Unfortunately, no distinction is made here between religion (which I'll define here as man-made systems of belief) and faith (defined here as what one believes, one's worldview). I have trouble arguing against the thesis that religions are cults and the definitions provided in your article are as good as any I've read. In addition, the fact that these systems were created by men or are part of a so-called discovery is also valid. The real questions are: What is the source of what we believe? In what will we put our faith? If we are only relying on a man-made system, that faith would (I claim) be futile because of its inherent flaws. If, however, we rely on some form of absolute authority, the devices of man cannot infringe. It is on the latter that I hang my faith and count on my future. Regarding evolution and "science falsely so called", I believe it takes much more faith to believe in random evolution producing the ordered world that we can physically observe and measure. In my view, it takes much less faith to believe that some all-powerful, all-knowing Being put all the puzzle pieces together. There is simply too much evidence to support creation ex nihilo (for example, demonstrate a method for a bombadier beetle to evolve). There are many smart people who are pursuing research to demonstrate the viability of ex nihilo creation. Finally, please provide data on the percentage of scientists and engineers who completely deny the existence of God.
Kyle Brady
· 1 year ago
Hey Roy,
I'm not saying that I think all religion and/or faith should be invalidated, but just expressing my opinions along with an interesting article I found.
Two of those three are obviously biased in certain directions, but I've seen articles on this subject in TIME, Newsweek, etc. The numbers are always different, but large enough to defend my statement either way.
--Kyle
Roy Wallen
· 1 year ago
Thanks for the references. Yes, I will agree that the first two references are biased. If we believe the study cited in your third reference -- and the methods seem valid -- a minority of scientists disbelieve in God. That is to say, approximately 2/3 or respondents believe in God.
Kyle Brady
· 1 year ago
No problem.
I don't necessarily agree with the "2/3 believe in God", but I can't really argue since that's what I referenced. But I've seen numbers in supposedly non-biased publications as high as 60% (don't believe in God, or some higher power).
--Kyle
Braden Dutch
· 8 months ago
Dictionaries define "cult" in numerous ways, but the main definition reads: "a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader." By this definition, are mainstream American religions cults? Absolutely not. Statistics show that over 50% of Americans attend church nearly every Sunday, so indeed, believers are not extremist members living outside of conventional society. Just because you don't buy into a set of religous beliefs does not make them extremist or cultish.
Kyle Brady
· 8 months ago
That's a nice try, better than the usual religion trolls, but...
Saying something is valid just because a majority of people do it is not good logic. Not only that, but it's circular to the point of the absurd...
* Slavery had a large majority behind it for how many hundreds of years? * The average European/American, not too long ago, used to be OK with witch burnings. * Many modern, and dumb, Americans believe that God somehow created the world, and that Jesus coexisted with dinosaurs. Despite the Vatican putting its weight behind Evolution, which has been solidly proven for decades at this point. * The same group of people also believe the LHC is the antichrist, going to create blackholes, or otherwise cause the destruction of humanity.
Do you need me to continue? Next time you should try a little harder. Maybe you'll eventually get it right.
Oh, and by the way... I'm not saying that a certain religion or two is "extremish or cultish" because I "don't buy into [their] set of religious beliefs". I'm saying that ALL religions are cults, but not necessarily extreme.
If you want someone more famous and pedigreed than myself speaking on this topic, look at Richard Dawkins. He'll destroy you.
--Kyle
noreligion
· 5 months ago
I agree all religions are cults. Nobody knows the truth how we evolved or what happens when we die until we are dead. Religions were made for people to feel they belong. We were born alone and we will die alone. Life is facade of other people's opinions and lies.
Allan David Chung-Yew
· 1 month ago
cults are a bit secretive, compared to religion that basically converts people openly. key words are secretive and openly. But normalness is also a big and unavoidable part of the equation. No matter how hard a "logical" person tries to repress the involvement of the word normal, It will still be there and will play a key role because the brain knows what is normal. It is probably a defencive mechanism that we needed (and still need) to survive in the wild (even in "civilization," otherwise how would you know that something is wrong?).
But i guess cults might not have wanted to be called a religion or maybe religious people (old religion) did not want to classify what are now known as cults today as a type of religion.
Either one of them is trying to push the other away and due to my lack of knowledge i am not sure which, but i would put my money on old religion being the cause of this. I would guess that European missionaries saw different religions being practiced in outside lands and probably called them cults because it was not normal to them because they were so stupid and narrow minded, in their world their God, thier religion, was their life because all they read and knew was their bible.
So in a sense all religions are not and are cults. It depends on the popularity of the religion to an individual and many other people may agree/disagree with the individual, which would further make the decision of making a religion a cult or not. so basically: [many people see a religion as a cult (not normal)=cult] or [many people see a religion as is(normal)=religion]
Believe it or not, accept it or not, but normalness is a key component to everyday classification. You know coz if there was no normalness we would have chaos and not know what the fuck was going on. To say that normal does not exist is not being logical because logic is all about understanding what is normal. You would not jump off a cliff because normally people die if they do. You would jump if you had a parachute because normally people survive the fall. You would logically say that, yeah normal. what the dealy yo?
lengthy and all im saying is that it depends on the majority of the people just as the dictionary states. Its all about mainstream. Who wears white wigs? Do you think you would? logically you would not coz... normalness. I was looking for a cartoon of stewie saying you suck then saw a religion based arguement and could not resist after noticing the lack of acknowledgement to the meaning of "normal."
All Comments
Regarding evolution and "science falsely so called", I believe it takes much more faith to believe in random evolution producing the ordered world that we can physically observe and measure. In my view, it takes much less faith to believe that some all-powerful, all-knowing Being put all the puzzle pieces together. There is simply too much evidence to support creation ex nihilo (for example, demonstrate a method for a bombadier beetle to evolve). There are many smart people who are pursuing research to demonstrate the viability of ex nihilo creation.
Finally, please provide data on the percentage of scientists and engineers who completely deny the existence of God.
I'm not saying that I think all religion and/or faith should be invalidated, but just expressing my opinions along with an interesting article I found.
As for the articles, a basic Google seach comes up with:
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,917...
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_ar...
Two of those three are obviously biased in certain directions, but I've seen articles on this subject in TIME, Newsweek, etc. The numbers are always different, but large enough to defend my statement either way.
--Kyle
I don't necessarily agree with the "2/3 believe in God", but I can't really argue since that's what I referenced. But I've seen numbers in supposedly non-biased publications as high as 60% (don't believe in God, or some higher power).
--Kyle
By this definition, are mainstream American religions cults? Absolutely not. Statistics show that over 50% of Americans attend church nearly every Sunday, so indeed, believers are not extremist members living outside of conventional society. Just because you don't buy into a set of religous beliefs does not make them extremist or cultish.
Saying something is valid just because a majority of people do it is not good logic. Not only that, but it's circular to the point of the absurd...
* Slavery had a large majority behind it for how many hundreds of years?
* The average European/American, not too long ago, used to be OK with witch burnings.
* Many modern, and dumb, Americans believe that God somehow created the world, and that Jesus coexisted with dinosaurs. Despite the Vatican putting its weight behind Evolution, which has been solidly proven for decades at this point.
* The same group of people also believe the LHC is the antichrist, going to create blackholes, or otherwise cause the destruction of humanity.
Do you need me to continue? Next time you should try a little harder. Maybe you'll eventually get it right.
Oh, and by the way... I'm not saying that a certain religion or two is "extremish or cultish" because I "don't buy into [their] set of religious beliefs". I'm saying that ALL religions are cults, but not necessarily extreme.
If you want someone more famous and pedigreed than myself speaking on this topic, look at Richard Dawkins. He'll destroy you.
--Kyle
But i guess cults might not have wanted to be called a religion or maybe religious people (old religion) did not want to classify what are now known as cults today as a type of religion.
Either one of them is trying to push the other away and due to my lack of knowledge i am not sure which, but i would put my money on old religion being the cause of this. I would guess that European missionaries saw different religions being practiced in outside lands and probably called them cults because it was not normal to them because they were so stupid and narrow minded, in their world their God, thier religion, was their life because all they read and knew was their bible.
So in a sense all religions are not and are cults. It depends on the popularity of the religion to an individual and many other people may agree/disagree with the individual, which would further make the decision of making a religion a cult or not.
so basically: [many people see a religion as a cult (not normal)=cult] or [many people see a religion as is(normal)=religion]
Believe it or not, accept it or not, but normalness is a key component to everyday classification. You know coz if there was no normalness we would have chaos and not know what the fuck was going on. To say that normal does not exist is not being logical because logic is all about understanding what is normal. You would not jump off a cliff because normally people die if they do. You would jump if you had a parachute because normally people survive the fall. You would logically say that, yeah normal. what the dealy yo?
lengthy and all im saying is that it depends on the majority of the people just as the dictionary states. Its all about mainstream. Who wears white wigs? Do you think you would? logically you would not coz... normalness. I was looking for a cartoon of stewie saying you suck then saw a religion based arguement and could not resist after noticing the lack of acknowledgement to the meaning of "normal."