|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2012 : 15:58:54 [Permalink]
|
| I fail to see why a group of people who are atheists and share a belief in social justice should be considered a cult. Surely, for a cult to be considered a cult, beliefs and practices in the cult tend to be weird? Perhaps "Doctor X" could explain in more detail? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2012 : 16:23:22 [Permalink]
|
Doctor X needs to re-write the Wikipedia article on cults to include all the things he thinks typify cultish behavior.
But it seems like whatever he writes is going to be low on references. I just searched PubMed for articles related to the stuff Doctor X has been talking about, to see what actual sociologists and psychologists say, and came up with not a single relevant article. It's as if he's making it all up. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
 Posted - 10/27/2012 : 17:15:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by "Hawks"
I fail to see why a group of people who are atheists and share a belief in social justice should be considered a cult.
Perhaps "Doctor X" could explain in more detail? |
 Doctor X did not argue that people who are atheists and share a belief in social justice should be considered a cult.
 Doctor X fails to recognize an obligation to defend positions he did not make.
 Doctor X questions your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
Being a RIVER to My People!, Doctor X reminds that he underscored the behavior manifested by some--including an individual in his responses to another--proves similar if not the same as seen in cults.
Doctor X wishes he could express  at the revelation that the individual relies on Wikipedia for his definitions, but Doctor X also knows that to do so would prove unpardonably unkind, so he will not express that .
| Surely, for a cult to be considered a cult, beliefs and practices in the cult tend to be weird? |
Not at all. "Weird"--whilst certainly a relative and inherently subjective designation--does not determine what is and what is not a cult.
--J. "Tell Me! Does Your Father Still Steal?" D.
[Edited for the codes . . . the codes.--Ed.] |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
| Edited by - Doctor X on 10/27/2012 19:53:21 |
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2012 : 17:25:56 [Permalink]
|
Fortunately, reality is not determined by an individual with a puerile tendency to straw men attacks and inability to read posts honestly, to search "Pub Med" for articles on devoted to his behavior.
I am afraid the individual and his current behavior do not, currently, merit such attention in the medical research community.
Nevertheless, if quite consistent with his  tactics to avoid responsibility for his hastiness and malice aforethought he now accepts his embodiment of the behavior noted but rejects that this behavior proves classic of cult behavior, that proves a different matter. There are rather quite a number of studies--the classic When Prophecy Fails would prove an excellent, enlightening, entertaining, enthusi[Get on with it!--Ed.] start.
Subordinated clause, I decided to check to see if even that tactic of his lacked honesty--two seconds and a guffaw with a hint of chortle later yielded, from PubMed:
Am J Psychother. 2011;65(4):381-91.
An object relations approach to cult membership.
Salande JD, Perkins DR.
Source
Department of Psychology, South Louisiana Community College, Girard Hall, Room 209, Lafayette, LA 70504, USA.
Abstract
Several pieces of literature suggest that most individuals who are successfully integrated into cults do not typically manifest symptoms of mental illness. However, the public is often taken aback by the lack of autonomy displayed by cult members and is bewildered by the ability of the cult leader and other cult members to transform fundamental personality functioning in an individual Within the framework of an object relations model of personality structure and functioning as delineated by Otto Kernberg and using existing data concerning the cult experience, the authors engage in a theoretical exploration of cult membership. The authors propose that some behaviors exhibited by cult members may be a function of an object relations-level regression, which is exemplified by the activation of primitive defensive operations that are usually relegated to those suffering with severe personality disorders.
PMID: 22329338 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] |
Game.
Set.
Match.
--J.D. |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2012 : 18:08:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Doctor X
Fortunately, reality is not determined by an individual with a puerile tendency to straw men attacks and inability to read posts honestly, to search "Pub Med" for articles on devoted to his behavior. |
Neither is reality determined by people who cite abstracts that are totally irrelevant to their claims.| I am afraid the individual and his current behavior do not, currently, merit such attention in the medical research community. |
Then how can you declare that the behavior in question is typically cultish?| Nevertheless, if quite consistent with his tactics to avoid responsibility for his hastiness and malice aforethought... |
Let me get this straight: you're saying that I wrote something in haste as a premeditated attack on you? Quite the ego you have there.| ...he now accepts his embodiment of the behavior noted... |
Since when? I've denied every characterization you've made of my behavior. Saying that I accept it is as delusional as claiming (as you did) that I have backtracked.| ...but rejects that this behavior proves classic of cult behavior, that proves a different matter. |
Indeed, I was unable find scholarly works on how cult members behave towards outsiders. The body of research appeared to be focused on how they behave with each other and towards their leader(s).| There are rather quite a number of studies--the classic When Prophecy Fails would prove an excellent, enlightening, entertaining, enthusi[Get on with it!--Ed.] start. |
From what I've read about that work, it's about cults as relievers of cognitive dissonance. Smearing people is indicated as one of the methods employed to reduce the stress caused by such dissonance. Is that why you've repeatedly smeared me over what began as an impersonal argument about the logical foundations of your statement?
No, scratch that. You personalized this from the beginning, and lashed out with the "cult" nonsense before making the statement that began your impotent fight against me in particular. Yet you're unable to identify even a single "leader" of the alleged Atheism+ cult, nor can you explain how the object of their alleged fanaticism is somehow dangerous to its adherents (apparently another classic characteristic of cults), and you hypocritically exhibit the same cultish behaviors you're highlighting in others, to boot.Subordinated clause, I decided to check to see if even that tactic of his lacked honesty--two seconds and a guffaw with a hint of chortle later yielded, from PubMed: Am J Psychother. 2011;65(4):381-91.
An object relations approach to cult membership.
Salande JD, Perkins DR.
Source
Department of Psychology, South Louisiana Community College, Girard Hall, Room 209, Lafayette, LA 70504, USA.
Abstract
Several pieces of literature suggest that most individuals who are successfully integrated into cults do not typically manifest symptoms of mental illness. However, the public is often taken aback by the lack of autonomy displayed by cult members and is bewildered by the ability of the cult leader and other cult members to transform fundamental personality functioning in an individual Within the framework of an object relations model of personality structure and functioning as delineated by Otto Kernberg and using existing data concerning the cult experience, the authors engage in a theoretical exploration of cult membership. The authors propose that some behaviors exhibited by cult members may be a function of an object relations-level regression, which is exemplified by the activation of primitive defensive operations that are usually relegated to those suffering with severe personality disorders.
PMID: 22329338 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] |
|
Oh, no, I found that abstract. I just fail to see how it supports your specific statements about cultish behavior (smearing an outsider who doesn't 100% agree with the cult, for example). Perhaps you could quote passages from the article in support of your contentions. Surely you've read it.It's real easy to win a fight against the pathetic strawman you custom created, isn't it, Doctor X? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2012 : 18:10:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Doctor X
Doctor X wishes he could express at the revelation that the individual relies on Wikipedia for his definitions... |
A completely unfounded conclusion.
Hey, I bet it's also "cultish behavior" to speak about others as if they weren't a part of the conversation, right? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2012 : 19:51:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Neither is reality determined by people who cite abstracts that are totally irrelevant to their claims. |
Save it was not irrelevant. Not only did it prove relevant, it dashed yet another one of your hastily cobbled together claims.
I know, it rather exposed your dishonesty. I would recommend you actually read the paper, but then that would expose you further.
Such behavior merely affirms my initial observation. Again, my compliments. This proves far too easy. You have become, so to write, that which you pretend does not exist, and with every petulant and willfully ignorant, if not dishonest, protest to the contrary, you affirm it.
Since you prove so willing to jump to hasty generalizations and other failures in critical thinking, allow me a bit of a "skip" of my own: eventually other posters find your dishonest tactics tedious and laughable and give up trying to have a rational dialogue--or any dialogue--with you much like a critical thinker gives up on a cult member.
With that bit of a "skip," allow me just a wee bit more: you misinterpret the boredom with you as some sort of victory.
Rather like the cult member, the fundamentalist, who misinterprets the rational ignoring him as validation for his ignorance.
In other words, you begin to put Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and even U2 fans to shame.
I would enlighten you further but I am reminded of the sage observation on futility:
--J.D.
[Edited to redact to the Textus Receptus.--Ed.] |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
| Edited by - Doctor X on 10/27/2012 19:58:30 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2012 : 21:02:03 [Permalink]
|
I don't see how Atheist+ is a cult. And there is always the potential for cult like behavior in any community, including the skeptical community, the PTA and Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. Most of the people who get together with a cause don't turn their cause into a cult. If you look at all those groups, you see a lot of like minded people banning together to get something done. Some of those groups even have leaders, or at least people who have earned some respect for one reason or another. Atheist+, it seems to me, is a community of atheists who have banned together to get something done. Maybe they will be effective and maybe they won't be. What's the big deal? They are so loosely affiliated still, I don't get how they can be called a cult.
Having said that, I feel that I have enough to explain being an agnostic/atheist (it would be so much easier to drop the agnostic part, but it wouldn't be as precise) and a skeptic, and a freethinker, to add another identifier to the list of things I identify with as a critical thinker. (<--Yikes! Another identifier.) I also don't mind my informal link to the humanist and secular causes. (I'm getting very busy with identifiers.) So I choose not to add one more. I've made my position clear, and not a single A+er has accused me of misogyny. I don't get that it's an "us against everyone who isn't us" thing at all. So on what grounds would I consider them a cult?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2012 : 22:26:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I don't see how Atheist+ is a cult. |
See the contributions from the individual above.
| And there is always the potential for cult like behavior in any community, including the skeptical community, the PTA and Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. |
Precisely.
| Most of the people who get together with a cause don't turn their cause into a cult. |
I would not be so certain of that. Individual PTAs have been dominated by factions, the skeptical community? I mean really. Every board seems to have its own litany of "us" versus "they." In fact, one observer suggested I accuse the individual of not being "a True Atheist" as a "social experiment": "sit back and watch the eruption. Granted, you may very well not accept anecdote, but I can blather about such where "true skeptics/true atheists must do _____."
As the individual claimed they must even though he claims he did not claim despite posters other than My Humble MagNIfIcence quoting him claiming that!
However, that does not mean, imply, infer, insinuate that "everyone" who joins an organization "is" a cult-member nor "every" organization is a cult. Nevertheless, with over-suborinated clauses, in the rain, I fear that for Atheism+ plus given not only the behavior exhibited by this individual proponent but by his own links.
| Atheist+, it seems to me, is a community of atheists who have banned together to get something done. Maybe they will be effective and maybe they won't be. What's the big deal? |
Apparently, it is a big deal given:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Probably because of the name they chose. "+" implies superiority. When you brand yourself as "X+" the implication is that you are better than X. |
Yes, activists for social justice are better than sexists, homophobes, racists, misogynists, classists, ableists, transphobes and the rest of the asswipes. |
| Having said that, . . . to add another identifier to the list of things I identify with as a critical thinker. (<--Yikes! Another identifier.) I also don't mind my informal link to the humanist and secular causes. (I'm getting very busy with identifiers.) |
You may consider dropping identifiers for no one is "a skeptic" or "a critical thinker;" rather one employs skepticism and critical thinking. "Atheist" certainly does not equal "critical thinker," to be precise. A person engaging in critical thinking may apply it to reality and conclude no evidence for gods exist and declare himself some variety of Atheist, yes. My reason for [Having a tantrum over--Ed.] emphasizing that is some--like this individual apparently--equate "Atheism" as equal to "critical thinking" and "skepticism" and, worse, considers them traits rather than behaviors. Once one does that, one ceases to be either, for one must examine ones own conclusions critically with skepticism.
| So I choose not to add one more. I've made my position clear, and not a single A+er has accused me of misogyny. I don't get that it's an "us against everyone who isn't us" thing at all. So on what grounds would I consider them a cult? |
And you have every right to that opinion, and it is a reasonable opinion. Given what I have seen above, and elsewhere, I fear otherwise.
--J.D. |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2012 : 01:37:28 [Permalink]
|
Me:
And there is always the potential for cult like behavior in any community, including the skeptical community, the PTA and Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. |
But there's also the rub. If you define cult broadly enough, you can say that any organization that promotes a cause is a cult. But if you define it that broadly, the word "cult" loses it's meaning. "Us" versus "they" even among factions doesn't make "us" a cult. Certainly there are people willing to follow without too much thought, but that still doesn't make factions within an organization a cult unless it behaves like a cult.
So how do cults behave? Certainly there are traits that in total makes a group a cult. But every group will have some of those traits without necessarily being a cult. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2012 : 01:42:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
But there's also the rub. If you define cult broadly enough, you can say that any organization that promotes a cause is a cult. |
It can be, if it exhibits some of the behavior I described. The definition is not "broad."
| "Us" versus "they" even among factions doesn't make "us" a cult. |
That is just one characteristic. The individual demonstrated that along with others.
| . . . but that still doesn't make factions within an organization a cult unless it behaves like a cult. |
"Factions within?" Does that not suggest something to you?
Perhaps another topic?
--J.D. |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2012 : 05:30:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Doctor X
Save it was not irrelevant. |
Yet despite a direct request, you could not demonstrate how it was relevant.| Not only did it prove relevant, it dashed yet another one of your hastily cobbled together claims. |
Saying that I was unable to find evidence to support your claims is a "hastily cobbled together claim"?!| I know, it rather exposed your dishonesty. |
Well, your own lies have been exposed for several comments, now.| I would recommend you actually read the paper, but then that would expose you further. |
Considering I asked you to quote from the paper, I see no risk at all.| Such behavior merely affirms my initial observation. |
So therefore it also demonstrates your own engagement in cultish behavior.| Again, my compliments. This proves far too easy. You have become, so to write, that which you pretend does not exist, and with every petulant and willfully ignorant, if not dishonest, protest to the contrary, you affirm it. |
You're projecting again.| Since you prove so willing to jump to hasty generalizations... |
Except that I haven't done so even once. This is just another one of your lies. They now include...- ...that I contradicted myself;
- that I have backtracked from my earlier position;
- that I said that those who disagree with me are misogynists and racists;
- that I suggested that you'd agree with me "If ONLY you KNEW...";
- that I accept your assessment of my behavior;
- that I misinterpret boredom with me as some sort of victory, and
- that I just to hasty conclusions.
| I would enlighten you further... |
You think your lies are enlightening? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2012 : 05:42:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Doctor X
See the contributions from the individual above. |
Coward.Apparently, it is a big deal given:Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Probably because of the name they chose. "+" implies superiority. When you brand yourself as "X+" the implication is that you are better than X. |
Yes, activists for social justice are better than sexists, homophobes, racists, misogynists, classists, ableists, transphobes and the rest of the asswipes. |
|
Please enlighten us all as to how saying that people striving for fairness are better than selfish assholes is "a big deal" and not an uncontroversial statement of opinion.| You may consider dropping identifiers for no one is "a skeptic" or "a critical thinker;" rather one employs skepticism and critical thinking. "Atheist" certainly does not equal "critical thinker," to be precise. A person engaging in critical thinking may apply it to reality and conclude no evidence for gods exist and declare himself some variety of Atheist, yes. My reason for [Having a tantrum over--Ed.] emphasizing that is some--like this individual apparently--equate "Atheism" as equal to "critical thinking" and "skepticism" and, worse, considers them traits rather than behaviors. Once one does that, one ceases to be either, for one must examine ones own conclusions critically with skepticism. |
What a bunch of baloney. Do you really not understand the shorthand employed in those simple English phrases?| Given what I have seen above, and elsewhere, I fear otherwise. |
But you haven't seen it, you fabricated it. Where is this "elsewhere" that you mention? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2012 : 08:08:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Doctor X
Not at all. "Weird"--whilst certainly a relative and inherently subjective designation--does not determine what is and what is not a cult. |
Perhaps the good doctor could explain in some detail what a cult is and why he felt the need to bring the word into the discussion here. Does it have anything to do with Atheism+? Is Dave W a cult? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2012 : 11:13:46 [Permalink]
|
Doctor X:
"Factions within?" Does that not suggest something to you? |
No. Not really. There are differences of opinion in the world of skepticism over it's scope. Some keep fairly close to the science part of "scientific skepticism" while others want to widen the scope of skepticism (the brand) to include those things that can't be tested and tend to more a matter of logic while still calling it skepticism, (the brand). That debate has been going on for a few years now. So you have at least two factions there. And while there have been people on both sides of the debate who have acted poorly, I don't think the folks on either side of the disagreement can be described as a cult, and they do generally work together where there is agreement. I'm sure the same goes for factions within the PTA.
As a matter of of fact, Dave and I come down on different sides of the two factions. And yet we work fine together here at SFN. We are hardly cultish in our behavior. We simply don't agree on everything.
Me:
So how do cults behave? |
Doctor X
Perhaps another topic? |
Well no. Because we are discussing cult behavior, it's relevant to this thread. We need a working definition.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Atheism Period
