Creating Cults and Sects

In response to Ryan - full post here

I think that we can probably say that Jesus started a new religion. He didn't create it, per se, at least not intentionally, but he was the cause of this new religion. So, presumably, you could amass a large number of followers and create stories about your divinity; assuming people believe it, and they very well may, you could be the center of some religion. You could certainly start a cult of your own, like Marshall Applewhite, or not, he was a bit crazy. You could also do fairly well in creating a sect of a religion of your choice. Good luck to you, Dios.

Umbrellas and Sub-Groups

Christianity is like an umbrella, it covers many denominations. Christianity is to Catholicism as animal is to bird. Christianity is the larger group which contains the smaller group. Therefore we should not attribute any of the characteristics of the smaller group to all of the larger group; we would not, for instance, say that on the basis that birds fly, all other animals can; similarly, it is not appropriate to talk about birds as if they were the only animals, saying "animals like to fly." Additionally, it is inappropriate to assume that characteristics of one group cannot apply to another or all of the subgroups; this is akin to saying "because I am a human, I require oxygen." We should note that all living things need oxygen to survive.

As of recently, I have been encountering a large number of people who say things akin to "Christians listen to the Pope," or "as a Catholic, I believe in the Abrahamic god." I think that people should make an honest effort to clear this matter up for themselves, because otherwise they risk make sweeping generalizations or being too specific which leads to confusing and offending many other people.

I'll Pray For You Nanomites

Amongst some religious folk, there is an inclination to end a disagreement with a curt "I'll pray for you." This is not the proper way to argue. An argument should stand on its own merit; an argument can even be largely emotion, but it still stands on its own merit. When we break this ending statement down, we see a petition to a deity, hoping that the deity will proceed to intervene and make the opposition find the argument more agreeable. Most people, I think, can see that this is certainly a problem if we are attempting to argue rationally. I think that even those whom are initially convinced that this sort of argument holds would find themselves offended if it were used against them. Imagine discussing slavery with someone, where you are pro-abolition and they are pro-slavery. If the opposition throws, in your face, a mist of nanomites which rewire your brain to find their stance more agreeable, that does not actually lend merit to their argument. The point is that slavery is still wrong even if, by some miracle, you thought otherwise due to nanomites having had rewired your brain.