Are you claiming that for essentially anyone in, say, Dublin, announcing that they are now an atheist would lead to their family cutting all ties to them?

Or are you just saying that family members would generally declare their deep sadness at the news, and seek to convince them that this is a wrong belief and a mistake?

The first one is what leaving a cult is like (e.g. if you leave Scientology, most family and friends will be forced by the cult to cut ties, even if they personally wouldn't want to; even more extreme cults may physically prevent you from leaving the compound or even hurt you for the attempt). The second one is just the normal human experience of having opinions and a lifestyle that is not accepted by your family; the same happens to many people if choosing a career their family doesn't approve of, or leaves a job their family considers excellent, or dates someone the family doesn't like, and many other scenarios that have nothing to do with religion.

No, he's not. Just look at the life of an average Catholic person and the life of an average Scientologist, or better yet, the life of an average Jonestown resident before the suicide, and see the obvious differences. Note also how little the life of an average Catholic differs from that of an average non-religious person in the same country.

I would be completely fine with saying that there do exist cults operating within the Catholic Church. Arguably, monasteries, especially the more isolated ones, are very much cults, with the cloistered lifestyle, complete dedication to the faith, strict authority, and requirement to cut previous ties to join, plus cutting ties if deciding to leave. I'd even agree that the priesthood constitutes somewhat of a cult, for similar reasons.

However, claiming that all of the hundreds of millions of lay Catholic believers are members of a cult is ludicrous.

I am aware of that. I am disagreeing in their interpretation and pointing out how convenient it is to define the word cult in the most favourable way possible to the rationalist (or whatever) movement possible. I am therefore inviting either a strong textual interpretation of the bluesky post we are discussing, or proof of their ability in telepathy.

> There is substantial doubt, I don't think the article did accuse them of being any of those things.

The article says:

> Rationalism as a whole is a religious movement. Not everyone takes marching orders. The core people who mostly live together and attend events and especially orgies in Berkeley are a sex cult, and the ones that aren't having any sex are part of the wider movement and are its recruiting funnel.

> This industry frames its regulations in this way because it has, at its core, a millenarian death cult that worships and fears AI as the cause of the end of the world, that feels compelled to create AI, and that at least somewhat wants to destroy AI as a field.

This is quite clearly accusing them of being a cult in the sense of Scientology or Jonestown, not in the sense of Britney Spears lovers.

As for specific nefarious things that it associates this sex cult with:

- being beneficiaries of money that FTX defrauded their customers of

- being an inspiration/breeding ground for more extreme cults, like the murderous Zizians

- inspiring corporate collusion for absurd outcomes

- monopolizing the discussion and real research/influence into AI safety by focusing on their doomsday scenario instead of more concrete short-term issues (say, copyright issues, cybersecurity, bias-induction, institutional degradation in favor of AI decision making)

- extreme alarmism, such as Yudkowsky advocating for nuclear war as an alternative to allowing AI risks