(May 16, 2014 at 12:17 am)Tea Earl Grey Hot Wrote: A cult is to religion what a tadpole is to a frog.

What society labels as cults do not generally bare any resemblance to religions. But I guess labels with negative connotations are more fun to throw around than consider seriously.

(May 16, 2014 at 12:24 am)Last Things Wrote:

(May 16, 2014 at 12:17 am)Tea Earl Grey Hot Wrote: A cult is to religion what a tadpole is to a frog.

What society labels as cults do not generally bare any resemblance to religions. But I guess labels with negative connotations are more fun to throw around than consider seriously.

Neither do tadpoles. They look like giant sperm with eyes.

(May 16, 2014 at 12:26 am)Tea Earl Grey Hot Wrote:

(May 16, 2014 at 12:24 am)Last Things Wrote: What society labels as cults do not generally bare any resemblance to religions. But I guess labels with negative connotations are more fun to throw around than consider seriously.

Neither do tadpoles. They look like giant sperm with eyes.

Failed logic.

Tadpoles do not look like frogs.
Tadpoles becomes frogs.
Therefore a thing that does not look like another thing becomes that thing.

(May 16, 2014 at 12:34 am)Last Things Wrote:

(May 16, 2014 at 12:26 am)Tea Earl Grey Hot Wrote: Neither do tadpoles. They look like giant sperm with eyes.

Failed logic.

Tadpoles do not look like frogs.
Tadpoles becomes frogs.
Therefore a thing that does not look like another thing becomes that thing.

That's not my logic. If you watch tadpoles, they turn into frogs. If you watch cults, they (if they're successful) turn into religions.

(May 16, 2014 at 12:37 am)Tea Earl Grey Hot Wrote:

(May 16, 2014 at 12:34 am)Last Things Wrote: Failed logic.

Tadpoles do not look like frogs.
Tadpoles becomes frogs.
Therefore a thing that does not look like another thing becomes that thing.

That's not my logic. If you watch tadpoles, they turn into frogs. If you watch cults, they (if they're successful) turn into religions.

However you want to argue it, you are saying that tadpoles become frogs and cults becomes religions. The example of the tadpoles becoming frogs has no bearing on the unsubstantiated claim that (successful) cults become religions. Such a claim requires evidence which tadpoles becoming frogs has nothing to do with.

(May 16, 2014 at 12:44 am)Last Things Wrote:

(May 16, 2014 at 12:37 am)Tea Earl Grey Hot Wrote: That's not my logic. If you watch tadpoles, they turn into frogs. If you watch cults, they (if they're successful) turn into religions.

However you want to argue it, you are saying that tadpoles become frogs and cults becomes religions. The example of the tadpoles becoming frogs has no bearing on the unsubstantiated claim that (successful) cults become religions. Such a claim requires evidence which tadpoles becoming frogs has nothing to do with.

It was just an analogy. Geez.

(May 16, 2014 at 12:24 am)Last Things Wrote:

(May 16, 2014 at 12:17 am)Tea Earl Grey Hot Wrote: A cult is to religion what a tadpole is to a frog.

What society labels as cults do not generally bare any resemblance to religions.

Actually they do. And it's because of that huge resemblance that the difference between a cult and a religion is so hard to see. That's why I started this thread in the first place. To see if there was a fact that I didn't take in count. And that most of the replies agreed with me in some level gives me the reason.

(May 16, 2014 at 1:12 am)Zidneya Wrote:

(May 16, 2014 at 12:24 am)Last Things Wrote: What society labels as cults do not generally bare any resemblance to religions.

Actually they do. And it's because of that huge resemblance that the difference between a cult and a religion is so hard to see. That's why I started this thread in the first place. To see if there was a fact that I didn't take in count. And that most of the replies agreed with me in some level gives me the reason.

Finding non-religious people in agreement that may tend to be antagonistic to religion does not form a reasonable conclusion. Put if you just wanted to hear what you expected to hear, I guess that makes sense.

(May 14, 2014 at 8:21 am)Godslayer Wrote:

(May 12, 2014 at 7:11 pm)psychoslice Wrote: Yep your right, and that is why I am sticking to what I have said.

This proves that you're not willing to rethink things or stay skeptical of yourself at all times.

I have been thinking that way, and this was my conclusion, its what I have found to be true in my own life.

(May 16, 2014 at 12:12 am)Last Things Wrote: The definition of cult is generally subjective. However, society generally defines them when they have:
1) A charismatic leader who is the center and absolute authority of the group. What is said one day can change the next
2) The group encourages an individual to be submissive and not exercise critical thinking. Questioning is not a good trait that leads to truth and discovery, rather it is a bad thing as it undermines the authority of the leader
3) The group absorbs all property and money of the individual
4) The group discourages or disconnects a person from their family and friends
5) The group takes away autonomy and individuality. Rather than helping the person become more independent, they become more reliant upon the group for all decisions involving their life

A cult could therefore be religious or non-religious.

I am inclined to agree, since being the member of what you describe as a cult does probably make one qualified to describe what makes a cult.