Legitimate Faith vs Wacky Cult

[setzer777]

I know there are plenty of religious threads already, but I'd like to focus on something very specific here (I ask that we try not to rehash the general religious debate in other threads). I'm assuming that a lot of people here accept the following premises:

1. Spirituality and faith are not universally bad things. In general we should respect people's beliefs (when they do not attempt to impose them on other people).

2. When it comes to spiritual beliefs, there's no solid basis for saying that any one of them is more likely to be true than any other (except when they blatantly contradict observable facts).

3. However, there are some beliefs so patently absurd that we want to dismiss them out of hand and show them no respect (for example, suppose a genuine believer in the flying spaghetti monster).

My problem is coming up with a standard for determining when 3 is appropriate. The standard used in most societies seems to be popularity and cultural acceptance (i.e. Hinduism and Christianity are widespread and ancient, while Scientology is young and fringe).

Is there any other standard we can use to say that "X beliefs should be respected, but Y beliefs are wacky and cultish?" I do think faith can play a very positive role in some people's lives and I want to respect that. At the same time I don't want to feel compelled (by the principal of fairness) to respect every possible combination of non-empirical claims.

[Scyrus]

Since we are living beings and our goal is to survive, I would say that anything that is highly detrimental to this purpose (dangerous) should be excluded from "valid religious beliefs".

If a person believes in a flying spaghetti monster but harms no one doing so, then he/she may believe it for there is no reason he/she should not.
Someone believing in deities that require the sacrifice of other living beings, or things that certainly impair the survival of others, however, is within your number 3 category, it should be discouraged.

Another standard that can be used is whether or not the religion in question commands people to force it on non believers, because doing so is also unethical. For example, Christianity might be fine and dandy until it starts to burn astronomers and crusading against people of other faiths, then it is unacceptable.

Popularity and cultural acceptance fall more into the category of closed mindedness than, for example, respect, which is a much more important aspect of interaction.

[el matematico]

3. However, there are some beliefs so patently absurd that we want to dismiss them out of hand and show them no respect (for example, suppose a genuine believer in the flying spaghetti monster).

There is no real line, some people dismiss all organized religion with no problem, many religious people dismiss different religions altogheter (including people with "absurd" beliefs dismissing traditional or established religions).

[aoeu]

Faith is legitimate if you got it from a legitimate source and not from a wacky cult or your own head.

[Azrael]

Faith is legitimate if you got it from a legitimate source and not from a wacky cult or your own head.

The next person who offers a tautology like this will be expelled with prejudice.

[DSenette]

I know there are plenty of religious threads already, but I'd like to focus on something very specific here (I ask that we try not to rehash the general religious debate in other threads). I'm assuming that a lot of people here accept the following premises:

1. Spirituality and faith are not universally bad things. In general we should respect people's beliefs (when they do not attempt to impose them on other people).

2. When it comes to spiritual beliefs, there's no solid basis for saying that any one of them is more likely to be true than any other (except when they blatantly contradict observable facts).

3. However, there are some beliefs so patently absurd that we want to dismiss them out of hand and show them no respect (for example, suppose a genuine believer in the flying spaghetti monster).

My problem is coming up with a standard for determining when 3 is appropriate. The standard used in most societies seems to be popularity and cultural acceptance (i.e. Hinduism and Christianity are widespread and ancient, while Scientology is young and fringe).

Is there any other standard we can use to say that "X beliefs should be respected, but Y beliefs are wacky and cultish?" I do think faith can play a very positive role in some people's lives and I want to respect that. At the same time I don't want to feel compelled (by the principal of fairness) to respect every possible combination of non-empirical claims.

why is someone being a genuine believer in the flying spaghetti monster more patently absurd than someone believing in Jesus Christ being the son of god? or in Allah, or vishnu, or brahma, or buddha or any of the others? they all have exactly the same level of proof for their existence.

your third rule is only applicable of people within a group of believers to a group of people who believe things that they don't.

[clockworkmonk]

the only times I have trouble with any belief system is when it brings people (members or not) to harm, be it emotional, physical, or social.

I don't mean that they are harmed by outsiders for what they believe, but when the actual beliefs lead to (picking a few triggery real examples) mass suicide, marriage to girls below the age of consent and the subsequent rape, murder, to the less obvious ones such as shunning and expelling people who differ on small doctrinal matters from the only community they know and such things as Scientology's Fair Game policy, where they actively destroy people's lives over such matters.

So I think I'm saying it is the actions resulting and condoned by the church in question more than the beliefs themselves.

[setzer777]

My third rule I meant in a broad sense. When it comes to every possible set of unprovable statements, I'm suggesting that virtually all of us humans want to completely dismiss some of those combinations as delusional. If someone says "I believe that Ronald McDonald cast a spell to put invisible microchips in our brains, and brainwashes us to eat more cheeseburgers", virtually everyone would agree that they are either joking or mentally unwell.

[DSenette]

My third rule I meant in a broad sense. When it comes to every possible set of unprovable statements, I'm suggesting that virtually all of us humans want to completely dismiss some of those combinations as delusional. If someone says "I believe that Ronald McDonald cast a spell to put invisible microchips in our brains, and brainwashes us to eat more cheeseburgers", virtually everyone would agree that they are either joking or mentally unwell.

right, but how does that not apply to

"there is this 'thing' in 'heaven' that came down once, lit a bush on fire and was talking to some dude in a robe about what we should do as people"?


the only difference between ANY spiritual/deistic claims of any religion, and the nutball down on the corner talking about the gubment putting arsenic in the water supply is the longevity and general acceptance of the claims.

[Izawwlgood]

why is someone being a genuine believer in the flying spaghetti monster more patently absurd than someone believing in Jesus Christ being the son of god? or in Allah, or vishnu, or brahma, or buddha or any of the others? they all have exactly the same level of proof for their existence.

Because the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a parody. Thinking belief in the FSM is equivalent to belief in Allah or Jesus or Yahweh or Krishna is like missing the joke of this whole website. (See how layered that was?)

[DSenette]

why is someone being a genuine believer in the flying spaghetti monster more patently absurd than someone believing in Jesus Christ being the son of god? or in Allah, or vishnu, or brahma, or buddha or any of the others? they all have exactly the same level of proof for their existence.

Because the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a parody. Thinking belief in the FSM is equivalent to belief in Allah or Jesus or Yahweh or Krishna is like missing the joke of this whole website.

what makes you think that christianity didn't start out as a spoof of mithraic religions? the stories are quite similar?

[Izawwlgood]

Are you being serious? Historical evidence pretty reliably points to it's evolution being in large part affected by political power plays and tracing it's spread and incorporation of other religions. I'm not saying that makes it more VALID than the FSM, but the FSM is literally a dude saying 'Haha, religion!' while Christianity very clearly wasn't.

[TranquilFury]

1. Spirituality and faith are not universally bad things. In general we should respect people's beliefs (when they do not attempt to impose them on other people).

2. When it comes to spiritual beliefs, there's no solid basis for saying that any one of them is more likely to be true than any other (except when they blatantly contradict observable facts).

3. However, there are some beliefs so patently absurd that we want to dismiss them out of hand and show them no respect (for example, suppose a genuine believer in the flying spaghetti monster).

1: Claiming belief in x is not always bad, but acting on belief x without evidence of utility is usually harmful to your interests. The exceptions are when it's necessary to obfuscate your intentions, or when you get lucky. I am not going to respect someone else's irrational beliefs, nor do I care that they have them, I will just account for that information to help predict their reactions.
2: Whatever, it doesn't matter if a method of thinking is true, only if it's useful. Case in point newtonian physics: incorrect/incomplete, but still useful.
3: What's the point? I don't find the FSM to be any more absurd than the popular religions, and claiming belief in it can have additional utility, depending on your goals(for example, if you don't want your tax money spent on christian education, you have a better legal standing if your claimed beliefs are fundamentally incompatible with christianity).

[DSenette]

Are you being serious? Historical evidence pretty reliably points to it's evolution being in large part affected by political power plays and tracing it's spread and incorporation of other religions. I'm not saying that makes it more VALID than the FSM, but the FSM is literally a dude saying 'Haha, religion!' while Christianity very clearly wasn't.

do you have any actual evidence that proves that christianity isn't just a big practical joke that went too far? or could it have been a conspiracy? maybe there WAS evidence of it, but it got lost, and maybe in 2,000 years the whole FSM thing will be in the same scenario.


i'm not, in any way claiming that it is in any way rational to believe in the FSM literally, but you can't actually claim that believing in God is any more rational, or any less rational. the root of EITHER is some guy (or book) saying some thing. what people do with that thing is the issue here.

it's only more reasonable to say that the guy that believes in the literal FSM is a nutjob because we can literally walk up to the first guy to think of the FSM and ask him about it.

[TranquilFury]

Are you being serious? Historical evidence pretty reliably points to it's evolution being in large part affected by political power plays and tracing it's spread and incorporation of other religions. I'm not saying that makes it more VALID than the FSM, but the FSM is literally a dude saying 'Haha, religion!' while Christianity very clearly wasn't.

do you have any actual evidence that proves that christianity isn't just a big practical joke that went too far? or could it have been a conspiracy? maybe there WAS evidence of it, but it got lost, and maybe in 2,000 years the whole FSM thing will be in the same scenario.


i'm not, in any way claiming that it is in any way rational to believe in the FSM literally, but you can't actually claim that believing in God is any more rational, or any less rational. the root of EITHER is some guy (or book) saying some thing. what people do with that thing is the issue here.

it's only more reasonable to say that the guy that believes in the literal FSM is a nutjob because we can literally walk up to the first guy to think of the FSM and ask him about it.

I don't think christianity is a practical joke, if it started out that way, it stopped being one when someone figured out how to make money from it.

[Izawwlgood]

do you have any actual evidence that proves that christianity isn't just a big practical joke that went too far? or could it have been a conspiracy? maybe there WAS evidence of it, but it got lost, and maybe in 2,000 years the whole FSM thing will be in the same scenario.

Like I said, there is historical evidence supporting the notion that the incorporation or spread of Christianity was influenced in large part by political power plays. Of course it's POSSIBLE that the entire thing is one big practical joke, or one woman's affair cover up story, but assuming that this is the case is hilariously ironic, given that you're condemning the assumption that there is a God in the first place.

it's only more reasonable to say that the guy that believes in the literal FSM is a nutjob because we can literally walk up to the first guy to think of the FSM and ask him about it.

And because the FSM was deliberately and openly created with the intent of being a PARODY, while there is zero evidence that any other faith ever was. Again, I'm not saying belief in one or the other is more VALID, but belief in any other faith at the very least, even bizarro cults (!) is at least predicated on the notion that the entire system wasn't created to be ironic. Except Scientology. But still! Any other faith!

[DSenette]

do you have any actual evidence that proves that christianity isn't just a big practical joke that went too far? or could it have been a conspiracy? maybe there WAS evidence of it, but it got lost, and maybe in 2,000 years the whole FSM thing will be in the same scenario.

Like I said, there is historical evidence supporting the notion that the incorporation or spread of Christianity was influenced in large part by political power plays. Of course it's POSSIBLE that the entire thing is one big practical joke, or one woman's affair cover up story, but assuming that this is the case is hilariously ironic, given that you're condemning the assumption that there is a God in the first place.

it's only more reasonable to say that the guy that believes in the literal FSM is a nutjob because we can literally walk up to the first guy to think of the FSM and ask him about it.

And because the FSM was deliberately and openly created with the intent of being a PARODY, while there is zero evidence that any other faith ever was. Again, I'm not saying belief in one or the other is more VALID, but belief in any other faith at the very least, even bizarro cults (!) is at least predicated on the notion that the entire system wasn't created to be ironic. Except Scientology. But still! Any other faith!

and you're not getting it.

the ONLY reason, THE ONLY reason that there is a difference between the two is because you can literally walk up to the guy who invented the FSM and ask him for your self. if you couldn't verify the fact that it's a parody religion so easily then there would be literally no difference.

the incorporation and the spread of christianity has JACK ALL to do with it's origination, and whether or not it was some wacky ass cult (which, by the way, in the time of jesus, it totally was a wacky ass cult)

[Роберт]

I think Cult has more to do with weird controlling behaviors, manipulation, danger, harm done than it does the belief system. Judge beliefs however you want to. I'm not going to think an 8 year old is crazy because ze believes that Children all over the world are given toys by the same man in a single night. I'm going to think ze's wrong, and his beliefs are crazy... but ze may well be sane.

Similarly, if someone follows Islam, I don't necessarily think ze's crazy, but I might think ze's wrong. If the environment the person is in is one where it's not that hard to imagine them believing something, there's no reason to question their mental health. Quantum physicists may laugh at my beliefs about how atoms work and interact, but they don't think I'm crazy, they just think I'm wrong. They've spent more time and gotten more evidence, etc.

[tsperk]

I think Cult has more to do with weird controlling behaviors, manipulation, danger, harm done than it does the belief system. Judge beliefs however you want to. I'm not going to think an 8 year old is crazy because ze believes that Children all over the world are given toys by the same man in a single night. I'm going to think ze's wrong, and his beliefs are crazy... but ze may well be sane.

Similarly, if someone follows Islam, I don't necessarily think ze's crazy, but I might think ze's wrong. If the environment the person is in is one where it's not that hard to imagine them believing something, there's no reason to question their mental health. Quantum physicists may laugh at my beliefs about how atoms work and interact, but they don't think I'm crazy, they just think I'm wrong. They've spent more time and gotten more evidence, etc.

Agree completely. Jesus said "By their fruitage you shall know them" when speaking about true followers vs. false followers. Even for non-Christians, the principle still applies.

If there was a First Church of FSM that encouraged its followers to be productive members of society, love their fellow man, search for higher truth etc, I would acknowledge them as a legitimate religion if I did not agree with their core beliefs. The converse also applies, I would not recognize someone who claimed to follow my belief system but whose actions belied the fact.

[TranquilFury]

I think Cult has more to do with weird controlling behaviors, manipulation, danger, harm done than it does the belief system. Judge beliefs however you want to. I'm not going to think an 8 year old is crazy because ze believes that Children all over the world are given toys by the same man in a single night. I'm going to think ze's wrong, and his beliefs are crazy... but ze may well be sane.

Similarly, if someone follows Islam, I don't necessarily think ze's crazy, but I might think ze's wrong. If the environment the person is in is one where it's not that hard to imagine them believing something, there's no reason to question their mental health. Quantum physicists may laugh at my beliefs about how atoms work and interact, but they don't think I'm crazy, they just think I'm wrong. They've spent more time and gotten more evidence, etc.

Agree completely. Jesus said "By their fruitage you shall know them" when speaking about true followers vs. false followers. Even for non-Christians, the principle still applies.

If there was a First Church of FSM that encouraged its followers to be productive members of society, love their fellow man, search for higher truth etc, I would acknowledge them as a legitimate religion if I did not agree with their core beliefs. The converse also applies, I would not recognize someone who claimed to follow my belief system but whose actions belied the fact.

That's the wrong perspective, the better question is whether the church/belief helps the followers achieve their own goals more effectively than the alternative.

[curtis95112]

I think Cult has more to do with weird controlling behaviors, manipulation, danger, harm done than it does the belief system. Judge beliefs however you want to. I'm not going to think an 8 year old is crazy because ze believes that Children all over the world are given toys by the same man in a single night. I'm going to think ze's wrong, and his beliefs are crazy... but ze may well be sane.

Similarly, if someone follows Islam, I don't necessarily think ze's crazy, but I might think ze's wrong. If the environment the person is in is one where it's not that hard to imagine them believing something, there's no reason to question their mental health. Quantum physicists may laugh at my beliefs about how atoms work and interact, but they don't think I'm crazy, they just think I'm wrong. They've spent more time and gotten more evidence, etc.

It's all a matter of degree isn't it? Religions labeled as 'cults' do seem to have more controlling behaviors, etc. But how are they fundamentally different than Islam's restriction on pork? Or their requirement for women to wear hijabs? If someone says "My religion says I must not eat broccoli, I must wear a tinfoil hat when outside, and I must do three cartwheels five times a day in the direction of the Alpha Centauri.", we dismiss them as deluded. Yet a Muslim saying they must not eat pork, must wear hijabs, and pray five times a day in the direction of the Mecca isn't dismissed as such. This suggests to me that the sole difference between religions and cults are that of societal acceptance and not anything fundamental.

I'm assuming that a lot of people here accept the following premises:

1. Spirituality and faith are not universally bad things. In general we should respect people's beliefs (when they do not attempt to impose them on other people).

2. When it comes to spiritual beliefs, there's no solid basis for saying that any one of them is more likely to be true than any other (except when they blatantly contradict observable facts).

3. However, there are some beliefs so patently absurd that we want to dismiss them out of hand and show them no respect (for example, suppose a genuine believer in the flying spaghetti monster).

My problem is coming up with a standard for determining when 3 is appropriate. The standard used in most societies seems to be popularity and cultural acceptance (i.e. Hinduism and Christianity are widespread and ancient, while Scientology is young and fringe).

Is there any other standard we can use to say that "X beliefs should be respected, but Y beliefs are wacky and cultish?" I do think faith can play a very positive role in some people's lives and I want to respect that. At the same time I don't want to feel compelled (by the principal of fairness) to respect every possible combination of non-empirical claims.

I think you should respect every combination to the same degree. Of course, that might mean you're overrespecting established religions atm, and should give them a bit less.
In the end, it's quite clear that no religion is well-grounded in fact. If people do get something positive out of faith, it's not because they're factual. It's what the individuals do with their faith that give them value. I would think no less of a person helping the poor for having cultish motives.

You might want to flesh out what you mean by respect though. I'm not sure why you're so reluctant to give it to cults. I would respect a friend's belief that he's handsome although I think he's completely wrong. By that I mean I don't go out of my way to tell him unless it starts influencing his judgment in a negative way. But the subject comes up in conversation, I would have no qualms about contradicting him. I think you have a stronger version of respect in mind.

[Izawwlgood]

and you're not getting it.

the ONLY reason, THE ONLY reason that there is a difference between the two is because you can literally walk up to the guy who invented the FSM and ask him for your self. if you couldn't verify the fact that it's a parody religion so easily then there would be literally no difference.

the incorporation and the spread of christianity has JACK ALL to do with it's origination, and whether or not it was some wacky ass cult (which, by the way, in the time of jesus, it totally was a wacky ass cult)

I don't see much more reason to keep repeating myself. I'll summarize in case you're still confused about what I'm stating:
1 ) there is a difference between VALIDITY of a belief, which I am not arguing, and the motivations for a beliefs creation, which I am. FSM is a PARODY of religion, which is why believing in it would be stupid, whereas Christianity and many other organized religions evolved from a cultural, political, and spiritual basis. This alone means that belief in those religions is 'less stupid', relative to FSM.
2 ) The development of these faiths has EVERYTHING to do with their origination. Again, 'wacky ass cult' is different in motive and genesis than 'lol religion'.
3 ) That the creator of the FSM is still around is an entirely moot point to this discussion; what IS relevant, is that he created the faith AS A JOKE.

Now, I can keep repeating these points to you if you'd like, but I don't think it'll serve much purpose. Unless you mention something new in regards to this discussion, I'll just leave it here.

I think Cult has more to do with weird controlling behaviors, manipulation, danger, harm done than it does the belief system. Judge beliefs however you want to. I'm not going to think an 8 year old is crazy because ze believes that Children all over the world are given toys by the same man in a single night. I'm going to think ze's wrong, and his beliefs are crazy... but ze may well be sane.

I don't think that's a reasonable distinction at all; many if not all faiths have aspects of all of those issues.

Similarly, if someone follows Islam, I don't necessarily think ze's crazy, but I might think ze's wrong.

This is about where I stopped thinking you had much to say.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

the ONLY reason, THE ONLY reason that there is a difference between the two is because you can literally walk up to the guy who invented the FSM and ask him for your self.

Not so. The FSM stuff is distinguishable in that it's a work of overt parody. Even if you couldn't talk to the guy responsible, you could still know that it parodies creationism by understanding the context and the rhetorical styles that indicate parody. In contrast, those styles aren't present¹ in the earliest Christian writings. So, while this doesn't strictly speaking rule out the possibility that Christianity started out as a joke that was later taken up in earnest by Paul, it shows that the earliest records that we have aren't works of parody. And with, at most, about 21 years² between Jesus' death and Paul's first epistle, there isn't much room for such a thing to have gotten away from its creator.

¹It strikes me as unlikely that the basic features of satire have changed so much in 2000 years that they would be unrecognizable to modern eyes, especially when so many other rhetorical features of texts from that era remain easily recognizable. Probably there are scholars of Koine Greek who could give a more definitive answer. But, at any rate, if anyone wanted to dispute this and claim that the style of the Pauline epistles is consistent with parody, the onus would be on her to show it.
²Wikipedia says he died 30–36 AD and 1 Thessalonians, Paul's first letter, was written around 51 AD.

[Charlie!]

I do treat some people differently based on what they believe, for the fairly practical reason that what someone believes about religion informs you about how that person reasons. An earnest believer in FSM probably doesn't do so for sane reasons, so why should I expect them to be sane about other things? On the other hand, an earnest believer in christianity probably does so because that's the tradition they were raised in, which is a fairly human-normal reason to believe something, so I can expect that person to be fairly human-normal about other stuff too.

This sort of "respect" is about the context of these beliefs, not their content - which works out well for the established religions, socially at least.

[Tomo]

1. Spirituality and faith are not universally bad things. In general we should respect people's beliefs (when they do not attempt to impose them on other people).

2. When it comes to spiritual beliefs, there's no solid basis for saying that any one of them is more likely to be true than any other (except when they blatantly contradict observable facts).

3. However, there are some beliefs so patently absurd that we want to dismiss them out of hand and show them no respect (for example, suppose a genuine believer in the flying spaghetti monster).

Maybe I'm not getting something, but is there not a logical contradiction inherent within these statements? If A is belief in a mainstream religion, B is belief in a cult, 1) implies A = respectable, 2) implies A=B, and 3) implies B = absurd.

Unless you're going down the road of all faith in anything is absurd, but should be respected. Which I can see I suppose, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.

[curtis95112]

That's the point. He wants to respect religious beliefs, but can't bring himself to respect all of them. So he's looking for some criteria to decide which ones to respect since his current view logically indicates that all of them are equal.

[DSenette]

and you're not getting it.

the ONLY reason, THE ONLY reason that there is a difference between the two is because you can literally walk up to the guy who invented the FSM and ask him for your self. if you couldn't verify the fact that it's a parody religion so easily then there would be literally no difference.

the incorporation and the spread of christianity has JACK ALL to do with it's origination, and whether or not it was some wacky ass cult (which, by the way, in the time of jesus, it totally was a wacky ass cult)

I don't see much more reason to keep repeating myself. I'll summarize in case you're still confused about what I'm stating:
1 ) there is a difference between VALIDITY of a belief, which I am not arguing, and the motivations for a beliefs creation, which I am. FSM is a PARODY of religion, which is why believing in it would be stupid, whereas Christianity and many other organized religions evolved from a cultural, political, and spiritual basis. This alone means that belief in those religions is 'less stupid', relative to FSM.
2 ) The development of these faiths has EVERYTHING to do with their origination. Again, 'wacky ass cult' is different in motive and genesis than 'lol religion'.
3 ) That the creator of the FSM is still around is an entirely moot point to this discussion; what IS relevant, is that he created the faith AS A JOKE.

Now, I can keep repeating these points to you if you'd like, but I don't think it'll serve much purpose. Unless you mention something new in regards to this discussion, I'll just leave it here.

to be quite blunt. the FSM wasn't actually created as a parody religion. it wasn't created as a religion at all.

it's a concept that was formed to illustrate EXACTLY the topic at hand in this thread. that there is NO DIFFERENCE between believing that Jesus Christ is the son of God AND believing in a giant mystical pasta. there is NO FUNCTIONAL difference in the beliefs. the FSM was created to show a local school board that if they were going to allow public schools to teach christianity in public schools, that they would have to give equal time to ALL religions, even the ones they think are stupid, because ALL religions have the EXACT same basis in fact, and a belief in ANY metaphysical/spiritual/etc... creator/god/God/whatever is exactly as rational as any belief in ANY OTHER creator/god/God/whatever

so someone today, saying that they were touched by his noodely appendage, is EXACTLY the same as someone saying they were touched by Jesus. there is NO difference between the two beliefs.

it is NO MORE or NO LESS stupid to believe in either.

so again, that the FSM was created to be a seemingly outlandish comparison to illustrate a point is moot. someone deciding to believe in the core structure of a "fake" religion is no different than someone deciding to believe in the core structure of a "true" religion. either way you have to ignore a shit ton of things to make it work, so what's the difference between ignoring a "lawl" and ignoring physics?

that christianity has had 2,000 years to work itself out of "wacky ass cult" status, is irrelevant, it was TOTALLY a wacky ass cult 2,000+ years ago, and would be COMPLETELY indistinguishable from a belief in a giant flying pasta compared to the beliefs of the time.

[curtis95112]

If you're only considering the contents of the beliefs, then you're right. But in the context of our world, FSM is a parody religion. It's quite clear it's a parody, and nobody tries to hide it. If you sincerely believe in the FSM, you've somehow missed those cues, and I wouldn't fault anyone for saying they're stupid/silly. In the case of Christianity, there were no cues to miss.

[PeterCai]

I think we are going about this in the wrong way here.Religion is a social institution, and as such the difference between legitimate religions and cults does not lie in the validity of their claims to truth, but instead in their social utility.

Foreign religions such as Buddhism was viewed as wacky and outlandish even though it is an established religion elsewhere; and on the other hand, religions that are branded as cults in some countries can gain prominence and acceptance in others, such is the case of Fa Lun Gong. The validity of their claims do not change from locations to locations, so obviously it is not a factor.

Instead, I believe that social utility, stuffs like: how popular is it, how powerful is it, does it fit the social narrative, etc determines how legitimate a religion is.

[Izawwlgood]

the FSM wasn't actually created as a parody religion. it wasn't created as a religion at all.

it's a concept that was formed to illustrate EXACTLY the topic at hand in this thread. that there is NO DIFFERENCE between believing that Jesus Christ is the son of God AND believing in a giant mystical pasta. there is NO FUNCTIONAL difference in the beliefs. the FSM was created to show a local school board that if they were going to allow public schools to teach christianity in public schools, that they would have to give equal time to ALL religions, even the ones they think are stupid, because ALL religions have the EXACT same basis in fact, and a belief in ANY metaphysical/spiritual/etc... creator/god/God/whatever is exactly as rational as any belief in ANY OTHER creator/god/God/whatever

Yes, that's what a parody is.

To get this back on track, I believe the topic question itself underlines an important point; there isn't much difference. Believing that you imbibe and consume the blood and flesh of a Middle Eastern prophet isn't less wacky than attuning the phasonic metapoints to balance yourself to Glomfir, the hyperbeing that lives behind the dark and the light.

[PeterCai]

To get this back on track, I believe the topic question itself underlines an important point; there isn't much difference. Believing that you imbibe and consume the blood and flesh of a Middle Eastern prophet isn't less wacky than attuning the phasonic metapoints to balance yourself to Glomfir, the hyperbeing that lives behind the dark and the light.

There is a difference though: one is socially acceptable and one is not.

[Tomo]

That's the point. He wants to respect religious beliefs, but can't bring himself to respect all of them. So he's looking for some criteria to decide which ones to respect since his current view logically indicates that all of them are equal.

I got that, I'm just saying I don't think that is logically possible. Nevermind.

[setzer777]

That's the point. He wants to respect religious beliefs, but can't bring himself to respect all of them. So he's looking for some criteria to decide which ones to respect since his current view logically indicates that all of them are equal.

I got that, I'm just saying I don't think that is logically possible. Nevermind.

I wouldn't say religion specifically - I can't bring myself to respect every single possible combination of unprovable claims someone might make. I want to be able to call out actual delusion, ignorance, and paranoia as such without implying that all religious people are suffering from one of those conditions.

So the consensus seems to be that the content of such views is pretty much the same in terms of rationality and plausibility, and so we can only really judge based on how someone came to acquire those beliefs and how they apply them to their life.

[Роберт]

Similarly, if someone follows Islam, I don't necessarily think ze's crazy, but I might think ze's wrong.

This is about where I stopped thinking you had much to say.

Care to elaborate?

It's all a matter of degree isn't it? Religions labeled as 'cults' do seem to have more controlling behaviors, etc. But how are they fundamentally different than Islam's restriction on pork? Or their requirement for women to wear hijabs? If someone says "My religion says I must not eat broccoli, I must wear a tinfoil hat when outside, and I must do three cartwheels five times a day in the direction of the Alpha Centauri.", we dismiss them as deluded. Yet a Muslim saying they must not eat pork, must wear hijabs, and pray five times a day in the direction of the Mecca isn't dismissed as such. This suggests to me that the sole difference between religions and cults are that of societal acceptance and not anything fundamental.

Of course it's a matter of degrees. You can believe lots of things that aren't true without being "crazy", and lots of things that are true even if you are "crazy".

With the Muslim thing, I was picturing Muslims I knew personally. There were no hijabs involved. The girl I was thinking of had long hair and tended not to show cleavage, but she wore jeans and a t-shirt or whatever regularly.

And non-religious people can still be vegetarian. That seems more extreme than just abstaining from pork etc. Also, they can do meditation etc.

So don't expect a hard-line clear answer on what is cultish, what is ridiculous, and what is just misguided.

[Tomo]

I wouldn't say religion specifically - I can't bring myself to respect every single possible combination of unprovable claims someone might make. I want to be able to call out actual delusion, ignorance, and paranoia as such without implying that all religious people are suffering from one of those conditions.

So the consensus seems to be that the content of such views is pretty much the same in terms of rationality and plausibility, and so we can only really judge based on how someone came to acquire those beliefs and how they apply them to their life.

Personally, I approach it from a point of view where I respect the reason a person holds a certain belief, rather than the belief they themselves hold, whether religious or otherwise. I personally think any given religion is just as "absurd" as any of the other possible examples of unprovable claims in terms of absolute rationality - however the reasons for having these claims change. Someone who is brought up in a largely Christian environment, with Christian friends, and is exposed to a large volume of Christian literature and argument may not be delusional, and a long way from stupid. The reasons for their beliefs are fairly solid, and it's possible to hold those beliefs with a moderately logical mindset - assuming they haven't spent detailed time studying history, science, other religions, don't reject provable scientific claims, are internally consistent with their beliefs, and so forth. Functionally as well, someone in such an environment will likely personally gain a huge social advantage from following those beliefs as opposed to rejecting them, in addition to the possible increase in personal happiness gained by following a faith. All these are logical reasons.

On the other hand, the guy who wakes up one day and decides god exists in his teapot, not so much.

[Izawwlgood]

Care to elaborate?

Making a blanket statement that you think all followers of a given faith are crazy is one of those queues that you probably don't have much in the way of reasonable discourse or intelligent comments as followup.

There is a difference though: one is socially acceptable and one is not.

Yeah, again, a curious point. I would say that almost all religions have a degree of xenophobia automatically built in, as a kind of safety mechanism against their assimilation.

If you want to draw the line at populations, Mormonism and Rastafarianism seem to have a decentish number of followers, and if examined by their founders, I would certainly say they were nothing more than wacky cults. But then, all religions kind of start as such.

[Azrael]

To get this back on track, I believe the topic question itself underlines an important point; there isn't much difference. Believing that you imbibe and consume the blood and flesh of a Middle Eastern prophet isn't less wacky than attuning the phasonic metapoints to balance yourself to Glomfir, the hyperbeing that lives behind the dark and the light.

There is a difference though: one is socially acceptable and one is not.

Right, the tenets of the two aren't drastically different but yet there are social differences. Asking "why?" is the whole point of the thread. Anyhow, there's a short answer that hasn't been explicitly stated frequently enough:

The difference between a cult and a religion is the deviation of the group's beliefs from society's norm.

That's it. It just so happens that society's norm for a large part of the world are the Abrahamic religions, so Mormons and Scientologists seem a bit off. But Christians were a wacky cult at first too. The labels are entirely a measure of how non-centric a certain set of idea is, when compared to those ideas that have been held by so many people for so long.

[Роберт]

Similarly, if someone follows Islam, I don't necessarily think ze's crazy, but I might think ze's wrong.

This is about where I stopped thinking you had much to say.

Care to elaborate?

Making a blanket statement that you think all followers of a given faith are crazy is one of those queues that you probably don't have much in the way of reasonable discourse or intelligent comments as followup.

I added bold tags to a word to assist your reading comprehension.

That's it. It just so happens that society's norm for a large part of the world are the Abrahamic religions, so Mormons and Scientologists seem a bit off.

Mormonism is just a branch of Christianity, is I don't get how it's not Abrahamic.

[PeterCai]

If you want to draw the line at populations, Mormonism and Rastafarianism seem to have a decentish number of followers, and if examined by their founders, I would certainly say they were nothing more than wacky cults. But then, all religions kind of start as such.

I think you misunderstood me. Population is certainly not the only deciding factor. The religion's social status as a whole must be considered. The two examples you provided both contained major contradictions with the current narrative (primitivism vs modernism, zionism vs globalism) , making them unacceptable by society at large, which is why they are viewed as wacky and cult-like.

The difference between a cult and a religion is the deviation of the group's beliefs from society's norm.

My point exactly

[Izawwlgood]

@PeterCai: I wasn't suggesting you claimed population is a metric, I was bringing it up in light of your point.

I added bold tags to a word to assist your reading comprehension.

Yes, and my point still stands. Why, for example, do you think that Islam is 'wrong', while anything else isn't? Or is?