Intractable
- Thread starter fishtail
- Start date
life is to short and risky to accePt other alternatives.
Great question. Espeacialy as it comes on the heals of a comment regarding Cargo Cults in another thread.
Yes, why?
The fear of death is so great that when faced with it all logical thinking goes out the window. Once one truely believes they will never die then the fear is gone. Now they feel better. No more fear. The main objective has been accomplished so why would anyone in their right mind want to chance accepting new input when this may result in their having the fear of death again?
Michael
or alternatively
Why are atheists just so intractable? are the mindsets of people so fixed
that they can not accept new input
but actually you see that people change their mind all the time,although not so much after they turn 25 or so
Hey, i would change my mind in a heartbeat if evidence proved some religeion
provided heaven, one would have to be stupid not to.
Because the people who believe in them Believe their Faith was founded by God or gods.
Therefore new input from any other source than God or the gods has any authority.
Its simple really
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
I think any given religion does accept new input, it must evolve or else it is doomed to die out. Everything changes, no?
Good memes inoculate themselves from both mutation and against infection by competing memes.
Religious cults compete with each other as memes or "mind viruses," the ones that do well are the ones that wrap themselves in the meme of another, more overarching cult. The Jim Jones cult in Guyana that wrapped itself in the general Christian cult meme; the Potters House devotees; followers of Benny Hinn; etc.
Religious cults compete with each other as memes or "mind viruses," the ones that do well are the ones that wrap themselves in the meme of another, more overarching cult. The Jim Jones cult in Guyana that wrapped itself in the general Christian cult meme; the Potters House devotees; followers of Benny Hinn; etc.
What is your definition of a cult Skin?
Cult, n. - Worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings.
-Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. 1989
-Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. 1989
So any theist is a cult member, quaint.
Cult is the individual method of worship that those deluded by superstition use to apply to appease their perceived supernatural deities.
The term is both accurate and utilitarian, so I fail to see how it is even remotely problematic to the reasoned mind. For those who are among the deluded, however, I have noticed the propensity to apply the term pejoratively to those methods of worship which they disagree with. This, however, isn't an accurate or fair application of the term, though it *is* utilitarian.
The term is both accurate and utilitarian, so I fail to see how it is even remotely problematic to the reasoned mind. For those who are among the deluded, however, I have noticed the propensity to apply the term pejoratively to those methods of worship which they disagree with. This, however, isn't an accurate or fair application of the term, though it *is* utilitarian.
You use the term perjoratively against Christians, so what's the big woop? And I call Darwinism a cult, so let's just throw that word around real loosely, shall we?
But I *don't* use the term pejoratively. That's the point. You might infer it to be pejorative, but this would say more about your own understanding and education with regard to religion and religious anthropology. I use the term because it is fair, utilitarian and accurate. To refer to Darwinism as a cult in the same sense of the word wouldn't be accurate since there is no deity that is worshiped or attempted to appease.
The best you could do is create a trope of the term with regard to Darwinism, which, by its very use, would become a pejorative.
Please re-direct the thread back on topic and, should you have further complaints or criticisms, use the Site Feedback forum or PMs. Or, if appropriate to the forum, create a new thread. One on religious terms and terminology might be interesting.
The best you could do is create a trope of the term with regard to Darwinism, which, by its very use, would become a pejorative.
Please re-direct the thread back on topic and, should you have further complaints or criticisms, use the Site Feedback forum or PMs. Or, if appropriate to the forum, create a new thread. One on religious terms and terminology might be interesting.
Oxford has its own opinion, but billions of people disagree with its definition, I guess they call this social engineering, ain't gonna work, nice try though Skin.
Encarta defines a cult as being drastically deviant from mainstream religious thought, so yours is just one definition Skin, from Oxford, what a surprise!
Encarta defines a cult as being drastically deviant from mainstream religious thought, so yours is just one definition Skin, from Oxford, what a surprise!
you misuse the word, if you dont include darwinists in this definition.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult
At first, I was going to delete the two above posts as off-topic or, perhaps, split them out to a new thread. Then I realized that they are, actually, on topic. The very nature of the term cult provides example to the OP's question on the "intractable" nature of religion.
Religious cults insulate themselves from criticism within by creating pejorative opinions of other cults, which includes refusing to acknowledge that they, themselves, are cults.
As Devil Inside pointed out above, there are many usages of the word "cult." IAC asked how I was using the word. I responded. In anthropology and archaeology, the term is non-pejorative and used explicitly as I have defined it above. It is the narrow-minded and under-educated that refuse to see past its pejorative definitions. But this narrow-mindedness is defined and maintained (usually) by the individual's own religious cult.
To demonstrate this, one need only look at the definition someone like IAC would employ (Devil can be ignored, since he's just being vindictive and immature -he hasn't forgiven me for deleting an off-topic post of his from months ago. His only dog in this hunt is to be an instigator).
To IAC, cult probably refers to religious sects or groups that are so different from his own as to be seen as strange or weird. Of course, he's free now to interject any definition he can to show that I'm incorrect, which is why I used the qualifier "probably." But this isn't accurate nor is it useful. Moreover, it implies that his own religious ideas are the correct ones and cannot be seen as strange or weird. From his religiocentric perspective, this works. From outside his religious perspective, this doesn't work. His is every bit as much a cult as the next guy's.
Then you have instigators like Devil Inside, who doesn't really care one way or another. Who pretends to be affronted with the "big bad atheist moderators" who offend the religiously deluded like bullies. The same guy that, in 7,000 posts has provided only marginally more content than IAC's 5,000. Devil doesn't give two pennies about the use of the word cult. He just wants to instigate. I can cite definitions from dictionaries all day long that demonstrate usage of whatever words I want for whatever purpose. The "cult" he's referring to is a trope. One can refer, arbitrarily to groups as being "cultic" all day: cult followings of rock stars; cult followings of exercise "gurus;" cult followings of economic principles; cult followings of members withing this very board. These are tropes, just like the use of the word "guru."
What was asked of me was what was my use of the word. I clarified this and used the clarification to demonstrate the intractable nature of religion.
Religious cults insulate themselves from criticism within by creating pejorative opinions of other cults, which includes refusing to acknowledge that they, themselves, are cults.
As Devil Inside pointed out above, there are many usages of the word "cult." IAC asked how I was using the word. I responded. In anthropology and archaeology, the term is non-pejorative and used explicitly as I have defined it above. It is the narrow-minded and under-educated that refuse to see past its pejorative definitions. But this narrow-mindedness is defined and maintained (usually) by the individual's own religious cult.
To demonstrate this, one need only look at the definition someone like IAC would employ (Devil can be ignored, since he's just being vindictive and immature -he hasn't forgiven me for deleting an off-topic post of his from months ago. His only dog in this hunt is to be an instigator).
To IAC, cult probably refers to religious sects or groups that are so different from his own as to be seen as strange or weird. Of course, he's free now to interject any definition he can to show that I'm incorrect, which is why I used the qualifier "probably." But this isn't accurate nor is it useful. Moreover, it implies that his own religious ideas are the correct ones and cannot be seen as strange or weird. From his religiocentric perspective, this works. From outside his religious perspective, this doesn't work. His is every bit as much a cult as the next guy's.
Then you have instigators like Devil Inside, who doesn't really care one way or another. Who pretends to be affronted with the "big bad atheist moderators" who offend the religiously deluded like bullies. The same guy that, in 7,000 posts has provided only marginally more content than IAC's 5,000. Devil doesn't give two pennies about the use of the word cult. He just wants to instigate. I can cite definitions from dictionaries all day long that demonstrate usage of whatever words I want for whatever purpose. The "cult" he's referring to is a trope. One can refer, arbitrarily to groups as being "cultic" all day: cult followings of rock stars; cult followings of exercise "gurus;" cult followings of economic principles; cult followings of members withing this very board. These are tropes, just like the use of the word "guru."
What was asked of me was what was my use of the word. I clarified this and used the clarification to demonstrate the intractable nature of religion.