4 ms·

The charitable interpretation is that most people -- even atheists -- will have a belief system that is functionally equivalent to a religion. > Atheism is to

The charitable interpretation is that most people -- even atheists -- will have a belief system that is functionally equivalent to a religion. > Atheism is to religion as being silent is to speaking – and you're essentially claiming it's just another way of speaking. Another way of saying it is that religions (as we know them) are answers to questions, you can get rid of those answers, disagree with them, etc. but the questions will remain and you will implicitly provide answers to them. Those answers will constitute what your religion is -- albeit one might not examine their answers in any detail.

dlkf 6y ago
You're just redefining "religion" so that the claim is a tautology. You could do this with anything: "Everyone has a God (where 'God' means 'favourite thing')" "Everyone believes in the existence of Hell (where 'hell' means 'being unhappy')" "Everyone believes in the possibility of "salvation" (where 'salvation' means 'self-improvement')" Redefining words so that the original sentence is correct is a tad too "charitable", particularly when the new definition is completely at odds with how everyone uses the word.
eivarv 6y ago
Even this charitable interpretation doesn't make much sense: The only thing "atheists" have in common is that they have a lack of belief – we have no idea what they actually DO believe (people come with various philosophical persuasions, after all). The other way you propose of defining religions is so general and vague that it borders on meaningless, and doesn't deal with the fact that different people have different questions, formulated differently, using different assumptions and caring about the answers to different extents.
- harperlee 6y ago
  I think it makes sense: even the utmost atheist needs to have beliefs; both in the ‘individual facts’ way (you can’t be rational about everything all the time), and in the ‘cosmovision’ way (ideas about what to do with one’s life, etc.). The OP was just being a little bit provocative while calling those beliefs a religion, which I think can be allowed; at least for the fact that there are a bunch of people that are religiously “atheists”.
  - msla 6y ago
    > I think it makes sense: even the utmost atheist needs to have beliefs Only if you equivocate on the definition of "belief" as you seem to be. > both in the ‘individual facts’ way (you can’t be rational about everything all the time) Of course you can.
  - eivarv 6y ago
    even the utmost atheist needs to have beliefs They might, but my point is that they are different - meaning that you therefore can’t categorize it as a religion (not to mention that these answers don’t have anything to do with atheism in and of itself).
cousin_it 6y ago
> the questions will remain and you will implicitly provide answers to them. Those answers will constitute what your religion is What if some of these answers are "I don't know"?
goto11 6y ago
> Another way of saying it is that religions (as we know them) are answers to questions Perhaps, but atheism does not answer questions like how the world is created. You can be atheist and believe in big bang or believe that the universe have always existed or something else, or you can just not care. Atheism just eliminates some particular answers like "a god did it".

dlkf 6y ago

You're just redefining "religion" so that the claim is a tautology. You could do this with anything: "Everyone has a God (where 'God' means 'favourite thing')" "Everyone believes in the existence of Hell (where 'hell' means 'being unhappy')" "Everyone believes in the possibility of "salvation" (where 'salvation' means 'self-improvement')" Redefining words so that the original sentence is correct is a tad too "charitable", particularly when the new definition is completely at odds with how everyone uses the word.

eivarv 6y ago

Even this charitable interpretation doesn't make much sense: The only thing "atheists" have in common is that they have a lack of belief – we have no idea what they actually DO believe (people come with various philosophical persuasions, after all). The other way you propose of defining religions is so general and vague that it borders on meaningless, and doesn't deal with the fact that different people have different questions, formulated differently, using different assumptions and caring about the answers to different extents.

harperlee 6y ago
I think it makes sense: even the utmost atheist needs to have beliefs; both in the ‘individual facts’ way (you can’t be rational about everything all the time), and in the ‘cosmovision’ way (ideas about what to do with one’s life, etc.). The OP was just being a little bit provocative while calling those beliefs a religion, which I think can be allowed; at least for the fact that there are a bunch of people that are religiously “atheists”.
- msla 6y ago
  > I think it makes sense: even the utmost atheist needs to have beliefs Only if you equivocate on the definition of "belief" as you seem to be. > both in the ‘individual facts’ way (you can’t be rational about everything all the time) Of course you can.
- eivarv 6y ago
  even the utmost atheist needs to have beliefs They might, but my point is that they are different - meaning that you therefore can’t categorize it as a religion (not to mention that these answers don’t have anything to do with atheism in and of itself).

cousin_it 6y ago

> the questions will remain and you will implicitly provide answers to them. Those answers will constitute what your religion is What if some of these answers are "I don't know"?

goto11 6y ago

> Another way of saying it is that religions (as we know them) are answers to questions Perhaps, but atheism does not answer questions like how the world is created. You can be atheist and believe in big bang or believe that the universe have always existed or something else, or you can just not care. Atheism just eliminates some particular answers like "a god did it".