Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Has Atheism Acquired Sectarian Conotations?


Jun

Recommended Posts

Belief in fantasy is un-natural, yet EVERY society - from the most primitive to the most advanced - believes in spirits, ghosts, and supernatural gods.

And in all cases transfered from generation to generation through language from grown-up to child.

 

Sects don't require there to be a leader or mind control. Your use of the term sect is from a Judeo-Christian perspective, in this case the term has a pejorative connotation referring to a movement committed to heretical beliefs that deviates from orthodox practices. A sect as used in an Indian, Chinese, Korean, or Japanese context refers simply to an organized tradition. That tradition may or may not have a leader, it may or may not have a founder and it certainly will not have mind control.

Even if sect is defined by "heretical beliefs", Atheism can't really be a sect. How can "Atheism" as a whole be a sect or even a part of it have "heretical beliefs"? Maybe Raelians are the only heretical atheists we know of? The orthodoxy of atheism is just (like Dave wants to say it) a lack of belief in god or gods. There's no dogma or tradition, but only a lack of all that. How can one be a heretic of lacking something? Wouldn't that mean that someone does not lack something instead? Maybe I'm the sectarian atheist since I just recently started to claim that I believe (positive affirmation) that there is *no* god? :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Dave

    16

  • Grandpa Harley

    16

  • Ouroboros

    15

  • Jun

    8

Belief in fantasy is un-natural, yet EVERY society - from the most primitive to the most advanced - believes in spirits, ghosts, and supernatural gods.

And in all cases transfered from generation to generation through language from grown-up to child.

 

Sects don't require there to be a leader or mind control. Your use of the term sect is from a Judeo-Christian perspective, in this case the term has a pejorative connotation referring to a movement committed to heretical beliefs that deviates from orthodox practices. A sect as used in an Indian, Chinese, Korean, or Japanese context refers simply to an organized tradition. That tradition may or may not have a leader, it may or may not have a founder and it certainly will not have mind control.

Even if sect is defined by "heretical beliefs", Atheism can't really be a sect. How can "Atheism" as a whole be a sect or even a part of it have "heretical beliefs"? Maybe Raelians are the only heretical atheists we know of? The orthodoxy of atheism is just (like Dave wants to say it) a lack of belief in god or gods. There's no dogma or tradition, but only a lack of all that. How can one be a heretic of lacking something? Wouldn't that mean that someone does not lack something instead? Maybe I'm the sectarian atheist since I just recently started to claim that I believe (positive affirmation) that there is *no* god? :shrug:

 

 

Han Solo, I am in total agreement with you. Atheism cannot be considered a sect at all from either context. I merely pointed out the one sided use of the term sect.

 

So has Atheism at all acquired almost sectarian conotations? Where would Mr Miller get this impression do you think? He alludes to there being an online Atheist presence that is "sectarian."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Han Solo, I am in total agreement with you. Atheism cannot be considered a sect at all from either context. I merely pointed out the one sided use of the term sect.

Yeah. I figured you did agree and just wanted to point to a different definition.

 

So has Atheism at all acquired almost sectarian conotations? Where would Mr Miller get this impression do you think? He alludes to there being an online Atheist presence that is "sectarian."

I wonder if what he really was referring to is that there could be some movements to a more "fundamentalistic" or "extremist" kind of atheism, i.e. a more political and forceful group that wants to erradicate religion completely and such? Maybe it's the old "communism" critique of atheism in a new clothes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Belief in fantasy is un-natural, yet EVERY society - from the most primitive to the most advanced - believes in spirits, ghosts, and supernatural gods.

And in all cases transfered from generation to generation through language from grown-up to child.

 

Sects don't require there to be a leader or mind control. Your use of the term sect is from a Judeo-Christian perspective, in this case the term has a pejorative connotation referring to a movement committed to heretical beliefs that deviates from orthodox practices. A sect as used in an Indian, Chinese, Korean, or Japanese context refers simply to an organized tradition. That tradition may or may not have a leader, it may or may not have a founder and it certainly will not have mind control.

Even if sect is defined by "heretical beliefs", Atheism can't really be a sect. How can "Atheism" as a whole be a sect or even a part of it have "heretical beliefs"? Maybe Raelians are the only heretical atheists we know of? The orthodoxy of atheism is just (like Dave wants to say it) a lack of belief in god or gods. There's no dogma or tradition, but only a lack of all that. How can one be a heretic of lacking something? Wouldn't that mean that someone does not lack something instead? Maybe I'm the sectarian atheist since I just recently started to claim that I believe (positive affirmation) that there is *no* god? :shrug:

 

 

Han Solo, I am in total agreement with you. Atheism cannot be considered a sect at all from either context. I merely pointed out the one sided use of the term sect.

 

So has Atheism at all acquired almost sectarian conotations? Where would Mr Miller get this impression do you think? He alludes to there being an online Atheist presence that is "sectarian."

It's Doctor Miller, or Sir Jonathan :) He's a neurologist, specialising in Neuropsychology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Belief in fantasy is un-natural, yet EVERY society - from the most primitive to the most advanced - believes in spirits, ghosts, and supernatural gods.

And in all cases transfered from generation to generation through language from grown-up to child.

 

Sects don't require there to be a leader or mind control. Your use of the term sect is from a Judeo-Christian perspective, in this case the term has a pejorative connotation referring to a movement committed to heretical beliefs that deviates from orthodox practices. A sect as used in an Indian, Chinese, Korean, or Japanese context refers simply to an organized tradition. That tradition may or may not have a leader, it may or may not have a founder and it certainly will not have mind control.

Even if sect is defined by "heretical beliefs", Atheism can't really be a sect. How can "Atheism" as a whole be a sect or even a part of it have "heretical beliefs"? Maybe Raelians are the only heretical atheists we know of? The orthodoxy of atheism is just (like Dave wants to say it) a lack of belief in god or gods. There's no dogma or tradition, but only a lack of all that. How can one be a heretic of lacking something? Wouldn't that mean that someone does not lack something instead? Maybe I'm the sectarian atheist since I just recently started to claim that I believe (positive affirmation) that there is *no* god? :shrug:

 

 

Han Solo, I am in total agreement with you. Atheism cannot be considered a sect at all from either context. I merely pointed out the one sided use of the term sect.

 

So has Atheism at all acquired almost sectarian conotations? Where would Mr Miller get this impression do you think? He alludes to there being an online Atheist presence that is "sectarian."

It's Doctor Miller, or Sir Jonathan :) He's a neurologist, specialising in Neuropsychology.

 

Oh, oops! I had never heard of him until I started watching the series by the BBC. He comes across as quite intelligent and articulate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He directs, scuplts and writes...

 

He also wrote and presented 'Self Made Things' which, according to the BBC,

 

In this five-part series, Jonathan Miller returns to his roots in medicine and tells the story of how we came to understand reproduction & heredity. Disposing with the idea of an external, perhaps even supernatural, vitalising force, he describes how we have arrived at the picture of ourselves and all organisms as Self-Made Things.

 

I think you'll like him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually to say atheism is an absence of belief is possibly not a one size fits all remark. There are some atheist who believe in an absence... which is subtly different.

Where in an "absence of belief" are those people excluded? Do they not lack a belief in gods?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can be; as a lack of belief in gods. I'm just trying to say that we are all Atheists first, and then divide after that instead of fracturing from the beginning.

True. That is our default position in life when we're kids.

Why would age make any difference? It doesn't matter HOW one came to a place of non belief, what is important is the non belief.

 

I'm certain my belief in God, Jesus and that whole thing, was because my parents and siblings believed, and I trusted them and I trusted what they trusted. So when they said the pastor was right, or the "book" was to be believed, I believed them telling me this. So the first "gods" we believe in are the first people we trust at young age (most likely our parents). So Atheism is natural, beliefs in fantasy is un-natural. If there's any choice, the choice is to step away from the natural into the imaginary.

Religion is a learned behavior. It's usually learned before the kids even know what they're learning. They're "programmed" to learn language and culture from their parents at an extremely early age. Atheism, as in lack of belief, is the natural condition.

 

Atheism in itself is not a sect, but I do think it is possible that some take it to that level. (Like the Raelians etc.) I don't really know any (non-"religious") atheist that is so hard core to be labeled sectarian... Doesn't a sect require some kind of leader and mind control? Regular Atheists seems to be rather the opposite; refusing to obey any kind of leadership, and find a pride in thinking for themselves.

I wouldn't count the Raelians as Atheists. Right - a sect would need a leader and something for them to follow. As you can see here, Atheists don't follow. :lmao: The only thing all Atheists have in common is a lack of belief. From there we are all about as different as we can get.... which makes it much more fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What ever you say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atheism, as in lack of belief, is the natural condition.

 

Er, what does "natural" condition mean? As in a default, before social conditioning and programming?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's true. They claim to be atheists, since they don't believe in an all powerful being that is omni-maxed-out and infinite in all directions and time (etc). So they don't believe in the philosophical/judeo/christian/islamic god, but they believe in beings smarter and more capable than us.

The Raelian "gods" are kind of like the "gods" that some versions of Buddhism have. They're not worshiped, but can do things that we can't.

 

But really, in one way, I believe there very well could be more intelligent and technologically advanced beings in the universe. I doubt any of that kind "created" us though, but just believing there could be creatures on other planets more advanced that us doesn't make them "gods" per se... at least not the way I see it. I don't pray to them or anything, because they're somewhere else, and I'm here, and I doubt they even can be of any help for humanity. We're pretty much on our own. The only "gods" we can rely on is ourselves.

You know what's even scarier to ponder...... that WE may be the most intelligent life in the Universe. :ohmy:

 

I'm not sure if they believe in supernatural things? I think they don't. They are naturalists and believe in the Big Bang, cosmology, most everything in science, except evolution.

Maybe not "supernatural" but beings of super intellect. It's not so much what they believe but how they came to believe it. Their "religion" was more of a cult than a sect. A cult* having more of a psychological base to it. The same with Scientology.

 

*From Wikipedia: Definition of a cult: Coercive persuasion suppresses an individual's ability to reason, think critically, and make choices in their own best interest. Studies of religious political, and other cults have identified some of the key processes of coercive persuasion (Galanter, 1989; Mithers, 1994; Ofshe & Watters, 1994; Singer, Temerlin, & Langone, 1990; Zimbardo & leipper, 1991): The person is put in situations that result in physical or emotional distress. The person's problems are reduced to one simple explanation, which is repeatedly emphasized. The leader offers unconditional love, acceptance, and attention. A new identity based on the group is created. The person is subject to entrapment. The persons acess to information is severly controlled. (from psychology 101, carole wade et all. 2005)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sects don't require there to be a leader or mind control. Your use of the term sect is from a Judeo-Christian perspective, in this case the term has a pejorative connotation referring to a movement committed to heretical beliefs that deviates from orthodox practices. A sect as used in an Indian, Chinese, Korean, or Japanese context refers simply to an organized tradition. That tradition may or may not have a leader, it may or may not have a founder and it certainly will not have mind control.

True. To me a sect is just a branch of a religion as in Baptist or Catholic. They each have their own way of doing things and the word carries no negative connotations. Now, as I mentioned above, a cult would be a whole different animal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atheism, as in lack of belief, is the natural condition.

Er, what does "natural" condition mean? As in a default, before social conditioning and programming?

Yes. Humans are born without belief in gods and such.... at least as far as we can tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Raelean entities are supposed to be nuts and bolts aliens... so it's a case of 'any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic'

 

I think the Raeleans DO beleive in evoloution, just that ours was tampered with... after all the Raelians came from somewhere...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can be; as a lack of belief in gods. I'm just trying to say that we are all Atheists first, and then divide after that instead of fracturing from the beginning.

True. That is our default position in life when we're kids.

Why would age make any difference? It doesn't matter HOW one came to a place of non belief, what is important is the non belief.

That's not what I meant. When we're born we naturally do not believe in any gods, and of course age has nothing to do with atheism. It was my statement that atheism is the natural view that we're born with, nothing else.

 

Religion is a learned behavior. It's usually learned before the kids even know what they're learning. They're "programmed" to learn language and culture from their parents at an extremely early age. Atheism, as in lack of belief, is the natural condition.

Agree. And that's what I said. We get religion from our parents and/or environment. And it starts because of trust towards the more powerful grown-ups.

 

I wouldn't count the Raelians as Atheists.

So then what is an Atheist? I think I could label them as such, even if I think they're just as deluded as most religious people.

 

My opinion is just that Atheism is the starting point, and for some (maybe for many) they go on and get attached to some form of "belief" or maybe some ideology, like political or such. I guess it's some need to have a "meaning" to their lives? Atheism is just the zero-point from where we start; that we don't believe in a supernatural god. For the Raelians they start to believe in some creatures from another planet, but I don't think they pray to them or look at them as supernatural.

 

Right - a sect would need a leader and something for them to follow. As you can see here, Atheists don't follow. :lmao: The only thing all Atheists have in common is a lack of belief. From there we are all about as different as we can get.... which makes it much more fun.

Yup. I love the freedom to think on my own... (which sometimes leads me to wrong conclusions which can't be solved with a bit of discussion.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Raelian "gods" are kind of like the "gods" that some versions of Buddhism have. They're not worshiped, but can do things that we can't.

True. But the way I define Atheism is in the regards of a belief in supernatural beings and not natural super-beings.

 

You know what's even scarier to ponder...... that WE may be the most intelligent life in the Universe. :ohmy:

That doesn't sound promising for the future of existence of "intelligence" in the Universe. We're a hair from destroying ourselves and we maybe are the only ones. The more reasons why we should try our best to save humanity. If anyone wants a meaning to life and a reason to live, that would be one of them.

 

Maybe not "supernatural" but beings of super intellect. It's not so much what they believe but how they came to believe it. Their "religion" was more of a cult than a sect. A cult* having more of a psychological base to it. The same with Scientology.

I never thought about make a difference between sect and cult. In essence, sect is just a version of a religion (or ideology?), like Lutheran Church vs Pentecostal etc, while cult is when it is forced belief through brainwashing and such?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Raeleans DO beleive in evoloution, just that ours was tampered with... after all the Raelians came from somewhere...

Not from what I remember from the interview, but I could be wrong. And I don't they he got into the question of "where did the aliens come from".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not what I meant. When we're born we naturally do not believe in any gods, and of course age has nothing to do with atheism. It was my statement that atheism is the natural view that we're born with, nothing else.

OK, I now see your point and I agree.

 

So then what is an Atheist? I think I could label them as such, even if I think they're just as deluded as most religious people.

They were more deluded than most religious people. There is a lot of psychology involved in cults like that. I'd not say they were Atheists, nor religious, I'd give them a little psychotic corner all to themselves.

 

Yup. I love the freedom to think on my own... (which sometimes leads me to wrong conclusions which can't be solved with a bit of discussion.)

Which means you're a perfectly fallible human being like most of the rest of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True. But the way I define Atheism is in the regards of a belief in supernatural beings and not natural super-beings.

For the Raelians those natural super-beings took the place of gods.

 

I never thought about make a difference between sect and cult. In essence, sect is just a version of a religion (or ideology?), like Lutheran Church vs Pentecostal etc, while cult is when it is forced belief through brainwashing and such?

That's the way I divide/define them. The whole christian religion can be called a cult, but I prefer to keep the definition of cult to be as you said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

since when was Chrsitianity NOT spread by coercion and brainwashing? They try to limit who you talk to, how you think, which family you mix with and which you don't... it's a cult under the definition above

 

It does have a lot of sects... many of whom are classic form cults in their own right... by the same definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then what is an Atheist? I think I could label them as such, even if I think they're just as deluded as most religious people.

They were more deluded than most religious people. There is a lot of psychology involved in cults like that. I'd not say they were Atheists, nor religious, I'd give them a little psychotic corner all to themselves.

They are truly odd, IMO. After living in a delusion for 30 years, I can't make myself begin to believe in yet another "idea", especially something like that one. I can understand that some people believe in UFO-s etc (even though I don't), but to go to the extent of getting involved in a cult that think that aliens talked to a "leader" 20 years ago and have some message for "peace" and "love" and all that and coming back? I mean, what kind of evidence does Claude Vorilhon give that he actually talked to aliens in the 70's? It's just (actually more) plausible that he was high on drugs in some post-60's thing and had some "visions" of these creatures. The movement does look like a flower-power thing, singing kumbaya and "Age of Aquarius" and such.

 

I heard they want to get a country by themselves too, where they can build the welcoming center for the aliens.

 

Man, is humanity messed up or what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

since when was Chrsitianity NOT spread by coercion and brainwashing? They try to limit who you talk to, how you think, which family you mix with and which you don't... it's a cult under the definition above

It seems most religions are a cult to some degree. And most of them have some form of "prophet" that leads them and tell them what to believe.

 

Somehow a majority of people wants this? They want to be told what to believe. I think it is because it is too hard for most people to think on their own, and the lazy nature makes them wanting to follow and not lead. And the ones the want to lead, mostly wants to lead without concern about what or how they lead or what the end results are. Greed and laziness, the two opposing forces in humanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not what I meant. When we're born we naturally do not believe in any gods, and of course age has nothing to do with atheism. It was my statement that atheism is the natural view that we're born with, nothing else.

OK, I now see your point and I agree.

 

So then what is an Atheist? I think I could label them as such, even if I think they're just as deluded as most religious people.

They were more deluded than most religious people. There is a lot of psychology involved in cults like that. I'd not say they were Atheists, nor religious, I'd give them a little psychotic corner all to themselves.

 

Yup. I love the freedom to think on my own... (which sometimes leads me to wrong conclusions which can't be solved with a bit of discussion.)

Which means you're a perfectly fallible human being like most of the rest of us.

How more deluded than people who beleive a dead jew talks to them and watches over them. I find Raelism more convincing since it's all technology. Nuts and bolts... if we don't understand the science it's because we don't yet. It's not some great metaphysical mystery... simply lack of maturity of our science. (For the record, I don't think they have a point, I'm just saying it's a better point than Christianity)

 

Also, the 'programming element'... How is the Roman Church not 'brain washing', or the crap pumped by Baptists, or any other sect of the over arching Cult of Christ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

since when was Chrsitianity NOT spread by coercion and brainwashing? They try to limit who you talk to, how you think, which family you mix with and which you don't... it's a cult under the definition above

It seems most religions are a cult to some degree. And most of them have some form of "prophet" that leads them and tell them what to believe.

 

Somehow a majority of people wants this? They want to be told what to believe. I think it is because it is too hard for most people to think on their own, and the lazy nature makes them wanting to follow and not lead. And the ones the want to lead, mostly wants to lead without concern about what or how they lead or what the end results are. Greed and laziness, the two opposing forces in humanity.

I'd agree...

 

But there seems to be a view that Christianity is a 'soft' cult... it has most of the characteristics of a Cult even in it's more easy going forms

 

1) minimise contact with non-believers unless trying ot convert them

2) If someone leaves the group they become dead to the group (up to and including family members)

3) Group meeting must be attended.

4) (applicable to some sects) Control over what to wear

5) Titheing

6) Dietary restrictions (Lent, Fish on Fridays etc, varies by sect, but is a feature of most)

7) Peer pressure to be applied if members begin to 'lapse'

 

Hell, the Roman Catholic church is a cult by it's own definition of a cult

Link to comment
Share on other sites

since when was Chrsitianity NOT spread by coercion and brainwashing? They try to limit who you talk to, how you think, which family you mix with and which you don't... it's a cult under the definition above

Only the extreme versions of the religion are like that. I don't believe the majority of christian sects would fit the extremes that a cult would go to. Although I do include AA and other 12step groups in the cult range.

 

It does have a lot of sects... many of whom are classic form cults in their own right... by the same definition.

Many, but not all, and I don't believe the majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.