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
    Oct 3 2012: Coincidently, Google and the online dictionaries define the word pretty much as I do: "a lack of knowledge". This can be pejorative if the person has the facts and clear evidence available to him but simple refuses to embrace the truth - like someone who thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old.
    Some people think this type of person is teaching religion but what he is teaching is ignorance - and yes I mean that in a very pejorative way.
    You argued that people can believe in all kinds of crazy things and you're right but they should also be prepared to be challenged when their views are forced upon society.
    • thumb
      Oct 3 2012: I agree with the Google and online dictionaries too Steve.

      What if "their" views are not "forced" on society? Is it alright to have views that differ with society?

      Is it possible that you're ignorant of the teachings of Religion? How many books have you read about Religion? How many different religions have you studied?

      How old is the earth...... exactly?
      • thumb
        Oct 3 2012: Sure, I'm ignorant on a lot of things, like everyone else.
        Your argument seems to be that there are things we don't understand so god is a possibility. Yes, that's true but it's a far fetched possibility and like I mentioned in my other post any god past or present could fit your argument.
        I call this the "Hocus Pocus Argument". We don't know how the Universe was create so... HOCUS POCUS... it has to be god (and my god to be specific). Very weak.
        • thumb
          Oct 3 2012: Steve I get you now. The farfetched possibility you speak of is called the "Big Bang" theory.

          It is a widely held theory by many Cosmologist (Scientists who study the Cosmos). Here is a link to this Theory:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

          As to whether or not God had anything to do with it, it is a conjecture, not a theory. The difference is a conjecture is a proposition that is unproven, untestable by ordinary means.

          I've never heard of a "Hocus Pocus" argument in formal logic.

          "(and my god to be specific)~ steve Zagata

          Tell us about your God Steve.
      • thumb
        Oct 3 2012: I'm not sure what the point is of asking me how old the Earth is, do you want me to say, "I don't know, somewhere over 4 billion years old?. I'm comfortable saying "I don't know" I'm not comfortable saying "I don't know so it must be god".
        One question for you. How old do you think the Earth is?" I'm starting to think you are in that 6,000 year range and on the wrong website.
      • thumb
        Oct 3 2012: You ask me how old the Earth is… "exactly". That's a silly question. Because I respond to that you say I'm out of line? Then you call me simple minded while accusing me of improper etiquette? (and comically using bad grammar in doing so). I stand by my comments and challenge you to point to one where I used foul language, called you names or personally attacked you in the way you have me.

        I do discuss the immoral side of religion and I will continue to question aspects of it that harms society. Many people, because they are so tied to an erroneous doctrine will lash out when exposed to the illogic of their beliefs. I understand that and have compassion for them. They may have been programmed since an early age and lack the critical thinking skills to work things out.

        I also understand that you did not mean to be condescending by asking what's "maxism" when clearly the author meant marxism. Or when you cut and paste definitions of easily understood terms like "Big Bang" or "Atheist" or when you ask how many books someone has read.

        So if you think I am exhibiting "stupidity and rancorous postulations" as you so kindly stated I will leave you to "your topic area" so you can continue bullying people that don't agree with you.

        You may want to flag this as you threatened, but after reading your comments you may also want to go flag yourself.
        • thumb
          Oct 3 2012: Occasionally, Steve I do flag myself by deleting my comments. I am just as given over to human emotional disfunctionality as anyone else.

          Personally, I think, ideologically speaking, you and have more similar ideas than opposing ideas.

          If I have overstated or understated your comments, by inference, I apologize. I think if we can find middle ground and we spend some time together, this feeling of difference will fade away.

          Chin is a virtual friend of mine. I meant him no disrespect. I wanted to suppose he meant Marxism but wanted to be sure before I answered his question. He is just learning to speak English and making remarkable progress.

          I'll put it this way. I am not a creationist but I am open to the discussion of things relating to the scientific ideas of a creator, a super scientist alien, perhaps on the level of a Class III civilization, as delineated by Carl Sagan and Michio Kaku. Such a civilization would have eradicated disease, mortality, and not necessarily be tied to material reality as we are. We are not yet a class I civilization because of the way we derive and manipulate our energy sources.


          I am not a practicing religious person, but I maintain a sense of spiritualism that is more meditative than dogmatic, more communicative than focus. If I were likened to a device it would be a SETI radio antenna. :)

          I don't accept the dogma of any religious organization nor do I accept the dogma of Atheism.

          I don't like to disrespect the arguments of others, I like to entertain myself with them in the hopes of learning or widening the scope of my perspective on reality.

          I hope this explanation helps us to draw closer together as respective members of an open-minded community.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.