3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoeven 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).