TED Conversations

John Moonstroller


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.


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 23 2012: Atheism is a position on the single question - whether god exists or not.

    It is not a cult.

    However, cults could be formed that involve not having a belief in gods as one or perhaps a central tenants.

    But that is something more than atheism. That is something more than not having a belief in gods and goddesses.

    You could have a cult based on the supremacy of chocolate ice cream if you wanted, but that does not make liking chocolate ice cream a cult.
    • thumb
      Sep 23 2012: It's just confusion about the semantic syntax.... When you going to check out my forum?
      • thumb
        Sep 23 2012: Where is you forum JM?

        Also, the semantics tricks allow people like Deepak Chopra to make sentences including the word god which he knows includes anthropomorphic aspects to many but he sneakily borrows the word to for his own new age meaning e.g. God is the ultimate mystery that we cannot define. God is our highest potential to know ourselves and the end goal of our seeking.
        • thumb
          Sep 23 2012: it is meanless to talk about this .you know there is no bountries .you can belive or not .when things are going well.i dont think about this .when i am sad i may think of Buddhism.you know just for a better life .
        • thumb
          Sep 23 2012: It's here Obey..... www.moonstroller.com
      • thumb
        Sep 23 2012: it is not obey . it is my opinion . i dont like the word obey ..we are all equal
        on obey on order
        • thumb
          Sep 23 2012: Yes your right Chen,we are all equal but Obey's name is a statement to all humans to never bow down to an oppressive force.

          Obey no one

          Oh, by the way,that conference in Palm Springs is a little too expensive for me,i'm not a rich man.
        • thumb
          Sep 23 2012: Ken got it in one.
        • thumb
          Sep 27 2012: Chen, I'm sorry if I've appeared distant to you. I am coming to know you better and enjoy conversations with you.....
    • Sep 23 2012: Every Atheist is his own religion.
      Eberhard Schmitz.
    • thumb
      Sep 23 2012: Obey. The difference lies in the distinction between "ism" and "ist" One is a philosophical argument the other is a belief. This world "belief" has evolved over the years to mean many things it was not, I believe, intended to serve. Like many words, it has been hijacked from the social structure and bastardized to imply meaning to other ideas or objects.

      The Epistemological understanding of the word "belief" (are you looking Gerald, Brian?): "The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true." ~ wikipedia.

      Evidence is simply one of the assertions and not the sole priority.

      "Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge and belief. The primary problem in epistemology is to understand exactly what is needed in order for us to have true knowledge. In a notion derived from Plato's dialogue Theaetetus, philosophy has traditionally defined knowledge as "justified true belief" ~wikipedia.

      So belief doesn't have to be proved, it only has to be justified and true.

      So our job is to determine the "truth" of the argument stated in the question I posed in this debate. I have already "justified" it in my own mind and bring it to the table of discussion. You have given it "further justification" by contributing in the debate posed by the question.

      I say that Agnosticism is the middle ground because Religion has taken the stance to "believe" that God exists, and Atheism has taken the stance that God does not exist and Agnostics have taken the stance to be skeptical of either of these extremes, based on their parity or reconciliation with ideas of difference between "belief" and "knowledge".

      There is a difference between those who have a Philosophy of life and those who spend their life pursuing the Knowledge of life. And I ran out of Characters. Someone else can take over.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.