TED Conversations

John Moonstroller

TEDCRED 30+

This conversation is closed.

Is Atheism just another cult, with their own dogma, like religious cults?

Is Atheism just another cult, like a religious cult, with people who believe there is no god, and in most cases also that what is presented by science is the absolute truth? Do people of an Agnostic persuasion believe, atheists have a blind faith in science, believing what they show, and measure is the last word about reality; believing that this Science supports their side of the debate while excluding the Religious view.

Those in the middle of the God/No God debate (Agnostics) have stated that such a claim is delusional and is indicative of cult mentality on par with religious cultism. It requires blind belief God does not exist which is dogmatic because there is no proof (currently) that is acceptably to the Agnostic crowd that God is or is not. Agnostics see the gaps in Scientific knowledge and try to keep an open mind pertaining to spiritual ideas and their connection to the real world. They have sometimes been accused of creating the Scientific idea of Creationism which has gathered steam in the last decade or so. Being in the middle, They are attacked by both sides of the debate, as will be demonstrated in this debate question.

Biting and Kicking is allowed by the Author and leaves it to TED to tell us where the limits lie.

Share:

Closing Statement from John Moonstroller

"Is Atheism just another cult, with their own dogma, like religious cults?"

“The word cult in current popular usage usually refers to a new religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre.[1] The word originally denoted a system of ritual practices. The word was first used in the early 17th century denoting homage paid to a divinity and derived from the French culte or Latin cultus, ‘worship’, from cult-, ‘inhabited, cultivated, worshipped,’ from the verb colere, 'care, cultivation'.” ~ Wikipedia

“Dogma is the official system of belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization” ~ Wikipedia.

Organizations of atheists ritually denounce the existence of God. They have become an organization, dedicated to the activity of removing all relic’s of Theism from public places. Their dogma is based entirely on their notion or belief that God does not exist. These organizations work tirelessly towards this effort.

It is no longer possible for an individual to simply state they are an atheist, by reason of personal belief, and not be affiliated, by membership or indirect alignment with these organizations.

These organizations have an official system of belief and their doctrine is to end the belief of theism on this planet.

They are exclusive, ritualistic, and have a belief system which generates activity within and beyond the boundaries of the organization. They are a Cult.

Not everyone agrees with this interpretation but the meaning of words evolve over time. To be an Atheist is to believe in a dogma and be a member of a club or organization. In the least, an individual is indirectly aligned with these clubs or organizations by belief or personal assertion they are an atheist.

John Moonstroller

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Sep 22 2012: We seem to have different definitions of atheism.

    Even with your definition, perhaps being certain there is no god, does not mean you are absolutely certain everything in science is true.

    I'm an agnostic atheist
    • thumb
      Sep 22 2012: And I'm an Atheist Agnostic. It's good to see you again Obey. ;)

      I said: "...atheists have a blind faith in science, believing what they show, and measure is the last word about reality; believing that this Science supports their side of the debate while excluding the Religious view."..

      So if we remove science do we still have Atheists? Were those who came before us and seen something that caused them to create this religious idea wrong?

      They had little science to go by. So in the past were there no Atheists? Can Atheists exist without science?

      Appearently there is some confusion about what blind faith is. I've used this description over and over again: it's like an astronaut, getting on board a space ship and launching themselves into outer space. It takes faith, perhaps not "blind" faith, or at least a leap of faith that the craft will work as the Sciences and Engineers intended it to. We know God didn't make the craft.

      And no I'm no more certain that science has the full story than 1/x can equal zero. You could say I'm a bit undefined on the issue, lacking proof from anyone else. But descriptively I think I'm a true agnostic. I'm open to the idea with proof. Proof, would probable be in the form of a real visitation. I find it hard to accept others claims to have met God. But Obey, if God did visit me and only me, would I be the only one with proof?
      If I emailed you and said that God appeared to me. We sat down and had a discussion about things and then he left, saying he would be back in a few (whatever amount of time that is), because of science, you would be compelled to think I was a lunatic right?
      • thumb
        Sep 23 2012: Sorry I got interupted before I finished my comment above.

        I'm an agnostic atheist.

        I don't know (gnostic) if there are are gods but based on lack of evidence I'm a non theist, Deist, Patheist - I don't have a belief in gods.

        To me being an Atheist is just a position on believing or not believing in gods. Hard to see how that would be a cult in itself. That is not to say that their could be cults that don't include a belief in gods.

        By your definition I guess I'm an agnostic.

        But if Being agnostic is 0 and Atheist is 10, I'm about 8 on the scale.

        I'm happy to call myself an atheist, because I live as if there are no interventionist gods. And because to me atheism is just a lack of belief, not absolute certainty.

        I know plenty of atheists. Plenty of people who don't have a belief in gods. And none of them claim to be absolutely certain there are no gods.

        To me, you seem to have a parody of atheism in mind, or a particular narrow type of atheist.

        I also know many atheists, who believe in human spirits. Others who believe in an afterlife or reincarnation, but no gods.

        I don't know any atheists personally that have blind faith in Science. Most I know are well educated enough to know science is just our current best guess on a lot of things, and does not have much to say on unverifiable gods or spirits or ghosts. But science does indicate the world is older than many creationists would like to believe. It does indicate prayer does not work. It does indicate at least in part religious experience is related to the brain. MRI's show parts of the brain active when praying or speaking in tongues. It just can not say if this is direct communication with something supernatural.

        I suggest hoping a physical machine like a rocket is going to work is not quite the same as believing in imaginary friends with complex dogmas, and that all the other gods and goddesses are false.

        Hopefully that clarifies my view.

        Let me answer your question below.
        • thumb
          Sep 23 2012: It's just a circus side show Obey. I think you know pretty completely. :)

          I really just call my self John........ without the labels. The labels are for those who need guide posts when they socialize because they weren't properly taught manners as children.

          I'm a free person exercising my right to live and sometimes having to get into scrapes about it. But it all adds up and it's only when you check out of the hotel that you get to see what lies outside the door.

          I think we summed it up with our last conversation when ever that was.... :)

          Yes. People do indeed like labels and definitions. It helps them keep the path clear and lighted. If it works It's alright with me just as long as it doesn't blind me when I travel the same path or create stumbling blocks for me to trip over.

          And don't forget to pick up your litter. :)
        • thumb
          Sep 27 2012: Space shuttles and rocket ships and the people who crawl into them are not fairy tales Obey.
      • thumb
        Sep 23 2012: There is a man in Siberia called Vissarion, who many believe is god incarnate like Jesus. He has written what many call the last testament. He has several thousand followers living with him.

        There are other gurus in India that many living today believe perform miracles similar to those of say Jesus.

        I guess many religions start as cults, founded by charismatic individuals - Buddha, Jesus/Paul, Joseph Smith, L Ron Hubbard etc.

        So if you claimed to have met Jesus (2000 years ago) or Vissarion, I would think that reasonable. But I would still need more to be convinced this person was a god. Actually even if they did perform supernatural feats, this might indicate some power, or abilities, or technology, but not prove all their claims. But you would have to take more notice depending on the miracle.

        If they turned the sky green and they created buildings in an instance carved a mountain into the shape of lion which words, impressive. If they grew to 100m tall - Wow. Renewing amputated limbs and down syndrome also pretty cool. Never heard of a these healing from standard religions. Other so called miracles that could just be rare natural events, not so impressive.

        If you said you saw Elvis I would feel a similar to if you said you spoke with god.

        Living witnesses would help. Video evidence etc etc to prove you came into contact with something amazing.

        With extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence is required.

        Its a bit different to claiming you have a pet dog called Rover.

        So if it was just your word, and I knew you well enough to trust you, I might be inclined to believe you experienced something, but it would take more than your word to convince me it was a god or goddess.

        I'm not sure why everyone says God, as if there must be only one. There is just as much evidence that there are 20 billion sitting on my coach, and if people believed in them they would have the same sorts of religious experience.

        A god could figure out something to prove it exist
        • thumb
          Sep 23 2012: Obey, our clearness of sight and imagination could work against us.

          If you are walking down the street and see a large crowd of people with fear in their eyes running in the opposite direction, you and I are the ones that will wait to see what their running from..... :)

          It could be heart stopper.
      • Sep 23 2012: Hardly

        Our knowledge of science is not a belief system. It is knowledge that is challanged and rewritten daily. The highest honours in the sciecntific community goes to those who prove a hypothesis, theory or law to be false.

        If you want a definition I suppose it would be the lack of need for belief. Truth must be redefined and belief discarded when false as opposed to adhering to tradition in spite of evidence and cowtowing to ancient authority. There exists a complete absence of faith in the mind that understands it has no purpose and no place made for it.

        Atheists existed long before modern science, atheists existed long before the past century, and atheism is in no way a creation of any one group. Least of all scientists.
        Everyone is in fact born an atheist because everyone is born lacking beliefs in the existence of any gods. And in fact, everyone is experienced in being an atheist for all those religions you don't believe in.
        • thumb
          Sep 23 2012: Gordon, I examined your submission and didn't have a red pen so I noted it this way.

          I hope this helps.


          "Our knowledge of science is not a belief system. It is knowledge that is challenged and rewritten daily."

          Sounds Like the evening news.

          "The highest honors in the scientific community goes to those who prove a hypothesis, theory or law to be false."

          Sounds Institutional.

          "If you want a definition I suppose it would be the lack of need for belief."

          ##Run program >> Define Atheist:
          Atheists = Infinity;
          Atheists > 100 years;
          group < > Atheist;
          group < > Scientists
          Babies Minds = Null set;

          {main}
          everyone = atheist
          if
          religion = 0.

          ##I don't see any bugs in your logic but there are some variables you didn't use
          ## and you left
          ## Hardly undefined.

          ##You will get some errors messages.
        • Sep 23 2012: I am inclined to to find your argument sound, Gordon.
          Until your sentence "Everyone is in fact born an atheist because everyone is born lacking beliefs in the existence of any gods.' This assumption, needs consideration; the place for soul and the evidence for your two assumptions.
          All the best |
          Eberhard Schmitz.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.