SkinWalker says a cult is any group which is theistic, however, I've run across several definitions which say it is a group plainly and strangely deviant from common religious teaching.

It seems the social engineers are trying to lump Christianity in with the Moonies, Mormons, Tree Huggers, and Scientologists, so Skin, only Atheists are not Cultists? How conveeeeeeenient.

Let's clarify what SkinWalker says.

Cult, n. - Worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings.

-Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. 1989

I was aked, "[w]hat is your definition of a cult Skin?"

In anthropology and archaeology, the definition that is used is the one above. It is both utilitarian and fair. It is not used pejoratively. The pejorative use of the term is within religious cults that do not see themselves as cults. They use the term to create an other that they can point to as the wrong kind, as weird or as strange, insulating themselves from these groups to prevent conversion and apostasy.

Certainly, one can use the term "cult" as a trope to define social groups like the followers of rock stars, exercise "gurus" (guru, itself, being a trope), management gurus (Zig Ziglar, et al), fictional stories like Star Wars, Fire Fly, and the Rocky Horror Picture Show.

But, my usage of the term, in my academic life and in my discussions in these forums is generally that which I provided above.

One definition is that a cult is a group of people who hyper-venerate a person (Darwin) or thing (his hypothesis), so plainly, Darwinism is a cult, right Skin?

That, my friend, is a trope, which is a type of metaphor. Specifically, a figurative use of language. "Guru" is a trope that often refers to the guy who's a subject-matter expert.

As I already admitted in the other thread, the best that you can do by referring to "Darwinism" as a cult is to use the term in its form as a trope, not in its literal sense. The trope then becomes a pejorative. Different from the usage I've outlined. Face it: you have a pejorative term in mind and it simply irks you that there is an academic definition that includes your own religious beliefs.

But it is an academic definition, it's in the dictionary, you can use all the social engineering terminology you want, but "Oxford" certainly is not the end all, don't you think?

Again. You asked what definition *I* was using. I gave it to you. You can disagree on my usage all you want, but I challenge you do show, in academic literature of anthropology and archaeology that the term is used differently in the context of religion (which is the context that this discussion originated from).

If it is your under-educated opinion that anthropology and archaeology are disciplines that amount to "social engineering" merely because they don't provide adequate reverence for your favorite religious cult, then you are entitled to it. It doesn't make you right, however.

You're a social engineer, eew.

cult means when mentaly unstable people start to worship something or someone like a God and does stupid things which are against nature ,example: like suicide for their beliefs.

cult

1.
*1. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
* 2. The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5.
*1. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
*2. The object of such devotion.
6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=What%20Does%20Cult%20Mean%3F%20%20&fw=2&fc=2&gwp=16

as defined by 6 above sciforums is a cult.

I AM LOOKING TO HIRE CULT LEADERS....

radicalman@surfside.net

-MT

SkinWalker could do it, but I don't know if anybody would follow him.

It's hard to say what separates a cult from any other kind of obsession. Is the military a kind of cult? The Salvation Army? How about football fans?

Darwinists?

Notice I got a red flag for saying to Skin that he's "a social engineer, eew."

Darwinists?The term Darwinism is used to identify the early, basic model of evolution that Darwin derived from his original research. In essence it has only one force, natural selection. The model has been greatly elaborated to include other forces. For example: genetic drift, something which could not have been identified in Darwin's era because the technology that allowed DNA to be discovered had not been invented yet.

There are no more "Darwinists" in the scientific community just as there are no more "Newtonians." So the "cult" you are postulating is a null set.

I have warned you before that if you insist on denigrating science and scientists, as a snide way of touting a faith-based belief system which could just as snidely be called "the cult of evolution denialism," you will find yourself with no place in a community named Sci Forums.

Consider this your second warning.

There are lots of religionists among us who have no trouble maintaining a mutually respectful discourse.

What about the rest who you let run wild like wolverines?

Rather than a Darwinist, what would you rather be called Frag?

Frag, just because you can't defend your Darwinistic dogma doesn't mean you should take it out on me.

Evolution is a fact. There are no competing scientific theories of evolution. Therefore, you can't be called anything, as there's no faith required to accept evolution.

You are so frakking thick, IAC.

Yes Roman, evolution is a fact.

So I'm an evolutionist, just not Darwinian evolution.

Just anyone answer the question, dont go bereserk...it's a serious post for informational purposes. Dont worry about the typo's either.

Raman, 'Evolution is a fact.'

Look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Huxley_-_Mans_Place_in_Nature.jpg

http://www.wsu.edu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/timeline.html

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m165/evereker/monkee---3.jpg

Finally, look at this: http://www.wilderdom.com/images/HumanEvolutionSequenceSmall.jpg

Could these actually be entirely seperate species, some being extinct and without any realtion to evoution?

What is the one thing that would tell you evolution is a fact?

That when animals move into new environments, recessive genes of their respective syngameons can become dominant, in response, so to speak, to the new environment.

For example, dark skin people have greater survivability near the the equator than do light skin people.

I should move this to its own thread but it wont be taken seriously anyway because how can this question be answered?

Could these actually be entirely seperate species, some being extinct and without any relation to evolution?

Oh, I think I see what you're saying now, yeh, "australopithecus" for instance was just a now-extinct great ape.

That when animals move into new environments, recessive genes of their respective syngameons can become dominant, in response, so to speak, to the new environment.

For example, dark skin people have greater survivability near the the equator than do light skin people.

Dude, Lamackarism was debunked ages ago.

Tell me, how does your cult explain vestigial organs? How does your cult explain viruses, plasmids and parasites? How does you cult explain the poor designs caused by using the same basic structures for wildly different purposes?

Just anyone answer the question, dont go bereserk...it's a serious post for informational purposes. Dont worry about the typo's either.

Raman, 'Evolution is a fact.'

Look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Huxley_-_Mans_Place_in_Nature.jpg

http://www.wsu.edu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/timeline.html

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m165/evereker/monkee---3.jpg

Finally, look at this: http://www.wilderdom.com/images/HumanEvolutionSequenceSmall.jpg

Could these actually be entirely seperate species, some being extinct and without any realtion to evoution?

What is the one thing that would tell you evolution is a fact?

I don't know what you're asking, joan.

Oh, I think I see what you're saying now, yeh, "australopithecus" for instance was just a now-extinct great ape.

I think so.:)

My "cult" says that there are many kinds of creatures, so what is your pickle Roman?

I don't know what you're asking, joan.(sic)

oh man, what do you mean you dont know what i am asking> it is the question in bold text. #24

But they are related to evolution per se, John99, so the question is a bit confusing.

My "cult" says that there are many kinds of creatures, so what is your pickle Roman?

But why? How?
When you can answer those, you can do very useful things.
Under your ID cult, can you actually do anything useful?
Has the bible ever been responsible for any scientific advances or profound understanding of the universe?
Could you point me to the passage that reveals the relationship between matter and energy? The mass of a photon? (do they have mass?)

Oh, right, you're clueless. You have no hope, ever, of understanding that sort of stuff, even if there was an answer.

I'll dumb it down for you.
What's the biblical value for pi?


oh man, what do you mean you dont know what i am asking> it is the question in bold text. #24

Oh, ok.
Possible? As in the realm of "anything could happen, including the earth being seeded by aliens" possible? Sure. Probable? No.

Wow Roman, quite the wild man, some of the greatest scientists in history were Christians, your speaking from ignorance.

Hey Roman, did you see DixonMassey say that there are alot of "Bible thumpers" in the hard sciences at American colleges, what is wrong with those people Roman?

Wow Roman, quite the wild man, some of the greatest scientists in history were Christians, your speaking from ignorance.

So do you want to point to the passage of the bible that told Pasteur how to make milk safe to drink? Maybe the part that let NASA engineer rockets to go to the moon?
No?
Then stfu. Your book is useless for real life science.

Tell me, again, IAC, what the biblical value of pi is. Please, please, please tell me what God thought the value of pi was.

But but Roman, some of the greatest scientists in history were Christians, and that is real life.

God rounded down silly.

Oh, ok.
Possible? As in the realm of "anything could happen, including the earth being seeded by aliens" possible? Sure. Probable? No.

Exactly. You can say ' evolution??? sure anything can happen, PROBABLE??? maybe'...

God rounded down silly.

A book with rounding errors doesn't make for a very good cornerstone of science.

What about the rest who you let run wild like wolverines?I'll let the other moderators do the housekeeping on their own forums. This one is my responsibility.

It is our job to maintain SciForums as a place people can come with the reasonable expectation to learn some science or to engage in scientific discussion. If instead they find the boards riddled with unscientific proselytism or with the ravings of people who actually deny and ridicule science, we won't have provided that service.

This website goes far beyond its obligations of tolerance and respect for free speech by including the Religion and Free Thoughts forums. Even in the Philosophy forum you could start an argument about the fundamental validity of the scientific method. Of course you'd have to be prepared to engage in some serious debate and not just toss around snide comments.

But linguistics is a science and I expect the discussions to more or less follow scientific principles. With my own off-topic ramblings and my liberal dose of factual errors, I don't think I set a very difficult standard.
Rather than a Darwinist, what would you rather be called Frag?I have professional credentials as an IT management consultant, an educator, an editor, a musician, a dog breeder and a landlord. There are many other labels that would be modestly accurate even if they represent activities I have never been paid to perform, such as mathematician, musicologist, physicist or biologist. I do not object to being called a Darwinist because I don't like the word; I object because to call me a Darwinist is simply incorrect. No one is a Darwinist in the 21st century. If you're struggling to find a word for people who do not deny evolution, the word you're looking for is scientist.
Frag, just because you can't defend your Darwinistic dogma doesn't mean you should take it out on me.Your continued sloppy use of the term "Darwinist," which these days is only used by scientific historians and evolution-denial cultists, is a slander against the scientific community. Your incorrect use of the term "dogma" to apply to an established and universally respected scientific theory marks you not only as not a scientist but as one who opposes the scientific method because unlike, say, the Pope, you can't figure out a way to reconcile it with your religious beliefs. This is the reason that I've twice warned you about the danger of being banned.

You started a thread in the Linguistics forum with a perfectly respectable title. It appeared that you were interested in the semantics or etymology of the word "cult." Instead, you quickly derailed it with snide remarks and made it about your tiresome personal crusade to get scientists to take Evolution Denialism seriously.

This is fraud. Don't ever do it again. Consider this your third warning and quite probably your last.

This thread is closed.

Thread closed.