Definition of a cult

Originally posted by FMF
No it's not "absolutely useless", robbie. It is the absolute essence of ascertaining the actual meaning of a word and how it is used. One must always attempt to define a word on the basis of how people perceive the thing that the word is attached to and describes.

you do that and let those who wish to examine empirical evidence based upon the actual behaviour of cults do so and yes, it is absolutely useless. It amounts to nothing more than appeal to opinion.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
because its irrelevant.

It is not "irrelevant" at all. How can the meaning that is attached to a word by those who use it be "irrelevant" when trying to find the meaning that is attached to a word by those who use it?

Originally posted by FMF
It is not "irrelevant" at all. How can the meaning that is attached to a word by those who use it be "irrelevant" when trying to find the meaning that is attached to a word by those who use it?

yes it is irrelevant because it does not seek to establish that which can be examined empirically and i will waste no more time upon its futility.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you do that and let those who wish to examine empirical evidence based upon the actual behaviour of cults do so and yes, it is absolutely useless.

People who disapprove of the behaviour of a group, for the kinds of reasons I detailed, will call the group a "cult". People who do not disapprove of the behaviour of the said group will not call the group a "cult". So the word "cult" is all about the perception of the group and its behaviour.

Originally posted by FMF
People who disapprove of the behaviour of a group, for the kinds of reasons I detailed, will call the group a "cult". People who do not disapprove of the behaviour of the said group will not call the group a "cult". So the word "cult" is all about the perception of the group and its behaviour.

cult behavior is not defined by the way people perceive it, is it, its defined by the behavior of its members that's why your insistence on examining perceptions is irrelevant, useless and altogether quite futile, but if you wish to pursue it be my guest, I will give it no more thought knowing that its a futile, irrelevant and practically useless.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes it is irrelevant because it does not seek to establish that which can be examined empirically and i will waste no more time upon its futility.

"That which can be examined empirically"? Mmm. I have a feeling you want to conjure up a definition of the word "cult" that you reckon cannot be applied to your organization by anyone, but can be applied to other groups. Standing in your way is the fact that the word "cult" gets its meaning from the way people actually use it, regardless of whether or not you agree with the way they do, and regardless of whether or not you claim to be using 'scientific methodology'. If someone describes your organization as a "cult" it means yours is a group that they perceive negatively [for reasons like those I went through]. Such is the meaning of the word "cult" when it is used by English speakers.

Originally posted by FMF
"That which can be examined empirically"? Mmm. I have a feeling you want to conjure up a definition of the word "cult" that you reckon cannot be applied to your organization by anyone, but can be applied to other groups. Standing in your way is the fact that the word "cult" gets its meaning from the way people actually use it, regardless of whether or not you ag ...[text shortened]... hrough]. Such is the meaning of the word "cult" when it is used by English speakers.

I have a feeling you want to conjure up a definition of the word "cult" that you reckon cannot be applied to your organization by anyone.

Bingo!! Hence why Robbie has stuck two criteria to his list which he knows cannot describe the JW's (Charismatic leader and secrecy) and ignored the criteria which can describe the JW's.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
cult behavior is not defined by the way people perceive it, its defined by the behavior of its members ....

The word "cult" is a subjective and judgmental word applied to a group whose behaviour has attributes like the ones I wrote about earlier and which you have totally ignored.

Originally posted by FMF
"That which can be examined empirically"? Mmm. I have a feeling you want to conjure up a definition of the word "cult" that you reckon cannot be applied to your organization by anyone, but can be applied to other groups. Standing in your way is the fact that the word "cult" gets its meaning from the way people actually use it, regardless of whether or not you ag ...[text shortened]... hrough]. Such is the meaning of the word "cult" when it is used by English speakers.

you are free to produce any empirical evidence that you wish, as far as i am aware the scientific method has been approved for establishing criteria for nigh on 150 years or more.

Originally posted by FMF
"That which can be examined empirically"? Mmm. I have a feeling you want to conjure up a definition of the word "cult" that you reckon cannot be applied to your organization by anyone, but can be applied to other groups. Standing in your way is the fact that the word "cult" gets its meaning from the way people actually use it, regardless of whether or not you ag ...[text shortened]... hrough]. Such is the meaning of the word "cult" when it is used by English speakers.

Precisely.

Well argued.

Originally posted by FMF
The word "cult" is a subjective and judgmental word applied to a group whose behaviour has attributes like the ones I wrote about earlier and which you have totally ignored.

yes because i am uninterested in defining a term through the mere opinion of others preferring empirical evidence.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you are free to produce any empirical evidence that you wish, as far as i am aware the scientific method has been approved for establishing criteria for nigh on 150 years or more.

You know nothing of the scientific method or how to use it.

And you are hypocritical in the extreme to talk of applying the scientific method whilst
simultaneously dismissing almost all that it has discovered in the last 150 years.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes because i am uninterested in defining a term through the mere opinion of others preferring empirical evidence.

However it's not up to you to define the term.

You are free to define it any way you like but everyone else will ignore you and continue to use it as they see fit.


If the exercise is to see what people generally mean when they use it then how it
is popularly used is germane.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Precisely.

Well argued.

I see, so you refer the opinions of others to the scientific method, how very interesting, i would have thought that a rampant materialist would have found no objection to establishing criteria which can be established through observation, wow, how wrong could i be, it really does seem that opinion and dogma have taken the day over that which can be established empirically, oh well.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I will give it no more thought knowing that its a futile, irrelevant and practically useless.

I reckon I made a really good stab at defining this contentious word. If you find my offering futile, irrelevant, useless, duplicitous, obfuscating, or uninteresting, as you say you do, why don't you have a go?