Marks of a cult [Trollville]
Offline What is a cult? What does one look like and how does it act?
Are all cults religious or is it possible for a cult to be non-religious? Marketing cults, such as Amway, are non-religious and pseudo-religious - they are not necessarily theistic.
It therefore follows that it is possible to be cultic - that is under the influence of mind control, and therefore irrational - without being theistic.
What is a cult? What does one look like and how does it act?
A cult needs formation, it needs a person with an overblown sense of themself and an ability to blag that onto other people, to start it. These people are good enough at rhetoric and self promotion to get enough people to believe that they are what they make themselves out to be: a person of insight, a leader, a thinker. They see themselves as natural leaders and people of insight, and they are successful at conning some people into seeing them as such.
Next there needs to be some ideal: something which sets the group apart, something unassailable and profound. This can be God, or money, or unGod. For a cult this hook must be stressed and packaged as something of value. Most cultic information is only available to insiders: Scientologists charge you a fee, the Moonies practically kidnap and brainwash you, the JWs come and sit in your lounge and some mustachioed ponce for unGod comes over your internetz.
Cults will generally be unaccountable in their finances, keeping an accounting system which involves certain hidden factors and non-disclosures. The Watchtower Society sells its literature to the public by pressuring JWs to pay up front for the literature they distribute, and then to contribute any payment they might receive from the public in "voluntary donations". This way they keep free of sales tax. All cults have questionable accounts and none are fully transparent.
To be in a cult will cost money and time.
A cult will have a defined identity that its followers will be encouraged to adopt.
A cult will not tolerate criticism.
People who criticise a cult from within will be removed: a term Orwell coined is "unperson". They will no longer be considered to be a voice worth listening to.
All cults get involved in quack-science and poor scholarship. The quack science will be advanced by those in the echelons who have sufficient grasp of science to sound knowledgable while getting away with the most egregious non-sequitors undetected; and the fake scholarship will be advanced by those zealous enough to provide vaguely credible scholarly support. Fred Franz was typical of this crowd: they fail miserably at academia but gain enough to think that they are better: the result is that they put themselves up as credible scholars on dubious grounds, but of course the rubes are encouraged not to question this.
Scientific quackery is only what is in line with the cult, this may range from the pseudo-geology of YEC flood apologetics through to the fake-psychology of L.Ron Hubbard inc. In between are a myriad of pseudo-science dogmas masquerading as fact advanced by a wide range of self-proclaimed experts and commentators.
Membership is important to cults, and they pass by no opportunity to remind people - especially their followers - just how successful they are. They will spin whatever numerical markers they can in order to make themselves appear "mainstream", "popular" or "in touch". Stats matter to cults, but only the right stats.
Am I missing anything? Yeah: RRS bears the hallmarks of a wannabe cult.
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:No it's ok, you just assert that Rook is a "teacher" now (how many different headings can one guy receive?) and I'll just smile at it.Quote:"Teacher".Yes. Teacher. There has been plenty of bitching about Rook's lack of degree and credentials. You'll probably have to take a number on that one.
To be a "teacher" requires only that one teach. That doesn't mean what he's teaching is true, false, noble, reprehensible, logical, or complete nonsense. I'll point out here that the quote you're replying to in that is acknowledging that while Rook may endeavor to teach, there is obviously criticism regarding his qualifications to do so. You do remember suggesting that cults don't tolerate criticism, right?
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
- Login to post comments
Offline No it's ok, you just assert that Rook is a "teacher" now (how many different headings can one guy receive?) and I'll just smile at it.
Hold on. From the original context, I thought the reference was to Rook's teacher, not to Rook being a teacher. Not that it matters, really. I just think there's some cross-talk here.
Ok so everyone is aware of where their money goes when they hand it over, or else they don't care. Well since it isn't the former (there are no public accounts) then it can only be the latter, unless that is a false dichotomy.
There's a third option: we can contingently trust Brian and Kelly and Rook not to lie to us, until proven otherwise. Of course, you might construe this as cultish behaviour, but it isn't significantly different from other websites of this size and tenor. Of course, that doesn't address the possibility that those other websites might also be cultish.
Well I was assuming that they would think it went towards tangible things to do with the running of the RRS, rather than just being absorbed into Brian's pocket if he so chooses. But, as you say, everyone knows Brian helps himself, and they don't mind paying him. Fine by me, it's not my money he's getting drunk on.
Even not-for-profit websites pay their admins, and often their contributors. Since this isn't a not-for-profit website, I think one could reasonably assume somebody's getting paid for their time. As you say, there's no open books for us to examine. However, I do believe Kelly is speaking honestly when she said both she and Rook work, and Brian is spending his own money.
Thanks for your responses.
Good luck and best wishes.
And to you. It was an interesting troll, and you presented some potentially valid points in all of it. Your conclusion is illogical, but you wouldn't've gotten the troll reaction if you'd just come in and stated your potentially valid points.
Have fun.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Offline Wow. So any financially self-sustaining membership-driven organization would appear to be a cult. Cub Scouts, for instance. The Girls Scouts get their members to sell merchandise for profit. Now that's a cult. But their dogma-laced cookies are quite delicious.
I believe there has to be some form of blind acceptance of dogma to go along with "cult" status.
These are views held by some of the founding members. Fine. I don't accept them. Neither do many of the people here. That's in direct contrast to a cult, in which the words of the founders are accepted unquestioningly.
Also, the founding members don't ban people for pointing out that these assertions are not accepted by all. Again, this is in direct contradiction to the characteristics of a cult.
Also in direct contrast to the characteristics of a cult would be to adopt a position of ambivalence where the data is inconclusive: this they do not do but press in with claims of mythicism and diagnoses of mental illness.
Pretty much every website tries to up its membership by increasing visibility. What you're describing isn't a "cult," it's the internet.
So you are saying it is normal behaviour to:
1. work out a way to massage the stats in your favour.
2. encourage people to act in this way (install alexa and other browser plugins) to up the stats count.
3. Claim, once the stats have been so massaged, to be #1.
Since that is what happened, then if that's normal behaviour we'll have to disagree as to "normal", forget trying to ascertain whether such behaviour is rational/pragmatic versus attention whoring.
Quote:Wow, you guys sure are good at not reading something when it suits you to not get it.
Okay, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. However, if we're not getting it, perhaps you are not making a clear distinction between shameless self-promotion for the sake of building website membership, and building membership for a cult.
Shameless self promotion is a facet of someone irrationally wedded to their own ego, whatever their ultimate intention. Cults are generally formed by people of such personality traits. Whether the RRS founders display those traits is up to you to decide for yourself. I just wanted you to think about it.
Before you go into the "won't pay your dinner, get a real job" schtick again, let me point out than running a website is a real job. They are providing a service. I have not been a paying member, and I have never been criticized for my leeching. I will have to change that come next payday.
Enjoy.
nigelTheBold wrote:The stop using it as a definition.
I'm not. It is a description: it says what cults look like, not what they are. What they are is not covered by my terms therefore it is not a definition of a cult. Are you all this logically challenged? I find it easier to get theists to see the logical inconsistencies in their pet God-proof than I do getting you guys to actually pay attention to the words and intent and stop slipping off on them.
Hey, thanks for saying I'm logically challenged! I guess I'm too stupid to see that you are attempting to define RRS as a cult, and are using a description as if it were a definition. Yeah, we're all too stupid to see through idiocy like that.
Is the definition of psychosis the same as the diagnostic criteria? No. Psychosis has a definition and a set of associated behaviours that come together to form the diagnosis. The same is true when diagnosing anything: a definition of gravity is not required for there to be a law of gravity: the law says what gravity does (what observables will be found) while the theory of gravity conceptualises the definition of gravity: curvature/warping of space-time or force at a distance. The definition and the physical characteristics are not the same.
It is perfectly legitimate to list behavioural criteria for diagnosis purposes: this is how things progress in the real world.
My saying you are logically challenged is directly related to your ignorance of this fundamental distinction between a thing (how it is defined) and the phenomena it produces (how it is detected).
MANY things fit your description that are not cults, as has been demonstrated. And so, your argument is insufficient to identify RRS as a cult. Now, I see you place "wannabe" is as a qualifier. This does nothing more than weaken your assertion, which I assume you did intentionally, so there could be no logical argument against your insufficiency.
I have presented objective descriptions of certain factors which are observed to be the case in organisations which answer to the definition of the word "cult". I have said off the back of that that I think the RRS is a wannabe cult: in that it is ticking some of the boxes and may go on to tick more.
In the process I have questioned certain matters of financial propriety and accountability, I have questioned certain arguments and positions put forward by the RRS, with which the RRS is recognisably linked.
The point is, we're slipping off them because you're wrong. There are many supportable accusations you could lay at the feet of the RRS founders -- and you have done so. Claiming theism as a mental illness, for instance, is about as accurate as saying belief in UFOs or ghosts is a mental illness. Claiming they are making some profit off the running of the site is a potential goldmine, if anyone here really cared, or we thought they were living in mansions and driving expensive cars, rather than working real jobs and doing this in their free time. Hell, I mean, that guy who started Facebook is a billionaire. What the fuck's up with that? (I'm not being sardonic here. I'm serious.)
But you don't stick to that. You try to push it into illogical territory. This, plus your methods of doing so, indicate intellectual dishonesty, so it's hard to take you as other than a troll.
"These are come characteristics typical of cults", "I think that the RRS exhibits some of these characteristics". Sure you can disagree with me as to whether those characteristics are really exhibited but you've pretty much admitted that you don't really know one way or the other as you haven't really thought about it before. At least now you are thinking about it.
I have cited the banning of Rathpig as an example of unwanted criticism simply being swept aside, and I have also mentioned Brian's irrational fear of anon.
YouAre Right wrote:No great insight, but you know what: you're nearly there. All social organisations can be seen to exist on a continuum: where one might put wholly altruistic and open organisations at one end and highly controlling and anti-criticism (closed) organisations at the other. How then do we differentiate? By making note of the characteristics which change along the continuum: openness and frankness through to shout-downs and verbal heckling, gentle discussion versus threats and harrassment, etc etc. Yes Brian Sapient has threatened and heckled and shouted down critics.
Now we're getting somewhere.
That's Sapient. There are others here who do that as well. I believe we call that "humanity."
I have also been involved in some excellent discussions here with people of completely different viewpoints about rationality and belief. It can be frustrating sometimes, and I do sometimes behave like a prick, but only when I believe someone is not being honest, or is hiding their motives (perhaps even to themselves). If I cross a line, I apologize.Here's what makes RRS different from a cult: we don't all behave like Brian Sapient.
Each person here is distinct. We are even willing to disagree with Sapient, or Kelly, or Rook, if we feel they are wrong. They don't insist we don't question them. They defend their positions vigorously, and they are intelligent; and they are also abbrassive at times. (Well, not Rook, near as I can tell.)
Criticism is naturally met with a bit of aggression. Nobody likes to be criticised, especially the way you did it, with innuendo and ridiculous conclusions designed to annoy. C'mon. What was the point of calling it a "wannabe" cult?
If Brian were really trying to build a cult, he sure wouldn't be doing it the way he does. He doesn't have the charisma to build a cult, anyway.
They're building a community, just like everybody else. Theirs is no more and no less cultish than any other community out there. The folks at Slashdot did the same thing with the tech community. People there can be assholes, too (especially in the early days). For /., it helped that CmdrTaco is a good guy; but that's a personality difference, not a difference of intent.
For your scale, I'd say RRS falls right in the middle, just about where most other community-based websites fall.
YouAre Right wrote:He also tried to sleight Richard Dawkins and a member of his staff for no objective reason at a time which corresponded to the RDFRS distancing itself from the RRS. One might conclude the "Sapient" was getting revenge for the hurt he felt, or one might at least consider that a possibility. Then when we see a history of legal threats and bullying, irrational behaviour that has caused many free-thinkers to see the RRS as little more than a teen angst filled joke created by a thirty-something never-grew-up and his buddies.
Sure. He might have felt upset, and said or done something stupid. He might regularly get upset and say or do stupid things. Sapient might be a petulent brat. I don't know him. I have read his posts enough to know he is intelligent, and he has a lot emotionally invested in this site. Other than that, I really don't know him.
Me, I hardly ever read the journal entries here. I stay in the forums. Why? Because that's where the interesting stuff is. That's where HisWillnes and maglium and jcgadfly and ProzacDeathWish and Eloise and deludedgod all hang out. And I like them. I enjoy interacting with them.
I've tried RDFRS. It's okay. There are some really intelligent folks there. But in the end, I didn't enjoy hanging out there as much. It seemed too dry. Too self-consciously intellectual. Too erudite for my taste.
I know, we're just a bunch of plebians. I don't deny it, when you compare us to RDFRS. We're like Budwieser to your Anchor Steam. (Mmmm. Anchor Steam.)
YouAre Right wrote:Quote:The key defining factors of a cult are a dogmatic willingness to accept the leaders as divinely-inspired,
Wrong at first point. Nobody defines L.Ron Hubbard as divinely inspired, and the leaders of Jehovah's Witnesses specifically claim not to be divinely inspired. Two counter-example off the top of my head which falsify your point.
But the members accept them as divinely-inspired nonetheless. I know both JWs and Scientologists, and they do believe their leaders are unerringly correct, and recieve their information from supernatural or fantastic sources. However, I'll give up that claim as the next is more relevent.
YouAre Right wrote:Quote:and the willingness of the members to subjugate themselves to the leaders.
Close, but you're missing the point: they don't realise they're doing it so they don't actually "will" it: they have had their rational cognitive capacities side-lined and bypassed and cognitive dissonance prevents them from acknowledging it easily.
As I said, I have seen people disagree with the founding members. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. As it turns out, we don't generally disagree with each other here, too much. However, if Sapient or Kelly or Rook said something that was patently false, or even poorly-argued, most of us would be willing to point it out, if it fell in the realm of our understanding.
That's part of the reason I don't generally read Kelly or Rook, though. Their areas of expertise are outside my own areas of knowlege and interest.
I see what you mean, though. I don't remember a damned thing from my first speech class in college, save this: "Don't worry about the people you disagree with. It's the people you agree with that are most dangerous." It was a profound point, one which I had not considred before.
....
For the most part, the OP was general enough to include pretty much every single social organzation founded on common interest in the world. The only specific things identified were:
1) A charismatic leader who can hoodwink followers
2) Quack science
I don't think you've established either of these. The "quack science" is certainly the easiest to prove, but all you've done is establish that not many historians are interested in the Jesus mythos, and that theism isn't classified as a mental disorder.
I don't know enough about history or historians to dispute that claim, nor do I believe that theism is a mental disorder. However, the fact it isn't classified as a mental disorder is not a conclusive rebuttal, as there would be many political and social reasons to refrain from distinguishing it as such.
I don't believe it's a mental disorder, and I don't think there's enough evidence to support that it is.
There are certain aspects that match with the official definition of a mental disorder, but that merely reflects the difficulty of classifying mental illnesses, rather than proof of theism as a mental illness.
Are you always so intellectually dishonest? Thinly disguising your allegations in the form of a hypothetical is merely an attempt to claim the "ha-ha, only serious" defence.
Lol, I shouldn't have to defend my intellectual honesty against your reading comprehension issues: the words were there from the outset, you just failed to account for them in your rebuttal: but now I'm at fault because you had to move to where the argument actually is? Good one.
There's a whole lot of allegation with no evidence. None whatsoever. Present evidence, rather than innuendo; otherwise, you amount to nothing more than a poorly-argued troll.
I can't really do much more: I've spent the best part of my day responding as much as I can, most of that correcting misrepresentations of my point from people who could just have take five minutes longer before hitting submit.
Quote:So how about the lack of transparency and the fact the Brian sees the RRS as a business venture for the future: which will pay his keep and lodgings? Is that not evidence that Brian sees this as a business opportiunity? Why indeed it is, because that's what a business does: provides income. And as everyone around here is quick to point out: RRS isn't not for profit.
So it would seem that there is evidence for my the hypothetical after-all it goes like this:
1. I assert that Brian Sapient sees this as a business opportunity.
2. It is shown on this thread by Kelly that Brian uses money from RRS for his own sustenance.
point is already established.
Now, tie this in with other cultic behaviours such as lack of transparency, self-appointed expertism, attention whoring and rejection of all criticism in downright egregious terms often accompanied by threats and one could just as easily be talking about Scientology.
This is where your argument falls apart. Right now, you've established that the founding members may use some contributions to purchase food or lodging. You've established that Brian is an asshole. You've established that some assertions made by the founding members are not established fact. You've established that some of the founding members have an interest in researching things that may or may not be relevant, or even provide hope for rational discovery. You've established that Sapient perhaps wishes this to be a business venture, rather than having a "real" job.
(As an aside: running a website is a real job. And their business model isn't outside the typical models used by other low-volume sites.)
It's a huge leap to "cult."
Not at all, it is a gradual stepwise almost imperceptible evolution.
Cults are not established overnight, nor do they acquire their characteristics in one go - it is a continuum because it can be moved along.
Huge. And the comparison to Scientology is a bit off. If Sapient asked us to do something illegal, I suspect most of us would tell him to fuck off. I know I would.
Scientology makes lots of threats against those who seek to expose it, as spaient has made lots of threats against people who have threatened to expose him: even using a mangled understanding of civil/criminal law in order to send the police round to someone who had made one of Sapient's barmy emails public.
And this is what makes you a troll:
You take possibly defensible points, and use them to jump to a conclusion that is intended to stir up emotional debate, rather than focusing on the validity of your points.
Rather than engaging in productive discussion, you manufactured a controversial position, couched it in the most offensive terms possible, and posted it where it would stir up the strongest response.
You say none of this applies to you and I see no reason to argue that point. Your own opinion is sufficient for you to carry your position there.
As for my bets: I had to have some entertainment while embarking on this marathon.
But never mind, I'll sign off from RRS and from this thread unless there are any new points (please forgive me for not wanting to reconfirm and clarify every syllable for every member here - but I'm not a robot.
Thanks for your time and input.
Best Wishes etc,
- Login to post comments
NO, very wonderful and good ! 
and fun 
Do you disagree with me that a cult will exhibit strongly all of the characteristics listed in the OP?
No, but you skirted around them for some reason rather than deal with them outright.
Sure, but don't complain when I pull you up for the fact that the reason you give for your disagreement doesn't logically entail the point I was making: in that case it would not be a counter-point but instead a non-sequitur because of a previously misunderstood point .
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=714124#p714124
Just click and keep reading. Incidentally a number of people previously supportive of the RRS have changed position as a result of the things reported there and elsewhere.
Commentary on this thread starts here:
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=785258#p785258
There you go, there is a wider breadth of argument and observation there, feel free to join in and counter anything you disagree with.
There is a common mindset I've witnessed (and even been guilty of) in online forums that one can gain a certain status amongst ones percieved peers by getting banned/booted/delisted whatever from forums advocating ideas with which we don't agree.
It's a 'see how dangerous and right I am, they are skeeered of me...' kind of thing.
No matter that you actually have to hack the system, or perform some act that would get ANYONE banned, in your mind it was because you were such a threat to the 'man'...
LC >;-}>
Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.
Wow. So any financially self-sustaining membership-driven organization would appear to be a cult. Cub Scouts, for instance. The Girls Scouts get their members to sell merchandise for profit. Now that's a cult. But their dogma-laced cookies are quite delicious.
I believe there has to be some form of blind acceptance of dogma to go along with "cult" status.
Pretty much every website tries to up its membership by increasing visibility. What you're describing isn't a "cult," it's the internet.
The stop using it as a definition.
You have very specious arguments. Cults share many similarities with other social organizations, because, guess what? They are a social organization! Oh, wow. You've stumbled onto some great insight there.
The key defining factors of a cult are a dogmatic willingness to accept the leaders as divinely-inspired, and the willingness of the members to subjugate themselves to the leaders. None of the founders here have ever demonstrated a desire to enforce their views. They present their views, and are willing to defend them, but they certainly don't enforce them in any way.
How is this different from any other social organization founded on common interest?
Wow!
How many unfounded assertions are in those two paragraphs? There's a whole lot of allegation with no evidence. None whatsoever. Present evidence, rather than innuendo; otherwise, you amount to nothing more than a poorly-argued troll.
Oh, and for the record:
Hey, Sapient! Fuck off, you cult-forming bastard!
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Indeed, I was thinking the very same thing. This seems very similiar to when theists come and bet they will get banned for not agreeing on ideas and and arguing a different position. Then when they break an actual rule and get banned, they no doubt think their claim was vindicated.
(Note to OP:I'm not saying you're a theist, in case you tell them back at RD.net we pulled the christian troll card or something)
It just seems to me the point of this whole exercise is to goad people as far as you can then see if you get banned. At which point-victory! Though I do not believe for a second you would get banned without sufficient reason, like breaking one of the forum rules.
Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible
Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.
Ah. For Halloween, were you pot, or kettle?
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Or perhaps your intent is to imply some Freudian self-fulfilling wish?
Perhaps an "identity" model of human motivation might be more enlightening. I consider myself a committed rationalist and I seriously question the RRS, its founders, its rationale, its raison d'etre, its behaviour and its attitude. It is the fact that I identify with resurgent atheism and a renewed attempt to propagate enlightenment values - values which I hold as valuable and vital - which motivates me to come here and discuss here what I have been discussing elsewhere for weeks. I expect to get banned, like Rathpig was: did Rathpig do anything egregious? I didn't see anything, and I followed the thread throughout until Rathpig announced his banning from here at RDF/RnR.
I'm not looking for a ban, but I do have a few bets out as to when/how it will come. First off I got a tenner for the initial responses to the OP, and now I got more on double or quits for being called Assmunch (faux-humourous ad-hom) and a troll. Other commentators elsewhere were quick to spot Kelly's preparation of the ground: by labelling me an ass (which is bannable of course - according to the moderation standard outlined in this thread) and a possible troll.
But this form of labelling and categorisation to deflect criticism is typical of closed minded fundamentalists, or self-appointed cult-leaders with egos to defend. Since it is my premise that Brian, Kelly and Rook are this category of person, then I would naturally predict such behaviour. I did and it is epic win for my pocket so far: £40 and counting.
Double or quits on what Kelly, Brian or Rook come up with next, I could be making enough to pay for a years subs at this rate.
So what logical error will follow next? What simple point will be misrepresented back to me in another display of doublethink and rhetorical elision?
Will I be moved to troll-ville and have the addition of a funky avatar? Or will I just get a straight ban. We'll see.
I don't know Nigel. Have I promoted myself? I am anonymous, there is nothing to promote: you do not know me and have not come to know me through this thread.
Have I self-aggrandized? All I have done is offer up an argument which for many reasons exercises some of the members here. I gain nothing from that: no following, no extra-hits on my webspace, no money in any coffers.
So tell me Nigel, can you actually draw the symmetry you are poorly eluding to rather than hide behind a cryptic one liner? Some facts and reasoning would be good around now. People are watching, the internet is interested. Have you noticed how the server has slowed? What, it's always this slow? Not a very successful expansion then was it?
What is the daily volume of posts here? 100 ish?
And here's the real problem, folks. It seems YAR is upset because RRS claims to be the #1 Atheist Website, and has some Google stats. A little jealousy seems to go a loooong way.
How fucking childish.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
God, I hope not. If you're anything as you represent yourself here, you're a complete and utter prick.
Ah, yes. Nothing like a little condescension to convince me you don't have an overblown sense of yourself.
And again, the whole allusion to popularity. It certainly seems you have a hard-on about internet popularity. What was that other site you were promoting just a bit ago? Something about Richard Dawkins? Who's he?
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Theism is mental illness is arrived at through specious use of medical definitions and ad-hoc definitions of theism.
Jesus Mythicism is merely a mirror image of biblical literalism. both are dogmatic positions unsupported by evidence yet advanced unquestioningly and outside of the realm of objective criticism by people claiming knowledge.
He also tried to sleight Richard Dawkins and a member of his staff for no objective reason at a time which corresponded to the RDFRS distancing itself from the RRS. One might conclude the "Sapient" was getting revenge for the hurt he felt, or one might at least consider that a possibility. Then when we see a history of legal threats and bullying, irrational behaviour that has caused many free-thinkers to see the RRS as little more than a teen angst filled joke created by a thirty-something never-grew-up and his buddies.
So it would seem that there is evidence for my the hypothetical after-all it goes like this:
1. I assert that Brian Sapient sees this as a business opportunity.
2. It is shown on this thread by Kelly that Brian uses money from RRS for his own sustenance.
point is already established.
Now, tie this in with other cultic behaviours such as lack of transparency, self-appointed expertism, attention whoring and rejection of all criticism in downright egregious terms often accompanied by threats and one could just as easily be talking about Scientology.
Wow, you really are good at misrepresenting what people say. Is that covered in one of the academy courses?
I'm not the one making the claims of #1ness, RRS is. I'm just pointing out how some people make a point of stats - which you would note had you been reading for comprehension - which therefore implies that stats are not important to me? No? Is that too complcated for you.
Me: RRS bigs up its stats. Pretty sad and lame manipulation of stats in ordert to make claims of size for ad revenue.
You: You're the one hung up about stats.
Can you see what it is yet?
Well done, another non-sequitor, but this time with free projection. Goody: two for one.
It's called context, when you understand what all those things called words are meant to do you will come across a concept called meaning: from there you can move to a concept of how context can add or colour meaning. But it takes a willingness to look without finding excuses not to simply because you're trying to win an argument.
When you made those rhetorical remarks, you were passing them as a description of cult-like behavior in general. Your applying those criteria to the RRS founders came later. I agree that you were probably thinking specifically of the RRS founders when you jotted down those criteria, because your assessment was never impartial. You wanted them to fit the criteria from the beginning, and so they did.
Alright. I accept that you truly think the RRS is a cult.
But they have mentioned before that they don't mean it in the over-confident "we will convert any theist that signs up" sense. If it were me, I would change the tagline simply because it IS misleading in that way, but I don't run the website.
And you wouldn't be the only person who ever felt that way. She obviously doesn't seem to think so---at least not at this point---but she is allowed to think whatever she wants as long as she is prepared to defend it against anyone who questions.
I don't comment on it because I don't study psychology.
I'll leave that debate between you (or whatever other skeptic) and Kelly.
Maybe they are wrong. If their claim that religion is literally a mental disorder (or illness) is not very well substantiated or not substantiated at all, then I would agree that they should not act as if it were.
Oh, saved by the word "some". Thank goodness for hedging. =]
I would be surprised if anyone considered them "leaders". They're certainly not dolts, and they're respected for owning the domain and keeping the site up and running for the rest of us. They own the place and in that way they call the shots and are technically "authorities", but I would be surprised if anyone considered them authorities in the "leader" sense of the word, which seems to be the case you're making.
Subscribers receive no special treatment other than the fact that they are identified as subscribers and are allowed access to paid content. It has no affect on the social atmosphere of the site whatsoever. The subscribers and core members have no power over the unsubscribers or "outter" group unless they also happen to be mods.
No, it doesn't. You claimed atheism could be an ideology. I claimed that mere atheism cannot be an ideology. The RRS is not about mere atheism, which is how it is able to organize people under common interests. You could definitely organize around an ideology related to atheism (e.g. rationalism), but you could not organize people around mere atheism, since it is, by definition, a lack of an ideology.
The only way my counterpoint misses is in reference to your initial post that, in order to be a cult, the RRS would need some ideal to go on.
Well, they do have ideals to go on, but I don't see that that says very much as far as proving they are guilty of cult behavior.
It's no mystery to the founders or to the members that there are many people who don't care for or respect the RRS and what they do.
The RRS, like anything else, is not above questioning.
No doubt true, but I don't think we can accuse the RRS of "cashing in" on atheism, since they predate The God Delusion and most of the recent media buzz.
This was a response to your assertion that the founders offer irrational explanations that masquerade as being rational. You seem to be hung up on Kelly's assertion that theism is literally a mental illness. I was saying that if you disagree with that position, then you should maybe argue against that position.
But since this is the only instance of the RRS promoting "quack science" that you've offered, I don't think we can safely conclude that the RRS founders, as a whole, are endorsers of quack science. I don't even know that Kelly has ever passed her "mental illness" assertion as a verified scientific fact.
I was accusing you of flaming on the grounds that you seem to be going from "I think Kelly's assertion is bullshit" all the way to "therefore, Kelly's assertion is a cult behavior".
The only instance of irrationality you seem to have is Kelly's assertion that theism is literally a mental disorder, which, again, I'm not sure is being pushed as a verified scientific fact.
Yes. Teacher. There has been plenty of bitching about Rook's lack of degree and credentials. You'll probably have to take a number on that one.
They've never pretended that the site is not a source of personal income. They've never pretended to be non-profit or a charity. It is a typical website.
I won't speak for what does or does not make the subscribers happy. All I know is that I'm not even a subscriber and I was aware of this.
Again, since they are a commercial site and don't claim to be non-profit, I don't raise a fuss. Should they provide full transparency of where donation money goes? It would probably be a nice gesture, especially if those sending the donations were genuinely concerned that the money was being spent in a way they wouldn't like.
They are simply a commercial site that does a variety of things. As far as I can tell, those things include:
1) Conduct a radio show for discussing atheism, rationality, and issues related, often with guest appearances. (I'm sure you're aware that RD has dropped in before.)
2) Host a forum for discussing atheism, rationalisty, and issues related, also for debating, and for general forum yik-yak.
3) Collecting user-generated articles and essays related to atheism, science, philosophy, etc.
4) Blogging (founders and users)
5) Providing an outlet for those who have no one else with whom to discuss their lack of belief (RRS is admittedly not the only possible outlet)
6) Providing links to affiliated sites with similar interests/goals
7) Responding in blogs or forum posts to published articles and essays
I think it is probably his intention to run a website. Not an organization. But I'll let him speak for himself.
I don't know. I haven't sampled the content. If I didn't like what I received, of course I wouldn't continue paying. But if I had a more steady income, I would look into it and consider.
The community I've found here. The forum is the main draw for me.
You'll need to provide some examples of "misinformation" and irrationalism disguised as rationalism, I think. I know you strongly disagree with Kelly's mental illness assertion, but is that your only complaint?
I don't see how their lack of credentials shows that they are dogmatic cult leaders. I don't consider them any different than the rest of the people on the website. The only difference between us and them is that they own and run the website.
You said: "cults will not tolerate criticism", suggesting that this is the behavior of the RRS.
I said: Not only does the RRS retain the right to defend themselves against criticism (you agreed), but also they will tolerate it.
This is a counter argument to your suggestion that the RRS, cult-like, will not tolerate criticism.
What they don't tolerate is people who are persistent assholes. It's possible to criticize without being a persistent asshole. Criticism is tolerated; trolls are not.
For example, if you had a serious question about how the RRS handles their finances, or if you had a serious objection to Kelly's assertion, you could have objected or raised questions in the normal fashion. But it seems that---even though I don't doubt that your criticisms are sincere---you started this thread with the intention of raising a shit storm and provoking a reaction.
Criticisms are welcome. People who just like to start shit are generally not. You seem to be a mixed bag, so who knows.
I don't know what to tell you. I'm not a mod or an admin, so I can't really help you with that. I would suggest PMing some mods/admins to make sure that your question's been seen.
If that is in fact the case, then fair enough. I haven't looked into it at all, since I don't need theism to be an official mental disorder for me to scoff at it or consider it harmful.
Well... you do seem like a bit of a troll, and seeing as how you've admitted to taking bets on this whole affair, it's probably safe to conclude that you are one.
You and I both know that wouldn't do any good. They'd never admit it.
Regardless of what the founders do or say, I enjoy myself on their forum, which is the portion of the site that I am a fan of.
Right. I understand what you mean now, but you're only asking for confusion by using the term in a way that others who will read your arguments will most likely misunderstand, since that isn't the way it tends to be used.
"The RRS" seems to be used to refer to the website and its community.
Maybe there are people on the site who see it as a team that you are either on or you're not, or maybe that is the way it's intended to be, but I've been hanging around the site for almost a year now, and that has never been the impression I've got from it.
Again, I don't even subscribe and I'm aware that they make money off of the site. Frame it as pejoratively as you like, this doesn't demonstrate that they're doing anything unethical.
I can't comment on her work, so I'm not taking sides with either of you on this. I haven't read any of her arguments for her assertion and I'm frankly not all that interested. If she is putting ideology over facts, then that is definitely something that she should be approached about. I'll leave that to you, since you are obviously more interested in it than I am.
(Not because I don't care whether or not she is making irrational assertions, but because I don't psychology at all.)
When did they lie?
I think these have already been addressed.
WOTM's idea.
Only in the sense that I'm not employed here.
I don't read their blogs all that much. I mostly just visit the forum, where they occasionally post. I'm not claiming that they're on the same level as a Richard Dawkins or a Dan Dennett, so don't try and read me as saying that they're some kind of prominent intellectuals. I only mean they are learned in the sense that they do not demonstrate that they are unintelligent dolts, though I'm sure you disagree.
Again, when did they explicitly lie?
Cool. I approve of their doing so. If the RRS website does not want to claim charity status, though, that is up to them. I realize this doesn't give them the ethical guarantees of a charity website, but as long as I realize that the RRS is an independent commercial website, then I am not being deceived.
We could argue that it might be a good idea if they did claim charity status, but I don't think it should necessarily be counted against them if they don't.
As I said, it doesn't particularly interest me whether they are the #1 atheist site on the internet or not.
Obviously they shouldn't be deceitful when promoting themselves, but I mean it when I say I could care less if the site were #101
Well, this is not my only outlet for discussing atheism or scientific topics. If I get the sense that there is a cult vibe, then I will be concerned. I don't get that vibe right now, but I only make forum posts, and I don't watch the core members all that closely, as I don't watch any one person on the forum all that closely.
Nonetheless, thanks for your criticism.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
These are views held by some of the founding members. Fine. I don't accept them. Neither do many of the people here. That's in direct contrast to a cult, in which the words of the founders are accepted unquestioningly. Also, the founding members don't ban people for pointing out that these assertions are not accepted by all. Again, this is in direct contradiction to the characteristics of a cult.
Okay, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. However, if we're not getting it, perhaps you are not making a clear distinction between shameless self-promotion for the sake of building website membership, and building membership for a cult.
Before you go into the "won't pay your dinner, get a real job" schtick again, let me point out than running a website is a real job. They are providing a service. I have not been a paying member, and I have never been criticized for my leeching. I will have to change that come next payday.
Hey, thanks for saying I'm logically challenged! I guess I'm too stupid to see that you are attempting to define RRS as a cult, and are using a description as if it were a definition. Yeah, we're all too stupid to see through idiocy like that.
MANY things fit your description that are not cults, as has been demonstrated. And so, your argument is insufficient to identify RRS as a cult. Now, I see you place "wannabe" is as a qualifier. This does nothing more than weaken your assertion, which I assume you did intentionally, so there could be no logical argument against your insufficiency.
The point is, we're slipping off them because you're wrong. There are many supportable accusations you could lay at the feet of the RRS founders -- and you have done so. Claiming theism as a mental illness, for instance, is about as accurate as saying belief in UFOs or ghosts is a mental illness. Claiming they are making some profit off the running of the site is a potential goldmine, if anyone here really cared, or we thought they were living in mansions and driving expensive cars, rather than working real jobs and doing this in their free time. Hell, I mean, that guy who started Facebook is a billionaire. What the fuck's up with that? (I'm not being sardonic here. I'm serious.)
But you don't stick to that. You try to push it into illogical territory. This, plus your methods of doing so, indicate intellectual dishonesty, so it's hard to take you as other than a troll.
Now we're getting somewhere.
That's Sapient. There are others here who do that as well. I believe we call that "humanity." I have also been involved in some excellent discussions here with people of completely different viewpoints about rationality and belief. It can be frustrating sometimes, and I do sometimes behave like a prick, but only when I believe someone is not being honest, or is hiding their motives (perhaps even to themselves). If I cross a line, I apologize.
Here's what makes RRS different from a cult: we don't all behave like Brian Sapient. Each person here is distinct. We are even willing to disagree with Sapient, or Kelly, or Rook, if we feel they are wrong. They don't insist we don't question them. They defend their positions vigorously, and they are intelligent; and they are also abbrassive at times. (Well, not Rook, near as I can tell.)
Criticism is naturally met with a bit of aggression. Nobody likes to be criticised, especially the way you did it, with innuendo and ridiculous conclusions designed to annoy. C'mon. What was the point of calling it a "wannabe" cult? If Brian were really trying to build a cult, he sure wouldn't be doing it the way he does. He doesn't have the charisma to build a cult, anyway.
They're building a community, just like everybody else. Theirs is no more and no less cultish than any other community out there. The folks at Slashdot did the same thing with the tech community. People there can be assholes, too (especially in the early days). For /., it helped that CmdrTaco is a good guy; but that's a personality difference, not a difference of intent.
For your scale, I'd say RRS falls right in the middle, just about where most other community-based websites fall.
Sure. He might have felt upset, and said or done something stupid. He might regularly get upset and say or do stupid things. Sapient might be a petulent brat. I don't know him. I have read his posts enough to know he is intelligent, and he has a lot emotionally invested in this site. Other than that, I really don't know him.
Me, I hardly ever read the journal entries here. I stay in the forums. Why? Because that's where the interesting stuff is. That's where HisWillnes and maglium and jcgadfly and ProzacDeathWish and Eloise and deludedgod all hang out. And I like them. I enjoy interacting with them.
I've tried RDFRS. It's okay. There are some really intelligent folks there. But in the end, I didn't enjoy hanging out there as much. It seemed too dry. Too self-consciously intellectual. Too erudite for my taste.
I know, we're just a bunch of plebians. I don't deny it, when you compare us to RDFRS. We're like Budwieser to your Anchor Steam. (Mmmm. Anchor Steam.)
But the members accept them as divinely-inspired nonetheless. I know both JWs and Scientologists, and they do believe their leaders are unerringly correct, and recieve their information from supernatural or fantastic sources. However, I'll give up that claim as the next is more relevent.
As I said, I have seen people disagree with the founding members. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. As it turns out, we don't generally disagree with each other here, too much. However, if Sapient or Kelly or Rook said something that was patently false, or even poorly-argued, most of us would be willing to point it out, if it fell in the realm of our understanding. That's part of the reason I don't generally read Kelly or Rook, though. Their areas of expertise are outside my own areas of knowlege and interest.
I see what you mean, though. I don't remember a damned thing from my first speech class in college, save this: "Don't worry about the people you disagree with. It's the people you agree with that are most dangerous." It was a profound point, one which I had not considred before.
Beats the hell out of me. I don't know who Rathpig is. I assume it was for the same reason I've seen anyone banned: posting previously-copyrighted works, excessive trolling, spamming, etc.
Anyone know why Rathpig was banned?
For the most part, the OP was general enough to include pretty much every single social organzation founded on common interest in the world. The only specific things identified were:
1) A charismatic leader who can hoodwink followers
2) Quack science
I don't think you've established either of these. The "quack science" is certainly the easiest to prove, but all you've done is establish that not many historians are interested in the Jesus mythos, and that theism isn't classified as a mental disorder. I don't know enough about history or historians to dispute that claim, nor do I believe that theism is a mental disorder. However, the fact it isn't classified as a mental disorder is not a conclusive rebuttal, as there would be many political and social reasons to refrain from distinguishing it as such.
I don't believe it's a mental disorder, and I don't think there's enough evidence to support that it is. There are certain aspects that match with the official definition of a mental disorder, but that merely reflects the difficulty of classifying mental illnesses, rather than proof of theism as a mental illness.
Are you always so intellectually dishonest? Thinly disguising your allegations in the form of a hypothetical is merely an attempt to claim the "ha-ha, only serious" defence.
This is where your argument falls apart. Right now, you've established that the founding members may use some contributions to purchase food or lodging. You've established that Brian is an asshole. You've established that some assertions made by the founding members are not established fact. You've established that some of the founding members have an interest in researching things that may or may not be relevant, or even provide hope for rational discovery. You've established that Sapient perhaps wishes this to be a business venture, rather than having a "real" job.
(As an aside: running a website is a real job. And their business model isn't outside the typical models used by other low-volume sites.)
It's a huge leap to "cult." Huge. And the comparison to Scientology is a bit off. If Sapient asked us to do something illegal, I suspect most of us would tell him to fuck off. I know I would.
And this is what makes you a troll:
You take possibly defensible points, and use them to jump to a conclusion that is intended to stir up emotional debate, rather than focusing on the validity of your points. Rather than engaging in productive discussion, you manufactured a controversial position, couched it in the most offensive terms possible, and posted it where it would stir up the strongest response.
[edited for quote bracketing]
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Mmmmmm.... Cult Scout Cookies...
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
For the record:
could be taken as self-promotional, in the manner of "Look at me! I'm respected on these places! See? You should trust me based on my say-so because they like me there."
I'm not saying it was intended that way, but it certainly could be interpreted that way. Limitations of text make reading intent into things when it wasn't there very easy, after all.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Actually, it's worth noting that no, that hasn't been established. What was said was:
That states that Brian uses money from his personal savings. The only statement it makes about whether or not money from RRS is used for his own sustenance is that clearly, money from RRS does not pay all of his bills. Whether or not it pays any of them is not addressed. The statement would be equally valid if RRS pays for all but $.01 of Brian's living expenses, or if Brian is living entirely off of money saved from a massive financial windfall in the past and taking no money from RRS.
I really hate having to get nit-picky about things like this, but when dealing with what it obviously getting to be something of a charged topic, it's best to not read into or make assumptions about statements made, but to take the words said at face value. In this case, that value is: Brian takes money out of his personal savings, and might not if RRS made more money. That does not, however, mean that at this point RRS is providing Brian with income. For all we know, the donations might not completely cover operating costs, and continuing to cover the shortfall might be one of the things for which Brian is taking money out of his personal savings.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Somehow I predict the asshat avatar making an appearance and/or this thread getting moved to a lower category in the forums. Those of us who have been here long have seen this before - someone who keeps pushing the same point over and over, not backing it up well and not answering refutations to the point they finally DO get banned and then go "see! they won't tolerate criticism." Ater of course acting in a way which would get them banned from virtually any website.
I'm a bit late with this in answering the "cult" accusation:
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Well I don't know who you are agreeing with, it isn't me. I gave you examples that exhibited the characteristics I was describing.
You are not interested the entity RRS, you just like the forum, but you might end up giving them money come payday. Fine. Then we have nothing to disagree about. You have whatever objective grounds and bases you require to consider donating your hard-earned, that is your prerogative.
Some people buy Kelly and Brian's line on theism=mental illness without question because - one assumes - they have not experienced any real counter-arguments and rebuttals. Rook's Nook (replete with Mythicism apologetics) and history lectures reside in a member's only area: where critical evaluation is unlikely: thus no checks and balances are in place for experts to knowledgably critique some of this stuff.
And some people will be fooled by it. Fooled into thinking that belief in God is mental illness, and fooled into thinking that Jesus Mythicism is of any value whatsoever to to rationalist discourse and refutation of theist claims.
1. Atheism is the truth.
2. Failure to recognise 1 renders you irrational/mentally ill.
That pretty much covers it, you have the foundation for a flourishing ideology, where the ideal is elevated by virtue of some abstract claim as to the mental capacity of those who do not hold it.
True. Thank you.
They seem to be higher above some questions than others however.
"How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the world" by Francis Wheen predates TGD by several years and is probably the first mass circulation book devoted to rediscovering the enlightenment.
Brian was involved in atheist activism a while before setting up the RRS.
Are you aware of how things like Likert Scales are used to differentiate groups according to behavioural and cultural characteristics?
Plenty more irrationality where that came from.
Yes he has, but for some reason the Richard Dawkins Foundation has distanced itself from the RRS quite recently.
He already had: he has said that the only thing stopping him from filing as non-profit was nothing (ok, he hadn't got around to it, same thing), and that he intended to register soon. That was several months ago.
WOTM's idea.
So you do care in every other sense.
I'll leave it there because I'm running out of time.
Just to say that after tonight (UK time) I won't make any more responses to this thread. This is not a troll declaring victory and riding off into the sunset, but more a recognition that as a guest here there is only so much room I can ask, and that there really isn;t anything further to get into except semantics.
Thanks for your responses.
Good luck and best wishes.