How come Christianity isn't viewed as successful cult?
- Thread starter ManxOfxThexYear
- Start date
Menelik II
I wanna see receipts!
One walked on water, the other didn't
WaveCapsByOscorp™
2021 Grammy Award Winner
i suggest first considering the definition of a cult, then considering the average christian, if there's an average.
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 43,072
- Reputation
- 7,977
- Daps
- 118,549
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
Uncle Grime. said:
TRIVIA FACT: The Reverend Jim Jones was actually an atheist.
Telephone conversation between JJ and John Maher of Delancey Street Foundation, Spring 1976
Telephone conversation between JJ and John Maher of Delancey Street Foundation, Spring 1976
Jim Jones said:
MikeyC
The Coli Royal Rumble Champion 2019
Religion is based on two things: 1) belief in God and 2) scripture (belief in revelation).
Atheists disbelieve in God, so debating the finer details of religion/theology with them is a waste of time. Any debate with an atheist should be focused on the main contention: the existence of God.
I find that most online atheists are a shallow bunch who regurgitate what their neo-atheist gurus say without critically assessing their claims. They're mostly just a bunch of "edgy" kids who want to jump on the hottest bandwagon at the moment.
Look at the overly simplistic BS that they uncritically regurgitate. "There's no scientific evidence that God exists so therefore He does not exist "
"Religion is a cult and the source of all evil "
Do these kids not understand how ridiculous these claims sound or that philosophers have been debating this issue for thousands of years, which means that it's a much deeper discussion than what they think it is? There are many layers to this question.
For one, "science" is not the only valid source of knowledge. In fact, most of what we know about the world and our own selves is unscientific. Most of our knowledge is based on things like testimony, logical deduction etc.
Secondly, the assertion that "only Scientific knowledge is true knowledge" is self-contradictory since you cannot scientifically prove the validity of this statement.
Thirdly, science is limited in scope and is restricted by testability, whether the test object can be quantified/measured, whether the test can be repeated etc.. God would naturally exist outside the realm of the finite/measurable world and thus outside the realm of science. It is therefore absurd to use science as an argument for atheism. Agnostics, unlike atheists, understand this basic concept.
Furthermore, studies have shown that human beings are born with an innate belief in a Creative force which governs all life (God). Throughout human history, the vast majority of people have believed in the existence of God. I would argue that belief in God is the natural state of human beings and that the burden of proof for the non-existence of God is on the atheists. I mean look, probably 90+% of the world's population throughout history firmly believed in some form of god. Atheists are making the claim that there is no God, so they're bringing something new to the table. They should prove that God does not exist.
If humans are born with an innate belief in God and billions of people have arrived at the same conclusion independent of one another, then belief in God is arguably the norm. Atheists deviate from that norm, so they should present strong arguments for their deviation. So far, they haven't
Anyone who has studied epistemology/philosophy of science and the history of science will see through their shallow arguments.
And keep in mind, atheism is not simply "the rejection of God". Modern atheism grew from cac ideologies like secular-liberalism, naturalism etc and is thus based on liberal ideals and assumptions about the world, the nature of existence, knowledge, "truth" etc..
Atheists disbelieve in God, so debating the finer details of religion/theology with them is a waste of time. Any debate with an atheist should be focused on the main contention: the existence of God.
I find that most online atheists are a shallow bunch who regurgitate what their neo-atheist gurus say without critically assessing their claims. They're mostly just a bunch of "edgy" kids who want to jump on the hottest bandwagon at the moment.
Look at the overly simplistic BS that they uncritically regurgitate. "There's no scientific evidence that God exists so therefore He does not exist "
"Religion is a cult and the source of all evil "
Do these kids not understand how ridiculous these claims sound or that philosophers have been debating this issue for thousands of years, which means that it's a much deeper discussion than what they think it is? There are many layers to this question.
For one, "science" is not the only valid source of knowledge. In fact, most of what we know about the world and our own selves is unscientific. Most of our knowledge is based on things like testimony, logical deduction etc.
Secondly, the assertion that "only Scientific knowledge is true knowledge" is self-contradictory since you cannot scientifically prove the validity of this statement.
Thirdly, science is limited in scope and is restricted by testability, whether the test object can be quantified/measured, whether the test can be repeated etc.. God would naturally exist outside the realm of the finite/measurable world and thus outside the realm of science. It is therefore absurd to use science as an argument for atheism. Agnostics, unlike atheists, understand this basic concept.
Furthermore, studies have shown that human beings are born with an innate belief in a Creative force which governs all life (God). Throughout human history, the vast majority of people have believed in the existence of God. I would argue that belief in God is the natural state of human beings and that the burden of proof for the non-existence of God is on the atheists. I mean look, probably 90+% of the world's population throughout history firmly believed in some form of god. Atheists are making the claim that there is no God, so they're bringing something new to the table. They should prove that God does not exist.
If humans are born with an innate belief in God and billions of people have arrived at the same conclusion independent of one another, then belief in God is arguably the norm. Atheists deviate from that norm, so they should present strong arguments for their deviation. So far, they haven't
Anyone who has studied epistemology/philosophy of science and the history of science will see through their shallow arguments.
And keep in mind, atheism is not simply "the rejection of God". Modern atheism grew from cac ideologies like secular-liberalism, naturalism etc and is thus based on liberal ideals and assumptions about the world, the nature of existence, knowledge, "truth" etc..
Menelik II
I wanna see receipts!
All These fallacies have nothing to do with the OPReligion is based on two things: 1) belief in God and 2) scripture (belief in revelation).
Atheists disbelieve in God, so debating the finer details of religion/theology with them is a waste of time. Any debate with an atheist should be focused on the main contention: the existence of God.
I find that most online atheists are a shallow bunch who regurgitate what their neo-atheist gurus say without critically assessing their claims. They're mostly just a bunch of "edgy" kids who want to jump on the hottest bandwagon at the moment.
Look at the overly simplistic BS that they uncritically regurgitate. "There's no scientific evidence that God exists so therefore He does not exist "
"Religion is a cult and the source of all evil "
Do these kids not understand how ridiculous these claims sound or that philosophers have been debating this issue for thousands of years, which means that it's a much deeper discussion than what they think it is? There are many layers to this question.
For one, "science" is not the only valid source of knowledge. In fact, most of what we know about the world and our own selves is unscientific. Most of our knowledge is based on things like testimony, logical deduction etc.
Secondly, the assertion that "only Scientific knowledge is true knowledge" is self-contradictory since you cannot scientifically prove the validity of this statement.
Thirdly, science is limited in scope and is restricted by testability, whether the test object can be quantified/measured, whether the test can be repeated etc.. God would naturally exist outside the realm of the finite/measurable world and thus outside the realm of science. It is therefore absurd to use science as an argument for atheism. Agnostics, unlike atheists, understand this basic concept.
Furthermore, studies have shown that human beings are born with an innate belief in a Creative force which governs all life (God). Throughout human history, the vast majority of people have believed in the existence of God. I would argue that belief in God is the natural state of human beings and that the burden of proof for the non-existence of God is on the atheists. I mean look, probably 90+% of the world's population throughout history firmly believed in some form of god. Atheists are making the claim that there is no God, so they're bringing something new to the table. They should prove that God does not exist.
If humans are born with an innate belief in God and billions of people have arrived at the same conclusion independent of one another, then belief in God is arguably the norm. Atheists deviate from that norm, so they should present strong arguments for their deviation. So far, they haven't
Anyone who has studied epistemology/philosophy of science and the history of science will see through their shallow arguments.
And keep in mind, atheism is not simply "the rejection of God". Modern atheism grew from cac ideologies like secular-liberalism, naturalism etc and is thus based on liberal ideals and assumptions about the world, the nature of existence, knowledge, "truth" etc..
Religion is based on two things: 1) belief in God and 2) scripture (belief in revelation).
Atheists disbelieve in God, so debating the finer details of religion/theology with them is a waste of time. Any debate with an atheist should be focused on the main contention: the existence of God.
I find that most online atheists are a shallow bunch who regurgitate what their neo-atheist gurus say without critically assessing their claims. They're mostly just a bunch of "edgy" kids who want to jump on the hottest bandwagon at the moment.
Look at the overly simplistic BS that they uncritically regurgitate. "There's no scientific evidence that God exists so therefore He does not exist "
"Religion is a cult and the source of all evil "
Do these kids not understand how ridiculous these claims sound or that philosophers have been debating this issue for thousands of years, which means that it's a much deeper discussion than what they think it is? There are many layers to this question.
For one, "science" is not the only valid source of knowledge. In fact, most of what we know about the world and our own selves is unscientific. Most of our knowledge is based on things like testimony, logical deduction etc.
Secondly, the assertion that "only Scientific knowledge is true knowledge" is self-contradictory since you cannot scientifically prove the validity of this statement.
Thirdly, science is limited in scope and is restricted by testability, whether the test object can be quantified/measured, whether the test can be repeated etc.. God would naturally exist outside the realm of the finite/measurable world and thus outside the realm of science. It is therefore absurd to use science as an argument for atheism. Agnostics, unlike atheists, understand this basic concept.
Furthermore, studies have shown that human beings are born with an innate belief in a Creative force which governs all life (God). Throughout human history, the vast majority of people have believed in the existence of God. I would argue that belief in God is the natural state of human beings and that the burden of proof for the non-existence of God is on the atheists. I mean look, probably 90+% of the world's population throughout history firmly believed in some form of god. Atheists are making the claim that there is no God, so they're bringing something new to the table. They should prove that God does not exist.
If humans are born with an innate belief in God and billions of people have arrived at the same conclusion independent of one another, then belief in God is arguably the norm. Atheists deviate from that norm, so they should present strong arguments for their deviation. So far, they haven't
Anyone who has studied epistemology/philosophy of science and the history of science will see through their shallow arguments.
And keep in mind, atheism is not simply "the rejection of God". Modern atheism grew from cac ideologies like secular-liberalism, naturalism etc and is thus based on liberal ideals and assumptions about the world, the nature of existence, knowledge, "truth" etc..
Hey @DrX sign off your alias, seriously the fukk are you talking about?
Belief in God is part of human nature - Oxford study
Also research "the hard problem of consciousness".
This is a documentary by an agnostic which critiques atheism. The correct Scientific position regarding the existence of God is that God can neither be directly proven nor disproven through scientific means.
Also research "fine tuning" and the improbability that the university could've come about by accident.
There are many layers to this debate which sadly militant atheists do not appreciate.
Also research "the hard problem of consciousness".
This is a documentary by an agnostic which critiques atheism. The correct Scientific position regarding the existence of God is that God can neither be directly proven nor disproven through scientific means.
Also research "fine tuning" and the improbability that the university could've come about by accident.
There are many layers to this debate which sadly militant atheists do not appreciate.
All These fallacies have nothing to do with the OP
They do. This idea of viewing religions as "successful cults" originates from atheists. The rhetoric is the same
TransJenner
Banned
Yes it called Mormans 
The founders were either deist, atheist, or followed their own form of christianity with the bullshyt taken out. It's been a while since I read the letters and stuff but America was not founded as a christian nation.
