02 Feb 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou've given me a link to a 7,000 word article. I'm sure it contains plenty of workable definitions.
please educate yourself on how cults are defined,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
I've got a dictionary here that offers these three definitions:
1. An interest followed with exaggerated zeal.
2. A system of religious beliefs and rituals.
3. Adherents of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices.
There is no onus on either of us to accept these three, or indeed your wiki article, as the be all and end all with regard to what the word "cult" actually means when it used by people describing groups they disapprove of.
Originally posted by Proper Knobyes i read it a while back, but i will need to find it, even so, by this definition the ancient Athenians were a cult as were all who banished anyone as perceived misdemeanants, i don't think your criteria is likely to stand up to scrutiny, its on very shaky ground already.
If there were tribes of native Americans who practiced shunning, then yes we can describe them as a cult. I'll probably guess they had charismatic leaders as well.
Have you got any empirical scientific data that tribes of native Americans actually did practice shunning? Remember it needs to be 'observed'.
02 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou read it a while back? Sorry Rob, we're dealing with the scientific method here. Observable empirical data only please. They were your rules.
yes i read it a while back, but i will need to find it, even so, by this definition the ancient Athenians were a cult as were all who banished anyone as perceived misdemeanants, i don't think your criteria is likely to stand up to scrutiny, its on very shaky ground already.
Athenians? Empirical data please.
02 Feb 13
Originally posted by Proper Knobsigh, why am I doubted?
You read it a while back? Sorry Rob, we're dealing with the scientific method here. Observable empirical data only please. They were your rules.
Athenians? Empirical data please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
02 Feb 13
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere is a (possibly apocryphal) story about a computer system that was developed
you observe those that are deemed to be cults or have the designation cult applied to them and observe what behavior has resulted in this appellation being applied and whether its justified or not. Thus as I have demonstrated, the Branch
Dravidians, the Aum Shinrikyo and the Scientology movement had charismatic leaders who defined their respective ...[text shortened]... n of the scientific method. Why it should be so controversial, i cannot say, but there you are.
for the army (US) to detect tanks.
The programmers developed a learning AI that they trained using pictures of tanks and
pictures without tanks.
When they had it trained they gave it a new set of pictures of tanks and pictures of not
tanks and it accurately and correctly identified every picture with tanks in.
They then handed it to the army who tested it and came back and said that the system
was totally useless and couldn't detect tanks at all.
It turned out that in the training and test photos all the pictures of tanks were on cloudy
days and the pictures of not tanks were sunny days and what the program had learned to
do was tell the difference between sunny days and cloudy days.
The moral of this is that even if you are given a set of organisations that are labelled as
cults and you try to analyse those organisations to see what features they have in common
to create a "cult detection" algorithm you cannot guarantee that the algorithm you generate
will have the same outcome as the algorithm used to generate your initial sample list.
The only way to guarantee that is to specify up front all instances of cults in which case you
are defining the set by listing it's members.
This is particularly true as the term cult refers to a set who's members are not fixed by universal
definition and will vary depending on who you are talking to.
A possible way of looking at this might be that what someone classes as stupid and idiotic can vary
hugely from person to person without those words ceasing to be useful or meaningful.
02 Feb 13
Originally posted by Proper Knobhttp://books.google.co.uk/[WORD TOO LONG]
So if i can find other groups who have charismatic leaders and other groups who operate on a level of secrecy we would see that your definition doesn't stand up to falsification either.
link to the book ostracism, the power of silence, specifically mentioned are the Pathans of the NWFP, Pakistan, the Slavic tribes of Montenegro, Western Apache Culture, Aboriginal people of Northern territories,
therefore either, all of these are considered to be cults or ostracism is not a part of the defining criteria of a cult.
02 Feb 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo if i can find other groups who have charismatic leaders and other groups who operate on a level of secrecy we would see that your definition doesn't stand up to falsification either.
http://books.google.co.uk/[WORD TOO LONG]
link to the book ostracism, the power of silence, specifically mentioned are the Pathans of the NWFP, Pakistan, the Slavic tribes of Montenegro, Western Apache Culture, Aboriginal people of Nort ...[text shortened]... these are considered to be cults or ostracism is not a part of the defining criteria of a cult.
Originally posted by Proper Knobyou may proceed, i have been an advocate of the scientific method in the face of almost insurmountable prejudice and have nothing to fear.
So if i can find other groups who have charismatic leaders and other groups who operate on a level of secrecy we would see that your definition doesn't stand up to falsification either.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
02 Feb 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNot true.
http://books.google.co.uk/[WORD TOO LONG]
link to the book ostracism, the power of silence, specifically mentioned are the Pathans of the NWFP, Pakistan, the Slavic tribes of Montenegro, Western Apache Culture, Aboriginal people of Nort ...[text shortened]... these are considered to be cults or ostracism is not a part of the defining criteria of a cult.
A definition of cult could include ostracism as a criteria while people who ostracise are not
counted as cults IF ostracism is ONE of the criteria and those groups not counted don't
match any/all of the other criteria.
So for example if the definition of cult were that you had to be a religious group that ostracised
people who didn't toe the line (or whatever) then no group that ostracised people but that wasn't
a religion would qualify.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
02 Feb 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHAH!
you may proceed, i have been an advocate of the scientific method in the face of almost insurmountable prejudice and have nothing to fear.
Again you fail to understand what the scientific method is or how it works.
And again you are a hypocrite for claiming to follow the scientific method when
you reject almost all of its findings.
When you accept evolution and the standard model in physics and cease to
believe in imaginary beings with no evidence THEN you might be able talk about
using the scientific method but until then you are just a hypocrite.
02 Feb 13
Originally posted by Proper KnobBarack Obama does not define the ethos of the American federal government, FAIL
Barack Obama, Richard Branson, Steve Jobs, Ghandi, Malcom X etc etc.
Richard Branson does not define the business laws under which his companies operate, EPIC FAIL
Steve Jobs, yes, cult leader
Gandhi? not sure why he is here, again passive resistance operated under laws established not by Gandhi, but by others, EPIC FAIL OF BIBLICAL PROPORTIONS
Malcolm X, don't know enough about to make a reasoned decision
All in all you FAIL and my premise stands like a cockerel crowing upon a fence in bright sunshine in the morning haze.
02 Feb 13
Here is some evidence from witnesses themselves; I say it is first hand evidence. However robbie carrobie and Galveston are not permitted to read this stuff due to the rules in their organisation - doesn't that in itself say something powerful...?
http://www.exjw-reunited.co.uk/
http://www.reddit.com/r/exjw
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1250078/The-knock-door-turned-parents-brainwashed-fanatics--nearly-cost-life.html
http://jwrecovery.org/2009/09/are-jehovahs-witnesses-a-cult/
This final link includes an article asking if the JWs are a religion or a cult. However, 20 mins trawling through the plethora of horror stories witnessed by ex-witnesses will give the reader sufficient evidence that this morbid clan is indeed a cult by one definition or another.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFrom your link:
please educate yourself on how cults are defined,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
"The word cult in current popular usage usually refers to a new religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre by the larger society."
Here is the rather more detailed definition I offered many pages ago:
"Cult", noun: a subjective term used to refer to a group about which the user of the word disapproves or is sceptical. This critical view is rooted in what is seen as the group's tendency to set itself apart, which it does through the development of a shared dogma [which the user of the word does not share] and by cultivating a shared sense of exceptionalism [which the user of the word does not approve of]. The word "cult" is commonly used to describe groups who are perceived as engaging in intellectual and interpersonal behaviour that seeks to protect the group and the groupist spirit from all that is outside the group. These outside entities and perceptions are seen as almost invariably threatening and hostile, and this perceived hostility very often serves to reaffirm the members' sense of exceptionalism.