8 ms·

It's pretty clear that that "worship" here refers to where we practice focusing our heart's yearnings, not to a set of religious rites. Synonyms of this meanin

It's pretty clear that that "worship" here refers to where we practice focusing our heart's yearnings, not to a set of religious rites. Synonyms of this meaning of "worship" include "revere" and "venerate".

tmpz22 6y ago
The crux of organized religion is being so vague that an individual can pick whatever parts of it fits into their own self-image. Thats what OP is tapping into in their quote. The Bible is re-written every 100 years to accommodate this.
- cobri 6y ago
  >>"The Bible is re-written every 100 years to accommodate this." This is provably false. "It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain: Especially is this the case with the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world."[1] As an example, the New Testament is 25x more accurately copied across manuscripts than the Iliad [2]. "The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice."[3] [1] Kenyon, "Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts", p. 23 [2] Bruce M. Metzger, "Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism", cited by Geisler and Nix, "A General Introduction to the Bible", pp. 366f [3] F.F. Bruce, "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" p. 15
  - causality0 6y ago
    I believe he meant that the collective interpretation of mainstream religious leaders changes over time and is radically different from one century to the next.
    - Terretta 6y ago
      That doesn’t hold water either, or Thomas Aquinas wouldn’t still be considered by so many as “the highest expression of both natural reason and speculative theology” and the basis for modern clergical study. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas
      - btilly 6y ago
        It definitely does hold water. Here are several examples. Until the Counter-reformation, Catholics were not allowed to lend money at interest due to the ancient prohibition against usury. After that point Catholic doctrine was changed to say that this was one of the commandments for the ancient Jews that was not intended for Christians. The Bible didn't change, but doctrine did. (This despite the fact that the only point in the Bible where Jesus is portrayed as acting angrily was throwing the moneychangers out of the temple. And why was their presence wrong? Because they were engaged in usury!) The doctrine of papal infallibility is accepted by all Catholics today. Yet it was not part of Catholic doctrine until 1870. Until 1616, the Catholic Church had no official doctrine on astronomy. In fact Copernicus dedicated his book to the Pope. And then the Copernican theory was ruled contrary to scripture. Catholics were banned from reading various books about it. A century later, the bans on the books were lifted. A century after that, the Catholic Church declared that the Copernican theory was in accord with scripture. In all of these cases Scripture didn't change. Jesus still threw the moneylenders out of the temple for usury. Peter still received the keys to heaven. And Joshua bid the Sun to stand still, and not the Earth. But the beliefs that people had based on these passages /did/ change.
        causality0 6y ago
        A minor point, Jesus has anger issues a number of times in the Bible, not just with the moneylenders. As an example, the time he got mad at a tree for not having fruit and cursed it to never bear fruit again.
        krapp 6y ago
  - throwawaygal7 6y ago
    Love how you uses sources the HN audience is extremely sympathetic with, in order to argue against the groupthink. a great comment.
ggggtez 6y ago
No. Because he opens his thought with saying that "Atheism" doesn't exist. Atheism isn't a rejection of "yearning" or "reverence". It's a rejection of religion. He's just playing word games, and you are falling for it.
- Cookingboy 6y ago
  I absolutely agree. It's just your typical pseudo-intellectualism rant here. It starts with a provocative declaration and then backed up with some explanation that is technically true, but doesn't offer any actual insights or value.
  - junon 6y ago
    This was also my takeaway.
- throwawaygal7 6y ago
  I mean, theres some truth on both sides. From a christian/jewish/islamic perspective whatever you focus most on is your 'idol' - the bible talks alot about worshipping money, for instance. In that sense, then whatever you focus on in life is idolatrous worship, an atheistic religion.
  - kriops 6y ago
    "there is actually no such thing as atheism" There is no truth to that whatsoever.
    - meowkit 6y ago
      Hyperbole. Of course atheism exists, but its used as an engaging opener. Contrary to some other comments in this thread, the people complaining about the literal truth value are the ones falling for the author’s writing technique, not the other way around. Don’t interpret it literally. Its used to assemble an idea that anything can be worshipped/venerated, not to make the argument that atheism doesn’t exist.
belorn 6y ago
This redefining of the word worship do not work at all for me. We do not worship cooking food. The words do not describe well a hobby. It is negative associated with personal relationships. Worshiping a pet sound crazy.
- cdblades 6y ago
  It is also redefining atheism and religion.
marc_abonce 6y ago
It's worth pointing out that this equivalence is only possible in the English language (and maybe other Germanic languages?) where apparently the word worship means a lot of concepts (adoration, veneration, reverence) that in Romance languages are actually separate. In fact, the disagreement over this words is one of the most important differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. I don't know how does this distinction work in other religions, but based on Wikipedia[1] it looks like adoration, veneration and reverence may also be different on many of them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veneration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veneration
- bnjms 6y ago
  This is the most interesting take on this thread. What is otherwise a lot of atheists misunderstanding the English usage of worship by religious people and those familiar with them.

tmpz22 6y ago

The crux of organized religion is being so vague that an individual can pick whatever parts of it fits into their own self-image. Thats what OP is tapping into in their quote. The Bible is re-written every 100 years to accommodate this.

cobri 6y ago
>>"The Bible is re-written every 100 years to accommodate this." This is provably false. "It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain: Especially is this the case with the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world."[1] As an example, the New Testament is 25x more accurately copied across manuscripts than the Iliad [2]. "The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice."[3] [1] Kenyon, "Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts", p. 23 [2] Bruce M. Metzger, "Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism", cited by Geisler and Nix, "A General Introduction to the Bible", pp. 366f [3] F.F. Bruce, "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" p. 15
- causality0 6y ago
  I believe he meant that the collective interpretation of mainstream religious leaders changes over time and is radically different from one century to the next.
  - Terretta 6y ago
    That doesn’t hold water either, or Thomas Aquinas wouldn’t still be considered by so many as “the highest expression of both natural reason and speculative theology” and the basis for modern clergical study. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas
    - btilly 6y ago
      It definitely does hold water. Here are several examples. Until the Counter-reformation, Catholics were not allowed to lend money at interest due to the ancient prohibition against usury. After that point Catholic doctrine was changed to say that this was one of the commandments for the ancient Jews that was not intended for Christians. The Bible didn't change, but doctrine did. (This despite the fact that the only point in the Bible where Jesus is portrayed as acting angrily was throwing the moneychangers out of the temple. And why was their presence wrong? Because they were engaged in usury!) The doctrine of papal infallibility is accepted by all Catholics today. Yet it was not part of Catholic doctrine until 1870. Until 1616, the Catholic Church had no official doctrine on astronomy. In fact Copernicus dedicated his book to the Pope. And then the Copernican theory was ruled contrary to scripture. Catholics were banned from reading various books about it. A century later, the bans on the books were lifted. A century after that, the Catholic Church declared that the Copernican theory was in accord with scripture. In all of these cases Scripture didn't change. Jesus still threw the moneylenders out of the temple for usury. Peter still received the keys to heaven. And Joshua bid the Sun to stand still, and not the Earth. But the beliefs that people had based on these passages /did/ change.
      - causality0 6y ago
        A minor point, Jesus has anger issues a number of times in the Bible, not just with the moneylenders. As an example, the time he got mad at a tree for not having fruit and cursed it to never bear fruit again.
        krapp 6y ago
- throwawaygal7 6y ago
  Love how you uses sources the HN audience is extremely sympathetic with, in order to argue against the groupthink. a great comment.

ggggtez 6y ago

No. Because he opens his thought with saying that "Atheism" doesn't exist. Atheism isn't a rejection of "yearning" or "reverence". It's a rejection of religion. He's just playing word games, and you are falling for it.

Cookingboy 6y ago
I absolutely agree. It's just your typical pseudo-intellectualism rant here. It starts with a provocative declaration and then backed up with some explanation that is technically true, but doesn't offer any actual insights or value.
- junon 6y ago
  This was also my takeaway.
throwawaygal7 6y ago
I mean, theres some truth on both sides. From a christian/jewish/islamic perspective whatever you focus most on is your 'idol' - the bible talks alot about worshipping money, for instance. In that sense, then whatever you focus on in life is idolatrous worship, an atheistic religion.
- kriops 6y ago
  "there is actually no such thing as atheism" There is no truth to that whatsoever.
  - meowkit 6y ago
    Hyperbole. Of course atheism exists, but its used as an engaging opener. Contrary to some other comments in this thread, the people complaining about the literal truth value are the ones falling for the author’s writing technique, not the other way around. Don’t interpret it literally. Its used to assemble an idea that anything can be worshipped/venerated, not to make the argument that atheism doesn’t exist.

belorn 6y ago

This redefining of the word worship do not work at all for me. We do not worship cooking food. The words do not describe well a hobby. It is negative associated with personal relationships. Worshiping a pet sound crazy.

cdblades 6y ago
It is also redefining atheism and religion.

marc_abonce 6y ago

It's worth pointing out that this equivalence is only possible in the English language (and maybe other Germanic languages?) where apparently the word worship means a lot of concepts (adoration, veneration, reverence) that in Romance languages are actually separate. In fact, the disagreement over this words is one of the most important differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. I don't know how does this distinction work in other religions, but based on Wikipedia[1] it looks like adoration, veneration and reverence may also be different on many of them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veneration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veneration

bnjms 6y ago
This is the most interesting take on this thread. What is otherwise a lot of atheists misunderstanding the English usage of worship by religious people and those familiar with them.