how can people join cults and believe them?

[backbreaker]

the problem I have with christans, moreso than Muslims, is that you can't aruge with someone who is ignorant. and I mean literarly; out of 10 christansI said 1 to no mor ethan 3 have read the bible from cover to cover (ever notice how the bible is the ONLY book that is not recommened to read from cover to cover?)

I can't argue with you about your own faith, let alone my lack OF faith.

Anyone wanting to get into a real religious arguement with means really lasts all of 10 seconds.. I keep a copy of the qu'ran, a bible and some other relgious documentataion and books at my house... until someone has read a book on athieism, the bible from cover to cover, and the qu'ran (becuse just reading about one religion is not enough, that's like learnin about one political party and saying that you KNOW that is the best party without looking at the other), than I'm wasting my time

yet these ignorant people are the ones who have no qualms about trying to shove it down YOUR throat.

 

[j-flex]

How is the word "cult" defined?
Webster's Dictionary defines a cult as:

"1. A formal religious veneration 2. A system of religious beliefs and rituals also its body of adherents; 3. A religion regarded as "unorthodox or spurious."; 4. A system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator; 5. a: A great devotion to a person, idea, thing; esp.: such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad, b: A usually small circle of persons united by devotion or allegiance to an artistic or intellectual movement or figure."

This definition obviously could include everything from Barbie collectors to old "Deadheads," "Trekkies" to diehard Elvis fans. American history might also include within such a definition the devoted followers of Mary Baker Eddy the founder of Christian Science, or the Mormons united through their devotion to Joseph Smith. Both these religious groups were once largely regarded as "unorthodox or spurious." However, the most important concern today is not simply who might be somewhat "cultic" in their devotion now or historically, but what groups might represent potential problems regarding personal or public safety. That is, groups that are potentially unsafe and/or destructive.

Psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton, who wrote the definitive book about thought reform (often called "brainwashing") also wrote a paper about cult formation. Lifton defined a cult as having the following three characteristics:

A charismatic leader, who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose power.

A process [is in use] call[ed] coercive persuasion or thought reform.

Economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.

Don't some groups once seen as "cults" often move more into the mainstream, becoming generally respected sects or religions?

Yes. There are certainly examples of groups that were once perhaps thought of as "cults" that have evolved into relatively mainstream sects or religions. Such examples as the Seventh Day Adventists once led by Ellen White, or the Mormons, also known as the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints.

But it is also important to note that some groups, which may have once been labeled as "cults" continue to be controversial due to their unsafe or destructive practices. Two examples of groups that continue to be problematic and often destructive are the former Russellites, now known as "Jehovah's Witnesses," that once prohibited organ transplants and still expects its members to refuse blood transfusions, which has resulted in numerous deaths. And the Christian Scientists founded by Mary Baker Eddy who often reject medical treatment, again resulting in the loss of life. Some groups may say they have renounced unsafe or destructive practices, only to be exposed later as guilty of the same extremes and abuses.

Can hate groups or political extremists be somewhat "cultic"?

Yes. Many anti-government extremists such as the so-called "militias" and hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, racist skinheads, some radical anti-abortion groups, the "Christian Identity" movement and often violent gangs, share many of the same characteristics as destructive cults; such as a "we they" mentality, black and white thinking and/or unreasonable fears about the outside world. And radical anti-government extremists and hate groups have at times isolated themselves in compounds or remote settings not unlike the Waco Davidians or Jim Jones' People's Temple.

It is important to note that historically there have also been many radical left-wing political groups such as the SLA that abducted Patty Hearst, or the National Labor Federation founded by Gino Perente, which exhibit these same cultic tendencies.

More recently the right-wing followers of Lyndon LaRouche appear to have obsessive, cult-like devotion to their leader and some have referred to this group as a "political cult".

Can some multi-level-marketing and commercial schemes be seen as somewhat cultic?

Yes, some commercially motivated groups stress total commitment, avoid answering critical questions and seem to employ "cult like" manipulative techniques to achieve what can be seen as undue influence. Though most lack the intense focus upon a central leader like a classic cult, I have received repeated complaints about alleged abuse within some commercial groups.

People considering multi-level-marketing need to research a company thoroughly and ask tough questions.

Is the company about selling a product or selling its system of distribution? This can often be seen by the emphasis it places upon the importance of recruitment.


What amount of the company's income is derived from promotional tools and/or percentages paid up the chain of distribution, as opposed to product sales?


What is the actual net monthly income for the average distributor and the the typical number of hours devoted to achieve that income?
These are important common sense questions that should be clearly answered and objectively proven before becoming involved with any marketing and/or commercial sales group.

Are all so-called "cults" unsafe and destructive?

No. Just because a group is "cultic" and its adherents are focused on unusual leaders and/or ideas is no reason to call them unsafe or destructive. There are groups centered on seemingly strange spiritualists, radical political concepts, the supposed power of crystals, UFO's, witchcraft or "Satanism," that may appear eccentric, but most often don't harm anyone. An unsafe or destructive group is not defined by what it believes, but by what it does. That is, the behavior that causes harm and injury to the members of the group and/or others in society.

 

[j-flex]

Do you ever find that complaints you receive about a group or person are false and/or unfounded?

Yes, there have been times that families have over-reacted to a group or situation that later proved to be benign and/or not dangerous or destructive. This has often occurred regarding claims about "Satanism" and/or so-called "Satanic ritual abuse". Such claims have often been based upon supposed "recovered or repressed memories" gathered through therapy sessions. This is a controversial practice and/or process that relies upon a theory, which has been increasingly rejected as unscientific and unproven in the courts and also rejected by many mental health professionals.

Again, it is crucial to understand that behavior is the issue and not belief. When those concerned about someone's group involvement find clearly destructive behavior, this is an issue for legitimate concern. But when a group is simply perceived as strange, eccentric and/or even personally repugnant, such as some adherents to "Satanism," this does not mean the group is destructive. Satanists, just as Christians, Jews and Moslems, have religious rights that are constitutionally protected. I have rarely found that the claims of horrific acts attributed to "Satanic" conspiracies can be objectively proven. And those destructive acts that were proven were rather examples of isolated and atypical groups. This has been substantiated again and again by law-enforcement reports and numerous studies.

Destructive Cult

What are the characteristics of a destructive "cult" or group?

Margaret Singer, clinical psychologist and once Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Berkeley was the preeminent cult expert of the 20th Century. She counseled and/or interviewed thousands of people affected by controversial groups often called "cults." Dr. Singer offered meaningful definitions of unsafe groups or "cults" in her book Cults in our Midst.

According to Singer, unsafe groups or cults can generally be defined by three factors:

The origin of the group and role of the leader.

The power structure, or relationship between the leader and the followers.

The use of a coordinated program of persuasion, which is called thought reform [or more commonly, 'brainwashing'"].

What typifies an unsafe group or "cult's" leadership and structure?

Again, a good working understanding has been provided by Margaret Singer: "In most cases, there is one person, typically the founder at the top...decision making centers in him or her." Illustrating the structure Singer says, "imagine an inverted T. The leader is alone at the top and the followers are all at the bottom". There is little if any accountability and as Singer says, "the overriding philosophy...is that the ends justify the means, a view that allows [such groups] to establish their own brand of morality, outside normal society bounds".

What specifically would define a group or "cult" as unsafe?

Unsafe groups or "cults" often abuse and exploit their members. This abuse may occur in the areas of finances, physical labor, child abuse and neglect, medical neglect, sexual exploitation and/or psychological and emotional abuse.

Extreme examples of destructive behavior have been historically recorded in such groups as the Waco Davidians, the cult suicides of "Heaven's Gate" and the Solar Temple of Switzerland and the suicide/murder of almost one thousand members of the Peoples Temple ordered by Jim Jones. In 1995 the Japanese cult known as Aum, the followers of Shoko Asahara, gassed the subways of Tokyo with the deadly poison gas sarin, killing twelve and injuring thousands of citizens. Perhaps the most deaths ever caused by a single cult in modern history can be attributed to the "Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments" of Uganda. Shortly after the turn of the century 780 bodies were found after a reign of terror that included murder and possibly mass suicide. But due to the isolated circumstances of the group many believe all the bodies will never be recovered, placing the actual loss of life much higher, possibly greater than Jonestown.

Are all unsafe or destructive groups isolated in compounds?

No. Isolation can often be less obvious. Many destructive groups create isolation through their control of a member's associations with outside society. The group members may be discouraged from associating with outsiders, especially those who express a negative attitude about the group and its leader(s). Isolation can also be fostered by a kind of hyper-activity that allows little time for family, outside interests or friendships. Marshall Applewhite the leader of "Heaven's Gate" controlled his followers through carefully subscribed daily schedules and regimentation, though the members were seemingly free to come and go at anytime. This regimentation and control took place in a mansion within a plush California neighborhood, not an isolated compound.

 

[j-flex]

Destructive Cult Dynamics

What types of people become leaders of unsafe and/or destructive groups?

Many cult leaders seem to be narcissistic personalities often fantasizing about messianic visions that will change the course of human history, while appearing to have little if any conscience. Some make claims that they are the exclusive voice of God, "psychic" connections to historical figures, or aliens from outer space. Often these leaders seem deeply delusional and disturbed and some have been called psychopaths. Marshall Applewhite, the leader of "Heaven's Gate" was once confined to a mental hospital.

Extreme examples of destructive and delusional behavior by cult leaders such as Jim Jones, David Koresh and Shoko Asahara have caused many mental health professionals to question their sanity. Still others simply may be opportunistic con men or women, exploiting their followers for personal profit and self-interest.

What kind of relationship do destructive group leaders have with their followers?

The leadership most often defines what is right and wrong and group followers are essentially expected to defer making meaningful value judgments regarding almost any issue of significant importance. And any member of the group who questions or doubts the authority of the leader is likely to be labeled wrong, rebellious, suppressive, negative and in some situations even "demon possessed" or "satanic".

No area of a member or follower's life appears to be immune from such a group's scrutiny and/or criticism. A kind of learned dependency often develops. Group followers appear highly dependent upon their leaders to resolve problems and provide them with an ongoing sense of clarity and purpose.

Are there any meaningful boundaries in such relationships?

No. It seems that most destructive cult leaders do not provide appropriate boundaries regarding the relationship they have with their followers. Because of this and other factors such as learned dependency, thought reform and little if any meaningful accountability, a formula for abuse and exploitation often exists in such group relationships.

Also, the adulation of followers may have a negative impact upon the leader(s), almost like an intoxicating and addictive drug. This may deepen a codependent relationship between the leader and his or her followers. And such virtual worship may also provide seeming proof to some cult leaders that their grandiose delusions of greatness, power and absolute authority are true. The more obedience and adulation such leaders receive, the more they may want and eventually require. This may then become the foundation for ever-escalating bizarre and/or destructive behavior.

Destructive Cult Mindset

Is there actually a kind of mindset within potentially unsafe or destructive groups?

Yes. There seems to be a typical mindset within most destructive cults. This is often characterized by black and white thinking, a low tolerance of ambiguity and a relentlessly judgementa1 attitude. Members of such a group often think in "we, they" opposing terms regarding those outside their group. This mindset frequently produces feelings of superiority and/or spiritual elitism, claims of supposed "persecution" and unreasonable fears. These fears typically concern the outside world and the consequences of disagreeing with or leaving the group.

How is such a mindset achieved?

Most often destructive cults, groups and/or leaders are able to shape a mindset based upon control of communication, association, and information through hyperactivity and/or isolation. This in turn provides the basis for further control of behavior, emotions and thinking, which has been called "mind control." This is frequently a gradual step-by-step process that includes facets of psychological persuasion and the principles of influence.

Destructive Cult Control

How can cults use communication to control people?

One example is through "loading the language," a feature of thought reform, characterized by thought terminating cliches. Such cliches are easily memorized phrases and terms that essentially become communication shortcuts or "ultimate terms." This can have the effect of stopping critical thinking and independent analysis, essentially restricting and ultimately often constricting the mind.

How can cults control information?

Information is controlled in many cults by creating strict rules and/or guidelines regarding such things as books and outside reading, television, movies, radio, music and often even restricting associations with anyone who might express independent ideas, doubts or negative feelings about the group. The group and its leader(s) thus may become much like a filter, supposedly needed to help eliminate the "pollution", "poisons" and negativity of the outside world.

How can hyperactivity or isolation contribute to cult control?

When people are busy with group activities there may be little if any meaningful time away from the group, except for work, school or sleep. Group members are thus often cut off and isolated from any outside frame of reference or objective feedback. They become constrained through their largely exclusive associations within the group, this may also include being substantially removed from family and old friends. All these factors can create a kind of vacuum regarding any meaningful critical analysis. And then the group and/or its leadership fills that vacuum with its own perspective and agenda.

How is "coercive persuasion" really different from normal persuasion?

Essentially, coercive persuasion relies largely upon thought reform techniques and may also utilize unreasonable fear to compel people to change. Through such a process many can be changed without their knowledge and/or informed consent. This is done in a rigid way that frequently precludes any meaningful exchange of ideas, is fairly one-sided and seems to have little respect for differences. Margaret Singer clinical psychologist and author of the book "Cults in Our Midst" made distinctions between various types of persuasion such as education, advertising, propaganda, indoctrination and thought reform.

What "unreasonable fears" do many cult members have?

These are fears often not based upon objective reality, such as bizarre conspiracy theories, baseless projections of an impending catastrophe, crisis and/or physical danger. Members of some cult groups are warned of an extreme punishment beyond death proscribed specifically for those who refuse to submit to the group and its leader. They may also be told stories about those who left or were disobedient and how their lives were tragically ended or impacted as a direct result. Many of these stories may be made up, grossly exaggerated and/or distorted, but they reflect an implicit purpose, which is to intimidate members and thus retain them within the group.

What is "undue influence"?

This can be seen as an individual who becomes so dependent upon others through cult indoctrination that they often make decisions which are not in their own best interest. Our judicial system has made such distinctions by determining diminished capacity, which subsequently may be exculpatory regarding responsibility and/or mitigate sentencing concerning a crime.

There is a notable difference between the levels of influence employed through education, advertising, propaganda, indoctrination and thought reform. Undue influence usually is the result of unethical and/or improper techniques of persuasion that is administered by an authoritarian figure and/or hierarchical structure.

Some have offered the analogy that the Marines are not unlike authoritarian cults and that they also use undue influence to train and control recruits. However, there are stark and basic differences between the operation and conduct of the Marines and most destructive cults in such areas as meaningful accountability, the ability to address grievances and communication.

Can one individual gain destructive "cult-like" control of another person?

Yes. It is possible for a cult to be composed of one leader and only one follower. This also can be seen as an abusive/controlling relationship, which is a one-on-one deliberately manipulative and exploitative intimate relationship between two people. Some marriages or domestic partnerships where there is spousal abuse may be characterized and explained in this way. This is sometimes called a "cultic relationship."

Those dominated within abusive/controlling relationships may be so completely under the influence of another person that they appear to have lost the ability to think independently, much like the member of a destructive cult. The person in submission is also frequently isolated from family and friends and becomes very dependent upon the dominant authority figure.

 

[j-flex]

Destructive Cult Recruitment

Are cults and other controversial groups deceptive when they recruit people?

Yes, they often are. They may employ deception in the recruitment process by using front organizational names and/or not clearly identifying themselves or their purpose. For example, a religious cult may not even initially advise potential recruits that it has a religious agenda. Groups with controversial leaders may withhold that information and also keep their more radical beliefs hidden or secret until they achieve more influence and compliance thorough their indoctrination process.

What types of people are recruited by cults or become involved in potentially unsafe or destructive groups and relationships?

All types of people. Individuals from strong and troubled families, with and without histories of psychological problems. People who have had and have not had drug problems, with a solid or weak religious background, the educated and uneducated, the wealthy, poor, middle class, intelligent and not so intelligent.

One of the myths about cult involvement is that a certain type of person is more vulnerable. Another myth is that healthy, strong, intelligent well-educated people from good families don't become involved. Or, that somehow if someone has clearly defined religious convictions they cannot be recruited. These theories have never been proven or substantiated through research. In fact, repeated studies continue to indicate a wide and varied background for cult recruits.

Frankly, cults are quite good at persuasion and indoctrination; it's their stock and trade. And most people simply are not prepared, either through education and personal experience, to be sensitive to the possible impact of cult methodology.

The truth is, almost anyone could potentially become involved with an unsafe or destructive group. We are all especially suggestible at certain times, when depressed, lonely, during an awkward transition, when within a new environment such as a college campus away from home, after a romantic breakup, death in the family or some other personal problem or ordeal. Since all people have such experiences, we all have periods of vulnerability. And many destructive cults/groups have honed their skills, timing and focused their programs to exploit such situations as opportunities for recruitment.

But aren't these people just weak and stupid?

No. As previously mentioned cult recruits are often caught at a particularly vulnerable time and probably did not recognize the warning signs necessary to make a more balanced and informed decision. In everyday life this can be seen to some extent when people make poorly informed decisions largely based upon the influence of slick advertising and sales gimmicks. There are many examples of such successful, but often unethical, methods of persuasion through high-pressure car deals, land and stock swindles, misleading infomercials and boiler room phone solicitations.

Many intelligent and successful celebrities and stars have become involved with groups that have been called "cults," such as Madonna, Tom Cruise , Elizabeth Taylor and John Travolta.

Specifically because these well-known personalities are so strong and compelling, some have been used to promote controversial groups and defend them. Ironically, the very reason they are useful to such groups is the public admiration and respect they enjoy and the perception that they are role models and often trendsetters.

People are often frustrated and anxious about the world around them. And most of us seem to have a need for answers, security, a sense of control, a feeling of belonging and a desire for personal recognition. Today there are millions of "true believers," who faithfully accept psychics, UFOs, angels, questionable multi-level marketing schemes, political extremism, conspiracy theories and demagoguery. People often find things to believe in that fulfill a need for explanation about an increasingly complex world. At a time of crisis such beliefs may also fill a personal void. Personal voids, burning questions and the need for answers are not unique to any single type of person, instead they appear to be part of the human condition.

If such a system exists to coerce, persuade, influence and control people, then why doesn't somebody use it to take over a nation or the world?

This has already happened. The politics of fear, control of the environment and manipulation of both information and communication has been used successfully to control nations. Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, the Ayatollah's Iran and Sadam's Iraq are just a few examples. Such intense influence and control allowed Hitler to set the stage for the Holocaust.

Many dictators have historically been labeled as "megalomaniacs" and "psychopaths." They are not unlike destructive cult leaders, who often have messianic pretensions and delusions about world influence. Movements such as Nazism, Stalinism and Maoist China can be seen as cults that fit well within the criteria advanced by Robert Jay Lifton in his paper concerning "cult formation." Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all "charismatic leader who increasingly be[came] an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the[ir] group los[t] power". These leaders also employed obvious thought reform techniques and exploited their followers.

In the United States during the "Red Scare" of the 50s there was a mindset that came be known as "McCarthyism." This mindset produced overwhelming intimidation, information control, propaganda and unreasonable fear. During that bleak era of American history Senator Joseph McCarthy dominated and profoundly influenced the thinking of a nation.

 

[azanon]

I can't argue with you about your own faith, let alone my lack OF faith.

Regarding faith, it is so annoying to me when I hear on TV or in person how someone says, suggests, or even implies that faith is a virtue. There is NOTHING about faith that's a virtue. Dan Barker said it best, "Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits".

AFAIK, anyone that "practices faith" is not a scientist. I don't care if they have a Ph. D. in a science. Practicing faith is the unpardonable sin of a scientist, IMO. There's not a dam* thing logical or rational about faith. If you say you have power, then show me! If you say you can save me, what's stopping you? If you really love me, then just love me without making it conditional on my faith. I was born and created a flawed individual, yet that's somehow my fault that I need forgiveness for?

Is my bitterness for this wide-spread, and rampant silliness showing?

 

[backbreaker]

I have another rant.

As I stated before, I go to CA meetings at least 3 times a week, usually 4 or 5.

a couple of days ago someone said something and about running from your problems and I felt like speaking in the group.

This woman, who is actually pretty darn cute, you can tell she worked out alot before she was on drugs, comes up to me after the group and says.. knowing good and damn well of my athiestism, "God is going to work with you one day, he hasn't touched you yet, but one day he will"

I won't go into a long winded detail of my life story, but what I do want to know... if you are 42 years old, and you have been in rehab 5 times... has god NOT been touching you?



the Templeton Foundation tested experimentally the proposition that
praying for sick patients improves their health. Such experiments, if done properly, have to be double blind, and this standard was strictly observed. The patients were assigned, strictly at random, to an experimental group (received prayers) or a control group (received no prayers). Neither the patients, nor their doctors or caregivers, nor the experimenters were allowed to know which patients were being prayed for and which patients
were controls. Those who did the experimental praying had to
know the names of the individuals for whom they were praying -
otherwise, in what sense would they be praying for them rather
than for somebody else? But care was taken to tell them only the
first name and initial letter of the surname. Apparently that would
be enough to enable God to pinpoint the right hospital bed.
The very idea of doing such experiments is open to a generous
measure of ridicule, and the project duly received it.



the team of researchers soldiered on, spending $2.4 million of Templeton money under theleadership of Dr Herbert Benson, a cardiologist at the Mind/Body Medical Institute near Boston. Dr Benson was earlier quoted in a
Templeton press release as 'believing that evidence for the efficacy
of intercessory prayer in medicinal settings is mounting'. Reassuringly, then, the research was in good hands, unlikely to be spoiled by sceptical vibrations. Dr Benson and his team monitored 1,802 patients at six hospitals, all of whom received coronary bypass surgery. The patients were divided into three groups. Group 1 received prayers and didn't know it. Group 2 (the control group) received no prayers and didn't know it. Group 3 received prayers and did know it. The comparison between Groups 1 and 2 tests for the efficacy of intercessory prayer. Group 3 tests for possible
psychosomatic effects of knowing that one is being prayed for. Prayers were delivered by the congregations of three churches, one in Minnesota, one in Massachusetts and one in Missouri, all distant from the three hospitals. The praying individuals, as explained, were given only the first name and initial letter of the surname of each patient for whom they were to pray. It is good experimental practice to standardize as far as possible, and they were all, accordingly, told to include in their prayers the phrase
'for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no
complications'.


The results, reported in the American Heart Journal of April 2006, were clear-cut. There was no difference between those patients who were prayed for and those who were not. What a surprise. There was a difference between those who knew they had been prayed for and those who did not know one way or the other; but it went in the wrong direction. Those who knew they had been the beneficiaries of prayer suffered significantly more complications than those who did not. Was God doing a bit of smiting, to show his disapproval of the whole barmy enterprise? It seems more probable that those patients who knew they were being prayed for suffered additional stress in consequence: 'performance anxiety', as the experimenters put it. Dr Charles Bethea, one of the researchers, said, 'It may have made them uncertain, wondering am I so sick they had to call in their prayer team?' In today's litigious society, is
it too much to hope that those patients suffering heart complications,
as a consequence of knowing they were receiving experimental prayers, might put together a class action lawsuit against the Templeton Foundation? It will be no surprise that this study was opposed by theologians, perhaps anxious about its capacity to bring ridicule upon religion.


The Oxford theologian Richard Swinburne, writing after the study
failed, objected to it on the grounds that God answers prayers only if they are offered up for good reasons.37 Praying for somebody
rather than somebody else, simply because of the fall of the dice in
the design of a double-blind experiment, does not constitute a good
reason. God would see through it. That, indeed, was the point of
my Bob Newhart satire, and Swinburne is right to make it too. But in other parts of his paper Swinburne himself is beyond satire.



and that is the problem I have. had that worked, or if they could use science to find out that jesus did not have a biological father, or that the flood from NOah's time DID happen or they could have proof of the 10 pleagues, or anything.... there is not a preacher that would not get in front of TV using this as PROOF that GOD AND JESUS DOES EXIST.



people use god and religion as a rubix cube, changing it to make sense whenever it doesn't.




How come it is okay for people to shove religion down my throat? I dont' go around damning Religion. My Girlfriend (who is about to explode BTW) was a cathloic when we met.. she eventually picked up and read some books I leave laying around the house and she started questioning her own faith.. she's not Athiest.. she's more agnostic now. But my point was, she didn't shove it down my throat. it was ovbious I came to a logical conclusion, and that's all anyone asks... I have no probelm with people who CHOOSE to worship, after taking all the data, information we have, and thinking it over and say "I believe god is real".. I have NO problem with that.


If I went around telling people that god is not real, they might as well worship Peter Pan, etc.. I can count the days on my hand in how long it would take for me to get locked up

 

[Bible_Belt]

Regarding faith, it is so annoying to me when I hear on TV or in person how someone says, suggests, or even implies that faith is a virtue. There is NOTHING about faith that's a virtue. Dan Barker said it best, "Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits".

AFAIK, anyone that "practices faith" is not a scientist. I don't care if they have a Ph. D. in a science. Practicing faith is the unpardonable sin of a scientist, IMO. There's not a dam* thing logical or rational about faith. If you say you have power, then show me! If you say you can save me, what's stopping you? If you really love me, then just love me without making it conditional on my faith. I was born and created a flawed individual, yet that's somehow my fault that I need forgiveness for?

Is my bitterness for this wide-spread, and rampant silliness showing?

Yes. It's the same way I feel about science.

I took a course about the theory of relativity, and the class was talking about the expanding universe. I asked the professor what was just outside the bounds of the universe, what was it expanding into. He told me that the question made no sense, because it was impossible for us to experience anything outside of our universe. Then I asked him to guess and he got mad. To even think about what might be there is an insult to science, because science cannot even begin to ponder the answer. The inside of black holes is similar; it does not matter what is inside of them, because we can never know. Nothing can escape for us to sense.

Are you familiar with string theory? Apparently there are a large number of dimensions, different theories disagree about the exact number, but the three or four dimensions we experience are a minority. Most dimensions are "curled-up;" math can prove their existence, but humans can never sense anything that is inside of them.

Science is rooted in human perception, but to me, that perception seems not so keen. I think we are all ostriches with our heads in the sand. When science can tell me what is outside the universe, inside black holes, and even form a guess as to what might be inside the majority of dimensions, then I might respect it a little more.

 

[TheHumanist]

I have no probelm with people who CHOOSE to worship, after taking all the data, information we have, and thinking it over and say "I believe god is real".. I have NO problem with that.

QFT. Nothing wrong with them.

As many have pointed, there are plenty of reasonable, logical, educated, and intellegent people who are not agnostic or atheist (and agnostic is NOT atheist without balls, agnostic means a person who don't carry a belief in God, but doesn't carry a belief against either, and yes, to be Atheist means reaching a belief (since there is no firm evidence) that there is no God).

A person who is religous doesn't mean he is an idiot and definately not a bad person (no one directly said bad, but the direction goes that way). I once met pastor who is working to renovate an old building to make a place where kids from colleges around can meet, he took from his beliefs to follow what he wants to do instead of following the pragmatic (his income is really low, his project is completely supported by the community's genorousity). As he quoted "Life is too short to live by surviving with our meager resources," is that so bad?

What I said don't invalidate your argument of the irrationality of religion and there are people who are way too blind into their religion. However, there are plenty of intellegent people as well, don't cast them into the same pool. I know a good number of people who are religous, doesn't mean I'm going to look at them in disdain.

 

[azanon]

I took a course about the theory of relativity, and the class was talking about the expanding universe. I asked the professor what was just outside the bounds of the universe, what was it expanding into. He told me that the question made no sense, because it was impossible for us to experience anything outside of our universe. Then I asked him to guess and he got mad. To even think about what might be there is an insult to science, because science cannot even begin to ponder the answer. The inside of black holes is similar; it does not matter what is inside of them, because we can never know. Nothing can escape for us to sense.

This type of reasoning actually turns out to be a stalemate (between science and God). A similar line of thinking, back-and-forth questioning goes like this: Christian: Where did all the stuff come from. Don't you need a God to create the initial stuff? Scientist: If what you're saying is true and your presumption that everything needs a creator, then who created God?

Saying God needs no such explanation is a cop-out and makes the debate "unfair". Its a logical fallacy too, but I'm too lazy to look up which one.

BTW (just making sure), you know that Einstein was an Atheist, right?

Are you familiar with string theory? Apparently there are a large number of dimensions, different theories disagree about the exact number, but the three or four dimensions we experience are a minority. Most dimensions are "curled-up;" math can prove their existence, but humans can never sense anything that is inside of them.

If this is also related to the theory of relativity, and perhaps similar to light having attributes of both waves and particles, I agree - that's some cool s***. I can actually get lost pretty quick with my wimpy 140-150 IQ on some of that stuff.

It's one thing to be disappointed by science because there are things we haven't yet explained. Quite another to respond to that disappointment by concluding that the answer to not being able to explain something is to not only subscribe to the believe in a God, but to go MUCH further and assume that the God you're accepting in a specific one and buying the complete story that goes along with it (such as the bible). Please, feel free to be disappointed, but don't go (virtually) postal by buying into cults!

Science is rooted in human perception, but to me, that perception seems not so keen. I think we are all ostriches with our heads in the sand. When science can tell me what is outside the universe, inside black holes, and even form a guess as to what might be inside the majority of dimensions, then I might respect it a little more.

I'm not familiar with a credible scientist that claims to know and understand everything in our universe. Also, i realize the primary reason probably most people reject "only" science is that it doesn't have or claim to have all the answers. BB, we are admittedly not know-it-alls. If I want to talk to a know-it-all, I always go speak with a bible-thumping Christian. I digress.......

Back on point, if a perception or a method of a perception later proves to be flawed, then so be it. We (scientists) are not beyond reproach nor do we claim to be. Published research conflicts all the time, and all that means is that you go back to the drawing board and look a little harder or in a different way.

Bottom line - we (scientists) will never have all the answers and will never have it all figured out. If that's what you want, you are definitely going to the right place by going to your local church!

 

[azanon]

As many have pointed, there are plenty of reasonable, logical, educated, and intellegent people who are not agnostic or atheist (and agnostic is NOT atheist without balls, agnostic means a person who don't carry a belief in God, but doesn't carry a belief against either, and yes, to be Atheist means reaching a belief (since there is no firm evidence) that there is no God).

A person who is religous doesn't mean he is an idiot and definately not a bad person (no one directly said bad, but the direction goes that way). I once met pastor who is working to renovate an old building to make a place where kids from colleges around can meet, he took from his beliefs to follow what he wants to do instead of following the pragmatic (his income is really low, his project is completely supported by the community's genorousity). As he quoted "Life is too short to live by surviving with our meager resources," is that so bad?

What I said don't invalidate your argument of the irrationality of religion and there are people who are way too blind into their religion. However, there are plenty of intellegent people as well, don't cast them into the same pool. I know a good number of people who are religous, doesn't mean I'm going to look at them in disdain.

My explanation here is simple. I'm reminded of old AD&D when it first came out, and I think its still the same in this regard.

Intelligence and Wisdom in AD&D are treated as two completely different and mutually exclusive attributes.

So yes, of course, there are intelligent Christians. But I have a theory that "wise Christians" is an oxymoron ;-)

 

[Bible_Belt]

Einstein was not an Atheist. He rejected the idea of a hands-on God who is part of everyone's life, but by no means did he reject the idea that the universe was created.

There are plenty of scientists who believe in God, azanon, here is an article about some of them.

Scientists talk about why they believe in God.
http://www.mojones.com/news/feature/1997/11/slack.html
"Arno Penzias, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1978 for his part in the discovery of the background radiation that constituted the first material evidence for the big-bang theory, does not look for direct evidence of God's existence in the world. To the contrary: "If God created the universe," says Penzias, who is Jewish, "he would have done it elegantly. The absence of any imprint of intervention upon creation is what we would expect from a truly all-powerful Creator. You don't need somebody diddling around like Frank Morgan in The Wizard of Oz to keep the universe going. Instead, what you have is half a page of mathematics that describes everything. In some sense, the power of the creation lies in its underlying simplicity."

 

[azanon]

Einstein was not an Atheist. He rejected the idea of a hands-on God who is part of everyone's life, but by no means did he reject the idea that the universe was created.

So he was a theist? Do you have a direct quote from him proving that?

I addressed earlier, my position is that one is either a theist or an atheist. Specifically, one either believes in at least one God (theism) or they don't.

Back to Richard Dawkins, Dawkins apparently shared my opinion that Einstein was an Atheist. http://protestantism.suite101.com/blog.cfm/richard_dawkins_on_deism

But it's possible, this point is officially in contention. Then again, I'm told that our landing on the moon is in contention by some too, so...... gosh. What do you want me to say?

There are plenty of scientists who believe in God, azanon, here is an article about some of them.

In your opinion. I have already made my opinion very clear that I believe there are no scientists who believe in God. Sure, there are plenty of people that think or claim to be that they are scientists and believe in God. In my opinion, the two are diametrically opposed.

Let me ask you a theoretical question, Bible Belt, and give me a completely honest answer. Do you think its possible for me to go to school and become "an ordained minister"? If so, knowing what you do about me, do you think I would personally deserve to be referred to by such a designation? I guess since we're talking opinions here, you could say yes to that question, but you'd really have me scratching my head!

 

[Rata Blanca]

On this note, I wanted to make an observation I've had as an Atheist. Strangely enough, from my perspective, Christians seem to be (collectively as a group anyway) more fearful of death than non-Christians. As you explained using logic, it really seems like it should be the other way around..... but on average, it just isn't.

I can only come up with two explanations. One, is that perhaps the naturally more fearful of death amongst us are going to be more readily drawn to religions since most of them offer a solution to the "death problem". The other is just (many of) their beliefs of a hell vs. a heaven and just thinking that there might even be just the chance that they'll be judged and sent to the former.

I have also noted this. It's incredible how christians fear death and hell so much, they are so scared of "eternal suffering".

Last time I asked a christian do you believe in god because you want to go to heaven or because you don't want to go to hell? He remained in silence.

 

[azanon]

I have also noted this. It's incredible how christians fear death and hell so much, they are so scared of "eternal suffering".

Last time I asked a christian if he believed in his god because he wants to go to heaven or because he didn't want to go to hell? He remained in silence.

For those that haven't seen me state it before, I was actually a practicing Christian from the age of 8 till about.... 19, then from 19-23ish I slowly just because non-religious. That's how it works with most people who turn. You just realize one day via introspection that you no longer believe.

Anyway, i say that to give a testimony back when I was a Christian. Looking back in hindsight, I have to admit it was fear (of hell) that really caused me to "give my life to Christ" and serve from that point forward. Two intelligent parents, and a bible belt community can manipulate the s*** out of an 8-year-old; even a smart one. I mean, come-on, lets be real here...... if one actually believed they'd burn in fire forever if they rejected God, would any of us do that? You'd have to be literally insane if you believed that'd be your punishment!

If this stuff is so true, then why is so much of it, such as the hell/heaven part so inherently, extremely manipulative???? To say I smell a rat would be the understatement of the year.

 

[backbreaker]

i hate to keep reffering back to richard dawkins, but he has half a chapter reffering to nothign but Enstien. Enstien was what is called an Pantheist.


Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a nonsupernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the
lawfulness that governs its workings.



Enstien has been quoted as saying:
I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to
stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it
allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it

and


It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I
do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied
this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me
which can be called religious then it is the unbounded
admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
science can reveal it.

and

I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat
new kind of religion.





the jewish faith basically disowned him...



'It is sad to see a man, who comes from the race of the Old Testament and its teaching, deny the great tradition of that race.


one rabbi was quoted as saying


a lawyer,a roman catholic wrote hiim after he claimed he did not believe in a personal god saying


We deeply regret that you made your statement . . . in
which you ridicule the idea of a personal God. In the past
ten years nothing has been so calculated to make people
think that Hitler had some reason to expel the Jews from
Germany as your statement. Conceding your right to free
speech, I still say that your statement constitutes you as
one of the greatest sources of discord in America.


and



We respect your learning, Dr Einstein; but there is one
thing you do not seem to have learned: that God is a spirit
and cannot be found through the telescope or microscope,
no more than human thought or emotion can be found by
analyzing the brain. As everyone knows, religion is based
on Faith, not knowledge. Every thinking person, perhaps,
is assailed at times with religious doubt. My own faith has
wavered many a time. But I never told anyone of my
spiritual aberrations for two reasons: (1) I feared that I
might, by mere suggestion, disturb and damage the life
and hopes of some fellow being; (2) because I agree with
the writer who said, 'There is a mean streak in anyone
who will destroy another's faith.' . . . I hope, Dr Einstein,
that you were misquoted and that you will yet say something
more pleasing to the vast number of the American
people who delight to do you honor.









and he got this one from the university of oaklahoma



Professor Einstein, I believe that every Christian in
America will answer you, 'We will not give up our belief
in our God and his son Jesus Christ, but we invite you, if
you do not believe in the God of the people of this nation,
to go back where you came from.' I have done everything
in my power to be a blessing to Israel, and then you come
along and with one statement from your blasphemous
tongue, do more to hurt the cause of your people than all
the efforts of the Christians who love Israel can do to
stamp out anti-Semitism in our land. Professor Einstein,
every Christian in America will immediately reply to you,
'Take your crazy, fallacious theory of evolution and go
back to Germany where you came from, or stop trying to
break down the faith of a people who gave you a welcome
when you were forced to flee your native land.'


God does not play dice' which is one of his more famous quotes (that thiests try to pin on him as a believer in a higher power) should be translated as 'Randomness does not lie at the heart of all things.


I hope that clears up any misconception about him being a theist... i just get erked when people try to say something he was. I'd be peeved if I died and someone said I was a religion I wasn't

 

[backbreaker]

Yes. It's the same way I feel about science.

I took a course about the theory of relativity, and the class was talking about the expanding universe. I asked the professor what was just outside the bounds of the universe, what was it expanding into. He told me that the question made no sense, because it was impossible for us to experience anything outside of our universe. Then I asked him to guess and he got mad. To even think about what might be there is an insult to science, because science cannot even begin to ponder the answer. The inside of black holes is similar; it does not matter what is inside of them, because we can never know. Nothing can escape for us to sense.

Are you familiar with string theory? Apparently there are a large number of dimensions, different theories disagree about the exact number, but the three or four dimensions we experience are a minority. Most dimensions are "curled-up;" math can prove their existence, but humans can never sense anything that is inside of them.

Science is rooted in human perception, but to me, that perception seems not so keen. I think we are all ostriches with our heads in the sand. When science can tell me what is outside the universe, inside black holes, and even form a guess as to what might be inside the majority of dimensions, then I might respect it a little more.

like I said before... I bet science would be very important to you if we saw in the front of the new york times that "Proof Jesus was the son of God"... oh, science would be extremely important than. You would not say "It does not matter". It only matters when you want it to matter.

 

[Michele l'Arcangelo]

get on with the thread topic.

 

[azanon]

get on with the thread topic.

Don't let me speak for you guys, but I'm certainly talking about cults (when I name any religion, i consider it a cult), and have been postulating why people believe them, including offering up some personal theories.

Since you made a request though, let me make one: If you don't have anything to add, would you kindly not post?

 

[EricInTheHouse]

I'm part of a cult of rednecks that watch Nascar and drink beer, farting into the cushions...