Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

When you come up with your own idea, let me know...

A cult is a religion. What's the difference according to you?

Posted
9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Numbers...

So Islam is more of a religion than Sikhism? Which published definition for what a religion is are you referencing? Seem to me you are just moving the goal posts as you go. 

Posted
11 hours ago, Ten oz said:

So Islam is more of a religion than Sikhism? Which published definition for what a religion is are you referencing? Seem to me you are just moving the goal posts as you go. 

Come on ten you know that's a strawman, I'm not trying to grade recognised religions, just the difference between a religion and a cult

Posted
23 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Come on ten you know that's a strawman, I'm not trying to grade recognised religions, just the difference between a religion and a cult

No, you absolutely are trying to grade them. Let take a step back:

I said Kings can provide the same social mechanisms as a god to which you said despots seldom have a grip in morality to which I responded neither do prophets. You then challenged for one to be named. One quickly was and since you've been redefining terms. David Koresh was a prophet to those who laid down their lives for him. It does not matter whether or not you think he led a cult. Likewise Brigham Young was a prophet to those who murdered in his name regardless of you opinions of Mormons. 

This conversation was done soon as Moontanman named Joseph Smith. At that point your challenge was met. Their is no reason this has continued for 2 more pages. 

Posted
28 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

No, you absolutely are trying to grade them. Let take a step back:

I said Kings can provide the same social mechanisms as a god to which you said despots seldom have a grip in morality to which I responded neither do prophets. You then challenged for one to be named. One quickly was and since you've been redefining terms. David Koresh was a prophet to those who laid down their lives for him. It does not matter whether or not you think he led a cult. Likewise Brigham Young was a prophet to those who murdered in his name regardless of you opinions of Mormons. 

This conversation was done soon as Moontanman named Joseph Smith. At that point your challenge was met. Their is no reason this has continued for 2 more pages. 

Now you're clutching at straws, the only grey area is the Mormons, for three reasons: 1. they certainly have the numbers. 2. The ones I've met seemed content whether I talk to them or not, and the ones that weren't trying to convert me were just happy. 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith

Quote

 

After Smith was imprisoned in Carthage, Illinois, he was killed when a mob stormed the jailhouse.

Smith published many revelations and other texts that his followers regard as scripture. His teachings include teachings about the nature of God, cosmology, family structures, political organization, and religious collectivism. His followers regard him as a prophet comparable to Moses and Elijah, and several religious denominations consider themselves the continuation of the church he organized, including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Community of Christ.

 

 

Posted
Just now, Ten oz said:

@dimreepr , no place in the definition for prophet does it mention "numbers". You are creating your own terms. 

1

When did I say it does?

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

No, you absolutely are trying to grade them.

 

Besides which my entire posting history on this subject argues this.

Posted

The term cult refers to a social group defined by its religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs,..Don't you agree with this?

How is a cult not a kind of religion?

Posted
1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Now you're clutching at straws, the only grey area is the Mormons, for three reasons: 1. they certainly have the numbers. 2. The ones I've met seemed content whether I talk to them or not, and the ones that weren't trying to convert me were just happy. 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith

 

I'd rather clutch at straws than ride a strawman, via your own definition all of christianity is now a cult or cults to be more precise. Christianity is not a monolithic whole, it is in fact thousands of independent sects most of which are quite certain the others are doing it wrong and used to use violence up to and including killing to enforce their little piece of god bothering. It's the main reason why the USA included a separation of church and state in its by laws. 

Being happy has nothing to do with a cult from what I understand the Raelians are quite happy but by almost any reasonable definition of cult they are one.. 

Jehovah's witnesses are a cult by definition as well. 

Posted (edited)

Besides the obvious difference between a religion and a cult in numbers of worshipers, isn’t majority of modern cults led by a living person treated like a deity by the worshipers where as in religions, a deity is a long time dead (or rather non existant) entity being worshiped? I also do not understand why the quarell about the differences between a cult and a religion, there obviously are differences depending on the countless types of religions and cults out there. Frankly I don’t get what you  two are fighting about, theres a big drawer called „religious faith” inside which there are boxes with various cults and religions. There are differences but they all sit in a single drawer. 

Edit: Here a joke for both of you @dimreepr & @Moontanman:

Atheism and Religion are two sides of the same coin. One relies on heads while the other is just based on tales.

Edited by koti
Posted

There are more religious believers than non religious believers even in our modern century, which proves religion is necessary and almost an innate part of our humanity.

Posted
Just now, Harikrish said:

There are more religious believers than non religious believers even in our modern century, which proves religion is necessary and almost an innate part of our humanity.

The number of people who believe something has no bearing on it's veracity or usefulness.. 

Posted
9 hours ago, Harikrish said:

There are more religious believers than non religious believers even in our modern century, which proves religion is necessary and almost an innate part of our humanity.

 

What, please, is a non religious believer?

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

What, please, is a non religious believer?

Believers that don't go to church or follow the rules?   I don't know either. :D

 

In fact I have friends that believe in god but hate religion.

Edited by DrP
Posted
5 hours ago, studiot said:

 

What, please, is a non religious believer?

A non religious believe is someone who does not believe in a God/deity.

Posted
6 hours ago, studiot said:

 

What, please, is a non religious believer?

I think they mean "a non-believer in religion" ("non religious-believer" doesn't really work in English).

15 hours ago, Harikrish said:

There are more religious believers than non religious believers even in our modern century, which proves religion is necessary and almost an innate part of our humanity.

It doesn't really prove either of those things. But the evidence does seem to show it is an innate part of human nature but, as with pretty much all human traits, people are affected to differing degrees (some people are very willing to believe in gods and others not at all).

Posted

 

Now I am even more confused.

 

2 hours ago, Harikrish said:

A non religious believe is someone who does not believe in a God/deity.

 

Harikrish, but you have stated they are a believer. So what do they believe in and what does that mean in relation to the OP, which is about rational thinking, not belief.

 

1 hour ago, Strange said:

I think they mean "a non-believer in religion" ("non religious-believer" doesn't really work in English).

 

Strange, how can you not believe in religion when it is on (nearly) every corner?

I assure you it exists.

Yet this is entirely unrelated to the validity of any religion or the rational for it.

 

Posted
1 hour ago, DirtyChai said:

I forgot about that study.  Great article, thanks for posting it! 

So I guess the answer to the OP is a resounding yes.  Suffice it to say, we're born this way.

I linked the article because I agree with this statement: "Religious thoughts seems to be an emergent property of our standard cognitive capacities."

The article seems to say we are hardwired to believe in God, which I deny since that implies a God that can be related to as a person.(personal God) I rather think we are hardwired to believe in things that go beyond observable science. I immediately think of ietsism.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ietsism

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.