NationStates Jolt Archive

I think that for too long us leftist atheists have been condemned for having a moral vacuum or lack of values because of the lack our belief in a Christian/Muslim/Judaic God. I say we take back this ground and institute our own religion, Cult of the Supreme Being or Cult of Reason, based on the one instituted during the Jacobin rule of revolutionary France. We shall worship our great immortal values of liberty, equality, socialism and egalitarianism and most importantly - secularism. I believe the political Right have got one-up on us because they have churches, which are ideal recruiting grounds, and as Stalin said about the Pope, 'Where are his divisions?', we need to use a new leftist deism to have more foot soldiers. We can have Temples of Reason, and on the June 8 every year we can have the Festival of the Supreme Being, in which we worship our great ideals as an omnipresent God. But what's even better, we get tax exemption.

Who wants in?

what?

I prefer the flimsy moral standards The Flying Spaghetti Monster offers me.

Mr. Grocer: Comrade! Comrade!
Marty: What?
Mr. Grocer: Why don't you just join the union, we'll go upstairs together and cap daddy!
Marty: This union, there's gonna be meetings?
Mr. Grocer: Of course!
Marty: No meetings.
[They continue shooting]
:D

Who wants in?

I'm in if the sacraments are Chocolate cake and Starbucks coffee.

Won't work. The CSB failed the first time around because, well, it was really boring. To quote, "the Cult lacked virtually every quality that makes a religion last -- history, a preceding religion on which to draw, actual enthusiasm among the religion's members, a ritual structure grounded in some sort of mystical tradition, a charismatic spiritual teacher and a set of clearly drawn beliefs."

Won't work. The CSB failed the first time around because, well, it was really boring. To quote, "the Cult lacked virtually every quality that makes a religion last -- history, a preceding religion on which to draw, actual enthusiasm among the religion's members, a ritual structure grounded in some sort of mystical tradition, a charismatic spiritual teacher and a set of clearly drawn beliefs."
Who says we can't find another Maximillien Robespierre? And our ideas are much more broad and have much more content than the rigid dogmatism of the other religions. And just to confirm the CSB 'failed' because of the coup, nothing else.

Won't work. The CSB failed the first time around because, well, it was really boring.
Ah ... more bells, whistles, regal colours, obfuscative/meandering/nebulous texts and bizarre behaviour, eh?
Another big news story of the year concerned the ecumenical council in Rome, known as Vatican II. Among the things they did, in an attempt to make the church more... commercial, was to introduce the vernacular into portions of the Mass to replace Latin, and to widen somewhat the range of music permissible in the liturgy. But I feel that if they really want to sell the product in this secular age, what they ought to do is to redo some of the liturgical music in popular song forms. I have a modest example here; it's called The Vatican Rag!

First you get down on your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!

Do whatever steps you want if
You have cleared them with the Pontiff.
Everybody say his own
Kyrie eleison,
Doin' the Vatican Rag.

Get in line in that processional,
Step into that small confessional.
There the guy who's got religion'll
Tell you if your sin's original.
If it is, try playin' it safer,
Drink the wine and chew the wafer,
Two, four, six, eight,
Time to transubstantiate!

So get down upon your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!

Make a cross on your abdomen,
When in Rome do like a Roman;
Ave Maria,
Gee, it's good to see ya.
Gettin' ecstatic an' sorta dramatic an'
Doin' the Vatican
Rag!

Who says we can't find another Maximillien Robespierre? And our ideas are much more broad and have much more content than the rigid dogmatism of the other religions. And just to confirm the CSB 'failed' because of the coup, nothing else.

No, it died with Robespierre. After he was ousted, it declined pretty rapidly until it was more or less forgotten; the problem was, there really wasn't anything for people to rally behind or to believe in.

OK, I'm in, if I can decapitate people.

No, it died with Robespierre. After he was ousted, it declined pretty rapidly until it was more or less forgotten; the problem was, there really wasn't anything for people to rally behind or to believe in.

Dude, you're denying history. IT WAS BANNED after the thermidorian reaction, and persecuted by successive governments (along with the Jacobin club) for decades.

Dude, you're denying history. IT WAS BANNED after the thermidorian reaction, and persecuted by successive governments (along with the Jacobin club) for decades.

Before it was banned, it was already in sharp decline.

Dude, you're denying history. IT WAS BANNED after the thermidorian reaction, and persecuted by successive governments (along with the Jacobin club) for decades.

Persecution often helps a religion spread. Martyrs and all that jazz.

I think that for too long us leftist atheists have been condemned for having a moral vacuum or lack of values because of the lack our belief in a Christian/Muslim/Judaic God. I say we take back this ground and institute our own religion, Cult of the Supreme Being or Cult of Reason, based on the one instituted during the Jacobin rule of revolutionary France. We shall worship our great immortal values of liberty, equality, socialism and egalitarianism and most importantly - secularism. I believe the political Right have got one-up on us because they have churches, which are ideal recruiting grounds, and as Stalin said about the Pope, 'Where are his divisions?', we need to use a new leftist deism to have more foot soldiers. We can have Temples of Reason, and on the June 8 every year we can have the Festival of the Supreme Being, in which we worship our great ideals as an omnipresent God. But what's even better, we get tax exemption.

Who wants in?So who and what is this Supreme Being? And what does the worship of such a Being have to do with reason?

Have fun.

So who and what is this Supreme Being? And what does the worship of such a Being have to do with reason?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_reason

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_reasonThese articles contain no answers to my questions.

These articles contain no answers to my questions.
The "Supreme Being" in the cult is actually undefined. It's whatever its members want it to be (to a point, I guess). Think of it as a kind of Secular State Religion, where everyone believes whatever the heck they want but practice it together.

And the relationship to "reason" is due to the two cults having been formed in the same cultural context and being somewhat alternative approaches to their shared goals in supplanting organised faith as a cultural and political power.

The "Supreme Being" in the cult is actually undefined. It's whatever its members want it to be (to a point, I guess). Think of it as a kind of Secular State Religion, where everyone believes whatever the heck they want but practice it together.The entire concept makes no sense.

And the relationship to "reason" is due to the two cults having been formed in the same cultural context and being somewhat alternative approaches to their shared goals in supplanting organised faith as a cultural and political power.That's unreasonable.

The entire concept makes no sense.

Sure it does - if people wish to believe that there is something wise and benevolent looking out for them without ordering or telling them what to.

It can have some of the downsides of dogmatic religions - most notably the "god will save us so no need to inconvience ourselves by combating [insert threat here]" attitude, but it at least forces peope to actually think for themselves and stops them from hiding behind a holy book.

Well, part of the problem is our own.

Much of the hard left, like Marx, has been skeptical of morality-oriented arguments... for reasons varying from their alleged lack of realism to their similarity to the approach of liberal reformism. Religion has been accurately criticized as one way the rulers get people to act against their self-interest and continue to meekly obey... but self-interest is not a good reason for action, regardless of religion.

The result is that the conservative Right has been able to usurp this moral "edge", using it to ultimately defend policies that are flagrantly and abominably immoral.

A good case could be made for a significant tactical change on this subject.

*shrugs*

You have fun with that.

I think that for too long us leftist atheists have been condemned for having a moral vacuum or lack of values because of the lack our belief in a Christian/Muslim/Judaic God. I say we take back this ground and institute our own religion, Cult of the Supreme Being or Cult of Reason, based on the one instituted during the Jacobin rule of revolutionary France. We shall worship our great immortal values of liberty, equality, socialism and egalitarianism and most importantly - secularism. I believe the political Right have got one-up on us because they have churches, which are ideal recruiting grounds, and as Stalin said about the Pope, 'Where are his divisions?', we need to use a new leftist deism to have more foot soldiers. We can have Temples of Reason, and on the June 8 every year we can have the Festival of the Supreme Being, in which we worship our great ideals as an omnipresent God. But what's even better, we get tax exemption.

Who wants in?

No thanks, I'm good. Satanism already has most of that covered.

What's the point?

No thanks, I'm good. Satanism already has most of that covered.

I was kinda wondering why someone would go with a Cult of the Supreme Being rather than Satanism.

Frankly, the Cult just sounds like Unitarian Universalism, but without the cool bits.

So, you're going to combat religion by... starting a religion. Real logical, that. Last I checked, one of the biggest beefs most atheists have with religion is that it often contains a trend towards over-enthusiastic proselytizing. So, you decided that the only way you will defeat this is by imitating it and proselytizing and converting others yourselves. Well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, I suppose.

Persecution often helps a religion spread. Martyrs and all that jazz.

I guess just staple Eureka Australis to a tree and roll with it.

I was kinda wondering why someone would go with a Cult of the Supreme Being rather than Satanism.

Frankly, the Cult just sounds like Unitarian Universalism, but without the cool bits.
There are cool bits to UU? I guess, maybe if you were really into plagiarizing or making everyone else in the elevator think you're really obnoxious, you might have some fun with that, but "cool" . . .

Let's see: in the short years following their creation, the Cult of Reason was persecuted by the more theistic Cult of the Supreme Being. This in turn was persecuted by guys who replaced Robespierre.
I don't see why they aren't more popular, both have all the markings of much older religions. :)

I don't see why they aren't more popular, both have all the markings of much older religions. :)
Because starting a religion is a lot like starting a restaurant: Most will fail within the first decade or so of their existence, and only a few of those that survive from there will make it long enough to start franchising.
For every Christianity there are a few thousand Zoroastrianisms that live on only in the memory of those guys who write clues for Jeopardy.

There are cool bits to UU? I guess, maybe if you were really into plagiarizing or making everyone else in the elevator think you're really obnoxious, you might have some fun with that, but "cool" . . .

I was actually referring to the euphemistic approach to naming God, getting to meet people with unusual views, and very random sermons.

But those could be fun too.

Last I checked, one of the biggest beefs most atheists have with religion is that it often contains a trend towards over-enthusiastic proselytizing.
That may be, but irregiosity has no explicit relation to the atheistic position. I actually argue the complete opposite - that the existence of an explicit Atheistic stance is due entirely to giving religion more credit than it deserves in that about which it preaches. After all, what's the use in believing in No God when the only description of what God is comes from religions, most (if not all) of whom have been intellectually discredited?

No! Die!

Sure it does - if people wish to believe that there is something wise and benevolent looking out for them without ordering or telling them what to.

... and this is where reason and logic stop. Assumption of any such "something", no matter what it does or does not allegedly tell us, is diametrically opposed to reason.

... and this is where reason and logic stop. Assumption of any such "something", no matter what it does or does not allegedly tell us, is diametrically opposed to reason.

"I do it because it makes me feel good and does not harm anyone" does sound quite reasonable to me. Sure, you may be believing in something that is not true, but at least it makes you happy.

Personally I prefer verifiable truth. But I can understand people who do not.

... and this is where reason and logic stop. Assumption of any such "something", no matter what it does or does not allegedly tell us, is diametrically opposed to reason.
That doesn't follow. The assumption of "a something" depends upon and is inclusive of the assertion of "anything", assuming that your "a something" has no explicit assertations of identity. If what you're saying is true then reason and logic stop at the word Go, since the existence of "anything" must be true, regardless of how little we know about it.

"I do it because it makes me feel good and does not harm anyone" does sound quite reasonable to me. Sure, you may be believing in something that is not true, but at least it makes you happy.

Personally I prefer verifiable truth. But I can understand people who do not.

I 'understand' those people too, and there've been times I envied them for their ability to believe in something that made them feel better just like that.

However, such belief does not constitute 'reason', and is therefore not compatible with an organization that describes itself as 'worshipping reason'.


That, and your quote as underlined is not getting to the core of it; it should more read "I believe it because it makes me feel good, and harms no one (while there is no evidence pointing towards support of what I choose to believe)", and that cannot be labelled 'reasonable' except in the sense of 'pragmatic', which is not the sense we're looking for in this context. (And additionally one can argue that such belief does indeed harm people because it fosters a less pro-active attitude when you believe there's a supreme being who'll put everything in its order eventually, but that's a different can of worms)

That doesn't follow. The assumption of "a something" depends upon and is inclusive of the assertion of "anything", assuming that your "a something" has no explicit assertations of identity. If what you're saying is true then reason and logic stop at the word Go, since the existence of "anything" must be true, regardless of how little we know about it.

I must admit that I don't fully get what you're trying to tell me. Allow me to specify what I said some more; maybe that's a starter for our understanding each other.

What Alma Mater said is that we are to assume the existence of a 'something' that "is wise and benevolent and is looking out for us".
I said that assuming such a thing/being/'something' without any evidence for it is not 'reason'.

I have not at all understood how you argue that a belief system built on logic/reason has to include a belief in a 'something' with the specific characteristics mentined above, which is at leats what I thought you were saying in the post I quoted.

As a deist myself, I think this entire idea is abominable. The entire point of deism is that there is no religion; no revelation, no hierarchy, no churches, nothing. The individual, with his unaided reason, is meant to be the only unit in deism. To attempt to re-institute the Cult of the Supreme Being with festivals and temples is not rational or deistic but mystical, depending upon the hearsay of the powerful of such an organization.

As a deist myself, I think this entire idea is abominable. [snip]

You did understand this was an idea aimed at atheists, yes?

You did understand this was an idea aimed at atheists, yes?

The Cult of Reason was, but the Cult of the Supreme Being is very deist.

You did understand this was an idea aimed at atheists, yes?

we need to use a new leftist deism to have more foot soldiers.

I don't think I need to make any further comment.

The Cult of Reason was, but the Cult of the Supreme Being is very deist.

My bad for not looking both up; the way the OP was phrased they made it sound like those were identical, and I only jumped on the CoR bit. Thanks for the clarification.

I don't think I need to make any further comment.

I could now just as well quote a bit from the OP where it says "atheistic", but I'll leave such childish games to those who enjoy it.

The OP quite clearly lacks a substantial amount of coherence, internal logic and following-through, advocating two ideas that contradict each other at the same time. I've been referring to the Cult of Reason part in my posts.

I could now just as well quote a bit from the OP where it says "atheistic", but I'll leave such childish games to those who enjoy it.

I don't understand why you are getting so defensive. The fact of the matter is, whether or not it is intended for atheists (and I know it is), their conversion to the cult he proposes would negate their previous religious leanings. They would cease being atheists and become deists. And I would object to such a branch of deism that is more mystical (worship, festivals, churches, etc.) than rational and corrupt its true meaning.

The successor of the Jacobins, being, of course, a despotic militarist and aggressor.