Within the English language cult is NOT a synonym for religion. From a strictly dictionary definition, the difference is largely the number of adherents. In common usage the difference is also a distinctly more negative or derogatory connotation to cult as well.

I'm making the obvious point that the difference between the church of Scientology and the local church run soup kitchen goes deeper than semantics. What ever your opinion of most religions today, or religion in general, Scientology stands as more sinister than most, and by a large margin. From the secrecy it uses to hide it's beliefs to it's aggressive policy of hate and destroy your enemies it stands out as more vile than most other religions and cults around.

If you think other religions need to be bashed too, that's your business. I will however object to you elevating one of the worst(Scientology) by saying it's no worse than all the others. You aren't just smearing religion with that kind of comment. You are at the same time elevating the status of Scientology to that of other mainstream religions, no matter how low you may consider that bar to be.

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult

Any group whose main commonality is adherence to cultural laws based on superstitious/ supernatural/metaphysical beliefs is part of a cult.

Tho like Gwiz said, the level of sanity amongst and within groups varies.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

wait. what religion isn't a cult?


Wait, are you really content to just say they are all 'equal'?

So, you don't see any utility in distinguishing between Koresh's Waco sect and Hindu's following in the approximate example of Ghandi?

I'm afraid you might find that such a ludicrously oversimplified world view is... inaccurate.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult

Any group whose main commonality is adherence to cultural laws based on superstitious/ supernatural/metaphysical beliefs is part of a cult.

Tho like Gwiz said, the level of sanity amongst and within groups varies.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

wait. what religion isn't a cult?


Wait, are you really content to just say they are all 'equal'?

So, you don't see any utility in distinguishing between Koresh's Waco sect and Hindu's following in the approximate example of Ghandi?

I'm afraid you might find that such a ludicrously oversimplified world view is... inaccurate.

There are certainly levels of crazy, but they're all in the crazy 'region'.
>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
wait. what religion isn't a cult?

Wait, are you really content to just say they are all 'equal'?
So, you don't see any utility in distinguishing between Koresh's Waco sect and Hindu's following in the approximate example of Ghandi?
I'm afraid you might find that such a ludicrously oversimplified world view is... inaccurate.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

wait. what religion isn't a cult?


Wait, are you really content to just say they are all 'equal'?

So, you don't see any utility in distinguishing between Koresh's Waco sect and Hindu's following in the approximate example of Ghandi?

I'm afraid you might find that such a ludicrously oversimplified world view is... inaccurate.

Thank you for an intelligent reply. I'm booting this video out of Science. I too work with people with a range of religious beliefs, and agree that the distinction between scientific output by Muslim nations compared to Muslims in general is important to make.

In reply to this comment by no-really:
I like this guy normally, but this train of thought was so retarded that I actually registered in order to derail it. 'Muslim World' is predominantly third world, so not surprisingly, few research papers are published in countries in which there is little money for food, never mind access to journals, infrastructure for equipment, travel grants or salaries for academics.

That academic productivity is linked to resources, rather than philosophy, is supported by the observation that the rate of publication has increased at four times the global average in the middle east in the last 30 years (http://www.science-metrix.com/30years-Paper.pdf), ten-fold in Iran. This is due to resource prioritisation by the administrations of those countries, not the religiosity of the scientists.

A better way of thinking about it would be to look at the number of muslims actually publishing scientific papers globally - loads of muslims live and work in the first world conducting great research that is unbiased by any secret fantasies they (or their theist colleagues) may harbour. I actually work in a lab headed by a Jew and staffed by a few atheists, a hindu, 2 christians, 2 muslims and a few shintos, and there is no correlation between how often anybody prays and their success at work.

The amount of resources or percentage of GDP allocated to science is determined by the underlying philsophy/ideology. Islam simply doesn't value scientific advances. That's why those countries don't contribute.

I've only skimmed the linked pdf but it says that the growth over Middle East countries is very uneven. Most of the growth is from Iran and Turkey and we know all about Iran. This is the country paying the Taliban to kill U.S soldiers. In most other Islamic countries it's stagnant. Iran's increase has it's roots in the war with Iraq and the desire to get nuclear weapons.

The fact is you'll only see projects like the Large Hadron Collider thanks to countries like America and those in Europe.

And BTW, is it possible to drop the use of the word "retarded". I'm happy to see that when I'm watching my Halo 3 montages and the kids are complaining about non-MLG footage, but there's nothing in his argument that is "retarded".


>> ^no-really:

I like this guy normally, but this train of thought was so retarded that I actually registered in order to derail it. 'Muslim World' is predominantly third world, so not surprisingly, few research papers are published in countries in which there is little money for food, never mind access to journals, infrastructure for equipment, travel grants or salaries for academics.
That academic productivity is linked to resources, rather than philosophy, is supported by the observation that the rate of publication has increased at four times the global average in the middle east in the last 30 years (http://www.science-metrix.com/30years-Paper.pdf), ten-fold in Iran. This is due to resource prioritisation by the administrations of those countries, not the religiosity of the scientists.
A better way of thinking about it would be to look at the number of muslims actually publishing scientific papers globally - loads of muslims live and work in the first world conducting great research that is unbiased by any secret fantasies they (or their theist colleagues) may harbour. I actually work in a lab headed by a Jew and staffed by a few atheists, a hindu, 2 christians, 2 muslims and a few shintos, and there is no correlation between how often anybody prays and their success at work.

I like this guy normally, but this train of thought was so retarded that I actually registered in order to derail it. 'Muslim World' is predominantly third world, so not surprisingly, few research papers are published in countries in which there is little money for food, never mind access to journals, infrastructure for equipment, travel grants or salaries for academics.

That academic productivity is linked to resources, rather than philosophy, is supported by the observation that the rate of publication has increased at four times the global average in the middle east in the last 30 years (http://www.science-metrix.com/30years-Paper.pdf), ten-fold in Iran. This is due to resource prioritisation by the administrations of those countries, not the religiosity of the scientists.

A better way of thinking about it would be to look at the number of muslims actually publishing scientific papers globally - loads of muslims live and work in the first world conducting great research that is unbiased by any secret fantasies they (or their theist colleagues) may harbour. I actually work in a lab headed by a Jew and staffed by a few atheists, a hindu, 2 christians, 2 muslims and a few shintos, and there is no correlation between how often anybody prays and their success at work.

Glad to hear everything's okay in RL!

So, to answer your first question, yes, I have read the Bible and many Buddhist sutras (particularly the Lotus Sutra). I'm familiar with some parts of the Koran, but have not read it in its entirety. What knowledge I have of Hinduism comes from Hindu friends.

Your interpretation of these religious texts is that they promote an obedience to a God or gods. For sure the Buddhist sutras do not, as most sects of Buddhism do not believe in sentient gods per se but in an innate (non-sentient) life force that we all share. But leaving that issue aside, I don't see how you can't have both themes (love thy neighbor/obey god). You couched it as an "either/or" solution, but why does it have to be? There's no logical reason why you can't follow your individual deity and treat other humans with compassion and respect. In fact, in most cases the themes go together--by treating other people with compassion and respect you are following the commands of your deity.

But let's take it further than that. I'm just going to quote you here: Of course you dont have to [interpret the Bible that way], and most religious people dont, read or interpret it that way. Wouldn't you agree that if most people don't interpret the Bible as a form of control, then really your interpretation is not the representative of Christian belief? For certain some people do interpret those religious texts as you have-- fundamentalists, for instance. But I would hardly consider them the majority of religious people or the average representative of religion. In short, just because you’ve interpreted a particular religious text in a particular way, it doesn’t mean your interpretation is by any means “correct” or mainstream.

On a side note, I agree with you that there's a lot of f'd up stuff in many religious texts. Take the Old Testament for example and the bloodshed and wars described within it. However, we’re looking at religion as a whole--not just superficially at the religious text but how that text is interpreted and how the people who follow that religion conduct themselves in daily life. One problem with this, as I mentioned in the last post, is that the most vocal nutcases are usually the ones that you see in the media and not your "average" religious person, so it is easy to form a biased perception of virtually all religions if you’re not associating with members of that particular religion on a daily basis. If you ask the majority of Christians what the major theme of the Bible is, you’ll almost certainly get some answer regarding love and redemption—not your interpretation or violence and control.

To address your second question about empirical evidence about the benefits of religious belief--there's lots. I don't have time now to find all the links. You’ll just have to Google it. I've seen the studies--legit ones on both physical and psychological health published in JAMA and other peer-reviewed sources--and they were enough to convince me. Very few counter-examples have been published with the exception of a recent one in 2010 that showed a correlation between religious belief and obesity, but it was such a small sample size that it could have been a chance finding or attributable to other factors (it drew its participants predominately from African-American /Hispanic communities which typically have worse health-care access than other ethnic groups).

Frankly, I’m a bit surprised at your next argument about MLK. You seem to be stating that it wasn’t MLK’s religious beliefs that prompted him to take action. All I need to do to refute this is point you to any biography of the man or his numerous speeches where he clearly states that his religious beliefs have led him to believe in both the moral imperatives of equality for all people and non-violence as a means of achieving this. Was religion the thing that made him what he was? Absolutely. Same with Ghandi. And Mother Theresa. And the Dalai Lama. And a host of other people who have attempted to or succeeded in changing the world for the better.

Next, let’s talk about the Hitchen’s challenge. I find the challenge ridiculous. Why should religion have to be somehow separate from daily life? All religions are deeply concerned with secular life—with how we live and act. Furthermore basic psychology tells us we don’t act because of any one reason but due to a complex interaction of many reasons, some of which are conscious and some unconscious, and which in the end are in our own self-interest. Hitchen’s challenge is a straw-man argument—replace religion with some other construct such as democracy or music and you will be equally unable to find anyone who meets that challenge (by promoting democracy you protect your own rights; musicians may love music but even they need to sell songs in order to pay the rent and will compose for money).

I think equally ridiculous is the argument that things such as genital mutilation have no other possible explanation or cause than religion. Wouldn’t misogyny be a much better and more rational explanation than religion? Clearly religion is used to fuel the misogyny but it would certainly be a mistake to assume that the misogyny couldn’t exist without religion. Let’s take another example—the Spanish Inquisition. The cause of that tragic slaughter was clearly secular in nature—having finally wrested the southern part of the country from Muslim rule, Ferdinand and Isabella chose Catholicism to unify a country in which many different religions co-existed. In short, religion didn’t cause the Spanish Inquisition; plain old political power-struggles did. Religion was simply the vehicle through which it was carried out.

And this is really what I’ve been saying all along—that religion is not, as you keep painting it as, the cause of humanity’s problems. It is a tool—a tool that, can be used for great good or great evil. As the folks at religioustolerance.org state: “Religion has the capability to generate unselfish love in some people, and vicious, raw hatred in others. The trick is to somehow change religions so that they maximize the former and minimize the latter.”

Later on, they go on to state that they feel that religion overall has a positive effect on society. That pretty much sums up my view of religion. If you do away with religion, you throw out the baby with the bath water. You lose the Martin Luther King Jr.’s, the Ghandi’s, the Mother Teresea’s, the Dali Lama’s of the world. It’s too a high a price to pay. For me, it’s all about dialogue—talking with others, getting them to see the common ground we all share, respect each other, and, as they said on their website maximizing the good and eliminating the bad.

As long as we keep talking—as you and I have been doing through these threads--we will keep moving forward. But I believe the instant dialogue ends—the instant you demonize the” other” and refuse to engage with them--you’ve planted the seeds of the next conflict: the next Spanish Inquisition, the next Bosnian massacre, or the next 9/11.

I wonder if these ladies subscribe to the belief that Jesus actually lived in India for about a decade, learning meditation and other esoteric practices from Buddhist and Hindu gurus? Maybe not?

>> ^BoneRemake:

what a dumb overly tanned fucktard. I find it absolutely idiotic that people are assumed to have to hold religion up to some higher standard then other ideas or beliefs. This guy is a brainwashed idiot; going up to bat because they called his beliefs a myth.. what about those that think all the Norse gods or the Hindu gods or Egyptian gods are real... OHHHHH snap, oh no you didnt ??? you calling RA in to question ? ima get myself on the news and bring this book against ra's sun god intentions into question...

MAN. people who believe in invisible unscientific, unproven JACK ASS beliefs. really piss me off. I am really just mad that humans can be so, blatantly ignorant and idiotic. whe are all cogs in our species demise, its funny though how we can witness it and understand it, yet do nothing about it.. oh thats right, god will make it all good in the end, no worries mates


Im an atheist through and through*, however he has a point:

You can't call society's religion myth, as that implies falsehood: which if you missed it, is athiests forcing belief on others. Which is of course, is disappointing as its the victim becoming the victimizer.

I would not call the Australian aborigine's Dreamtime stories "mythology", Id call it a creation belief or even better, a religion belief.


*Even though that sounds like I'm a Christian plant posing as an atheist

what a dumb overly tanned fucktard. I find it absolutely idiotic that people are assumed to have to hold religion up to some higher standard then other ideas or beliefs. This guy is a brainwashed idiot; going up to bat because they called his beliefs a myth.. what about those that think all the Norse gods or the Hindu gods or Egyptian gods are real... OHHHHH snap, oh no you didnt ??? you calling RA in to question ? ima get myself on the news and bring this book against ra's sun god intentions into question...


MAN. people who believe in invisible unscientific, unproven JACK ASS beliefs. really piss me off. I am really just mad that humans can be so, blatantly ignorant and idiotic. whe are all cogs in our species demise, its funny though how we can witness it and understand it, yet do nothing about it.. oh thats right, god will make it all good in the end, no worries mates

Except most cows live miserable lives. They have a much better life in hindu cultures.

>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^bareboards2:
You know, the bad side of Christianity gets more publicity than this side -- this site just like many other sites.
This is the true heart of the Christian faith to me. Walking the walk, not just talking.
I am not a church-goer myself, so this isn't about me. This comment is about seeing the whole picture of what it means to be a Christian. It isn't just the hypocrisy and the denying of gay marriage. It is also about showing love and faith.
Boo yah.

I would've done this. I'm not a Christian. How come good ol' fashion altruism has to be called "christian"? That's narrow thinking. Furthermore, Buddhists, Hindu, Islamic, Jews all show the same sort of charitable actions. To attribute it to christians only makes you look foolish.


Agreed, I would've cheered for the tornadoes aswell, and I'm not religious at all. Haven't been to a church since I was 5 years old. It's just unfortunate that these kinds of things get lumped under the broad spectrum of "Christian" Things to do.

>> ^bareboards2:
You know, the bad side of Christianity gets more publicity than this side -- this site just like many other sites.
This is the true heart of the Christian faith to me. Walking the walk, not just talking.
I am not a church-goer myself, so this isn't about me. This comment is about seeing the whole picture of what it means to be a Christian. It isn't just the hypocrisy and the denying of gay marriage. It is also about showing love and faith.
Boo yah.

I would've done this. I'm not a Christian. How come good ol' fashion altruism has to be called "christian"? That's narrow thinking. Furthermore, Buddhists, Hindu, Islamic, Jews all show the same sort of charitable actions. To attribute it to christians only makes you look foolish.

^maximillian

Ah, the fatwa envy. Will you say that Maddow would never dear to say the same about Muslims next? How many senators are there that adhere to any other faith than Christianity? Do you seriously believe that a Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist group of senators doing an equivalent thing, if there where such a group, would not be news? How is it that the first amendment is bashing Christianity while at the same time protecting every other religion?

The reason that this is news is partly because of the disregard for the first amendment uttered at this meeting, partly because they seemingly see no hope in stopping the health care reform and partly because the guy they choose to lead the prayer is a highly controversial figure.

By the way, chances are the senators probably are trying to force prayer on someone else through legalizing school prayer or some such thing.