It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by karl 12
Objectively speaking,is there a difference between an organised religion and a cult ? (apart from size that is)
Apparently there is but, due to the glaring fact that there exists no tangible,cogent evidence for any of the fantastical claims of organised religion,and more and more inductees becoming hysterically polarised,bigotted,prejudiced,conditioned,indoctrinated,brainwashed and deluded into thinking they are superior to other human beings,should we not reappraise our definitions and afford all 'non provable beleif systems' cult status?
If not why not-what's the difference if there is no evidence for any of it?
[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]
Originally posted by Oldtimer2
A religion follows scripture while a cult has it's own agenda how it was explained to me any religion not following scripture is considered a cult
Originally posted by RuneSpider
An obvious example is back during the middle ages where it was required that a male child serve in the clergy.
Originally posted by babloyi
The difference (as far as people's usage of the term goes) is very simple. When you want to be insulting towards it, you call it a cult. When you are talking about it normally, it is a religion.
Check it out. At any instance of the use 'cult' in ATS/BTS, you can be 100% sure that the person who used the term was antagonistic towards the group in question.
You yourself seem to be against all religions, hence your desire to call religion a cult.
Originally posted by karl 12
Objectively speaking,