The New Atheists; The Cult of Science?

[Boerseun]

Come, guys.

 

Like any discussion involving God, this thread is devolving to a question of whether there is a God or not. My personal preference as to the above should be clear by now, and I'm not here to defend my position. That's not what this thread is about, though.

 

This thread is about whether atheism can be seen as a "cult", or not.

 

I have made my position clear as to that, as well, saying that if Atheism is a cult, then the dismissal of perpetual motion should be a cult as well - because there is no other common factor binding atheists than their dismissal of the God proposition.

 

How would you say, then, can atheism be considered a "cult" and the disbelief in perpetual motion not?

 

And can we stay on topic?

[Southtown]

You say the "thread is devolving." Perhaps it is simply being distilled. The question isn't "whether there is a God or not," but seems to be "what does it cost us to argue about it," which obviously stays true to topic.

[Boerseun]

You say the "thread is devolving." Perhaps it is simply being distilled. The question isn't "whether there is a God or not," but seems to be "what does it cost us to argue about it," which obviously stays true to topic.

Tomatoe, tomato.

 

This thread asks the question of whether atheism is the cult of science.

 

There are plenty threads about the merits of the God theory, i.e. threads that can be "distilled" as to whether there is a god or not.

[Qfwfq]

By extension I admit that it crossed my mind that perhaps you cleverly chose scripture to speak in the tongue of believers to inform them that they may need to brush up at the very least on nomenclature to be able to speak in an understandable way to the science oriented of us.

In choosing to quote Scripture as a way of getting across to atheists, I was excercising my own little dumb style of humour. :hyper:

 

So please then, I want to hear your clear opinion, not parables.

I knew you would and I'm glad you do. I was expressing the frustration I felt at my efforst being pearl cast to swine. By that, Christ presumably meant that not only a pearl is of no value to a swine because it isn't edible, it could even annoy the animal, just as throwing a little stone at it. The swine is incapable of appreciating the value (beauty) of the pearl but it's more than just a waste. I have restored my sig with a sentence of a past colleague which, in his local vernacular, means: "No point teaching the ***, it's a waste of time, what's more it irritates the beast." Apparently he did not like folks trying to teach him stuff he didn't want to learn.

 

So, we need to speak not only a common language but also one in which the word tomato does not mean just about everything from a specimen of E. Coli up to a galaxy. OK, not parables, but examples yes.

 

The reason for talk of "cult" in this thread is that its title asks: "The Cult of Science?" But, what does this mean? How is it related to a statement such as "Science is a cult.", does the former require the latter? In the latter, the word cult is a noun and it implies cult being an attribute of science which is untrue (as said by most, here). But this is not the meaning of the title, which may be construed in a genitive sense, as in "the tower of Babel", or with the word meant in a predicate sense, as in "The Taming of the Shrew". It definitely does not require the assumtion of science being a cult in the objective sense. The predicate sense is tenable because the noun cult is one substantivation of the verb cultivate; others are culture and cultivation but a cult is certainly a tad more than the other two things. Few things are objectively a cult; a religion is, what other things are?

 

Is John Lennon a cult?

• No! He is a specimen of Homo Sapiens! As a recent member of society, he was an artist and even the definition of artist does not comprise one being a cult.
  
• Yesssssseeee indeed! The attidude of a great number of folks (and large fraction of his fans) was that of him being their cult, partly because some of his art included topics which are cult or cultish.
  

John Lennon is not a cult in the objective sense, but he is most definitely a cult... he is the cult of a large number of people; they cult(ivate) him. Are cows a cult?

 

Personally, I think the fella's head who designed the tower was first to hit the chopping block. He kept trying to explain that a tower isn't evil. It's just the scientific advancement of humankind and it will be a beacon of civilization for years to come. Unfortunately the guy with the axe couldn't understand a word he was saying

I had no axe, I wasn't unable to understand (nor ignoring) others' words.

 

Actually, truth and accuracy matter as well. If someone thinks that 2+2=7, it's important to correct them, even if it means not being peaceful.

 

We sabotage our being and our society if we think it's okay to sacrifice accuracy for peace.

This leads to a militant attitude. Thou hast said.

 

If someone truly believes that 2+2=7 and disregards my "opinion" I'm nut justified in crashing a bottle over their head. Live and let live.

 

Early in 2008 I reached the point of resigning from my former employer before having found a new one. It hasn't made me richer than before. He was authoritarian and, if it suited his aims to have me admit that 2+2=7, he would abuse authority to be a bully; I could not place accuracy über alles, and not even things that were much more important. What could I do about it, except resigning? Was he justified? Certainly not, he was catering for his interests in unethical ways. If I had been claiming the counterfactual instead of him, he could have accused me of incompetence, I might have been unqualified for the job, but this isn't the same as abusing authority to bully someone.

 

If someone is not even being paid to do a job for you, what grounds do you have for being aggressive and abusive, for bullying them? Maybe to defend your most fundamental rights? Especially the important things? Certainly not to the purpose of making them change their opinion.:hihi:

[RevOfAllRevs]

You cheapen the sacrifice and persecution those who established your faith really did endure. Second century Rome was persecution.

 

"Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations on account of My name" <-- Jesus talking about harsh language on the internet :hihi:

 

~modest

 

 

You missed my point Modest, although with your cryptic style of writing its difficult to determine what you meant. Of course 2nd and first century Rome was persecution. Does that lessen the persecution of today? Christians are dying today for their beliefs. When I bring up the hate that is evident in the forums the name calling etc its to illustrate the top of the slippery slope. This hate talk started in Nazi Germany and it starts before any group is to be demonized and dehumanized. Today hate talk, tomorrow a Christian gets beat up for his beliefs what comes next? No we are standing at the top of a slippery slope the hate talk etc just serves as a shove to start the slide.

 

; {>

[paigetheoracle]

Qfwfq is right - the end result is what is important. If somebody believes something stupid, let them. Trying to force them to believe 'the truth' is no different from any other attempt at conversion. True, if they are trying to build a bridge out of mud then experience will teach them the hard way but your knowledge will save you the grief their ignorance will cause them - it is then that you lend them a hand and 'suggest' there is another way - show physical examples, not argue about theories (beliefs). When you are fanatically in love with a new idea or frightened of change, this is not the time to force your ideas on others or have them do the same with you. Boredom and courage lead us out of the wilderness that old, unworkable ideas leave us in and at this point we seek change ourselves within, so are willing to reach out for salvation but don't ever want it rammed down our throats by well meaning zealots, trying to save us from ourselves.

[RevOfAllRevs]

Some religious folk may see atheism a religion but out of a hundred religious people I know I would estimate that maybe five if that would say that atheism is a religion. (I am a pastor church owner and the owner of a non profit humanitarian Christian mission, so I know hundreds of religious people) Blanket statements are rarely true. Most religious people and laypeople in general are confused about atheism because it has so many definitions*. Unless one is personally acquainted with an atheist he rarely knows what the atheist in question believes as true. Of course most people have a general overview of atheism, but again its very difficult to discern what type of atheist one may be speaking to, especially if the atheist is a stranger or a first time 'meeting of minds'.

 

It would be wonderfully neat if an atheist would describe his paradigm before debating a subject where atheism will be discussed. Christianity Buddhism and even Islam are similar in that they have many adherents that believe different things. So out of common courtesy I usually define my beliefs if my religion is to be discussed, BTW I am a open theist Christian pastor that leans towards a deistic temporal universe, and a perfect realm separate or outside this universe for Gods crib. Translation. God is perfect in his own realm, however he designed this universe to run on probabilities chaos and uncertainty.

 

I thought I would post this to avoid hard feelings in the future

 

; }>

 

 

Notes;

*....http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:atheism&ei=CbtpSp7eDMyBtgfX1vC7Cw&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

 

; {>

[paigetheoracle]

The problem is not really our beliefs but ramming them down other peoples throats or attacking others because they are non-believers: It's one thing to be passionate about something and to enjoy others equally passionate but different beliefs, yet another though to try to suppress anything that is different.

[paigetheoracle]

God is perfect in his own realm, however he designed this universe to run on probabilities chaos and uncertainty.

 

; }>

 

 

Notes;

*....define:atheism - Google Search

 

; {>

 

Chaos and uncertainty are states of mind as probability is opinion. Your stance on anything will depend upon your experience and what it teaches you about existence i.e. I don't understand what this is? I experience it, gain knowledge and control of the situation and I gradually do understand it. Chaos and confusion are our first experiences of anything new, which when it turns old hat becomes boring certainty and overdone order (paper shuffling, until we can go home). Doubt keeps us from experience, where certainty is a theory that plunges us into the world of experience, to learn the actual truth. Probability as a belief, leads us out of doubt into try-all and error.

[RevOfAllRevs]

Is there? What evidence/staistics do you have for this assumption?

 

Where have you been for the last thousand years? Hee hee, just kidding. Start with this ; Conflict thesis Conflict thesis is the theoretical premise of an intrinsic conflict between science and religion. Conflict thesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Then in the notes section I included some descriptive paragraphs from a google search. You can do the same thing with these key words “science conflict rift religion etc etc”. I could suggest ten or twenty popular books as well if you can’t find information on the computer that illustrates my case.

 

Talking of the Renaissance and Michaelangelo, it was the Medici's invention of banking, bookeeping and credit that provided the wealth for the art(tists). The churches up until then only allowed Jews to lend money and charge interest.

 

Yes, additionally the Christian knights templar contributed the frame work that international banking uses today. However I am not arguing that there would be no art sans religion as I have attempted to explain many times, but rather that the religious art that does exist enriches society.

 

Somehow the Medici Family got around that on a technicality and thus the huge growth of the Italian economy at this time. They were also able to support scientists like Galileo Galilei.

 

I could make a case that the church actually helped science more than it harmed it. Including Gallieo. Again though I am talking about the things that already exists, not what could have been.

 

No the peasants could have had houses insted of building cathedrals because they were **** sacred of going to hell

 

Where is your proof for this? And what is your point? My point is that we have these buildings. Not just cathedrals, I am talking about all of religion, including the earliest at Ur and the Egyptians the thread author did not single out a specific religion.

 

And Music, which the Church (s?) practically invented. On Balance, I don't.

 

I was saying that religious contributed to music.

 

Really. How come? Which one? We all still seem to be suffering from this catalclysmic meeting between the cultured, intelligent ,tolerant Arabs of the time and the bog ignorant, murderous, intollerant Christians. Even today with the continuall demonisation of the Arabs by Holliword (since day one), and the Arabs never forgiving the West for the Crusades.

 

Please be more specific. I feel that the first crusade was justified. The Turks not the Arabs were the enemies of Christ, of course they were Muslim. Are you familiar with why the Pope thought the crusade was necessary? I feel that we in the modern age have no concept of what was necessary in those days, and of course today up until 9/11 the Arabs were idolized as the underdog throwing rocks at Israeli tanks.

 

Do you mean you are a Inquisition denier/apologist?

 

No I am saying the Inquisition was not exactly what the popular press and Hollywood has made it out to be. It was awful, but not the same as say Nazi Germany's treatment of the Jewish people.

 

Yes that is always the problem. God wants me to kill, enslave, impoverish, marginalise, conquor and burn the devilish Mayan Books and obliterate cultures with an icing of "Christainisty". I think Jesus would be turning over in his grave/cloud (?).

 

I think the Spaniards were horrified when 20,000*** slaves were sacrificed having their heart ripped out and by other similar atrocities. Of course they could of joined in the fun and agreed it was a moral and wonderful thing, her have a cup of blood and a piece of human flesh, yum.

 

Get rid of the Old Testament and teach the suggestions of Jesus and I am all for "Christianity'. Especially if I found people actually living his precepts.

 

I thought the same thing, but today I see that the Old testament as a back up to the new. BTW that is why I define myself as a red letter Christian ****. That and a Open theist Christian *****. I know many people that attempt to live by the teachings of Jesus. I have often asked where some of my west coast brothers etc found some of the awful zombie Christians that they say exist. I know they are around but here in this part of the country most Christians try to live right.

 

No it would be different, of course. We would, however, be growing interesting mushrooms. (Where the idea of spirit world probably came from).

 

I studied this and the mushroom theory has been pretty much dismissed, however I see no reason not to use sacrament to get closer to God. There are too many holes in the manna from heaven theory my friend.

 

That is avlue judgement that I don't share especially about the Mayans and Christians. At least Buddhism gave us tolerance and meditation. Although many would argue that the Tibetan regime was a backward theocracy and everyone is much better off with the (invent new word for here that says communist-capitalist-Stalinist-dictator- paranoid-corrupt-new thing) Chinese Regime.

 

I attempt to look at any religion with an unemotional eye, and find all of them lacking, but they are constructs of man, even if divenly inspired and thus have all the warts and ugliles’ that man has. War atrocities and such. Attempting to glorify a particular religion, making it perfect and pure is a sure way to become disillusioned.

 

This is a good thing? But rampant, endemic pedophilia is OK? People/victims who are 'walking wounded' and in constant pain because someone couldn't read his compass? or some idiot said 1,000 BCE that priests should be celibate?

 

One must come to his own conclusions. God is God, its up to you to use your common sense to define it. I was not alive 5000 years ago so I can’t say if a certain thing was moral or not. However I have faith that what happened in those thousands of years ago were justified. Too many anti religious folk have a habit of cherry picking the bible out of ignorance and hate then attempting to hold it up for all to see. What I see is a near fool that has little understanding of theology ranting and raving like some SS Nazi guard trying to justify his hate of the Jewish people. Its crazy and demeans the good people that may not wish to believe in God.

 

How is it that if murder is "Not OK" we allow "holy" wars, jihad, capital punishment?

 

When was the last Christian holy war? BTW I disagree with capital punishment and think its an atrocity.

 

Nevertheless thanks for your reply brother.J

 

How come, churches/religions and their businesses, enterprises and investments are free of Government/State income taxes? Wouldn't paying taxes be more helpful to society?

 

Ha ha! Maybe it would help society my friend but it’s against our law. I don’t know if churches could survive with full taxation, I know my little non preaching church couldn’t, as it and my mission run in the red since its beginning, as I pay all expenses out of pocket, and a few donations.

 

Thank you brother for your well written and well thought out reply.

 

; }>

 

 

 

Notes

 

* Healing The Rift Blog // Recent Blog Entries // science and ...

Scientists like Richard Dawkins ridicule religion and spirituality as being myth and ... Why be afraid of healing the rift between science and spirituality? ...

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/www.blogcatalog.com/...rift/.../science%20and%20spirituality/ -

 

Healing the Rift Between Science and Spirituality by ...

Dec 6, 2008 ... A video by healingtherift - Come explore how conflicts between science and spirituality can be resolved. See revealed scientific principles ...

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/www.revver.com/.../healing-the-rift-between-science-and-spirituality/

 

Results 1 - 10 of about 602,000 for rift between science and religion. (0.19 seconds)

 

 

 

 

 

** *the Aztecs were said to have sacrificed twenty thousand prisoners. ...

http://www.essay.org/school/english/thegreata.doc

 

**** Red-Letter Christian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Red-Letter Christians believe that Evangelicalism has been exploited by both right-wing and left-wing political movements, and they endeavor to create an ...

Red-Letter Christian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

***** Open theism and libertarian free will | Christian Apologetics ...

Open Theism states that God has granted to people free will and that in order for this free will to remain free, God cannot know ahead of time what the ...

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/www.carm.org/.../open-theism/open-theism-and-libertarian-free-will -

[RevOfAllRevs]

The problem is not really our beliefs but ramming them down other peoples throats or attacking others because they are non-believers: It's one thing to be passionate about something and to enjoy others equally passionate but different beliefs, yet another though to try to suppress anything that is different.

 

Hmmm, who is ramming something down your throats? I don't know many Christians that hunt atheists, the atheists usually hunt us. Go to any theology forum and check it out. If the atheists just want to be left alone why come into our forums demeaning Christianity? I don't really care what you believe, as a open theist christian the only time I say something is to correct a wrong (about Christianity), which is my right. That is about as far as my evangelism goes in a general web site. However if its a religious site I will state my beliefs for those that want to know the good news.

 

I don't think anyone should be persecuted for their beliefs be they a LeVay satanist hard atheist or Christian.

 

; {>

[Galapagos]

New article in The Economist about the unjustified smearing of atheists with unsupported accusations of fundamentalism:

The silliest smear | Democracy in America | Economist.com

Atheists can be smug and annoying. So can Christians and Jews, Yankee fans and Red Sox fans. The claims of religious writers and atheist writers should be debated on their merits. But let's can the "fundamentalist atheist" meme. The fundamentalist mindset is defined as one that cannot be changed by evidence. As Sam Harris, another atheist, has said, God could easily prove all the world's atheists wrong. (Mr Harris's challenge: "I have just written a 30-digit number on a scrap of paper and hidden it in my office. If God tells you [or any of our readers] what this number is, I will be appropriately astounded and will publicize the results of this experiment to the limit of my abilities... Hint to the Creator: I'm thinking of an even number, and it's not 927459757074561008328610835528".)

 

Until god does prove the atheists wrong with an indisputable miracle and Messrs Harris, Dawkins and Dennett still cling to their atheism, fundamentalist religion and "fundamentalist" atheism cannot be put on the same footing. And until those al-Darwinia brigades arrive and start beheading people, "fundamentalist" is a slander against athiest journalists and academics whose sharpest weapon is a pen.

[Boerseun]

Hmmm, who is ramming something down your throats?

Unfortunately, "ramming your religion" down everybody else's throats is required by scripture if you're a Christian. The whole "Evangelicizing" bit. Fishers of men, and all.

I don't know many Christians that hunt atheists, the atheists usually hunt us. Go to any theology forum and check it out. If the atheists just want to be left alone why come into our forums demeaning Christianity?

...or go to any godless science forum, like Hypography, and see who does the trolling there, for that matter. Case in point.

I don't really care what you believe, as a open theist christian the only time I say something is to correct a wrong (about Christianity), which is my right. That is about as far as my evangelism goes in a general web site. However if its a religious site I will state my beliefs for those that want to know the good news.

Like I said, Christianity requires you to spread the word. You, being a Christian, don't really have a say in the matter - that is to say, if you are a Christian, and supposedly live by the Word.

I don't think anyone should be persecuted for their beliefs be they a LeVay satanist hard atheist or Christian.

Good stuff. But freedom of religion also implies freedom from religion.

 

Let's get back on topic now, shall we?

[RevOfAllRevs]

Until god does prove the atheists wrong with an indisputable miracle and Messrs Harris, Dawkins and Dennett still cling to their atheism, fundamentalist religion and "fundamentalist" atheism cannot be put on the same footing.

 

If God proved the atheists wrong there would be no need for faith. If there was no need for faith there would be no need for religion. We are tested by our faith, hey, I have an idea that is along that same line of God proving all the atheists wrong by vaporizing them or whatever.

 

Lets just give all the students 'A+' even if they don't study or don't know the material. Then we would have a nation of ignorant people eh? A bunch of dummies.

 

The test of faith separates the sweet cream from the milk. Its the very essence of religion and it shows our devotion and loyalty to God.

 

; {>

[RevOfAllRevs]

Unfortunately, "ramming your religion" down everybody else's throats is required by scripture if you're a Christian. The whole "Evangelicizing" bit. Fishers of men, and all....or go to any godless science forum, like Hypography, and see who does the trolling there, for that matter. Case in point.

 

It’s the atheists that started this thread eh? Anyway yes of course we are required to mention scripture but with reverence and gentleness. Paul said that. A Christian that rams something down your throat isn’t following scripture or the teachings of Jesus. That is the difference on both sides of knowing scripture or being ignorant of it.

 

Like I said, Christianity requires you to spread the word. You, being a Christian, don't really have a say in the matter - that is to say, if you are a Christian, and supposedly live by the Word.

 

I may take offense with you saying you are an atheist, or saying that you are from a particular state. That would be silly wouldn’t it? If a Christian tells you he is a Christian that is witnessing and that is as far as it should go if the person says he would rather not hear anything else about Christianity. However, If you make comments or insults about the religion he has the right to defend that religion. Again we are taught by Jesus and the disciples to defend the faith with “gentleness and reverence” see 1 Peter 3:15

 

Good stuff. But freedom of religion also implies freedom from religion. Let's get back on topic now, shall we?

 

With all due respect I didn't start this tangent.

 

; }>

[modest]

Personally, I think the fella's head who designed the tower was first to hit the chopping block. He kept trying to explain that a tower isn't evil. It's just the scientific advancement of humankind and it will be a beacon of civilization for years to come. Unfortunately the guy with the axe couldn't understand a word he was saying

I had no axe, I wasn't unable to understand (nor ignoring) others' words.

No. You wouldn't have the axe.

 

I just thought it was ironic. You are saying that we should have a mutual understanding of words and perhaps that will benefit everyone involved. We can work together and whatnot. The story you chose, the tower of babel, is saying exactly the opposite. It's saying that when humans get together and work with mutual understanding for their own mutual benefit then it's time for God to come down and punish them for such an evil thing. So, I thought that was a little ironic. Don't get me wrong. I agree completely with your last post.

 

You missed my point Modest, although with your cryptic style of writing its difficult to determine what you meant. Of course 2nd and first century Rome was persecution. Does that lessen the persecution of today?

 

One would hope it puts it into perspective. But, you have indeed missed my point. You claimed scripture talking about persecution is being fulfilled because of insults on the internet when you're people were being fed to lions and crucified more than 1500 years ago. It just looks silly.

 

When I bring up the hate that is evident in the forums the name calling etc its to illustrate the top of the slippery slope. This hate talk started in Nazi Germany and it starts before any group is to be demonized and dehumanized. Today hate talk, tomorrow a Christian gets beat up for his beliefs what comes next? No we are standing at the top of a slippery slope the hate talk etc just serves as a shove to start the slide.

 

Slippery slope

 

~modest

[enorbet2]

I rather thought we had already covered the definition of the term "cult" as it applies to this thread where it is used either as juxtaposition or coincidence with "new atheism" and/or science, depending on the poster's position. Since the OP has not posted once since the end of 2008 it may not be possible to get his perspective. However that shouldn't be necessary as we should be able to decide that amongst ourselves. If we actually need to vote on it for consensus, I suppose there is a way to do that and that's quite all right.

 

OTOH, since "science" and "atheism" are being presented in the thread header as a near equivalency let's tackle that first, regardless of the OP's perspective. IMHO it is obvious to any student of history that religion has not simply acted as the antithesis of Science. In fact, in many ways it evolved into it by seeking to know the world. Much like today's corporations have subsets which are in conflict with each other or even with the central agency (compete with some other companies and are "in bed with them" on other fronts or from other certain subsets). This seems true of nations as well and certainly of organized religion even at the extreme where one is supposedly headed by a single individual such as with The Roman Catholic Church. Once big enough, some parts are will inevitably be in conflict with other parts. There appeared an article in September 2008's "Discover Magazine" entitled The Vatican's Secret Science Club or Holy Alliance which I quote here

 

..the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is an independent and remarkably influential body within the Holy See. Over the years it's membership roster has read like a who's who of 20th century scientists (includng max Planck, Niels Bohr, and Erwin Shrodinger, to name a few) and it currently boasts more than 80 international academicians, many of them nobel laureates and not all of them Catholic - including the playfully irreligious physicist, Stephen Hawking.

 

It is worthy of note that even early on some higher-ups in The Church were more liberal and open-minded than others. For example, despite such false steps as the trials and treatment of Galileo, it has been found that originally Copernicus was encouraged by The Church to publish his data supporting a sun-centric solar system. Nicolaus Copernicus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

On 1 November 1536, Archbishop of Capua Nicholas Schönberg wrote a letter to Copernicus from Rome:

 

Some years ago word reached me concerning your proficiency, of which everybody constantly spoke. At that time I began to have a very high regard for you... For I had learned that you had not merely mastered the discoveries of the ancient astronomers uncommonly well but had also formulated a new cosmology. In it you maintain that the earth moves; that the sun occupies the lowest, and thus the central, place in the universe... Therefore with the utmost earnestness I entreat you, most learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of yours to scholars, and at the earliest possible moment to send me your writings on the sphere of the universe together with the tables and whatever else you have that is relevant to this subject ...[18]

 

By then Copernicus' work was nearing its definitive form, and rumors about his theory had reached educated people all over Europe. Despite urgings from many quarters, Copernicus delayed publication of his book, perhaps from fear of criticism — a fear delicately expressed in the subsequent Dedication of his masterpiece to Pope Paul III. Scholars disagree on whether Copernicus' concern was limited to physical and philosophical objections from other natural philosophers, or whether he was also concerned about religious objections from theologians

 

So perhaps we can conclude that since Religion has the same basic goal as Science, to understand the world, and that any failings of early religion or of early science were largely due to the paucity of good data, of evidence, including the rules of critical deductive reason. In many ways Science evolves out of Religion much like Astronomy benefited from and grew out of Astrology. So the important issue for this discussion at least is that Science is not synonymous with Atheism.

 

In a Venn diagram there would be considerable overlap but also considerable overhang representing those scientists who are not atheists (who apparently are able to separate the process of knowing the world and knowing something of the unknown through Faith) , and a little for those atheists who are not scientists.

 

I contend and submit for approval that the bigger issue is critical thinking, the process of deductive reasoning and rules of evidence that are the essence of most scientists and most atheists, since at least in some critical areas, deductive reasoning, and that alone, is necessary and sufficient. It is only on the subjects of Creation, Life after Death, and the implication of some Supreme Being governing such issues, where there is no evidence possible, where we are implored to abandon reason and embrace and accept Faith, "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" - quoted from Webster's Dictionary definition of "faith".

 

So at the very least in relation to this thread by the very words of the header we must assume "cult" to be the specific religious definition and not merely "great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a movie, film, or book)" -ibid Webster's - often referred to as "cult of personality". We are instead confined to "formal religious veneration, system of religious beliefs or ritual (and the body of adherents) based on dogma " - ibid Webster's - in arguing whether Science or Atheism is such a thing. I think the key difference is "dogma" - "a doctrine, point of view, tenet, or system of beliefs put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds, usually by proclamation of a church" - also from Webster's, or more completely

 

Dogmatic definition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It most often refers to the infallible teaching of a truth believed bona fina de fide credenda, meaning one defined as explicitly revealed in the deposit of faith and demanding supernatural faith in itself on the authority of the Word of God

 

Since neither Science nor Atheists subscribe to dogma and quite the opposite, welcome meaningful criticism and expect to have any tenets or points of view updated by new information, as opposed to "the rock of the Church" I submit that this question is answered and that while individuals of either ilk may bend under some circumstances to a dogmatic approach, neither Science, as a process or body of knowledge, nor Atheism, the rejection of dogma in general and specifically as it applies to Supreme Being and it's subsets, can be a cult by it's very definition.