What about the religious organizations?

[kitakaze]

As it happens, many cult specialists place socioeconomic organized movements into their purview. They include NAZIsm, Stalinism, Maoism, and early Objecivism.

Excuse me while I consult my DPRK-sanctioned prayer group on the matter. In the meantime, do you think the NAZIs started as a cult or later adopted cult-like practices?

 

[blutoski]

Excuse me while I consult my DPRK-sanctioned prayer group on the matter. In the meantime, do you think the NAZIs started as a cult or later adopted cult-like practices?

Well, it's not my theory... I was just saying that there are professionals who categorize these as cults.

However, the NAZIs are an awesome example of a political movement which was saturated with cult elements: Hess and Himmler in particular with their Rosicrucianism and other occult beliefs. (They chose the swastika because of its association with Rosicrucianism, and the Rosicrucians chose it because of the occult connection to Ayureveda)

Plus, there was the personality cult that they fostered around Hitler, and the Jungian principle of group consciousness...

If I were to answer your questions from a lay education in the history of that region and era, I'd say that it had occult foundations that actually grew over the years. However, by the time the war turned, they jettisoned the fru-fru from the organization (literally dropping Hess and his occult wackiness out of a plane, and thus out of the picture, shifting power from goofy Himmler to Gobbels and Goering, and so on) to concentrate on more practical materialistic/secular problems.

 

[The Atheist]

Jehovah's Witness or otherwise, I don't mind engaging zealous fools at all. It's OK to disagree but as for what you do other than consider yourself in a war against the religious of the world and feel compelled to spew about it here, I couldn't give a rats ass.

Funny, the amount of time you're spending posting and dreaming up new and exciting ways to use profanity suggest exactly the opposite!

If the word 'simp' is confounding to you let me help you out by letting you know it's short for simpleton. A very apt descriptor for yourself and your hand-to-the-hilt horse$#!%.

Thanks for that, not an abbreviation I'd heard before. Must take one to know one.

I will try to answer any specific points you raise but your comprehensively challenged choices in quoting leaves little room for meaningful dialogue. Passion blinds, The Atheist. Put your coke bottles back on. After you do that make sure you use them to look hard at some factually accurate history texts to ensure you don't repeat fool-ass comments on the subject.

I'm struggling to understand your comment here. I haven't raised anything for you to answer, aside from the what and why you do and you did answer that - your goal is to get more sleeping time, an admirable concept. If you'd like to quote facts, go ahead and enlighten me, also, which "factually accrurate history texts" would you recommend to complete my enlightenment? These I just have to see!

Confused why I'm repelled by your stench? Fanatical zealism reeks would be the cause.

That raw nerve again, wonder why?

Not a fan of Mother Theresa, eh? Any comments on the other names I listed or was that inconvenient for your faithful are idiots argument?

I'll gladly comment on the other names. Again, you're mistaking historically-accepted IQ/intellectual measurement as a means of eliminating stupidity. I'd rate them all as emotionally naive, a form of stupdiity, in my book.

So you seek the eradication of all religion. In your 'Big Daddy fearing simps plague our existence' complex has any feasible solution occurred to you as to how to unite humanity? I doubt it as complexes thrive on the illogical anyway. When your desired war is over what do you do then toughcat? Go back to a less time consuming @$$holeness? What shall we do with the suddenly faithful in your secular utopia? I will say for the record that anyone who expects all of humanity to accept the concept of 'you're born, live, die, and that's it' anytime ever doesn't understand humans very well. And that has jack$#!% to do with what you and I think to the contrary.

(Bolding mine)

I think your final sentence gives you away, you're still in the exploratory stages of life. As I've mentioned before, you might grow out of it.

Now, back to the topic in hand - this discussion is over.

 

[The Atheist]

I have a couple of friends who say they are christians but they mostly say that because they like the people they hang with and enjoy going to church - when I talked to them in detail they felt that they didn't really believe in god - they just liked the church because it had good people in it, and so long as they were there they would consider themselves christians.

This is why charismatic christianity is getting new members while the others are dying out, and why that Tamaki clown gets people so invoved in his church. They become the de-facto family, an extension of the whanau concept. The Polynesian churches are the same, but the bad news for the extended families is that daddy pastor gets the fatted calf and the overseas trips while the poor parishioners go to the foodbank.

 

[The Atheist]

Anyway: my point is that an athestic society is not usually compatible with skepticism anyway, if the atheists are all spending cash on improving vibrational energy to cure their cancer. Russia's atheist, and it's a skeptical disaster area. I'd put China in the same boat.

Russia's atheism has always been manufactured, hence the explosion of christianity since Gorbachev.

Atheism needs to be an effect of a self-sufficient populace, not something to be enshrined in laws and it needs to be ancillary to any political movement rather than a part of it. China's a great example, where enforced atheism has brought into being a myriad of cults and mystic practices. To me, denial of mysticism is as important as denial of gods. I mean, you'd be a pretty soft atheist if on one hand you deny god, while on the other, getting a horoscope drawn up.

 

[Mamah1]

Katrina

I was just watching the Spike Lee documentary about the destruction of New Oleans by Katrina. Most of the people interviewed damned the government and Bush for not helping them and then treating them like criminals when they finally showed up with aid. In the next breath they thanked Jesus for seeing them through the ordeal. If their god is real, he is the one who directed the hurricane to smite New Orleans. He is the one who broke the levees and drowned their loved ones. The government failed in its role but did god?

When people stand on the edge of destruction and the abyess of misery and can still thank the god who put them there, it will take more than rational thinkers can muster to put an end to religious nonsense. Religion has had a thousand years to mold the minds of the believers. To a person of faith, no fact can breech their walled up minds.

 

[snooziums]

...but if you're being hounded by psychics when your child has gone missing...

Hmm... I have never heard of this happening, but maybe I missed it. Source?

re: influence in politics. Yes. However, it's unclear that the net influence is negative. The congregation my wife attends is particularly busy lobbying the city for more social housing. Does eliminating this influence make the world a better place?

However, it was the humanist movement of the late Renaissance and early Baroque eras that started major advocacy of helping those less fortunate. And there are many non-religious organizations dedicated to helping others. ANd when it comes to helping others through science (like medicine, birth control, and so on), rarely do you see religious groups in this area.

In the case of Scientology, they qualify as New Age...

However, from what I understand, the Church of Scientology still believes in a separate God from humans. The fundamental principle of New Age belief is that humans are a part of the divine, and that there is no separate God.

Please identify this cult watch for us: website? Telephone number?

From http://www.cultwatch.com/faq.html (the largest cult watch group site).

Cultwatch is incorporated as a Charitable Trust made up of Christians from many different types of churches, such as Baptist, Presbyterian, various independent and other churches.

Do a search for "cult watch," and 90 percent of the returns will be sties run by conservative religious groups.

 

[The Atheist]

When people stand on the edge of destruction and the abyess of misery and can still thank the god who put them there, it will take more than rational thinkers can muster to put an end to religious nonsense. Religion has had a thousand years to mold the minds of the believers. To a person of faith, no fact can breech their walled up minds.

<<Standing ovation>>

And you could comfortably make that "thousands" of years.

 

[blutoski]

Russia's atheism has always been manufactured, hence the explosion of christianity since Gorbachev.

Atheism needs to be an effect of a self-sufficient populace, not something to be enshrined in laws and it needs to be ancillary to any political movement rather than a part of it. China's a great example, where enforced atheism has brought into being a myriad of cults and mystic practices. To me, denial of mysticism is as important as denial of gods. I mean, you'd be a pretty soft atheist if on one hand you deny god, while on the other, getting a horoscope drawn up.

So what you're saying is that a forceful approach will not work?

 

[blutoski]

Hmm... I have never heard of this happening, but maybe I missed it. Source?

Thpht...sputter... (spits drink out on monitor...)

JREF Thread: Psychics and Missing People

However, it was the humanist movement of the late Renaissance and early Baroque eras that started major advocacy of helping those less fortunate. And there are many non-religious organizations dedicated to helping others. ANd when it comes to helping others through science (like medicine, birth control, and so on), rarely do you see religious groups in this area.

I'm not sure I accept that. I'm not sure you can call activities during the Renaissance and Baroque as 'humanist'. These people were all Christians, obviously, although they may have been related to the forerunners of modern humanists such as the Quakers.

re: medicine &c... the first institutions for healthcare and education were established by religous communities and orders such as the Sisters of Providence and the Jesuits. The secular state was very late in this game. (See: From Sacred to Profane America: the Role of Religion in American History, William A Clebsch)

The hospital I work in - St. Paul's - was built in the 19th century, and is still managed by the Sisters of Providence.

However, from what I understand, the Church of Scientology still believes in a separate God from humans. The fundamental principle of New Age belief is that humans are a part of the divine, and that there is no separate God.

I wouldn't say that that was a New Age canon, no. New age includes atheists who believe in 'quantum healing' for example. It's a catchall category of bric-a-brac beliefs. If I were to choose one common thread, it would be postmodernist relativism.

And Scientologists may or may not believe in an external "God". They believe that all humans carry reincarnations of god-like superbeings, and share knowledge among themselves and with past lives. They believe this is a scientific fact, rather than a supernatural phenomenon.

However, I am aware that some experts classify them outside 'new age' in the vague category of 'other' religions/cults. However, for me, it's the pseudoscience that puts them in the New Age category.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The perception among skeptics is that it's a general problem. Psychics as individuals may not 'lead to the destruction of the world,' but if you're being hounded by psychics when your child has gone missing, but finding solace in religion, I can understand that such a person would sort the threats into diffrent priorities, and I would consider this person reasonable.

..

I have often argued that John Edward made a decent grief counselor but many argue that's not a reasonable position on his work. Would you put the benefit of the comfort he gives people over their lost loved ones in the same category as finding solace in religion?

 

[The Atheist]

So what you're saying is that a forceful approach will not work?

Of course. Otherwise all you get is the Inquisition in reverse.

 

[RemieV]

I'm not going to be lengthy about this because I haven't much to say. Lumping everyone into a group of "stupid because they are religious" or "smart because they are not" is ridiculous. You back it up with "They may have an IQ, but..." but no one mentioned IQs. Religious people can be intelligent individuals. Believing anything else is egotistical nonsense. Your way is not the right way just because you believe it is. The moment you buy into that logic, you're guilty of any of the qualities you find yourself attributing to others.

This is something that is lost on an incredible number of people: Respect other people's beliefs. That doesn't mean you have to believe or approve. Just understand that maybe they got them from somewhere. Maybe they find them important. Teaching someone what is wrong only works on the assumption that you know what is right.

 

[snooziums]

I'm not sure I accept that. I'm not sure you can call activities during the Renaissance and Baroque as 'humanist'. These people were all Christians, obviously, although they may have been related to the forerunners of modern humanists such as the Quakers.

One source: Read "The Embarrassment Of Riches." However, there were non religious groups forming in the late 1500s and 1600s dedicated to the humanist movement. I will have to go through my college textbooks to find some more sources.

However, for me, it's the pseudoscience that puts them in the New Age category.

However, that would place most religions in that category as well, with "demons" and "moving mountains" and the list goes on.

Religious people can be intelligent individuals. Believing anything else is egotistical nonsense. Your way is not the right way just because you believe it is.

Psychics and para-physical followers can also be intelligent. In fact, they tend to be more intelligent than religious followers on average.

This is something that is lost on an incredible number of people: Respect other people's beliefs. That doesn't mean you have to believe or approve. Just understand that maybe they got them from somewhere. Maybe they find them important. Teaching someone what is wrong only works on the assumption that you know what is right.

Okay, so what about all of those with "new age" beliefs? Why is this forum attacking them, if we are to respect them?

 

[Kopji]

Atheists (not the pseudoscience believing kind) are in a unique position to focus on psychics and paranormal promoters.

There is a lot of good skeptical thought that comes out of the religious world, but what 'psychics do' is what 'religion does'. This is a problem. When Sylvia faced off with a Rabbi last year on Larry King, she made that point extremely well and it was unanswerable. This is a weakness that atheists do not eventually confront.

There is a lot that religious people can do to promote skeptical & critical thinking, and the difference between a theist and an atheist can sometimes be razor thin. Some religious people are certainly an enemy of reason and skeptical thought, but many are allies, or potential allies.

I think that I do understand the position of 'The Atheist' and others like him. I am not completely against that. A strategy for breaking people out of cult-like mindsets involves shattering belief, not gradually convincing with reason or inviting them to tea. Strongly confronting people's beliefs is no doubt a useful tool in the right time and place. There is a risk is to treating everyone the same way though - skepticism is not a Procrustean Bed where we stretch or hack religious people up to fit.

If we atheists advocate a 'shattering' strategy we must also measure how many turn away or are harmed because of the strategy. 'Only counting successes' is a mistake that the strategy should avoid.

 

[The Atheist]

I'm not going to be lengthy about this because I haven't much to say. Lumping everyone into a group of "stupid because they are religious" or "smart because they are not" is ridiculous.

Couldn't agree more, I'd never say anyone's smart simply because they are atheist/rationalist/etc.ist. "Stupid" is the wrong epithet too, but the most convenient one.

But yes, I do genuinely have great difficulty in crediting christians with intelligence. I deal with highly intelligent people all the time and it staggers me how many of them are christian, the concept is so blindingly obvious that I portray them as stupid just to get the kind of reaction you've seen. If atheists get this righteous, how righteous do you think christians get? To me, christianity is best summed up by Monty Python's Holy Grail crossed with the parrot sketch.

This is something that is lost on an incredible number of people: Respect other people's beliefs. That doesn't mean you have to believe or approve. Just understand that maybe they got them from somewhere. Maybe they find them important. Teaching someone what is wrong only works on the assumption that you know what is right.

Fortunately, I know I'm right and there's no assumption involved! There is no god and I know that as sure as I know that the sun is around 150M km away, made of hydrogen and very hot. I know it as I know that rain will fall and the sea is salt. The fact that there is no god is as simple as 2 + 2.

As to tolerance, I take that from the christians themselves. What kind of monumental arrogance does it need to believe that you are the chosen one of a god and that anyone who doesn't accept your god is going to perish while you will have everlasting life? I believe that makes the level of arrogance I display very tame in comparison. Jesus and all the prophets of the bible forbid any tolerance of other, or non-religious positions - god's way or the low way. It's even one of the ten commandments for Bob's sake! Tell me why christianity, with zero tolerance of other religions, deserves anything like respect. Its adherents are free to choose their god, but they won't get any respect from me for it.

 

[kitakaze]

I think your final sentence gives you away, you're still in the exploratory stages of life. As I've mentioned before, you might grow out of it.

Now, back to the topic in hand - this discussion is over.

I think we can hopefully agree to disagree and move along. This is an interesting thread and I think blutoski, RemieV, and Kopji have made some excellent points. Even you've hit a couple valid ones yourself, even if only by being an example of them. What I have taken issue with in your case is that I find intolerance so err, intolerable and your views to be based on misguided passions and that you offer nothing in place of what you seek to destroy. Yes, the horrors are manifold but I try to remember when I feel disdain for something concerning religion that some of the must truly wonderous things achieved by humankind has been done in the name of faith and a belief that we are more than the sum of our parts. I think you don't seem to understand that at least here nobody is asking you to respect christianity but rather to be tolerant and respectful of those whose beliefs differ from yours. Now that I think about it I can't help but have a feeling of irony in that I should be more mindful of that myself. I have been rude to you and for that I apologize. If it's worth anything I can very easily empathize with your point of view. When I was a young child I was often looked after by a morbidly christian family and quickly got to learn the meaning of blasphemy when I asked why God made hindus. I think children are often the first to see the inherent flaws in such beliefs. As for being young and still in an exploratory stage of life I have it on good confidence that there is no stage of life that isn't exploratory and I hope that when I get to be your age I haven't developed a similar intolerance and disrespect of others based on the beliefs they've aquired.

 

[Beth]

Recent surveys show that approximately 70% of respondants believe they sometimes have esp experiences.

That's an interesting figure. Do you have a cite for that? Thanks.

 

[blutoski]

That's an interesting figure. Do you have a cite for that? Thanks.

If memory serves, it was part of the Sheldrake schmozzle. He's got a wide net for the definition of 'psychic experience.' Includes the feeling you're being watched, having a pet that knows when you're coming home, and knowing who a caller is before they call.

Skeptics know it's not a real psychic phenomenon, but that's not popular interpretation.

 

[Pup]

Phonics is a strategy of the Church of Scientology to introduce their educational philosophy into the public mainstream. Like parents with kids in cults who call up the International Cult Awareness Network, people are unaware that they're dealing with Scientology.

I've just got to address that. It sounds like a typical conspiracy theory. Educators aren't debating the merits of different reading programs because they actually want to find the best method, it's because they're secretly being manipulated by a cult!

The problem is, phonics was part of the public mainstream long before Scientology. For example, it's discussed here: http://www.lindamoodbell.com/research/sensory-cognitive-factors.html Phonics fell out of favor in the 1930s and swung back into popularity in the 1950s, but I'd say the book "Why Johnny Can't Read" had far more to do with bringing back phonics than scientology--though coincidentally they both appeared in the same era.