Marks of a cult [trollville]
Offline What is a cult? What does one look like and how does it act?
Are all cults religious or is it possible for a cult to be non-religious? Marketing cults, such as Amway, are non-religious and pseudo-religious - they are not necessarily theistic.
It therefore follows that it is possible to be cultic - that is under the influence of mind control, and therefore irrational - without being theistic.
What is a cult? What does one look like and how does it act?
A cult needs formation, it needs a person with an overblown sense of themself and an ability to blag that onto other people, to start it. These people are good enough at rhetoric and self promotion to get enough people to believe that they are what they make themselves out to be: a person of insight, a leader, a thinker. They see themselves as natural leaders and people of insight, and they are successful at conning some people into seeing them as such.
Next there needs to be some ideal: something which sets the group apart, something unassailable and profound. This can be God, or money, or unGod. For a cult this hook must be stressed and packaged as something of value. Most cultic information is only available to insiders: Scientologists charge you a fee, the Moonies practically kidnap and brainwash you, the JWs come and sit in your lounge and some mustachioed ponce for unGod comes over your internetz.
Cults will generally be unaccountable in their finances, keeping an accounting system which involves certain hidden factors and non-disclosures. The Watchtower Society sells its literature to the public by pressuring JWs to pay up front for the literature they distribute, and then to contribute any payment they might receive from the public in "voluntary donations". This way they keep free of sales tax. All cults have questionable accounts and none are fully transparent.
To be in a cult will cost money and time.
A cult will have a defined identity that its followers will be encouraged to adopt.
A cult will not tolerate criticism.
People who criticise a cult from within will be removed: a term Orwell coined is "unperson". They will no longer be considered to be a voice worth listening to.
All cults get involved in quack-science and poor scholarship. The quack science will be advanced by those in the echelons who have sufficient grasp of science to sound knowledgable while getting away with the most egregious non-sequitors undetected; and the fake scholarship will be advanced by those zealous enough to provide vaguely credible scholarly support. Fred Franz was typical of this crowd: they fail miserably at academia but gain enough to think that they are better: the result is that they put themselves up as credible scholars on dubious grounds, but of course the rubes are encouraged not to question this.
Scientific quackery is only what is in line with the cult, this may range from the pseudo-geology of YEC flood apologetics through to the fake-psychology of L.Ron Hubbard inc. In between are a myriad of pseudo-science dogmas masquerading as fact advanced by a wide range of self-proclaimed experts and commentators.
Membership is important to cults, and they pass by no opportunity to remind people - especially their followers - just how successful they are. They will spin whatever numerical markers they can in order to make themselves appear "mainstream", "popular" or "in touch". Stats matter to cults, but only the right stats.
Am I missing anything? Yeah: RRS bears the hallmarks of a wannabe cult.
Whoopty-fucking-shit.
Close but no cigar!!! There are far too meny free thinkers on this site to be cultish. Brien Sapient gave me permission to say that with ten Hail Kellys and five Our shizzles.
jeffrick
I do not pay any money to be here, nor do theists. There is no quack science going on here, since only back is actual scientific information completed and done by the scientific community at large, not by it's own members. No members are requires to adopt an identity [all atheists have one thing in common, non beliefs in god(s)/Deity(s)/Supernatural being(s)] and members of these forums are from all back grounds and beliefs.
If criticism wasn't tolerated then threads like these would be deleted, they are not, on the contrary they are dissected and rebutted, but you are free to critique this site all you want.
I don't know of a specific leader of the RRS website. Last time I checked there are a bunch of founding members, and none of them are the official leader (unless I am mistaken and someone can feel free to correct me)
None of the members here have ever expressed to me how successful I am, and the fact is the atheists as a whole are a minority (except in a few european countries) Now, as for the money, you can purchase merchandise, which I am sure there is taxes on it, plus, any other donations, such as the server donation are strictly voluntary, and no one has pressured me or anyone else to make a payment.
So other than that the founding members of this website all are atheists......what else makes the RRS a cult? Oh and cult, is a really hard definition at any case, it could be a sect or religion if you really wanted to go that way, i mean if you are for it, it's religion, if you are indifferent it's a sect and if you are against it, it is a cult. All depends on the view point, or in this case, a website forum to discuss issues about religion, both for and against.
jeffrick
1. You pay money for the inside content. You can remain on the fringes but if you want to be on the inside, you gotta pay.
2. There is no transparent accounting.
3. "Theism is mental illness" is quack science.
4. Jesus Mythism is quack scholarship.
5. The RRS is not a website.
6. How long till I am banned?
7. How often are critics banned?
8 You are sure of the finances and the tax: please provide an objective basis for your certainty or else admit that it is just something you pulled out of your ass.
9. The RRS wastes no opportunity to create an aura of success for itself. Google Alex Ratings for this site and see how often they are cited. Tie this to the fact that Brian Sapient encourages users to install the Alexa Toolbar (spyware) in order to up the hit count: stats matter.
10. A definition of a cult is not difficult, but I have instead gven you a practical description. Do you disagree with my description of the factors one sees when one examines cults?
Cool badge you got there Jeffrick. Did you ask for that or were you given it spontaneously.
Then by your definition, Microsoft is a cult, Apple is a cult, as for critics being banned, none that I am aware of only those that refuse to obey simple rules of insulting people (of course you are capable of reading the rules right?) I have never had Sapient encourage me to install the Alexa toolbar, and yes I do disagree with your definition it is so broad that any company can be a cult. Again 2 that I have provided are cults by your own definition. Second Theism as a mental illness sure, it could be in many forms it has shown itself to be damaging to humans (i myself have provide 2 articles in which the parents ended up killing their children because their religious beliefs over rode their common sense of taking the children to the hospital) but, how wide spread is this idea of mental illness in the scientific community, I don't know personally, but I am sure someone can provide the back up to this information from the scientific community at large. This is a website, the RRS is a group of people, but I am a member of this website as are you, now. So it is both a group and a website forum. Jesus Mythism, umm no this is again being discussed by biblical scholars, so it's not quackery.
As for how long before you are banned, simple want to do it quick repeatedly break some of the forum rules. if you do that you will be banned, but not because you are criticizing RRS, but because your daft enough to break the rules.
As for inside content, hey Microsoft requires that you pay for the Xbox live content, I mean you can get the silver member ship, but that gives you jack shit, you are on the fringes, but once you pay you get the inside contents....that makes them a cult right?
jeffrick
I hear scurrying.
I got 3 minutes on my side....oh yeah we must follow the dogma of atheism, and the use of reason and logic yes, this is out cult, reason and logic.
You might have rats, raccoons, or maybe squirrels in your walls or attic
Which not everyone has to agree with. The last time I checked, you can't be banned for disagreeing with something on the site. To be banned you have to spam, create a sock puppet, or plaigarize. Then, the mods must agree that you must be banned based on sufficient evidence that you have done one of these. In addition, any of the High Level mods can reinstate blocked accounts. Rogue blocking is not allowed. I have been on this site for 60 weeks and in this time, I have never seen anyone banned for disagreement. I don't agree that theism is a "mental disorder" and I am both openly expressing it and hold one of the highest positions on this sites (which kinda sinks your little boat).
Again, not everyone on here has to agree with Jesus mysticism. There is no "unperson designation" for embracing or not embracing a belief that some of the core members, or other members, may hold to. Nobody has ever been banned for disagreeing with Jesus mysticism.
Nobody is banned for being a critic. To be banned you must plaigarize, puppet, spam, as I said above. Death threats, attempts at cybercrime, etc. are also legitimate reasons for banning.
If you do what I mentioned, you'll probably be banned. Other than that, welcome.
*Looks at the URL*
Thus we encounter books that use quantum mechanics as a justification for an array of metaphysical and spiritual beliefs written by people who would be unable to interpret a Feynman diagram or recognize, much less solve, a simple work function problem, articles smugly asserting that certain structures and organisms could not possibly have evolved, whose authors would be unable to draw a Punnett Square, brazen proclamations that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics from people who would be unable to calculate enthalpy changes, use the combined gas law or solve a simple problem of dynamic equilibrium
-Me
1. Some of the "inside content" is free. There is no supreme RRS commanding that I give 10% or more of my income.
2. Paypal is very transparent and the RRS is very straightforward about where the money goes.
3. Theism shares many characteristics with some mental disorders. Simple observation.
4. On what scholarship is your statement based? What makes "God did it" sound scholarship?
5. No, the RRS are people who share a common cause or concern.
6. How long do you plan to not be an ass? Criticism does not merit banning - being an asshole does.
7. See 6.
8. What the devil are you talking about?
9. Oh no! Charting hits makes you a cult! Damn, I guess people can't take attendance in school or record grade distributions in classes. We can't have any indicators of our success.
10. Your definiton of cult covers nearly every profit-making business in the world.
Of course, I expect you to dismiss what I say because "I'm in the cult".
We're all screwed! i tell ya! screwed!
What is it YOU want? "The usual — hundreds of grandchildren, utter domination of the Known Worlds, and the pleasure of hearing that all my enemies have died in terrible, highly improbable accidents that cannot be connected to me."
There are times I've "banned" myself for being an ass.
Hey there's another reason why RRS isn't a cult. We have moderators, not pastors/priests who wield the threat of eternal punishment over us until they get the money they want.
Can you read: I never gave a definition. And yes, microsoft can be quite cultic in its pursuit of dominance and expects a certain level of compliance from its own staff.
A cult is identified by a number of traits not only one, you take them all together to identify a cult so no, microsoft is not typically a cult conforming to the description I have offered. OTOH the RRS is a wannabe cult.
Well it may not have been you personally, but the encouragement is on record none-the-less.
Name me a serious biblical scholar who takes mythism as a serious academic subject.
Go back to the beginning and read it again until you get it.
Meanwhile have a think about what I might possibly mean by "wannabe": clue: it implies "is not (yet)".
Must you erect specious dichotomies?
In so doing he is on the road to forming a cult around himself and those in the inner-circle.
Epic miss. pastors versus mods is not an indicator of cultishness, sorry to disappoint.
I am here to criticise the RRS, and only that.
Will I be banned for this or not?
www.rationalresponders.com/
Rational Response Squad is not this server, nor the URL, nor the site. As you well know. The Rational Response Squad is Brian, Kelly and Rook, plus the membership and subscribers. We can at least try to be honest in our appraisal of words: you know what the RRS is. And you know it is not a website: or are you performing doublethink right now?
Not even if its an internet forum cult >.>?
What is it YOU want? "The usual — hundreds of grandchildren, utter domination of the Known Worlds, and the pleasure of hearing that all my enemies have died in terrible, highly improbable accidents that cannot be connected to me."
But a cult does not need to be religious, which was where the epic fail lay, since I had established that point within the first few sentences of the OP.
But then I noticed that so far there as been a general tendency to miss the point overall, almost as though some degree of personal identity sufficient to cause input filtering was invested in the OP not being correct.
Be honest: nobody was really in disagreement with the OP until the final sentence. It's ok, the cognitive dissonance does that.
I nearly left the final sentence out to see whether people agreed up front, before going into the RRS, but I thought I'd win a bet instead. Cheers, I collected £10 - my mate reckoned that people would actually get what I was saying without seeing how it applied to the RRS (that would be where the dissonance lay: they would have no problem with the characteristics per se, just disagree with the application) but my prediction was that in order to make it easier to deny the assertion in the final sentence you would mangle the main points. This would make it easier for you to "logically arrive at" your conclusion without objectively evaluating it. An equivalent of Morton's Demon perhaps: but just plain old doublethink to you and me.
No.
But you insisted that the "Marks of a cult" constituted banning, silencing, etc those who disagreed with the "official position". If the core members of the RRS, those who founded the website, want to believe theism is a mental disorder, they can do so. I on the other hand, do not, which makes your assertion about banning/silencing dubious.
I did not mean unperson designation literally, I meant in the same way you did, that a person is banned or silenced for disagreeing. But as I said, I've never seen that happen.
My apologies. I have become used to associating the RRS with this forum. When I say the RRS I mean "this website". Likewise, when most people on the forum refer to "the RRS" they usually mean the website. So, if I say "the RRS should change its background color" they mean "this website should change its background color". Since I have never met any of the RRS core members or encountered any non-internet based activities and such, like the radio show, I have become accustomed to saying "the RRS" and meaning "this website".
Thus we encounter books that use quantum mechanics as a justification for an array of metaphysical and spiritual beliefs written by people who would be unable to interpret a Feynman diagram or recognize, much less solve, a simple work function problem, articles smugly asserting that certain structures and organisms could not possibly have evolved, whose authors would be unable to draw a Punnett Square, brazen proclamations that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics from people who would be unable to calculate enthalpy changes, use the combined gas law or solve a simple problem of dynamic equilibrium
-Me
I'll tell you what. I have the ability to unblock any ban that is instituted. I will personally ensure that if you are banned for any reason that is not in concordance with the rules (spam, threats, hacking, puppets or plaigarism) I will reinstate your account.
This is true, a cult does not need to be religious. The analogy with the pastors is with respect to the idea of how authority figures choose to wield said authority (although not all pastors are meglomaniacal, so the analogy was rather poor, a better analogy would have been the Gestapo or the Stasi). The mods are not tyrants. There are people who are genuinely breaking the rules and so can be banned. The purpose of the mod system is to ensure that unjust bans are not lodged, so that the core members cannot lord over the process. In my experience as a mod, the system tends to work. The mods are not a homogenous body. THere is plenty of mod dissent. In general, if the mods are going to boot someone, they have an excellent reason (see above).
Thus we encounter books that use quantum mechanics as a justification for an array of metaphysical and spiritual beliefs written by people who would be unable to interpret a Feynman diagram or recognize, much less solve, a simple work function problem, articles smugly asserting that certain structures and organisms could not possibly have evolved, whose authors would be unable to draw a Punnett Square, brazen proclamations that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics from people who would be unable to calculate enthalpy changes, use the combined gas law or solve a simple problem of dynamic equilibrium
-Me
"People who criticise a cult from within will be removed".
"People who criticise a cult from within will be removed".
Disagreeing is not criticising.
Why was Rathpig banned?
Well the idea of the myth of jesus starts more or less around 1790 with the french free thinkers of Constantine Francois Volney and Charles Francois Dupuis, later historical scholar Burno Bauer would continue this idea, as well as biblical scholars A.D Loman and G.I.P. Bolland argued for the jesus myth as well author Edwin Johnson made the argument for the myth.
Then in more recent time, 1927 Bertrand Russell why I am not a christian made the argument for the myth as did Arthur Drew's book The Christ Myth (1909) and Joseph Wheless in 1930 made the argument in his book The forgery in Christianity. In recent years, George Albert Wells, has written the Jesus Legend and the Jesus Myth, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy wrote their own books, the Jesus Mysteries and Jesus and the lost Goddess. Other proponents are Earl Doherty, Joseph Atwill, Hermann Detering and Robert M. Price.
However like all argument there are counter arguments to these, but I have at least given you some sources....so please next time do some research on the topic, just a little bit, a wee bit. Because there are scholars on this subject, both historical and biblical.