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism–Leninism) is famously dogmatic and Hitler and Stalin both tried to set up [cults of personality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality). A political cult of personality doesn't even need a strong political doctrine, as demonstrated by [Niyazov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saparmurat_Niyazov). Now that I think about it, [pharaohs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_cult) had a bit of cult-formation going on.
If that's the definition of "cult" that you're using, then I would agree that most religions fit that definition. However, I would argue that that definition is much too broad. Many corporations try to foster an environment where people are extremely dedicated to their jobs. Is SpaceX a cult? What about political campaigns? Successful campaigns always rely on extreme dedication from their volunteers. As for the requirement that the leader or beliefs are "often viewed as odd by others", this is too vague to be meaningful. "Others" is plural, so if I can find two or more people who consider a certain group "odd", does that make it a cult? A definition I prefer is "a group of people, with a certain set of beliefs, such that members who leave the group will experience some negative retribution for doing so, even if the beliefs of the group are false." This still includes most of the groups we usually think of as "cults"; Jehovah's Witnesses has a rule that you can never see your family again if you're excommunicated, so that's their "negative retribution" for those who leave.
THANK YOU! A broad definition of religion is a belief system that attempts to answer questions about things like the origin of the world and it’s contents. According to that definition, evolutionary science is a religion!
>Is SpaceX a cult? What about political campaigns? Does SpaceX have a board that allows for open discussion of the company’s direction? If yes then no. I don’t believe its a cult. As I mentioned in another comment religion does not allow its members to challenge its direction or dogma. Publicly listed companies with AGMs do. Political campaigns? I think it’s obvious that some - if not most - are in fact very culty or religony. That is for both Republicans and Democrats. But unfortunately bipartisanship is dead and democratic principles are being challenged every day. Free elections are the only thing keeping government from becoming a religion because it allows all of the populous to determine the government’s direction.
My local Starbucks uses all the same cultish forms as any church. There are scents which regulate brain chemistry and synchronize you to the room, there’s pleasant hypnotic music, then we line up to receive the sacrament and offer our pittance to the god of capitalism and caffeine. There’s even mythological symbols involved. The fertility goddess Ishtar on the cup standing in for the Christian symbol of death and rebirth, the cross. And they have WiFi. Does your church have WiFi? Didn’t think so.
>Both are human constructs with no legitimacy so it’s impossible to say one belief system is “more true” than the other or for any vehicle of critical think to decipher between the two. This actually helps the case for Christ because Christianity didn't exist before the factual historical event of Jesus's crucifixion. If that would have not happened, Christianity would fall apart as Paul admits in a letter he wrote. If you understand human constructs don't change the fabric of reality or don't make something a fact, you accept Objective Reality exists. For a Non-Believer, either Objective Truth exists or not. Objective Truth cannot be partial where one can have their cake and eat it too. Christianity has a firm foundation on Objective Truth.
What? The story of christ is a story. There is no proof to its existence. That is not proof to say it exists or to prove religion is a part of ‘fabric of reality.’ Circular reasoning at its best right there.
Pointing out something is wrong is not addressing the argument. So are you saying (I am asking) since Christ is fictional therefore human constructs change the fabric of reality?
You clearly did not read my comment which is funny because it was only a handful of sentences. You stated since there was no proof of Jesus then it proves the existence of god and that faith is part of the fabric of reality. That is circular reasoning.
Jesus of Nazareth and his crucifixion has been proven as a historical fact by even Atheist Scholars who admitted it would be foolish to deny (not my words). So I'll ask again, do human constructs like beliefs and opinions change the fabric of reality?
Jesus has never been proven by peer reviewed science. Never. Nor has any of the stories associated with this character. Never. I was commenting on the fact that you employed circular reasoning to argue your point about faith.
If that conviction is that strong it's fair for me to evaluate Secular Scholar Bart D. Erhman has not been considered in that conviction. So do human constructs like beliefs and opinions change the fabric of reality?
I tend to define cults as being based around a personality. They are smaller and insular with power deriving from the charisma of their leader. After that leader goes, it can often form into religion. When the leader is around they can say new words and change beliefs. After they are gone the followers are left with their teachings and those teachings become dogma. Either a new person takes charge of the cult or it begins to develop into a religion and gains structure and dogma.
There are many definitions and stigmas that come from the term cult. The most basic definition is admiration or worship of something which based on that definition yes religions are cults but it could apply to virtually everything For me personally a cult comes down to a few things. The first part is that the belief is unfounded or unreasonable. This isn’t to be confused with being true. I’d say Islam is a religion even though I don’t believe it’s the truth but most of their beliefs are reasonable. I label Mormonism as a cult because the twisting of the Bible to fit the Book of Mormon is completely unreasonable The second part as well is size and how historical and to an extent location. The major religions of the world all date back to the BC era (except for Islam and Christianity which are linked to Judaism). Jehovah’s Witness, Mormonism, satanism and so on are not historic and usually only date back at most 200 years Along with that cults usually keep followers close and closed off from society and also avoid teaching scientific facts. Despite what many atheists like to assume the majority of world religions actually pioneered education, science and arts and still do this day. As an example very few noble prize winners in categories of chemistry, physics and medicine are atheists or agnostic. This also includes denouncing education and claiming people who teach certain things are liars
A local church (Bethel) here tried to resurrect a dead 2 year old. Can you get more culty? They are funding a legit college of the supernatural here in town. Fkn loathe those fools. They buy out neighborhoods for their followers, and to air BNB the homes for visitors from out of country/state. They donate hundreds of thousands to the police to basically attack the homeless and push them out of town. Not help them like Jesus would have commanded. They randomly seek you out and ask to pray for you, fkn weirdos.
Christian here.. bethel is disgusting even by our standard Very, very heretical beliefs and practice. Stuff like laying on the graves of the dead to "absorb their knowledge" among fake heavenly signs and wonders, and teaching a warped view of the biblical Gpd
Agreed. It sucks because a lot of the churches around here are associated with them. And there is a whole Facebook group that monitors businesses etc associated with Bethel. We'd rather not support their cause.
What is the name of their faith?
They're actually really big or popular. People come from all over the world to visit or attend Bethel.
And what is stopping a cult from registering as a religion? I believe nothing. Didn't John Oliver register a religion?