Is American Atheism Evolving Towards A Cult?

[hiyymer]

Cult: a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult

Atheism is not a system, and does not entail religious worship, and has no rites and no ceremonies. Therefore, under that definition, it is not a cult.

My understanding is that a cult is basically the followers of a cult leader to which the cult members have surrendered all control over their lives. Of course there are matters of degree, and people do give up some of their autonomy as a member of any group. But when it comes to drinking the cool-aid I think it's a cult. That is pretty much the ultimate loss of autonomy over your own survival. I'm not sure whether a cult has to be religious to be called a cult.

[Geoff]

Cult: a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult

Atheism is not a system, and does not entail religious worship, and has no rites and no ceremonies. Therefore, under that definition, it is not a cult.

My understanding is that a cult is basically the followers of a cult leader to which the cult members have surrendered all control over their lives. Of course there are matters of degree, and people do give up some of their autonomy as a member of any group. But when it comes to drinking the cool-aid I think it's a cult. That is pretty much the ultimate loss of autonomy over your own survival. I'm not sure whether a cult has to be religious to be called a cult.

By that definition, the military would be a cult.

[amused]

The idiots that try to redefine atheism and secularism as a 'religion' or now, a 'cult', are exposing their own inadequacies. They already know that their own flavor of religion/cult (both are the same) is stupid, so they try to drag science down to the level of idiotic 'faith' where they can then attack it. It's a totally dishonest approach and should be discarded as a lie from the start.

[hiyymer]

By that definition, the military would be a cult.

Agreed. As I said it's a matter of degree. Apparently to the average Italian combatant in WWII it wasn't in much of a cult. And no denigration of the patriotism of Italians intended.

Perhaps the current phenomenon of religion invading the ranks of the US military has something to do with the lack of more legitimate motivations for the wars we are currently undertaking.

[hiyymer]

The idiots that try to redefine atheism and secularism as a 'religion' or now, a 'cult', are exposing their own inadequacies. They already know that their own flavor of religion/cult (both are the same) is stupid, so they try to drag science down to the level of idiotic 'faith' where they can then attack it. It's a totally dishonest approach and should be discarded as a lie from the start.

I have always maintained that it is not atheism which is the "faith", but rather rationalism. I remember Steven Pinker giving a presentation before a sympathetic audience of rationalists. He made the case that there is evidence of mankind producing moral progress in the world using the flimsiest and most patently illogical of examples, but was yet rewarded with an enthusiastic ovation. Ah, the community of the faithful, I thought. Science could not possibly endorse such a position, and atheism, as the simple assertion that gods don't exist, is pretty much irrelevant. A presentation by Richard Dawkins is another place to view this phenomenon. The assertion that religion is created by memes and we would be better off without it is pure rationalist interpretation and has nothing to support it from either science or atheism. The better part of any Richard Dawkins talk is dedicated to making fun of a few religious extremists, and while it is good fun for the audience and quite entertaining it's sort of the equivalent of Jerry Falwell getting up and making fun of liberals. Great for the sense of cohesive identity in the audience, but of little intellectual value.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Cults have to have at least a small amount of organization. Hence atheism will never be a "cult".

[Svartalf]

And yet, the dawk had himself a nice little cult, complete with evil high priest.

[Jason]

Cults have to have at least a small amount of organization. Hence atheism will never be a "cult".

That old chestnut.

Well I don't come here for the scintillating debate.

[King David]

Me, a cultist? You can't be serious. That couldn't be further from the truth.

I'd love to stay and debate the issue but if you'll excuse me I have a ritual baby cannibalism to attend.

[Coito ergo sum]

Cult: a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult

Atheism is not a system, and does not entail religious worship, and has no rites and no ceremonies. Therefore, under that definition, it is not a cult.

My understanding is that a cult is basically the followers of a cult leader to which the cult members have surrendered all control over their lives. Of course there are matters of degree, and people do give up some of their autonomy as a member of any group. But when it comes to drinking the cool-aid I think it's a cult. That is pretty much the ultimate loss of autonomy over your own survival. I'm not sure whether a cult has to be religious to be called a cult.

Not according to standard English dictionaries. In standard English usage, a cult is a particular system of religious worship. Atheism is neither a system, and does not entail any worship. There are no rites or ceremonies. It's not a cult. It may be something else - there may be fanatical atheists - militant atheists - anti-theist atheists - etc. - but, it's not a cult. There are no cults did not entail some sort of system of religious worship.

[Seth]

The idiots that try to redefine atheism and secularism as a 'religion' or now, a 'cult', are exposing their own inadequacies. They already know that their own flavor of religion/cult (both are the same) is stupid, so they try to drag science down to the level of idiotic 'faith' where they can then attack it. It's a totally dishonest approach and should be discarded as a lie from the start.

But it's not a lie, it's an observable truth.

[Seth]

Cult: a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult

Atheism is not a system, and does not entail religious worship, and has no rites and no ceremonies. Therefore, under that definition, it is not a cult.

My understanding is that a cult is basically the followers of a cult leader to which the cult members have surrendered all control over their lives. Of course there are matters of degree, and people do give up some of their autonomy as a member of any group. But when it comes to drinking the cool-aid I think it's a cult. That is pretty much the ultimate loss of autonomy over your own survival. I'm not sure whether a cult has to be religious to be called a cult.

Not according to standard English dictionaries. In standard English usage, a cult is a particular system of religious worship. Atheism is neither a system, and does not entail any worship. There are no rites or ceremonies. It's not a cult. It may be something else - there may be fanatical atheists - militant atheists - anti-theist atheists - etc. - but, it's not a cult. There are no cults did not entail some sort of system of religious worship.

Perhaps you mean "theistic worship," in which case you'd still be wrong. Religious worship does not require theistic concepts, and there are plenty of non-theistic cults out there.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The idiots that try to redefine atheism and secularism as a 'religion' or now, a 'cult', are exposing their own inadequacies. They already know that their own flavor of religion/cult (both are the same) is stupid, so they try to drag science down to the level of idiotic 'faith' where they can then attack it. It's a totally dishonest approach and should be discarded as a lie from the start.

But it's not a lie, it's an observable truth.

In your universe, maybe.

[Seth]

The idiots that try to redefine atheism and secularism as a 'religion' or now, a 'cult', are exposing their own inadequacies. They already know that their own flavor of religion/cult (both are the same) is stupid, so they try to drag science down to the level of idiotic 'faith' where they can then attack it. It's a totally dishonest approach and should be discarded as a lie from the start.

But it's not a lie, it's an observable truth.

In your universe, maybe.

My universe, your universe, alla same.

[hiyymer]

Cult: a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult

Atheism is not a system, and does not entail religious worship, and has no rites and no ceremonies. Therefore, under that definition, it is not a cult.

My understanding is that a cult is basically the followers of a cult leader to which the cult members have surrendered all control over their lives. Of course there are matters of degree, and people do give up some of their autonomy as a member of any group. But when it comes to drinking the cool-aid I think it's a cult. That is pretty much the ultimate loss of autonomy over your own survival. I'm not sure whether a cult has to be religious to be called a cult.

Not according to standard English dictionaries. In standard English usage, a cult is a particular system of religious worship. Atheism is neither a system, and does not entail any worship. There are no rites or ceremonies. It's not a cult. It may be something else - there may be fanatical atheists - militant atheists - anti-theist atheists - etc. - but, it's not a cult. There are no cults did not entail some sort of system of religious worship.

On a couple of occasions I've watched Dawkins, Pinker, Harris give presentations in front of audiences that are entirely sympathetic with their point of view, and I have to say there is little discernible difference between that and a fundamentalist style religious service. Everyone comes with a preconceived set of beliefs, there is a sermon where those beliefs are validated, the sermon includes disparaging references to other belief systems, and the audience gives enthusiastic support and approval regardless of the rationality of anything that is said. I would disagree with Seth that it has anything to do with either atheism or science. It's pure rationalism and scientism. It's not quite a cult, but it's quite ritualistic, with certain catch phrases and emotional buttons that tend to come up repeatedly.