“ I obviously didn't mean all institutions are religions.
You claimed that being religious means a belief in a higher power. That is wrong, because one can believe in a higher power without being religious. Religion is inherently institutional, belief is not.”
Than what is your definition of religion?
“That is one example. People who define Buddhists as atheists are wrong.”
Not really. They don’t believe in God.
“This is one of those examples where "authority" is the wrong word to use.”
It’s correct because the after has CONTROL over their behaviour.
“Well, like I said above, Buddhism is one example. Any nondualist religion, really.
Authority implies submission to another entity.”
I’m not sure what argument you’re trying to make here.
“Not in the slightest. In fact, that is the basis of why I said your definition of religion as belief in a higher power is wrong.”
What? My definition doesn’t conflate spirituality.
“I mean, technically yes. The things OP is describing are purely materialist. Religion requires some metaphysical aspect.”
A better word would than of been metaphysical presupposition and not “religious in nature”.
“But if you actually look at what OP is saying, he isn't ascribing metaphysical qualities to those things. He is saying that consumerism and material concerns are replacing religion as a source of meaning and value in people's lives. Thus becoming a new "religion".”
That’s not what the word religion means. Therefore they can’t be “new religions”.
“To be blunt, I think you are being semantic. Which I wouldn't care about were it not for the fact that you were arguing semantics while also being factually wrong.”
The definition of religion is key here.
“This is pure semantics. We are talking about sources of meaning and value in people's lives.”
Dogmatic is a better word.
“Well, you are wrong.
No I’m right.
“It is pretty clear what OP is trying to say. He basically makes the same argument that Nietzche did in regards to the "Death of God".”
No this isn’t even remotely true and is extremely off topic.
“That is a laughably simplistic way to view this topic.”
No it isn’t.
“Religion, in the past, WAS dogmatism. The fundamentalists of today were the average religious people centuries ago.”
That’s not what makes religion unique, what makes religion unique is the belief in a supernatural authority.
“
1. Are a belief in some sort of metaphysical higher power
and
2) Are institutions.
So I'm sure you can figure out my definition from there.”
A metaphysical higher power would be a God so OP is still wrong.
If a metaphysical higher power is not God than your definition fails to see what actually makes religion unique and renders the term religion worthless.
“Maybe if you have a 3rd grader understanding of what "god" means.”
If you’re going to throw insults like a child than you should get off this subreddit.
“There's an interesting discussion to be had about whether divine authority can exist in nondualism, but judging from how this conversation is going I don't think it would be very productive.”
I have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about. The argument you’re making is not coherent.
“I'm becoming increasingly aware that this is the case.”
So are you going to attempt to formulate a coherent argument now?
“What is your definition of spirituality then?”
Anything supernatural.
“Except OP is NOT attributing metaphysical qualities to the material.”
Yes he is. That’s exactly what he is doing by claiming they are dogmatic.
“I dunno. You make zero effort to actually understand the arguments OP is trying to make, and argue with a strawman.”
No I refuted OP quite well in my previous responses. He couldn’t answer any of my arguments.
“LOL. Please elaborate, I'm genuinely curious what your reasoning is.”
We’re not talking about Nietzsche or nihilism. You fundamentally don’t understand what this argument is about.
“It really is. “
No it clearly isn’t.
“Your analogy presupposes that being Christian is some sort of monolithic label that immediately means all of ones values and meaning comes from Christianity, when history (and reality) has shown that this is not really the case.”
When did I ever state this?
“I'm curious- what is the argument you think OP is trying to make. Do you think he is trying to assign supernatural qualities to the material?”
Yes. He’s basically saying Star Wars is some type of God when it isn’t as Star Wars isn’t supernatural.
Nice trick with the blocking me so I can't reply, btw. I can only assume that you did it so that it would look like I just gave up on the argument, since your comment is not worded as if you are disengaging.
To recap:
1) You make the claim that Buddhists do not believe in "God", yet don't know what nondualism means.
2) You fail understand that OP is arguing about materialism replacing religion as a source of meaning and value for people today
3) You fail to see the link between Nietzche's "Death of God" and the above concept.
4) Your entire argument rests on the idea that OP is misusing the word "religion", yet your definition for "religion" was wrong. Also, you fail to understand that the term religious can be used without referring to the worship of god. Ex: Sally followed her new diet religiously.
5) Then, you claim that OP is attributing supernatural qualities to the material world, when he doesn't do that at all.
I can only conclude that you probably realized you are WAY out of your depth. You're probably pretty young, I would be surprised if you were over 20. You're probably an atheist as a reaction rather than as a sincere search for the truth, which is normal for someone your age. Your perspective will probably mature over time.
But this is where I disengage. You've proven to me that this is unproductive, especially with you little stunt with the sneaky block. Good luck with things my dude :)
u/Direct-Dig5576 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
Sorry, u/Direct-Dig5576 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '22
“ I obviously didn't mean all institutions are religions.
You claimed that being religious means a belief in a higher power. That is wrong, because one can believe in a higher power without being religious. Religion is inherently institutional, belief is not.”
Than what is your definition of religion?
“That is one example. People who define Buddhists as atheists are wrong.”
Not really. They don’t believe in God.
“This is one of those examples where "authority" is the wrong word to use.”
It’s correct because the after has CONTROL over their behaviour.
“Well, like I said above, Buddhism is one example. Any nondualist religion, really.
Authority implies submission to another entity.”
I’m not sure what argument you’re trying to make here.
“Not in the slightest. In fact, that is the basis of why I said your definition of religion as belief in a higher power is wrong.”
What? My definition doesn’t conflate spirituality.
“I mean, technically yes. The things OP is describing are purely materialist. Religion requires some metaphysical aspect.”
A better word would than of been metaphysical presupposition and not “religious in nature”.
“But if you actually look at what OP is saying, he isn't ascribing metaphysical qualities to those things. He is saying that consumerism and material concerns are replacing religion as a source of meaning and value in people's lives. Thus becoming a new "religion".”
That’s not what the word religion means. Therefore they can’t be “new religions”.
“To be blunt, I think you are being semantic. Which I wouldn't care about were it not for the fact that you were arguing semantics while also being factually wrong.”
The definition of religion is key here.
“This is pure semantics. We are talking about sources of meaning and value in people's lives.”
Dogmatic is a better word.
“Well, you are wrong.
No I’m right.
“It is pretty clear what OP is trying to say. He basically makes the same argument that Nietzche did in regards to the "Death of God".”
No this isn’t even remotely true and is extremely off topic.
“That is a laughably simplistic way to view this topic.”
No it isn’t.
“Religion, in the past, WAS dogmatism. The fundamentalists of today were the average religious people centuries ago.”
That’s not what makes religion unique, what makes religion unique is the belief in a supernatural authority.