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.

  • Sep 29 2012: The only difference in beliefs between atheism and religion is the unknown since if something is known, nobody can dispute it, regardless of faith or lack thereof. When you start looking at the unknown, anything can happen. There are literally infinity options for things that can happen.

    My criticism of religion is that sometimes they take a blind dive into the unknown abyss, trying to guess what is there. With this method, they come up with one explanation out of the possible infinity with no proof and no plans to revise their idea. That is as close to a zero chance of being right as you can get. Science on the other hand, narrows things down by revising theories until they explain all phenomena associated with the unknown.

    Atheism isn't science though. They say they believe in it, but when atheists get in arguments, they tend to gravitate to the currently untestable unknown which leads to them having one belief and no chance of revision, something science never does. In light of that, I am with the atheism is a cult crowd.
    • thumb
      Sep 29 2012: Yes John Smith. That is one of the problems with religon, as an organization. But, we most remember that their basis is on actual events that they said happened. That is the entire basis for their existance. With the Jews, they were chosen by God to be the special intermediaries between mankind and God.

      With the Christians, God himself came and put aside the Jews and made God the intermediary in the Form of Jesus.

      These are events, not logic and therefore cannot be disputed with philosophy or Science. We either accept or deny.

      Therefor the basis of the Atheist is to deny the events and the basis of the Agnostic is to wonder.

      I see no way that Atheism can debate the idea of God. They either accept or deny but the burden of proof is upon them. Those who deny a claim have to prove the claim is a lie.

      We can use science to prove that the soul does not exist but that has failed so far.
      We can use science to prove that the earth did not stand still, but that would declare the supposition that third class civilizations do not exist (without proof) and we find ourselves, as Atheists denying another claim.

      Either we accept the claim or we deny it. I see no other means of resolution about God.
      • thumb
        Oct 1 2012: These are claims. You ask for evidence that the claims are correct. Or you can just accept it may be made up non sense and choose to believe it, or the claims of any other religion on the same subjective basis.

        Atheists indicate that there is no evidence for any particular god. It is simply healthy scepticism at heart. If there is no proof for these extraordinary claims the claims should be treated accordingly.

        Not sure why you think subjective religious claims should be off limits for rational consideration.

        If you accept they are all subjective, but you want to pick and choose, fine. But please don't pretend that the claims in religion that have not compelling evidence are truth.

        You can understand more and more about our body/brain/mind and how it works without the need for a sou without any evidence of soul. But you can not prove that there is or is not some magic spiritual stuff connected in some way to our physical body.

        Spirit stuff is redundant in science. There does not seem to be any need for it, not just no evidence.

        Gods use to send plagues. Now we have germ theory.

        And science does not need to prove there are no souls or spirits for these to be subjective human ideas little objective basis. But lots of mythology and magic and superstition down through the ages from our more ignorance past.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.