[Evangelist]

Over the few weeks I have been doing extensive research on random crap I came to a conclusion.

If a lone person believes in supernatural entities he is shunned and called insane, if a million people believe in the same it is called religion

Think about it, if you see one person preaching about God and his miracles, making the blind see, and healing everything with his robes, you would look at him like if he was a crack head. If you see a group of people doing that it's true and factual. Now I also came to study Scientology, a religion based on pure science fiction, people shun it and call it bullshit and a money scam, is Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Theistic Satanism any different? They all talk about insane ideas and myths, why are they accepted and Scientology is not? Is it because the bible is thousands of years old? I think so.

To me a Scientology (it's said by the creator that it is a lie) it's the same as another religion but, harmless.

[Nil]

I guess I can somewhat agree with this. The reason I think religion is easier to accept is there is a lot more historical evidence/artifacts that provide "credibility" to the ideas, as opposed to a single person crazily preaching. The Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls...etc. And the fact I think people are more inclined to accept something that has survived and flourished for so long. It also refers back to the fact that a person will believe something if many other people do to. It's an argumentum ad populum and I think it holds value in this instance.

[Evangelist]

I guess I can somewhat agree with this. The reason I think religion is easier to accept is there is a lot more historical evidence/artifacts that provide "credibility" to the ideas, as opposed to a single person crazily preaching. The Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls...etc. And the fact I think people are more inclined to accept something that has survived and flourished for so long. It also refers back to the fact that a person will believe something if many other people do to. It's an argumentum ad populum and I think it holds value in this instance.

This is one of my biggest problems with religion, the sheep-like behavior, so many people fear being independent and their own leaders. Searching for an outside voice to dictate what they can't and can say or think, a voice that tells them how to feel. A full sheep.

[Nil]

I guess I can somewhat agree with this. The reason I think religion is easier to accept is there is a lot more historical evidence/artifacts that provide "credibility" to the ideas, as opposed to a single person crazily preaching. The Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls...etc. And the fact I think people are more inclined to accept something that has survived and flourished for so long. It also refers back to the fact that a person will believe something if many other people do to. It's an argumentum ad populum and I think it holds value in this instance.

This is one of my biggest problems with religion, the sheep-like behavior, so many people fear being independent and their own leaders. Searching for an outside voice to dictate what they can't and can say or think, a voice that tells them how to feel. A full sheep.

I think it's just natural human behavior. There can only be very little leaders out there, while the rest are satisfied following these people. It also kind of frees them from responsibility.

If 10 people are following a leader through a jungle and something goes wrong, who is to blame? All the responsibility is thrown to the one leading while the others are free from scrutiny and shame, and other negative feelings. Although this isn't really related, I just feel like this inherent behavior shows why people would rather follow than lead.

I mean, all you gotta do is follow that path set for you, and if something goes wrong, it was out of your hands anyway. Right?

[Evangelist]

I guess I can somewhat agree with this. The reason I think religion is easier to accept is there is a lot more historical evidence/artifacts that provide "credibility" to the ideas, as opposed to a single person crazily preaching. The Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls...etc. And the fact I think people are more inclined to accept something that has survived and flourished for so long. It also refers back to the fact that a person will believe something if many other people do to. It's an argumentum ad populum and I think it holds value in this instance.

This is one of my biggest problems with religion, the sheep-like behavior, so many people fear being independent and their own leaders. Searching for an outside voice to dictate what they can't and can say or think, a voice that tells them how to feel. A full sheep.

I think it's just natural human behavior. There can only be very little leaders out there, while the rest are satisfied following these people. It also kind of frees them from responsibility.

If 10 people are following a leader through a jungle and something goes wrong, who is to blame? All the responsibility is thrown to the one leading while the others are free from scrutiny and shame, and other negative feelings. Although this isn't really related, I just feel like this inherent behavior shows why people would rather follow than lead.

I mean, all you gotta do is follow that path set for you, and if something goes wrong, it was out of your hands anyway. Right?

Is it really? People forgot about the power of choice, your example is great, people negate their power of making a decision, sitting back blaming the leader and forgetting that THEY chose to follow him instead of being a strong independent human. I know that 99% of the people rather follow than lead, then they complain why their life and knowledge never increases. My question to you, are YOU a leader?

[Nil]

This is one of my biggest problems with religion, the sheep-like behavior, so many people fear being independent and their own leaders. Searching for an outside voice to dictate what they can't and can say or think, a voice that tells them how to feel. A full sheep.

I think it's just natural human behavior. There can only be very little leaders out there, while the rest are satisfied following these people. It also kind of frees them from responsibility.

If 10 people are following a leader through a jungle and something goes wrong, who is to blame? All the responsibility is thrown to the one leading while the others are free from scrutiny and shame, and other negative feelings. Although this isn't really related, I just feel like this inherent behavior shows why people would rather follow than lead.

I mean, all you gotta do is follow that path set for you, and if something goes wrong, it was out of your hands anyway. Right?

Is it really? People forgot about the power of choice, your example is great, people negate their power of making a decision, sitting back blaming the leader and forgetting that THEY chose to follow him instead of being a strong independent human. I know that 99% of the people rather follow than lead, then they complain why their life and knowledge never increases. My question to you, are YOU a leader?

That's a tough question to answer. Some people will be leaders in some areas, while in other areas they feel more comfortable following someone more qualified.

I'm not sure where to begin in answering.

Care to explain, or be a tad more specific and I'll respond?

[Guardian]

I have always considered religions cults that have succeeded. Even larger religions shun those of the smaller groups and if it isn't large enough it is considered a cult. So basically, a cult is small-scale religion, and religions are cults that have succeeded. If they never gained success the creators or founders of the religions would be considered insane crackpots and cult leaders.

[Harvey]

I agree with OP. I don't think it so much has to do with religion as it does psychology and perspective. People naturally associate smaller religions or less popular religions or religions with a bad reputation or religions with interesting practices with being a cult. And we all know cults are bad right! The fact is, if you see a dude wandering around the street speaking about his god and whatnot, you automatically assume his belief system has lead him to the sad position he's currently in: possible homeless and delusional with no purpose? It's just a stereotype, unfortunately.

I actually watched this video recently about how Christianity ruined a formerly very wealthy man's life. He's now homeless.