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.
- Login to post comments
I hope so - you seemed to downplay the information you first received as not being good enough for you.
What kind of evidence would be acceptable to you?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
My new signature is dedicated to Youare Right:
"I basically subscribed after I checked out that thread that Sapient posted on expenses and the like. Groceries are one of the most important items, so I'm hoping I'm helping there and I'm hoping I help Sapient break even. If I can help stop him from dipping into the retirement fund, I'll be happy." The Sarge an atheist currently in a foxhole and blogging about his experience overseas.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
My point is that if there evidence it should be available; should Kelly and the RRS have a viable proof of their claim they would be able to point to one single source. One single paper that has passed refereed judgment. Not six threads on their own site. That smacks of the very same circularity that is rightfully levelled at the bible - that its own authority is self-referential.
I require external sources. That is a basic requirement.
There is a huge misunderstanding in all of this. I would love Rook's stuff to be proved correct and - to an extent - the theism/mental illness stuff. But these things carry a large burden of proof and I am asking that this burden be displayed. I have no bias.
To ask for proof is what a scientist or a logician would do.
Neither would expect the abuse that is displayed here, where outright trolling and raised fingers seem to be accepted as arguments. I don't include you in that, but you will have noticed that this thread has been placed in a trolls' forum and that many posts in here reflect that in their content.
Is there any chance that you will address any of the legitimate questions asked of you in this thread in the meantime, though?
There are quite a few of them.
So you RD guys want a team of so called pros to vote, as if that would settle the issue ? At what point is depression considered clinically "sic" ? We will all still have our personal opinions. Some start with the premise that the whole human race is sick .... Pros simply establish, by "opinion", to what degee. To be normal is way sick ! Sick theists make atheists sick therefore everyone is sick sick sick ! Wantta put a measurement on that ? Whatever ......
Atheism Books.
Thank's
Psychology is not a scientific discipline
Psychology and logic are different disciplines
Logic the correct principle of reason, psychology the psychology of reason
Although I believe you have a valid question, the question is one of psychology, yet you ask for proof in different disciplines
ie can you prove the existence of black holes, with chemistry
Could you ask the question in a way that it can be answered ?
And could the person whom has been retrospectively altering the links to this page
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=39712&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=325
Stop it, thank you
re-takes seat, microwaves more popcorn
Psychology is a discipline of interpretation, off the top of my head, I can-not think of any evidence for any theory in this field which allows for no other interpretation
What would you consider reasonable and achievable ?
It's field in which there are grey areas certainly, but you will find many clinical psychologists who will baulk at any suggestion that it is not sceintific in its methodology.
In support of a claim that theism is indicative of a mental dysfunction I would expect clinical studies and diagnostic accounts. Evidence of further research such as in the area of neuro-psychology would be helpful too - even it didn't find a neurological disorder associated with theism it would show that there was a suggestion that theism and dysfunction were causally linked.
It's certainly a claim that requires and demands extended evidence from repeated field studies.
Theism is indicative of a mental dysfunction ?
Clinical studies and diagnostic accounts
Evidence from repeated field studies
further research such as in the area of neuro-psychology, would be helpful too - even it didn't find a neurological disorder associated with theism it would show that there was a suggestion that theism and dysfunction were causally linked.
This sounds reasonable to me
Except, evidence from repeated field studies. again with the evidence, is that kosher ? this is a discipline that shies away from hard and fast evidence. and one could easily misinterpret that phrase in the nongeneral sense, is there a better way of expressing this ?
As fuzzy as it is, psychology is trying more and more to move towards the empiricism of other disciplines.
But if you don't like the evidence word, then "findings" would be acceptable. Undisputable findings.
Findings from a rigorously-designed study of a considerable number of people, with all suitable controls in place to eliminate extraneous influences.
A considerable amount of work, in other words.
The fuzziness of the discipline and the difficulty in obtaining empirical data do not form a gap through which poorly-considered and unresearched conclusions can be driven.
If anything, the nature of the field mean that data can only be derived from the type of statistical volume which means a considerable number of case studies. A lot more studies than would be needed in other fields of science.
Psychology is a science, and all natural science is interpretive. The science of psychology involves abstract modelling, predictions, falsification criteria and technical rigour including negation of competing hypotheses.
While Freudian psychotherapy may not be science, confusing the interpretive dogma of Freud to the interpretive discipline of modern psychology is quite clearly erroneous.
Here is an entire book on a particular hypothesis, supported by various studies, refined over time.
Right-click->Save target as (don't forget to read it).
That is an example of how psychology works, and how a professional goes about investigating and testing.
Now, back to the matter at hand. To recap: I accused the RRS of pushing quack-science, and also of eschewing criticism and questioning. I have been directed to the contents of this site to find the answers to my questions and to allay my criticisms, just as a creationist directs me to AiG and the quack-science there.
I was informed "Theism is a mental disorder" is not a matter of dogma to RRS, that if I criticised and questioned it such would be welcome. Yet, no answer to any of the following questions have been answered, even though they have been directed to both Brian and Kelly who both advance this position, and despite the fact that they have both taken the time to post on this thread in the time since I asked, and following Kelly's invitation to ask. Oh wait, Kelly only said, "if you still have questions, let me know.": which obviously doesn't promise any answers at all.
Never mind, here are my questions regarding the proposition "theism is a mental disorder":
Where is the peer reviewed Data?
What criteria differentiates in a non-circular way?
For the list of criteria you have supplied for an existing recognised set of symptoms (Delusional Disorder as per this post): what case studies have you examined in order to understand the intent behind each diagnostic marker?
Why do you suppose that a mental health professional must receive training and oversight when it comes to diagnostics?
Do you believe it is possible to offer a diagnosis of mental illness without that training but simply through referring to a list of criteria?
Do you understand how such lists of diagnostic criteria are arrived at?
Do you understand how anyone making a diagnosis by referring to a list without understanding the background and the intent behind individual observational predictions is making a mistake?
What professional training in mental health diagnostics have Kelly, Brian, or Hambydammit received?
They're simple questions, relevant to the issues. I can only wonder why the RRS are unable to provide answers, but nevertheless there's no conversation to be had here, so failing answers to the above there's nothing more for me to say on the matter.
I can only encourage people to think for themselves. There's lots of good rationalism on the net, much of it free and of a very good quality, provided by professionals and qualified academics who have stood the test of rigorous critique.
If someone prefers to pay to get their "rationalism" from a load of unqualified role-playing wannabes for whom rationalism is barely a set of regurgitated sound-bites, and who think clinical diagnostics can be performed by amateurs who can aquire scientific evidence by playing bingo with psychiatric diagnostic criteria, then it's their choice.
There's nothing for me here. No wonder the RRS is considered such a joke.
Goodbye RRS, may you be forever recognised as the Asshats In Gibberish of atheism. No wonder RDFRS dumped RRS like an old fridge.
The Rational Response Squad: a little dot-com flea selling shit off the back of atheism. I look forward to the day the doors close on the sickly little enterprise.
I'm outa here, to continue my laughing from the sidelines. RRS isn't even worth the page hits. Byeeeeee.
BYE ? Is this another joke ? It is all my fucking opinion , fuck everyone else's ..... Everyone is fucking SICK
"and The bible told me so" ..... 
Atheism Books.
Wiki is our friend:
[emphasis mine]
Meanwhile
[emphasis mine).
End of matter.
"Hello. My name is.. Andrea Yates... ...and, uh, I deeply resent... statements that claim theism is..uh, a mental disorder...
anyway, I have to go now. Jesus wants me ...to, uh, give my children a ...bath."
Hello friends. Oral Roberts here. I would also like to say that I find it quite troubling that those evil atheistic devils at RRS are spreading slanderous lies by claiming that belief in God constitutes a mental disorder. That is simply preposterous !!!
I know that my faith is true because in 1977 I was told by a 900 foot tall Jesus to build City of Faith Medical and Research Center....and Jesus would never lie !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Faith_Medical_and_Research_Center
Fun and games aside, this doesn't exactly illustrate that theism is a mental disorder. That is, it could just as easily be that theism runs parallel to the disorder and that the theistic convictions are "amplified" or "aggravated" to dangerous levels by the disorder while the true nature of the disorder remains something else entirely.
It would be like taking a person with DID and saying that his problem was belief in one of his personalities. While that belief is certainly problematic, it is not THE problem.
Admittedly, though, I'm not a student of psychology. (Which makes me wonder if DID is what I think it is.)
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
Edit: ( double post )
I wholeheartedly concur Oral. How could any rational person ever conclude that theism is closely associated with delusional thinking ? It, it just boggles the mind !!!
Anyway, after I finish praying and reading the Bible I gotta go to the weight room and do my 2,000 pound leg press exercises. Don't want my 77 year old leg muscles to get flabby !
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13027545/
The bar is a whole lot higher than "closely associated", though.
The level of association is at the "indicative of" level, nope, at the "holding theistic beliefs is a clear indicator of dysfunction x" level.
You can show avowedly religious people who are nutters all day, but that proves nothing.
It proves nothing ? It proves that religious people can be "nutters" !!! Their religious beliefs regarding the supernatural do not serve as an impedence to accepting preposterous claims but actually facilitate them.
It suggests quite effectively that they are willing to suspend their critical thinking skills which then makes it a short jump for them to accept almost any unsubstantiated claim...believing delusions becomes much easier.
Is delusion a mental illness?
Some rectangles are squares but that does not mean that all squares are rectangles. This stuff is really really obvious. I should hope that it is to others.
Resident role-player here
wiki is our friend
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology
Applied psychology or scientific psychology
Does it have a nomothetic approach ? are there Paradigm's in psychology
Would you care to clarify" Psychology is a science " ? as I believe this is sweeping general and inaccurate
Okay....do you really believe a 900 foot Jesus appeared to Oral Roberts ? If not, why not ?
Good question, would anybody care to answer this ?
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/
"So it's the RRS claim that they use science and reason to debunk false or irrational claims like the existance of god.... but the only way they can establish theistic belief is irrational is with something that "isn't a science" according to Rev_Devilin"
Slowdown there cowboy, I am not a member of the RRS, I'm just member of this forum no badge, and if you care to check my history one of my first-post was critical of this place, The business of religion vs the business of anti-religion
I'm a simple skeptic asking questions nothing more
And as I stated previously in this post I'd like to see the core members answer your questions
But I'd also like to see questions that can be answerd
Delusion is a mental disorder.
BS in Psychology.
Delusion specifically refers to - inter alia - incorrigibility, which is holding to a belief in the face of overwhelming counter-evidence. There is no overwhelming counter-evidence of a god. This means that in those terms, belief in a god is not delusional.
Them's the breaks. There is no compelling scientific evidence to counter the claim that there is a god. That's the way it is. Religion is not considered to be a delusional belief when considering a patient's psychological state. As an atheist I wish it were different, but it ain't so.
By the way, forgive me if I'm not overwhelmed by your degree, but I do congratulate you on getting it.
I'm particularly interested to see it used in a forum where people have been pressing the RRS core of Brian, Kelly and Rook about their lack of qualifications.
It's great to have you on board as someone who realises the weight that credentials bring to a discussion. I look forward to you pressing them to gain some credentials in the areas in which they express expertise.
"God" as awe of the unknown, is much different than superstitious supernatural "Dogma" Isn't the evidence also the lack of evidence ? Can any rational person listen to an average fundy and think they are not delusional ? I have spent alot of time watching the evangelists and their audiences. I say they are really truly sick, and their sickness is contagious .....
I must agree with RRS in pushing the "Religion is a disease message". It helps get the needed attention to the menace of religion. Sure it's a little radical and ahead of this time, from the average thinking today, but wasn't that much of what was happening in the age of enlightenment ? When god of abe belief is finally considered absurd (or sick), that will a much better day.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
Atheism Books.
Have you read nothing here? Such a claim requires backing. You say that the claim is "radical" that ups the ante somewhat in terms of the level of support needed for the claim. Your feelings aren't worth a damn in such a discussion - and they're worth less when you use the extremes such as evangelists. They do not form the basis of a good case study because they are not typical.
Please read what is happening in this thread.
The claim is not a good one for the RRS or for atheism generally. It is unsupported and it carries exactly the same weight as the claims of the evangelists you deride. It does damage to atheist activism.
I personally wouldn't consider theism itself a mental disorder for a few reasons - there isn't overwhelming evidence against some god existing, and the fact that this would classify the majority of humans as mentally ill. For the same reason I wouldn't have considered someone in 1000BCE mentally ill for believing the world to be flat or someone in 1400 CE mentally ill for believing the Earth the center of the universe and the sun to not be a star (indeed, at the time believing otherwise would likely cause others to think a person mentally ill.) However, I would consider (for example) literal belief in the Bible to be delusional because there IS overwhelming evidence that:
1. The Earth and Universe are vastly more than 6000 years old
2. The stories of creation and Noahs Ark are completely out of touch with everything we know about Biology, Meteorology, Ship Engineering, etc.
3. Omnicscence and omnipotence are both broken concepts and combining the 2 makes no sense whatsoever.
4. There are other things in the Bible we know to be utterly wrong (such as insects not having 4 legs and rabbits not chewing cud.)
5. Quite a few things in the Bible are inconsistent with known History.
6. Using a value of exactly for 3 for pi is a terrible approximation, even for ancient times.
I'm sure there's more than that, but you get the drift. Of course it might not even technically be a delusion - it could also be severe ignorance or dishonesty to others and oneself pretending to believe such bullshit because of fear of hell or the disapproval or friends/family/community. But anyone of at least average IQ who isn't completely ignorant who believes the Bible to be 100% true is clearly delusional. I don't know enough about other "holy" books, but I'm sure the same can be said for them (certainly the Quaran since it contains some of the same stories.)
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
I'm guessing you all have seen by now they don't delete peope for disagreement - not only have they put up with severe asshattery from you 2, but there have been a couple theists on for a while. Also, on at least economic issues I strongly diasgree with at least the RRS majority - they tend to be Libertarian while I'm somewhere between Socialist and Communist.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Yes Nailler ,
"Where the hell is the evidence ?" Adults believing in sky daddy is like kids believing in santa clause. Is it sick ? Whatever, let's just say that is indeed delusional ..... and support RRS to the mission of killing the "god of abe". My message is , "We are GOD" and if you invent another god, or MASTER, you are sick, blind , and delusional.
Atheism Books.
Rathpig was summarily banned. Questions as to why were simply met with a link to the rules. Well in my book, that's a non-answer. You wouldn't expect points on your licence for speeding on the basis of being told what the speed limit is. You would correctly demand to know where and when the offence occured.
Secondly, there is another form of moderation in place. Sending this thread to trollville and repeatedly aiming the 2troll2 word at people in it is an attempt to flag the topic as unworthy of discussion. Doing so is an attempt to derail the discussion and to undermine the points being made.
Any attempt to link theistic belief with mental disorder cannot include delusion as a symptom of the malaise.
Rathpig and trollville have not been comprimised , but simply catorgized. So come again , we are all listening ..... as all new posts come to the top of the list .....
Atheism Books.
What if the theist has beliefs that have “overwhelming evidence to counter the belief held”? I’m thinking about those that deny evolution or the true age of the earth for example. Are they delusional and thus mentally ill?
But I'm obviously not a psychiatrist, so ymmv.
ETA: This all appears to be shifting of the goalposts, by the way. The RRS claim is not that YECers are delusional. Their claim is that theism is a mental disorder.
Regarding Trollville, well, the descriptive text for Trollville declares that: "If it just doesn't deserve to be mingling amongst our more intellectual posts it goes here."
Thus moving a thread to Trollville is a direct statement by the moderators as to how seriously a thread should be taken.
"
I see your point. By doing this RRS mods could actually inflict serious psychological damage upon self-important, egotistical blowhards such as yourself. How dare they not recognize you as the genius that you are !
Now he gets it >.>
oh yeah
PIE!
What Would Kharn Do?
Sorry, I’m not trying to shift the goalposts. I’m just an occasional poster on these forums who is interested in the discussion. This RRS v RD.net is all a bit silly to me. As far as I’m concerned we are all on the same side. Why not just whip out your dicks and I’ll get a ruler?
It doesn’t look like the core RRS members will get involved in the discussion. To be honest I don’t blame them due to the initial tactics employed in this thread. The OP needs to read ‘How to win friends and influence people’!
I’m just interested to find out what is regarded as delusional.
Are people who deny evolution delusional?
What about people who believe in the literal truth of the bible?
What about people who believe in the supernatural – biblical or otherwise?
If these beliefs are delusional then are the people that hold them mentally ill? It seems like a very grey area to me and I can see strong arguments for both sides.
The core members of RRS won't deal with the questions simply because they can't.
Heck, the one person here claiming a degree in Psychology reckons that they are wrong.
Np SpaghettiSawUs
I'll still hold that psychology under the broad umbrella term, isn't science. although I believe it will eventually reach this status, but from my humble opinion it ain't their yet, well not in the broad umbrella term
Thank you for the book, I'm only up to chapter 3. I'm a slow and methodical reader, quite interesting so far, very reminiscent of prisoner's dilemma nice guys always win
loved this bit
" (In my day, 90% was an “A” in college. And we wrote our essays
on the back of a coal shovel. And our college was located in an alligator-infested
swamp twenty miles away in which we died every day. And....)
Finally you should know, if you are a social scientist on the prowl for scales to
throw into the pot for your next project, that I have made a pact with the devil. Hell
will be the final destination of any researcher who decides to use only part of the
RWA scale, or any of my tests, in a study. "
A lot of water has gone under this bridge since I last crossed it.
Did they say that "The RRS is wrong about theism being a mental disorder" or "I disagree with the position that theism is a mental disorder" or even "Theism has not been proven to be a mental disorder at this time"? Big differences in those statements.
I just want to make sure you're not reading more into it than what may be there. You made such passionate demands for evidence earlier - I just don't want to see evidence created where none may be.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Incidentally, why is my post in such a large font? i didn't select a larger font and when I posted it the fons was the normal size. What's going on there? I've quoted the post to see if there were tags increasing the font size, but there are none. Weird.
Actually, forget this. My post has been edited. There were comments preceding that comment about the RRS core.
Someone is acting the prick in here.
It is unambiguous - He personally doesn't call theism a mental disorder. Nice LONG jump from there to "The RRS is wrong on their position.", wouldn't you say? Why did you make it?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin