(April 21, 2017 at 2:58 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(April 21, 2017 at 9:18 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Yeah, the moral couldn't possibly be 'don't be the kind of poster who has earned distrust and suspicion due to their history.'
What cult did you belong to or deal with?
By cult, I mostly mean it in the Christian sense of unorthodox group. I dealt with some Jehovah Witnesses on a number of occasions (on another forum). There was also, a number of small groups or even individuals who had some pretty wacko ideas. Come to think of it, a conversation on authority would have been good there to. But I did notice a distrust and a constant questioning of motives, from anything that was outside of the group or individual.
(April 21, 2017 at 9:34 am)Brian37 Wrote: Neo just backhandedly called atheist a cult, and I am sure he won't admit it.
No Neo, sorry, while the word "atheist" certainly doesn't have any magic power to make us only do good, it still is not a gang or a cult, the word merely means "off". And we don't always agree on politics or economics. I get tired of repeating that there are atheist who voted for Trump, other atheists like Che who lead to Castro's Cuba, I hate both of those attitudes.
We are not a cult, we have no secret handshake, we do not eat babies nor drink goats blood. We will not rape your women. If an individual atheist does bad, that only makes that individual bad. But we are still capable of obeying the law and being non violent and GASP even protecting the rights of the religious.
He wants us to be his evil boogieman and is upset when we wont let him paint us like that collectively.
Incorrect again (I would have thought you should get one correct by dumb luck by now) Perhaps I need to be more careful about what I didn't say!
I'll make you a deal... I'll do my best to not do what you keep thinking I'm doing. You stop trying to argue for me, or making assumptions based on what you think I beleive.
Why did you use the word "cult"? Now think carefully because the "I am not like the others" as a ploy just to go back to the "Stalin/Hitler/Po Pot" garbage. I do happen to think those monsters created a cult of personality and gained power, but even their rise started out by small unrest. But all of them at the same time convinced a majority of religious people to follow them.
Keep in mind I have been at this 16 years. Mormons and JWs were cults but aren't called that now, but you don't want to accept that the first Christians were also considered "cults". Scientology, that one baffles me the most because everyone knew back then when he wrote his best seller 'Diannetics"(sp) everyone knew he was a si fi writer.
I can forgive the gullibility of the early JWS and even the first Mormons, and even the first Christians, but we know better now.
"I am not like the others"? Why because they are smaller? Or because you think "Brian you picked the wrong sect" or "You don't have the correct interpretation" will work on me?
You will try to convince yourself I am a boogieman or lost puppy to save. You thought that even before you signed up here. Otherwise why are you hear?
1. Argument from tradition, does not equal fact.
2. Argument from popularity does not equal fact.
3. My interpretation does not equal fact.
4. Quoting a holy writing of any religious label worldwide is circular reasoning, that also doesn't equal fact.
5. An apologist is not neutral, and every religion has followers who quote apologists, also not fact.
6. My holy writing matches science is something all religions pull, also not a valid tactic. Scientific method is neutral.
Now your argument is size of the sect? Nope, that is how all new religions start, small.
Now be careful how you respond, because I know your end game. This is not my first chess game and you are not the first Christian much less the only religion I have ever debated.