Hacker News Reader

Comment by SirFatty | Hacker News Reader

Came to ask a similar question, but also has it always been like this? The difference is now these people/groups on the fringe had no visibility before the internet?

It's nuts.

View on HN

It’s always been like this, have you read the Bible? Or the Koran? It’s insane. Ours is just our flavor of crazy. Every generation has some. When you dig at it, there’s always a religion.

Mage is a game for teenagers, it doesn't try to be anything else other than a game where you roll dice do to stuff.

Mage yea, but the cult? Where do you roll for crazy? Is it a save against perception? Constitution? Or intelligence check?

I know the church of Scientology wants you to crit that roll of tithing.

> I know the church of Scientology wants you to crit that roll of tithing.

I shouldn't LOL at this but I must. We're all gonna die in these terrible times but at least we'll LOL at the madness and stupidity of it all.

Like all tragedies, there’s comedy there somewhere. Sometimes you have to be it.

yeah, people should understand, what is Scientology based on? The E-Meter which is some kind of cheap shit radio shack lie detector thing. I'm quite sure LLMs would do very well if given the task to spit out new cult doctrines and I would gather we are less than years away from cults based on LLM generated content (if not already).

Terry Davis, a cult of one, believed God spoke to him through his computer's RNG. So... yeah.

If only he installed Dwarf Fortress where he could become one.

tbf Helter Skelter was a song about a fairground ride that didn't really pretend to be much more than an excuse for Paul McCartney to write something loud, but that didn't stop a sufficiently manipulative individual turning it into a reason why the Family should murder people. And he didn't even need the internet to help him find followers.

It is used ti be always religion. But now downsides are well understood. And alternatives that can fill the same need (social activities) - like gathering with your neighbors, singing, performing arts, clubs, parks and paries are available and great.

I can see that. There’s definitely a reason they keep pumping out Call of Duty’s and Madden’s.

Religions have multitudes of problems but suicide rates amongst atheists is higher than you'd think it would be. It seems like for many, rejection of organized religion leads to adoption of ad hoc quasi-religions with no mooring to them, leaving the person who is seeking a solid belief system drifting until they find a cult, give in to madness that causes self-harm, or adopt their own system of belief that they then need to vigorously protect from other beliefs.

Some percentage of the population has a lesser need for a belief system (supernatural, ad hoc, or anything else) but in general, most humans appear to be hardcoded for this need and the overlap doesn't align strictly with atheism. For the atheist with a deep need for something to believe in, the results can be ugly. Though far from perfect, organized religions tend to weed out their most destructive beliefs or end up getting squashed by adherents of other belief systems that are less internally destructive.

Nothing to do with religion and everything to do with support networks that Churches and those Groups provide. Synagogue, Church, Camp, Retreat, a place of belonging.

Atheists tend to not have those consistently and must build their own.

Without speaking for religions I'm not familiar with, I grew up Catholic, and one of the most important Catholic beliefs is that during Mass, the bread (i.e. "communion" wafers) and wine quite literally transform into the body and blood of Jesus, and that eating and drinking it is a necessary ritual to get into heaven[1], which was a source of controversy even back as far as the Protestant Reformation, with some sects retaining that doctrine and others abandoning it. In a lot of ways, what's considered "normal" or "crazy" in a religion comes to what you're familiar with.

For those not familiar with the bible enough to know what to look for to find the wild stuff, look up the story of Elisha summoning bears out of the first to maul children for calling him bald, or the last two chapters of Daniel (which I think are only in the Catholic bible) where he literally blows up a dragon by feeding it a cake.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_presence_of_Christ_in_the...

Yes, Catholicism has definitely accumulated some cruft :)

Yeah "Transubstantiation" is another technical term people might want to look at in this topic. The art piece "An Oak Tree" is a comment on these ideas. It's a glass of water. But, the artist's notes for this work insist it is an oak tree.

Someone else who knows "An Oak Tree"! It is one of my favorite pieces because it wants not reality itself to be the primary way to see the world, but the belief of what reality could be.

Interesting you bring art into the discussion. Often thought that some "artists" have a lot in common with cult leaders. My definition of art would be that is immediately understood, zero explanation needed.

I definitely can't get behind that definition. The one I've used for a good while is: The unnecessary done on purpose.

Take Barbara Hepworth's "Two Figures" a sculpture which is just sat there on the campus where I studied for many years (and where I also happen to work today). What's going on there? I'm not sure.

Sculpture of ideals I get. Liberty, stood on her island, Justice (with or without her blindfold, but always carrying not only the scales but also a sword†). I used to spend a lot of time in the hall where "The Meeting Place" is. They're not specific people, they're an idea, they're the spirit of the purpose of this place (a railway station, in fact a major international terminus). That's immediately understood, yeah.

But I did not receive an immediate understanding of "Two figures". It's an interesting piece. I still occasionally stop and look at it as I walk across the campus, but I couldn't summarise it in a sentence even now.

† when you look at that cartoon of the GOP operatives with their hands over Justice's mouth, keep in mind that out of shot she has a sword. Nobody gets out of here alive.

The "bears" story reads a lot more sensibly if you translated it correctly as "a gang of thugs tries to bully Elisha into killing himself." Still reliant on the supernatural, but what do you expect from such a book?

Where do you see that in the text? I am looking at the Hebrew script, and the text only reads that as Elisha went up a path, young lads left the city and mocked him by saying "get up baldy", and he turned to them and cursed them to be killed by two she bears. I don't think saying "get up baldy" to a guy walking up a hill constitutes bullying him into killing himself.

Never underestimate the power of words. Kids have unalived themselves over it.

I think the true meaning has been lost to time. The Hebrew text has been translated and rewritten so many times it’s a children’s book. The original texts of the Dead Sea scrolls are bits and pieces of that long lost story. All we have left are the transliterations of transliterations.

It's called context. The beginning of the chapter is Elijah (Elisha's master) being removed from Earth and going up (using the exact same Hebrew word) to Heaven. Considering that the thugs are clearly not pious people, "remove yourself from the world, like your master did" has only one viable interpretation.

As for my choice of the word "thugs" ("mob" would be another good word), that is necessary to preserve the connotation. Remember, there were 42 of them punished, possibly more escaped - this is a threatening crowd size (remember the duck/horse meme?). Their claimed youth does imply "not an established veteran of the major annual wars", but that's not the same as "not acquainted with violence".

Interesting! In the story itself, the word "go up" exists multiple times in that verse before the youths mock him, writing that Elisha goes up to Beit El and goes up the road, so I wouldn't go back to the beginning of the chapter to search for context that is found right there in those verses, but I like the connection you're making.

As for mob or thugs, the literal translation will be "little teenagers", so mob or thugs will be stretching it a bit; more likely that the Arabic contemporary use of "Shabab" for troublesome youth is the best translation. Religious scholars have been criticizing Elisha for generations after for his sending bears at babies, so I think it's safe to assume the story meant actual kids and not organized crime.

To be fair, the description of the dragon incident is pretty mundane, and all he does is prove that the large reptile they had previously been feeding (& worshiping) could be killed:

"Then Daniel took pitch, and fat, and hair, and did seethe them together, and made lumps thereof: this he put in the dragon's mouth, and so the dragon burst in sunder: and Daniel said, Lo, these are the gods ye worship."

I don't think it's mundane to cause something to "burst in sunder" by putting some pitch, fat, and hair in its mouth.

The story is pretty clearly meant to indicate that the Babylonians were worshiping an animal though. The theology of the book of Daniel emphasises that the Gods of the Babylonians don't exist, this story happens around the same time Daniel proves the priests had a secret passage they were using to get the food offered to Bel and eat it at night while pretending that Bel was eating it. Or when Daniel talks to King Belshazzar and says "You have praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood, and stone, which do not see or hear or know, but the God in whose power is your very breath and to whom belong all your ways, you have not honored". This is not to argue for the historical accuracy of the stories, just that the point is that Daniel is acting as a debunker of the Babylonian beliefs in these stories while asserting the supremacy of the Israelite beliefs.

I've recently started attending an Episcopal church. We have some people who lean heavy on transubstantiation, but our priest says, "look, something holy happens during communion, exactly what, we don't know."

"Belief in the real presence does not imply a claim to know how Christ is present in the eucharistic elements. Belief in the real presence does not imply belief that the consecrated eucharistic elements cease to be bread and wine."

Same could be said for bowel movements too though.

There’s a fine line between suspension of disbelief and righteousness. All it takes is for one to believe their own delusion.

It's no more crazy than a virgin conception. And yet, here we are. A good chunk of the planet believes that drivel, but they'd throw their own daughters out of the house if they made the same claim.

> Came to ask a similar question, but also has it always been like this?

Crazy people have always existed (especially cults), but I'd argue recruitment numbers are through the roof thanks to technology and a failing economic environment (instability makes people rationalize crazy behavior).

It's not that those groups didn't have visibility before, it's just easier for the people who share the same...interests...to cloister together on an international scale.

Have you heard of Heavens Gate? [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_(religious_g...].

There are at least a dozen I can think of, including the ‘drink the koolaid’ Jonestown massacre.

People be crazy, yo.

Of course, Jim Jones and L Ron Hubbard, David Kersh. I realize there have always been people that are coocoo for cocoa puffs. But so many as there appear to be now?

Internet made possible to know global news all the time. I think that there have always been a lot of people with very crazy and extremist views, but we only knew about the ones closer to us. Now it's possible to know about crazy people from the other side of the planet, so it looks like there's a lot more of them than before.

Yup. Like previously, westerners could have gone their whole lives with no clue the Hindutva existed [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindutva] - Hindu Nazis, basically. Which if you know Hinduism at all, is a bit like saying Buddhist Nazis. Say what?

Which actually kinda exised/exists too? [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichirenism], right down to an attempted coup and a bunch of assassinations [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Blood_Incident].

Now you know. People be whack.

Just a note that the Heaven's Gate website is still up. It's a wonderful snapshot of 90s web design. https://www.heavensgate.com/

what a wild set of SEO keywords

> Heaven's Gate Heaven's Gate Heaven's Gate Heaven's Gate Heaven's Gate Heaven's Gate Heaven's Gate Heaven's Gate ufo ufo ufo ufo ufo ufo ufo ufo ufo ufo ufo ufo space alien space alien space alien space alien space alien space alien space alien space alien space alien space alien space alien space alien extraterrestrial extraterrestrial extraterrestrial extraterrestrial extraterrestrial extraterrestrial extraterrestrial extraterrestrial extraterrestrial extraterrestrial extraterrestrial extraterrestrial extraterrestrial extraterrestrial misinformation misinformation misinformation misinformation misinformation misinformation misinformation misinformation misinformation misinformation misinformation misinformation freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom freedom second coming second coming second coming second coming second coming second coming second coming second coming second coming second coming angels angels angels angels angels angels angels angels angels angels end end times times end times end times end times end times end times end times end times end times end times Key Words: (for search engines) 144,000, Abductees, Agnostic, Alien, Allah, Alternative, Angels, Antichrist, Apocalypse, Armageddon, Ascension, Atheist, Awakening, Away Team, Beyond Human, Blasphemy, Boddhisattva, Book of Revelation, Buddha, Channeling, Children of God, Christ, Christ's Teachings, Consciousness, Contactees, Corruption, Creation, Death, Discarnate, Discarnates, Disciple, Disciples, Disinformation, Dying, Ecumenical, End of the Age, End of the World, Eternal Life, Eunuch, Evolution, Evolutionary, Extraterrestrial, Freedom, Fulfilling Prophecy, Genderless, Glorified Body, God, God's Children, God's Chosen, God's Heaven, God's Laws, God's Son, Guru, Harvest Time, He's Back, Heaven, Heaven's Gate, Heavenly Kingdom, Higher Consciousness, His Church, Human Metamorphosis, Human Spirit, Implant, Incarnation, Interfaith, Jesus, Jesus' Return, Jesus' Teaching, Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven, Krishna Consciousness, Lamb of God, Last Days, Level Above Human, Life After Death, Luciferian, Luciferians, Meditation, Members of the Next Level, Messiah, Metamorphosis, Metaphysical, Millennium, Misinformation, Mothership, Mystic, Next Level, Non Perishable, Non Temporal, Older Member, Our Lords Return, Out of Body Experience, Overcomers, Overcoming, Past Lives, Prophecy, Prophecy Fulfillment, Rapture, Reactive Mind, Recycling the Planet, Reincarnation, Religion, Resurrection, Revelations, Saved, Second Coming, Soul, Space Alien, Spacecraft, Spirit, Spirit Filled, Spirit Guide, Spiritual, Spiritual Awakening, Star People, Super Natural, Telepathy, The Remnant, The Two, Theosophy, Ti and Do, Truth, Two Witnesses, UFO, Virginity, Walk-ins, Yahweh, Yeshua, Yoda, Yoga,

It’s the aliens to yoga ratio that really gets me. Yogis got really shortchanged here.

I was curious who's keeping that website alive, and allegedly it's two former members of the cult: Mark and Sarah King

https://www.vice.com/en/article/a-suicide-cults-surviving-me...

I mean, cults have constantly shown up for all of recorded human history. Read a history of Scientology and you'll see a lot of commonalities, say. Rationalism is probably the first major cult/new religion to emerge in the internet era (Objectivism may be a marginal case, as its rise overlapped with USENET a bit), which does make it especially visible.

I personally (for better or worse) became familiar with Ayn Rand as a teenager, and I think Objectivism as a kind of extended Ayn Rand social circle and set of organizations has faced the charge of cultish-ness, and that dates back to, I want to say, the 70s and 80s at least. I know Rand wrote much earlier than that, but I think the social and organizational dynamics unfolded rather late in her career.

Albert Ellis wrote a book, "Is Objectivism a Religion" as far back as 1968. Murray Rothbard wrote "Mozart Was a Red", a play satirizing Rand's circle, in the early 60's. Ayn Rand was calling her own circle of friends, in "jest", "The Collective" in the 50's. The dynamics were there from almost the beginning.

“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/366635-there-are-two-novels...

I think it's pretty similar dynamics. It's unquestioned premises (dogma) which are supposed to be accepted simply because this is "objectivism" or "rationalism".

Very similar to my childhood religion. "We have figured everything out and everyone else is wrong for not figuring things out".

Rationalism seems like a giant castle built on sand. They just keep accruing premises without ever going backwards to see if those premises make sense. A good example of this is their notions of "information hazards".

Her books were very popular with the gifted kids I hung out with in the late 80s. Cool kids would carry around hardback copies of Atlas Shrugged, impressive by the sheer physical size and art deco cover. How did that trend begin?

People reading the book and being into it and telling other people.

It’s also a hard book to read so it may be smart kids trying to signal being smart.

The only thing that makes it hard to read is the incessant soap-boxing by random characters. I have a rule that if I start a book I finish it but that one had me tempted.

I’m convinced that even Rand’s editor didn’t finish the book. That is why Galt’s soliloquy is ninety friggin’ pages long. (When in reality, three minutes in and people would be unplugging their radios.)

It’s hard to read because it’s tedious not because you need to be smart though.

tbf you have to have read it to know that!

I can't help but think it's probably the "favourite book" of a lot of people who haven't finished it though, possibly to a greater extent than any other secular tome (at least LOTR's lightweight fans watched the movies!).

I mean, if you've only read the blurb on the back it's the perfect book to signal your belief in free markets, conservative values and the American Dream: what could be more a more strident defence of your views than a book about capitalists going on strike to prove how much the world really needs them?! If you read the first few pages, it's satisfyingly pro-industry and contemptuous of liberal archetypes. If you trudge through the whole thing, it's not only tedious and odd but contains whole subplots devoted to dumping on core conservative values (religion bad, military bad, marriage vows not that important really, and a rather jaded take on actually extant capitalism) in between the philosopher pirates and jarring absence of private transport, and the resolution is an odd combination of a handful of geniuses running away to form a commune and the world being saved by a multi-hour speech about philosophy which has surprisingly little to say on market economics...

at least LOTR's lightweight fans watched the movies!

Oh, there’s movies for lazy Rand fans, too.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/

More of a Fountainhead fan, are you? Do ya like Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal?

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041386/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk

> Oh, there’s movies for lazy Rand fans, too.

tbf that comment was about 50% a joke about their poor performance at the box office :D

Rereading your comment, that’s my woosh moment for the day, I guess. :-)

Though a Gary Cooper The Fountainhead does tempt me on occasion. (Unlike Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead wasn’t horrible, but still some pretty poor writing.)

Fountainhead is written at the 7th grade reading level. Its Lexile level is 780L. It's long and that's about it. By comparison, 1984 is 1090L.

This gives strong Dead Poets Society vibes.

By setting up the misfits in a revenge of the nerds scenario?

Ira Levin did a much better job of it and showed what it would lead to but his 'This Perfect Day' did not - predictably - get the same kind of reception as Atlas Shrugged did.

What's funny is that Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shear already took the piss out of Ayn Rand in Illuminatus! (1969-1971).

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2002/09/murray-n-rothbard/unders...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com