4 ms·
Materialism, theism and atheism are all religions.
by fourfaces 9y ago
Materialism, theism and atheism are all religions.
- robert_foss 9y agoNo, that is a logical fallacy.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- lawlessone 9y agoWhen i pray to Amazon they deliver.
- Simon_says 9y agoWi-fi is my invisible power that surrounds me. Sometimes I ask it for guidance on things like what restaurants are open.
- BOBOTWINSTON 9y agoUnlike Digiorno. In all seriousness though Atheism is still a belief system. It makes an assertion without the necessary evidence to fully back it up (which is both true and weirdly ridiculous). On the other hand Agnosticism is in itself removed from a specific belief system. It is an epistemological doctrine of sorts with both religious and non-religious applications. I find that most people use the word atheism completely wrong and accidentally get caught in stupid semantic debates they themselves are responsible for falling into. If you believe their is no god, then your making some pretty wild jumps. If you don't think we have sufficient evidence to disprove a God, but would totally bet it all that there isn't, then you should just say your agnostic and explain how that applies if necessary.
- r00fus 9y agoIt's a bit silly to argue against absolute atheism (belief in no god) when the article simply says the growing population don't believe in a god (and this - agnosticism - is conflated with atheism to the confusion of many and benefit of those who argue for religion).
- phailhaus 9y agoa-theism literally means "lack of belief". Bald is not a hair color.
- the-dude 9y agoIt is a hair style.
- sremani 9y agoThe point he is making is Religion is replaced by Ideology. lets not reduce ourselves to "word-play".
- uhtred 9y agoTheism refers to a belief in one or many Gods. But materialism and atheism are not religions.
- Simon_says 9y agoAtheism is a religion in the same way that not golfing is a sport.
- joexner 9y agoIf you don't sweat playing it, it ain't a sport.
- Y_Y 9y agoSome of the greatest sportspeople of our generation are not golfers.
- kirse 9y agoQuippy but untrue. "Not golfing" doesn't have news articles, blogs, apologetic tomes, influential figure-heads, social gatherings (online and offline), charitable organizations and all sorts of life and energy-consuming efforts dedicated to it. Atheism is indeed the religion of man, who has set himself on his own throne, denied the existence of a Creator, and crowned himself god - deciding that HE will be the arbiter of right and wrong. The same forms of worship (investments of time, energy, money, etc) that can be devoted to the Divine are simply channeled inward in a self-righteous pursuit of independence.
- vidarh 9y agoThis is way too simplistic. Most organisations promoting atheism tends to explicitly associate with ideologies that sometimes pre-suppose atheism, but are not just atheism, such as humanism. E.g. the biggest "atheist" organizations in most countries tends to be the Humanist Associations. To the extent that there are organizations etc. "just for atheism" rather than humanism, this tends to either be tied to ideologies that either encompass just small parts of atheists, e.g. "hard" atheists who express absolute certainty in the non-belief of God, or "radical" atheists who see theism as actively damaging and something to be fought. Those you could very well consider ideologies. Another category are groups that band together not over atheism per se, but against religiously motivated discrimination, but most of these tends to focus on secularism, not atheism per se. Calling atheism itself an ideology because of any of the above is ascribing far more to atheism than is actually there. Saying that there are atheist ideologies where the absence of belief in a God is an important principle is true. But atheism on it's own is the simple absence of belief.
- doornail 9y agoYeah no. Is 'bald' a hair color? Is 'abstinence' a sexual position? Is 'not collecting stamps' a hobby?
- Starwatcher2001 9y agoI think not. Religion: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. [1] Atheism: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. [2] [1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion [2] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism
- majewsky 9y agoSince you're arguing with definitions, I feel it worthwhile to point out that these definitions do not necessarily contradict each other. Note the use of the word "especially".
- Spivak 9y agoQuoting a dictionary in an argument is not just bad form but completely incorrect. An English dictionary is not an authoritative source for the meaning of words -- it's a record of the usage of words by English speakers and authors. It is a tool that helps a reader survey the possible meanings of the speaker or author. It does not define the meaning of a text. You would do well to argue against the authors ideas rather than their words.
- mwerd 9y agoIt can be helpful to enlighten an ignorant person though. Take the bastardization of the word "literally", or even "peruse" if you want a less inflammatory example. If one person uses the word in its original meaning and another interprets that word according to a colloquially bastardized version that essentially has the opposite meaning, I think it's entirely appropriate to quote a dictionary to the misinterpreter and incumbent upon them to interpret the word in its original meaning (if at all the intention is in question). Bastardizing words, particularly those that have a prior established meaning to a minority community like atheists, is tyranny of the majority. It's not their fault that people don't know what atheist means and interpret the word incorrectly. If you reject that notion then I think you a) endorse a recursive loop where ignorant people never have to learn new vocabulary (or worse, get to make up definitions matching what they want to believe the other person is saying) and b) the bar to exchanging information gets set unreasonably high because speakers have to constantly define terms for their audience. There is some duty to learn and understand in a conversation. If you don't know what the words mean, look them up or don't get upset when corrected. That's how you have a conversation that progresses past semantics.
- nether 9y agoThey might be systems of belief. But they're not religions.
- Old_Thrashbarg 9y agoI'm not sure what the intention of choosing to define "religion" so as to include atheism, but it might be more productive to directly state what you are getting at. When I google "religion", I get: "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." It reminds me of when a friend once said, "World War II just happened", and I said, "Me tying my shoe just happened, World War II happened 70 years ago". It was both our faults for arguing about the definition of a word instead of both trying to understand each other. What my friend meant was that, since WWII, culture and education hasn't changed much, and another such disastrous event could happen again. Which is why I'm now asking you to rephrase your statement in a way I can understand your intent better.
- JoeDaDude 9y agoI don't disagree with you, but it should be made clear that the article is talking about people with no affiliation to a religion, and not (explicitly) atheism.
- fourfaces 9y ago"When I google "religion", I get: "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."" Modern atheists came up with that definition. The fact is that opposites are of the same nature. Theism and its opposite, atheism, are both belief systems. Neither of them is scientific. At least, not yet.
- Tenobrus 9y agoYou're using the fact that all are ideologies to attempt to smuggle in the connotations we have with "religion" and apply those to atheism and materialism. Examine those connotations directly and you'll see they don't sensically apply. For example: religion requires faith without evidence, materialism and atheism do not. Almost all religions make demands on the actions of their adherents, atheism almost by definition does not, except as in that as a category defined by lack of belief, those in that category won't believe in supernatural powers. There are legitimate semantic boundaries here, and attempting to blur them is only useful if you're trying to wage a war of connotation and emotion, not if you're trying to argue in good faith or build a good model of the world.
- ythn 9y ago> Almost all religions make demands on the actions of their adherents This is a feature, not a bug? Otherwise what's the point?
- Tenobrus 9y agoI'm not necessarily disparaging it, rather pointing out there are clear and legitimate features of the category "religion" that ideologies like atheism don't share.
- fourfaces 9y ago" religion requires faith without evidence, materialism and atheism do not." This is dogma preached by materialists, of course. The fact is that opposites are of the same nature. Theism and its opposite, atheism, are both belief systems. Neither of them is scientific. Vociferous denials notwithstanding.
- root_axis 9y agoAtheism is not a belief system (and neither is theism for that matter) it is simply a description.
- dragonwriter 9y ago