Capitalism - the Ultimate Religion

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

However, you've said you're refusing to read any posts I wrote earlier in this thread, and it's quite obvious you haven't read them even though I've provide plenty of links. As I don't like being repetitive, I rather say new things.

... uh huh. Okay.
First of all, if you had linked me to posts that had anything to do with the topic, I would have responded to them. I've been participating in the capitalism/religion discussion since page 2 (the first post up there on page 2, none the less) and I've ready read your posts. The only reason I've been posting more often recently is because I chose not to get involved with the whole churchhill/misquote/paraphrase debacle you had going on with Adrian and others.
Second of all, in absolutely none of those posts do you actually pose an arguement worth responding to that I've not already countered or otherwise posted about. The only one that actually has any merit as a post worth responding to is the first post in which you state a number of things as though they were true as statements without posing an actual arguement, as though man of your points are a foregone conclusion and your questions are based off those erroneous and baseless assertions in that post.
Third of all, half of your posts are linked responses to posts of mine and ones that I have already responded to!
Finally, all but the first post have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion we're having. You've simply linked all of your posts in this thread with no regard to what they actually say. Not one of them say anything relevant that hasn't already been addressed in a previous post of mine.

In conclusion: How about acutally responding to my previous post and the points that I make in that post?

Obviously people don't have to read all my previous posts, but if anyone does feel like indulging me, then I would recommend replying to Post #1 which hasn't actually attracted any counter-arguments yet. Obviously it's your choice, I'm hardly in a position to force anybody to reply!

You know what, you're right in that I've not directly responded to your first post.
I've already countered every relevant arguement you've made and despite the fact that you don't actually pose an arguement in favor of Capitalism being a religion (which I've already mentioned) and instead list a series of statements as though this were already a bygone conclusion, I'll indulge you since you clearly have no interest in listening to any arguement that I've made against your ridiculous non-assertions.

Authoritarian, inconsistent, making claims to be universal, dependent on sacred tenets, elevating a tiny number of individuals to the status of prophets, saints and celebrities who hold the gaze of the hypnotised masses; highly dependent on elaborate metaphor, hugely adept at propaganda, deeply secretive while claiming to be transparent; revering of many godlets but worshipping the one true god Capital above all others.

I've addressed all these non-points in my previous post. None of these things you've stated are true precisely for all the reasons I've already covered.

Capitalism: the elephant in the atheist room, the unquestionable religious force that we must all bow down to in seeking our livelihoods, relationships, political compromises and moral choices.

And here you've already made the assumption (based on NOTHING you've covered thus far in this post.)

Like all religions, isn’t capitalism simultaneously oppressive and liberating, and required to calculate a narrow net benefit to its subjects lest they cast it aside? Have the new atheists: Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and the sects that follow them really made any significant progress in relieving the psychological oppression of people by a narrowly-focussed clergy? Or is it more that the celebrity atheists have a limited and temporary role to play as pawns in this supreme religion’s grand scheme, partly to reinforce a particularly concrete version of enlightenment rationalism in the suppression of human emotion, imagination and artistic freedom, partly to create conflict between diverse flocks on the basis of piffling intellectual abstractions, but mainly to divert attention away from attacks on the population by the vested interests of Capital whose short-term aim is to direct massive resources away from the people and use them to feather the nests of the already privileged?

What is your evidence for any of this? How are you even making any connections to atheists in this respect?
As I said in my previous post, you've not explained anything so far but you're making baseless assertions about the above topics and you've made connections (with atheists in particular and capitalism and religion) every which way and you've given me no reason whatsoever that any of these things are even remotely true.

Isn’t it a reasonable conclusion that right wing elements throughout the West appear to be able to enforce swingeing cuts, while the atheist world has next to nothing to say about it except a cursory mention that this new deputy prime minister appears to be a non-believer, or that new leader of an opposition party hasn’t been to the synagogue for a while, claiming these deeply uninteresting personal choices by nonentities are evidence of huge secular progress and the need for another round of more-of-the-same megaphone science which wholly focusses on the illogicalities of minor superstitions? Is not capitalism the true battleground of atheism, rather than footling around with old battles that were already won centuries ago by Galileo, Newton and Darwin?

Atheists don't have anything to say about Capitalism because it isn't a religion and you've yet to provide a reason or evidence of any kind whatsoever to support this stance - a stance I've already refuted. Atheists do not believe in any religion, so why would we have a 'stance' as atheists about capitalism?
I have a stance and beliefs about what economic systems work and which ones do not and I've even stated as such here and there about where I stand on these matters, as have others.

So at very least, I've proven that I've already covered any relevant point you've made.

The question I've been pondering all day is that if capitalism is a religion as I think it is (you are still free to disagree!) then why would there be resistance to recognising it as such? What's so dangerous about the idea?

There is resistance to your ideas because your ideas are wrong, based on false and baseless assertions and you've provided me with nothing to reinforce your claims.
Your ideas are dangerous to the same extent of any level of ignorance.

Just capitalism and its one true, unquestionable god, Capital.

No one worships capital as a god. Stop ignoring the counter arguements because now you're just making yourself look silly by going on as though no one has already refuted your arguements and the assertions they are based upon.