Comparisons between religions and cults.

[Graham]

No it is not. As in medicine you can't take half of your pills and then blame the doctor for not cure you, you can't follow only the dogmas that you like and then blame the church if you get screwed.

I agree that those unscientific claims are shameful, but I don't think that that put people in danger.

No.

I don't think that there is such a thing as a human nature, but that is another discussion.

No, but that is not the case.

Let me lay it out this way:

* People have sex, this is a fact

* The Catholic Church says that people should abstain from sex, this is also a fact

* People continue to have sex, despite Catholic teachings on the matter

* At the same time, the Catholic Church says that you should not use condoms because they do not work, fact

* People believe this advice and do not use condoms, again a fact

* Unprotected sex contributes to the spread of HIV, final fact

Putting all this together we get - people are having sex despite the Church's advice but not using condoms because of the Church's advice, all of which is contributing to the spread of HIV.

Do you think that the Catholic Church should feel responsible for what their priests say and do?

If the answer is yes, then they are equally responsible for the advice that people do follow and that which they do not.

The advice of the Catholic Church is leading to the spread of HIV and, directly, to suffering and death.

They are, to a degree, responsible for this.

You can argue that each individual is responsible for their own decisions, which is correct. However, if you place yourself in a position of authority, where you know that people look to you for advice and guidance, that is a form of power over people and you are responsible for the correct use of the power.

If you abuse that power to promote your own agenda in the face of the fact that that agenda is leading to the spread of a disease, that is just plain wrong.

Graham

 

[Graham]

Not really, nuclear physics have a lot of theories that are not proved yet. Like the string theory. that really just sound good, but nothing new have come from it.

Other things will appear to challenge science, things like cold fusion, faster than light speed, time travel etc, just like any cult challenge religions. So if you put cults in the same bag as religions, you will have to put those new theories in the same bag as science. After all, you will never know when some of those crazy ideias will be proven right.

And here we see the danger of false dichotomies.

There are at least three possible categories:

1) Things that are proven to be true (Large parts of physics)

2) Things that are proven to be untrue (Homeopathy, phrenology/craniology)

3) Things that might be true but are as yet unproven either way (string theory)

You could further divide all of these categories, if you wanted to. Option (3), for instance could be divided into "Unproven but likely" and "Unproven but unlikely".

If you want to restrict it to just two categories, however, and lump all of physics in together, I agree that to be strictly correct, we will have to put it in the same category as phrenology, since every aspect of it is not completely proven.

Now take religions and cults. Again we can divide them into many categories. Many, many categories. We could divide them by their beliefs, their effects, their history, whatever you like.

However, if we restrict ourselves to just two, truth or untruth, we find that they all fit into the same category, except whichever one we happen to believe in.

Objectively, they all fit into the same category.

Graham

 

[LuxFerum]

* People have sex, this is a fact

Nope. some people don't.

* The Catholic Church says that people should abstain from sex, this is also a fact

Nope. the church say you should not have sex outside marriage.

* People continue to have sex, despite Catholic teachings on the matter

And it is the church falt???
Of course not.

* At the same time, the Catholic Church says that you should not use condoms because they do not work, fact

No. it is because the catholic church is against contraceptions methodes.

* People believe this advice and do not use condoms, again a fact

No. In Brazil, where most of the population is catholic, the use of condoms is widespread.

* Unprotected sex contributes to the spread of HIV, final fact

ok

Putting all this together we get - people are having sex despite the Church's advice but not using condoms because of the Church's advice, all of which is contributing to the spread of HIV.

You only can come to this comclusion if you have prejudices against the church. other than that the ideia don't make any sense.

Do you think that the Catholic Church should feel responsible for what their priests say and do

Yes.

If the answer is yes, then they are equally responsible for the advice that people do follow and that which they do not.

Yes, and all the parents are to blame if they say to their kids "don't use drogs" and they do.

Sorry, but this don't make any sense.

The advice of the Catholic Church is leading to the spread of HIV and, directly, to suffering and death.

Of course not.

You can argue that each individual is responsible for their own decisions, which is correct. However, if you place yourself in a position of authority, where you know that people look to you for advice and guidance, that is a form of power over people and you are responsible for the correct use of the power.

ok

If you abuse that power to promote your own agenda in the face of the fact that that agenda is leading to the spread of a disease, that is just plain wrong.

yes.

 

[LuxFerum]

However, if we restrict ourselves to just two, truth or untruth, we find that they all fit into the same category, except whichever one we happen to believe in.

Not exactly.
For some religions you will have to die to test if they are true or not.
I would put then in this category:

3) Things that might be true but are as yet unproven either way (string theory)

 

[Cleopatra]

Just to clarify one thing although maybe it's too late now. In my subject line I don't make the distinction between religions and cults but I didn't want to exclude the cults. I feel that we can't even compare cults if this makes any sense.

Also, take a breath and keep on topic because following this thread has already become difficult.

 

[Graham]

Not exactly.
For some religions you will have to die to test if they are true or not.
I would put then in this category:

Well then you need to put cults in the same category and we are back where we started with cults=religions and religions=cults.

Graham

 

[Graham]

Just to clarify one thing although maybe it's too late now. In my subject line I don't make the distinction between religions and cults but I didn't want to exclude the cults. I feel that we can't even compare cults if this makes any sense.

Also, take a breath and keep on topic because following this thread has already become difficult.

I think you need to define what you consider a cult and what you consider a relligion.

Please use defining characteristics rather than examples.

Graham

 

[Cleopatra]

In my language--Greek-- there is no such distinction. To be exact cult is what religions do in Greek so I do not separate them. For example our religion is Orthodox and what we do in the church is called cult.

 

[LuxFerum]

Well then you need to put cults in the same category and we are back where we started with cults=religions and religions=cults.

Graham

Not all of the cults.

 

[Graham]

In my language--Greek-- there is no such distinction. To be exact cult is what religions do in Greek so I do not separate them. For example our religion is Orthodox and what we do in the church is called cult.

So your initial title means "Comparison between different religions/cults"

That's interesting though, what would you call a group of satanists, for instance?

Graham

 

[Graham]

Not all of the cults.

And not all of the religions, so we are no further forward.

 

[Cleopatra]

So your initial title means "Comparison between different religions/cults"

That's interesting though, what would you call a group of satanists, for instance?

Graham

Exactly but since some posters make the distinction it is fine with me I just made this clarification. Satanists are a religion too. To show clearly what we mean. The official church considers satanists an heresis. Heresis is a twisted religious belief. But of course the Greek Church calls the Catholics heretics as well. But the concept is that everything that has to do with supernatural forces is a religion.

 

[Graham]

Exactly but since some posters make the distinction it is fine with me I just made this clarification. Satanists are a religion too. To show clearly what we mean. The official church considers satanists an heresis. Heresis is a twisted religious belief. But of course the Greek Church calls the Catholics heretics as well. But the concept is that everything that has to do with supernatural forces is a religion.

So, to get the thread back on topic then, you wish to know how we can consider the Jedi religion to be similar to that of the Christians. You do consider them both religions though, yes?

You consider the Jedi a marginal religions and Christianity a mainstream religion and feel that the Jedi religion is inferior to the Christian religion because it is less widely followed (because if they were equally valid, they would have an equal following).

You also think that atheists consider all religions as being the same and do not distinguish between Jediism and Christianity.

Please feel free to correct me if I am putting words in your mouth.

I would say that the biggest problem with your first premises is that it does not take into account history and the progress of time.

The Jedi religion is twenty years old, twenty years have passed since the "events"/story that it is based on.

If we go back to 20 years after the "events" of the gospels, how widespread would the Christian religion be? Was the Christian religion less valid 2,000 years ago than it is now?

At that time, a number of other religions were dominant, that have now become extinct or almost so. Were those religions valid then but not now?

If popularity is the defining characteristic and ten billion people were to convert to Jediism tomorrow, would Jediism suddenly become as meaningful as Christianity?

If all the Christians were to become Jedis tomorrow, except you, would you convert to Jediism also, since it is more valid?

Now you may say that I am putting the cart before the horse here and that Christianity is popular because it is valid and not vice versa but that does not explain how the ancient religions of the world (presumably all invalid by your thesis) became popular in their time.

It also does not explain why Greek Orthodox is not more popular than the heresy of Catholicism

As regards "atheists" thinking all religions are the same, in my experience more atheists have a more in depth knowledge of a wider variety of religions than do most religious people, who tend to restrict their studies to their own fantasy and even then often fear to delve too deeply.

It seems to me that atheists consider religions the same in one factor only that they are all false.

Thus, when the discussion is of truth/untruth, all of the religions are lumped together by atheists.

Graham

 

[exarch]

Originally posted by Fade
Excuse me? We hold the greatest political clout. The United States, for all the evil it could do, has done far better than any other super power in the history of the world. How many countries have we annexed and enslaved? How many times could we have done that?

Answer to the first is 0.
Answer to the second is ANYONE WE WANTED TOO.

Despite having shady motivations, the United States has been damned benevolent, and you should be grateful we are so nice about things. We could turn this world into a dark place indeed, as has happened under so many other empires.

Now, depending on who you ask, the answer to your first question is going to be a number larger than 0 ...

Sure, The US isn't in the business of expansion any more (mainly because there isn't much room left to expand to, and because the country is already big enough to handle the way it is). Still, sometimes it seems the US has appointed itself the title of the world's policeman. Kicking butt in nations that don't do things the way they like it.

Many nations disapprove of that arrogant behavior, as was very obvious last year, when "Old Europe" decided to play it by the rules, and the US decided to walk all over the rules.

At the height of its power, the Roman empire didn't annex or invade or expand any more either. It struggled to keep internal affairs in balance.
Maybe todays superpower isn't being a big meanie any more either, but you don't become a huge superpower with lots of land and resources without hurting some smaller nations in the process. Or have we conveniently forgotten all about how the west was won again?

Anyway, back to the topic of comparing religions and cults

 

[exarch]

Originally posted by Graham
It seems to me that atheists consider religions the same in one factor only that they are all false.

I agree, I lump them together the way a person disliking citrus fruit would lump oranges, grape fruits, lemmons, limes, etc... toghether simply as being "yucky". No more, no less.

And to clarify where I'm going with this:
Does that make people who dislike citrus fruit a determined group just like people who love grape fruits and eat them every Friday? No, it doesn't? It does however make people who love oranges and eat them every Friday similar to the grape fruit loving people. But that's about as far as comparisons go.

What many theists don't understand is that atheism isn't a structured organised belief system, it's just disbelief in whatever all the rest believes in. It's not a group in the way religions are, so you can't compare them to a religion.
On the other hand, all the others *ARE* in fact groups of people all believing in the same deity(deities), and as such can be compared to all the other groups of people believing in (a) different deity(deities). At least from a non-believer point of view we can.

 

[LuxFerum]

What do you mean? Did I just imagine the fact that religions produce people that fly planes into buildings full of innocent people?

You see, there are billions of religious people, more than 99% of them, don't fly planes into buildings. Your assumption is wrong.

This is obviously, demonstratably false. If there were no amount of brainwashing present in religious doctrine, the incidence of an offspring accepting the parents religious beliefs would be much smaller. In fact, we'd see a much more homogenous mixture than we do now.

So do you believe that atheists brainwash their kids too?

You aren't given a clean slate when choosing what to believe. You are loaded down with assumptions beforehand. Those not looking at the world through this slanted view tend towards neutrality (atheism) in favour of superstition. This is even more prevalent in higher education. Removing your blinkers makes superstition look ridiculous.

That doesn't mean nothing.

I could give you a lecture on early childhood development, but suffice it to say, giving their point of view is brainwashing. Children instinctively listen too and trust adults to know what they are talking about. The greater the authority figure, the more weight these things have.

That really doesn't matter, if the things don't work, you can claim to be go, but that will not protect you from having your head removed from your body.

Conversions are more difficult because these people have already had assumptions ingrained into the core of their mentality. I explained this later in my post. You seemed to gloss over it.

People don't want to change if everything is fine in theirs lifes. If it is working don't fix it.

While it is undeniable that many have undergone the same sort of "god is infeasible and stupid and all those believe are stupid and dumb" brainwashing, I would say this isn't typical at all.

Is not typical for religion too.

Plain fact of the matter is that the majority of atheists are simply noncommital and indifferent towards religion. The vocal jerks on message boards are about a representitive of the average atheist is Riddick is of christians. Real people simply don't act the way they sometimes do on places like this.

I agree.

What is your point? It's all part of our cultural fabric.

And nobody brainwash anyone for thoses things, we keep then because we like it, because it works, and somehow useful.

Then explain the incidence of parent-child religious retention. It shouldn't be this high if they really had a conscious choice. Being told your entire life that god is real, jesus is real, we were born into sin has an effect on a child. You are free to not believe this, but your belief would be lacking evidence of any sort.[/B]

Most people have the same religion of theirs parents because the religion is good enough for theirs problems.
Why most of the people drink coke and not some other soft drink?
Because they like it, it is good enough for them.

Or they choose it because they have been brainwashed. You seem to think people are pragmatic about these things, they aren't.

Yes they are, people want things from their religion, if the religion don't provide it, they will change to another in a heart beat.

Let me lay this out for you in a way that you simply can't willfully misinterpret:


If you are told something every day of your life, from the time you are a young child, you will come to accept that it is true. Even if later you find it is not true, the idea remains "more possible" than any alternative. This isn't a matter of debate, this is how our brains work. My example serves to illustrate that our culture bestows upon us monotheism. This idea becomes more reasonable than polytheism.

The problem is that no religion tell the same thing every day of your life.
And even if it did, I would like to see some proofs that this sort of torture works.

I see it as a self propogating organism. Some call it a meme. This point too is not really debatable. It's a fact of our human nature. Deny this all you like.

If you see it as an organism, you have to adimit that it is a beneficent organism, and not a destructive one like a virus.
The point is not debatable???lol
That statment is silly anywhere in the universe.

You haven't really demonstrated a difference between "crazy short lived cults" and mainstream religions. In fact, I've never seen anyone able to do such. They simply point out numbers of followers, which mean nothing at all.

Numbers don't mean nothing? Are you joking?
They clearly shows that there is a difference between them, if you can't understand why, that is your problem.

 

[LuxFerum]

What many theists don't understand is that atheism isn't a structured organised belief system, it's just disbelief in whatever all the rest believes in. It's not a group in the way religions are, so you can't compare them to a religion.

Atheism is just a disbelief in god.
An atheist can believe in UFO, ghosts, santa claus etc.

 

[Graham]

Numbers don't mean nothing? Are you joking?
They clearly shows that there is a difference between them, if you can't understand why, that is your problem. [/B]

Perhaps you would care to address the question of whether Christianity was less valid 2,000 years ago when there were less believers and became progressively more valid as the numbers of believers increased and will one day be invalid again when it, as all religions eventually do, dies away?

Or are do the numbers only mean something when it's other religions we're discussing?

Graham

 

[LuxFerum]

Perhaps you would care to address the question of whether Christianity was less valid 2,000 years ago when there were less believers and became progressively more valid as the numbers of believers increased and will one day be invalid again when it, as all religions eventually do, dies away?

The question is not about validity.
It is about how usefull the religion is in the life of theirs followers.
If Fade was right, people would never change their religion to follow chistianity.
But that is not the case, people did change theirs old religions for this new one, which is better than the old one. Solve the problems of life in a better way, give them a better change for a good life death, etc.

Or are do the numbers only mean something when it's other religions we're discussing?

No, they would mean the same thing for any religion, but today there is only a few really good religions.

 

[Graham]

The question is not about validity.
It is about how usefull the religion is in the life of theirs followers.
If Fade was right, people would never change their religion to follow chistianity.
But that is not the case, people did change theirs old religions for this new one, which is better than the old one. Solve the problems of life in a better way, give them a better change for a good life death, etc.

No, they would mean the same thing for any religion, but today there is only a few really good religions.

Here is how I read your argument:

* The value of religion is in its utility (usefullness to the religious person)

* More useful religions attract more followers

* Therefore, religions with more followers must be more useful

* Therefore religions with more followers (mainstream denominations) are of more value than those with less (cults)

Some problems:

You have yet to prove that any religion is more useful than no religion.

The argument depends on:

a) Your unsupported assertion that religion is useful

b) Complete denial of the possibility of brainwashing and/or coercion.

c) Denial of the possiblity that people follow traditiion blindly and without questioning.

d) Denial of the other factors involved in the rise of Christianity and other religions - politics, first and foremost. Constantine, for example, adopted Christianity, some would say, as a political move. This gave a tremendous boost to the religion.

The biggest problem with your idea, however, as I see it is that you say "Christianity must be useful because so many people follow it" and you say "Cults must not be useful because so few people follow them" but you fail to take account of the fact that each person is an individual and, by your own argument, for each individual, their "choosen" religion must be at least as useful as the others'.

By your theory, as I understand it, therefore any given cult is as useful as any religion you care to name.

There is therefore no difference between the two and we're back to square one.

Graham