TLDR - what’s the question mark in the following scale
Cult(-1)……………….Religion(0)……………….???(+1)
Long version (a.k.a my stupid mind’s question that is keeping me awake):
My understanding of cult is a group of people with an absurd or even possibly nefarious belief system. Like something negative.
By that definition I would put religion in the middle (though a majority of it leans towards the cult side). A group of people that is very serious about what they believe in, no matter how illogical it is.
So with this understanding what would you call the positive side ? A group of people coming together to have a tradition and belief system just for the fun of it ? Is there such thing ?
There are many definitions of cult. It can be a negative or dangerous religious group. A religious subset focused on a specific practice. Or a group with an eccentric leader focused on claiming they have the correct interpretation of canon.
Knowing you mean the first negative definition, then religion as the standard doesn’t make much sense. The positive of religion would simply be the benefit of religion, which is dependent on whichever religion is being discussed.
For Buddhism it would be spiritual development, enlightenment, and freedom.
12 Step Support groups.
No dues or fees; no full time leaders; you are a member if you say you are and no one can say you aren’t.
I expect many downvotes.
Oh good lord no.
Those are almost universally built on religion, and most are very cult-like. If that’s your take on them, I suspect you haven’t had more than a superficial interaction with them.
I’ve been through a couple of 12step programs. Some are most deff cult like.
So, there were others that weren’t?
A couple. By and large though, I’ve found more that were cultish than weren’t. Some are so cultish that the ones they “support” try to avoid them.
First and foremost, not all cults are negative. From that point we can have the scale be cult specific.
Negative Cult(-1) - Benign Cult (0) - Positive Cult (+1)
The opposite I would assume would be non spiritual groups of people who connect in another way outside of something “spiritual”, without a set standard for beliefs provided by a singular leader required to be member to the group.
Negative Group(-1) - Benign Group (0) - Positive Group(+1)
Ok, I’ll bite. Can you give me your definition of a cult? And then a positive and a negative example?
Atheism.
Technically speaking, all religions are cults. The definition of “cult” is just an organized practice of religion.
Some atheists treat atheism itself as a cult. I’d go one step further. My choice is Agnosticism.
I’m happy to say I don’t know. Maybe we are all on the back of a giant turtle. If the turtle was big enough, we wouldn’t be able to tell. It’s all good.
Some, sure. Most, no.
Atheism is simply the state of nonbelief in a deity. It requires no declaration nor even conscious thought. I don’t believe in leprechauns, but I don’t belong to an anti-leprechaun cult.
Atheism is simply the state of nonbelief in a deity.
Atheism is a spectrum too. At one end you have small-a atheists who would believe in a deity if presented with compelling proof. At the other end you have people with a fervent belief in no deities who would not be persuaded by evidence.
Proof of a powerful entity is just proof of something we haven’t seen before. If it can be observed directly or indirectly it becomes something that exists, which is why nothing is supernatural.
The concept of a deity can’t exist alongside proof, as they are no longer a deity.
I’m an atheist as far as real life goes but absolutely love deities and the supernatural in fiction/role playing games like D&D, media, etc.
I think you’ll find vanishingly few even fervent atheists who wouldn’t be persuaded by actual evidence. I know some percentage of fervent atheists would say if real evidence of a god were presented, they wouldn’t follow it because it’s a monster (I’m in this camp), but I don’t believe any real percentage would stick their fingers in their ears and say lalalala. That’s kind of the opposite of what atheism is about. It’s literally about evidence.
That’s kind of the opposite of what atheism is about. It’s literally about evidence.
Maybe I’m being nitpick-y, but I think you’re pointing at one small part of the whole and saying “that’s it, right there. All of it”. Atheism is literally about what you don’t do - believe in any god. Some atheists come to that point through consideration and self-reflection. Others don’t.
You’re right, and that’s fair. I guess I was talking about general atheists in one breath, then the specific vocal atheists OP seemed to be talking about in another.
I shouldn’t generalise like that. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god – any god. And there are many gods. You can be atheistic about any of them.
What you are referring to, is people who are called atheists, not atheism itself.
Atheism is indeed just a simple definition. If anyone does not believe in any deity, they are atheists, whether they want to or not.
It’s as simple as something being a spoon.
Now, those atheists come in various degrees. That’s what you keep referring to. That is about a measure of intensity.
Some atheists are not even aware they are. Others are proud to be and will declare so, in various degrees.
Just wanted to clear that detail up.
Atheism isn’t really a community either. The atheism community is more people who lack a belief in a god who banded together in various areas to protect themselves and others against having religious things forced onto them. Now an atheist group could turn into a cult because once you have a group systems of control can take over and it could turn into an authoritarian group.
Newly minted atheists are like new linux users. Once they’ve broken their chains, they’re often quite loud and obnoxious about it.
You can’t really blame people who were raised in religious environments and have newly discovered intellectual freedom, though, right? Sure, they can be obnoxious sometimes, just like we all are when we learn a new thing that’s blown our minds. They’ll grow out of it, and we should have patience, like in all things.
That’s the “some” I had in mind, and you’re right.
Same here… but I guess I could also be considered atheist in some ways. It really depends on what your definition of a god is. Maybe we are in a simulation created by something else, but if we were manufactured it seems more likely the creator was as imperfect as we are.
The definition of cult is not an organized practice of religion.
This is a r/atheism edge lord response.
Maybe you should try picking up a fucking dictionary.
Merriam Webster:
-
a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious
-
great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (such as a film or book)
-
system of religious beliefs and ritual also its body of adherents
OP clearly didn’t mean definition three nor does the average person. Your aggressive response is childish. Maybe grow up?
When the major religions start practicing what they actually preach, then maybe they wouldn’t also fall into the first definition. What many do is both unorthodox and spurious.
-
I would say philosophy.
an atheistic commune
Logic.
Your scale is off. Religions and cults are the same thing. The only difference is how accepting society is of them. There is no third option.
There are different kinds of cults. Cult is a different thing from religion. It doesn’t belong on the same axis. But we can continue the thought if we define it as religious cult.
The scale is about excessive binding, control, rituals, restrictions, belief systems. If the left is the extreme, then towards the right we have weaker restrictions upon the belief system. The belief becomes weaker, and the beliefs do not have to restrict other and own people’s activities and beliefs.
Religion in the middle makes no sense. It should be the label on the scale. “Religious extremism” or similar. Maybe narrow, restrictive, totalitarian.
I don’t know specific terminology for the right side. Maybe open or unrestrictive practice of religion.
Cults and religion are the same. The only thing that differentiate them is time. If you have a systematic set of illogical beliefs that have been around for a few years or decades or even just one lifetime, it’s more likely to be called a cult. Give that group a lot more time and it will be called a religion.
As for your question … I don’t think it’s anything the opposite of religion / cult but rather which belief system. I think as humans, we will always come up with some sort of belief system because we will always want to. We’re just wired that way.
And to me the best belief system is one where we value one another no matter what, who, where, why or how. That includes honoring, respecting even those who don’t believe what you do. A belief system where we honor all life, human, animal and organic. A belief system where we do our best not to harm one another or any life around us.
If we could that, then following a religion wouldn’t be so bad because the belief system would be used to actually benefit all life.
A cult is a system of worship or veneration organized around a central person, character, symbol, or object. There’s nothing inherently good or bad about it.
Normal lol
An individual who thinks and acts rationally and who doesn’t try to manipulate others.
The key difference between religions and cults, is the level of restrictions on outside information.
On that scale cults are at one end, religion in the middle, and science at the other end.
I don’t like to see science presented as a belief system. Science is a tool for establishing fact about the natural world in a methodical and reproducible way. For debating the existence of gods, you need philosophy.
That’s partly true.
Religion was the original way to explain the natural world.Eventually, religion led philosophy, which in turn led to science.
I agree. Science is a tool, people don’t believe in science. You use science. You don’t believe in gravity you accept it and our current understanding of it. Which may change as our tools to measure and understand our environment get better.
Eeehhh, unless you read every paper ever, you are kinda trusting the process like a black box in most cases, aka, believing. The most papers you have read in your lifetime, the less true that statement is. There is also a whole section of philosophy about this topic.
Philosophy debate club with no membership
I was made treasurer of the philosophy club by emailing the list at college to join. We met one time because the president and VP were excited someone joined.
There were no funds to manage.
Sounds like a cushy gig 🤣
There were no funds to manage.
Or so you kept claiming
I’d never want to be part of any club that’d have me as a member
I actually think you’ve nailed the task with this
Yeah they were probably the only one in their philosophy debate club
