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
    Oct 2 2012: John would you agree that if there are gods or goddesses we dont seem to have a reliable way to know anything about them?
    • thumb
      Oct 3 2012: Yes. Obey. On the surface it appears that way.

      I often wonder, if we rewind the Universe all the way back to the singularity, what lies beyond? If "our" laws of Physics can only be applied to a Universe with "our" particular physical peculiarities and they disintegrate at or inside of it's event horizon, how can we describe what lies beyond?

      My answer is we can't describe it with Science, only conjecture.

      "A conjecture is a proposition that is unproven. Karl Popper pioneered the use of the term "conjecture" in scientific philosophy.[1] Conjecture is contrasted by hypothesis (hence theory, axiom, principle), which is a testable statement based on accepted grounds. In mathematics, a conjecture is an unproven proposition that appears correct.[2]"

      So how can a conjecture be applied to describing what lies on the other side of a singularity?

      If we agree the singularity existed, is it plausible to suppose reasons for it's existence? With some people this reason is God. In fact, there is no reasonable scientific explanation basis by which we can fashion a conjecture about the singularity other than:
      1. It's gravity or force of containment is so strong it can contain an entire universe in a single point of position within an unknown framework.
      2. Equilibrium implies a state of stability created by balanced forces.
      3. It can be destabilized out of equilibrium to give up it's contents.

      It is at this point in the argument of existence that the ideas of the atheist disappear because science disappears, but the ideas of the agnostic can continue to be expressed and stipulated.

      These three points lead to one question:
      1. What is the the framework that contains the singularity?
      2. What kind of force to you need to destabilize a singularity to give up it's contents?

      Why is God a good conjecture? Because there is no other explanation offered.
      • thumb
        Oct 3 2012: You set the bar low for this argument. Not only can any god; Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Janus, etc be used for your analogy but any other figure the imagination can conjure up would suffice, as long as he, she or it is invisible.
        All you're stating is "I don't know how this happened so it must be god"
        • thumb
          Oct 3 2012: Steve, I gave you many things to think about and all you come back with is:

          "Not only can any god; Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Janus, etc be used for your analogy but any other figure the imagination can conjure up would suffice, as long as he, she or it is invisible."

          Actually, I was writing to Obey.

          I don't see this analogy you are speaking of. I did mention a "Reason" that may apply to "some" people. But you appear to be taking it for granted that "some" people includes me specifically.

          Have I misinterpreted your comment and you are relying to something else?
      • thumb
        Oct 4 2012: The edge of science may start with conjecture and then look for hypothesises to test. And if these fit the facts then a coherent theory may develop. This in turn may be improved and refined or less likely completely overturned if improvements are found.

        Some conjecture about the origins of the universe or self replicating molecules and life seems reasonable.

        Gods or goddesses are one diverse group of supernatural explanations for things people do not understand. It's just I don't give them much weight.

        When you get to the essential crux, we don't know, the universe is complex for our monkey brains, we evolved to assume agency, we mostly grew up surrounded by superstitious religions, astrology etc. For some assuming a god is comfortable assumption.

        For me it is basically saying its magic.

        Gods might be more compelling conjecture if there was anything to indicate their actual existence. If there was anything concrete we could say about their nature. If there was anything to indicate that magic or god was a better explanation than we don't know.

        I don't know how gravity works. I can use Newtons calcs. I'm familiar with proposals involving gravitational force carriers that move at the speed of light, but I don't really comprehend how it works, in the same way I can comprehend something more human in scale. By your approach, anything we don't know is a good reason to imagine gods or magic is involved.

        I disagree.

        I don't absolutely discount the possibility, but I disagree.

        Re: "Why is God a good conjecture? Because there is no other explanation offered." If some people want to adhere to this approach that is their choice. But I disagree. Resorting to gods or magic for which there is no evidence, just as gap fillers is a poor path to better understanding.
        • thumb
          Oct 4 2012: "By your approach, anything we don't know is a good reason to imagine gods or magic is involved." ~Obey No1kinobe

          Obey in the model I presented about the singularity, God is just another name for the unknown destabilizing force. It is a settling description for some and others are happy to simply call it the unknown.

          By the same argument for conjecturing God as a solution, you could substitute the word unknown. It does not change the fact it is the limit of Human knowledge, which was my point.

          This point is made to augment the idea anyone can claim there is no God, but no one can prove it. To be party to a club that has no hope of proof is a waste of time.

          Hence, people are never born atheists because there are no atheists in the sense they can prove God does not exist. It remains an open question for debate. However, the idea that atheists exist.... is closed in my mind. To believe in something that only causes a group of people to be exclusive and locked in their ideas and notions is still a cult and Atheism, fits this description.

          Magic is tricks not forces of nature and therefore cannot be used to compare a real or possibly existing force with simple sleight of hand.

          I don't use magic in discussions such as these to describe phenomenon that I don't understand, but I do use it in the parlor sometimes when playing cards.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.