TED Conversations

John Moonstroller

TEDCRED 30+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

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.

+4
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.

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Oct 1 2012: An hour and twenty three minute lecture? some break.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Oct 1 2012: I say that you are off topic posting a video about exploring "the legitimacy of miracles and their supernatural implications."
          Glad you are busy looking for truth. From what I viewed of the video you posted you may need to remain busy.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Oct 1 2012: Actually I am open to other explanations. The multi-Universe idea is intriguing, the idea of living in a computer simulation cannot be disproved and is worth consideration. I just don't give much credence to a bronze aged superstition based on outdated myths. Still if evidence revealed itself I would have to consider the possibility. It may be you who is stuck in one system of explanation. You believe what you believe because you were born at a certain time in a certain place brought up by certain people. Most people don't find religion, religion finds them. Let's face it, the claims for religion - virgin births, waking the dead, levitation, talking snakes, etc. is pretty far out there and you have zero proof.
          You seem like a decent enough gent so don't be taken aback by other views. This is an open conversation on the subject not simply a repository of one's views.
        • thumb
          Oct 1 2012: I agree Steve. No proof.

          I note there are Indian gurus living today who many thousands believe are doing miracles similar to Jesus.

          Imagine is Jesus had created a 5 km high monument made from some exotic alloy that still existed today. That would be impressive.

          Imagine if all the amputated limbs of soldiers were healed. That would be impressive. Seems miracles don't have the power to regrow limbs or cure down syndrome. Lame.

          And even if they did occur, and would warrant examination, they don't prove the claims of being the creator god of the universe. They don't make the bible factual in total.

          Now if Jesus created a few extra planets that would indicate he may have had the ability to create much of the universe.

          But what do we get. Loaves and fishes created from loaves and fishes. That's the sort of creation miracle we see described in the bible, again with no proof.

          Odd that there are no known extra biblical references to Jesus made while he was alive, let alone miracles. Even the new testament was written decades after he lived. Pretty poor in terms of evidence for the theist claims regarding the creator of the universe, supposedly with some very important consequences - ie Yahweh/Jesus will kindly send us to eternal punishment if we get it wrong.
    • thumb
      Oct 1 2012: 1. Science does not define the Limits of rationality.
      "You can speak of the ethics of science but you can't speak of ethics with science" ~Albert Einstein
      The car is a device invented with scientific knowledge but the knowledge came from the Agent, Henry Ford, et all.
      Alludes to the idea, who is the agent of creation?
      Science can, of itself, do nothing. Science is a creation of the mind.


      Excellent video Don, Thanks for the contribution. You have led me to myself. :)
      • thumb
        Oct 2 2012: Yet we can usually tell instantly whether something is natural or created by human agency.

        Yet nature seems to run fine without any obvious agency.

        And who created your creator. And who created the creator of the creator. You go around it circles until you assume that something didn't need a creative agency.

        On ethics I have a slightly different view to the quote. Ethical and moral analysis as best we know are human endeavours. Religion was/is one human technology used in part to convey morality, generally by assumed divine command. My god orders us to kill homosexuals and adulterers so this is good.

        While science is not the appropriate vehicle for discerning sensible ethical constructs it does inform us about ourselves and the universe. Combined with reason and evidence we can try and construct frameworks of human bestowed rights and responsibility without bundling them up in religion.

        In fact if Yahweh described in the old testament is real, what a monster. What he is supposed to have commanded and did is not moral unless you fall back to divine command theory.

        Why is it good to kill homosexuals and adulterers? Why is it good to slay the Canaanites and Ammonites etc. Was this god moral when he murdered every man women and child in the great flood? Was it moral for him to pick one tribe as his chosen people. Is it moral of him to eternally punish and torment other conscious beings. Other than divine command, how is this so.

        If a human did these things outside of a religious framework would they be good?

        Religion is a very flawed technology for moral and ethical analysis.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.