Capitalism - the Ultimate Religion

[Existentialist]

Thanks TheDarkestofAngels. All of the posts I have made in this thread have provided reasons to believe that capitalism is a religion and should be treated as such. I respect the fact that you don't agree with my reasons or my reasoning. This is because you have a different opinion from me about the subject. However it is incorrect to say that all of my statements or assumptions are unsupported - again, I respect the fact that you have different opinions about the observations I have made about capitalism and their similarity in my mind to aspects of religion. I'm afraid I still disagree with your accusation that I have made "baseless assertions". Any assertions I have made have been based and backed up - you may disagree with the strength of the argument or the base. That's fine.

I think we've covered enough of who's said what or not in response to what so with you permission I'll move on to slightly more colourful territory. I have not at any point told you that apples are stupid because purple is a stupid color. That would be, as you say, "inane". I also agree it would be a baseless assertion. It is good to agree on that at least. Unfortunately though I do not see any similarity between that baseless assertion and the arguments, opinions and observations that I have outlined to support the hypothesis that capitalism is a religion. This does not mean that my hypothesis is objectively right, but my argument and my reasoning do not in any way bear a similarity to any suggestion that apples are stupid because they are purple.

I did ask several questions in Post #1, which you could have a discussion about even if you disagreed with any of the supporting observations, opinions and arguments I have put forward throughout this thread respecting the hypothesis that capitalism is a religion. You can choose not to have a discussion though - it's up to you. I do not accept any particular burden of proof being on my shoulders as a result of expressing the hypothesis that capitalism is a religion. If one person has a burden of proof in an argument, everyone else has an equal burden of proof in my mind. If people argue there is no god have a burden of proof, then people who argue there is a god have a similar burden of proof, and people who argue that we cannot know one way or the other also have a similar burden of proof, particularly for giving so much importance to the concept of 'knowing'. However I do think proof is an over-rated concept and largely unachievable. I therefore do not feel under any obligation to give you "some reason to accept" my premise. I'm not asking you to accept my premise that capitalism is a religion, my motivation is simply to invite discussion about it.

I certainly at no point told you "to go and re-read" my previous posts to find the "proof" I've provided. I would not be so inane as to claim I have provided any proofs. Please don't misrepresent what I have said. I have to say that 'you're wrong, nya nya nyaa nyaa' is a misquote. I certainly never said that or anything like it.

I'm sorry that you think my opinion that atheists should be as vociferous and as critical of capitalism is also "inane". The fact that several atheists have repeatedly told me here why they think atheism is not a religion doesn't, unfortunately, settle the matter once and for all, as you suggest. This is because it's an argument, a controversy, an exchange of opinions. I respect your right to hold the view that I have broadened the definition of a religion so much that I've essentially nubbed off the corners of a cube to fit it in the circle hole. I don't agree with your view that I have done this, because I don't think I've altered the definition of a religion in the slightest, I've been very careful to refer to the dictionary definitions that were first posted by my opponents in this thread.

I never said people get degrees in "money-ology." The definition of religion does not require any places of worship. Your suggestion that no-one devotes themselves to money in the same way that christians devote themselves to god is highly arguable both ways. I think you can guess where I will fall in that argument. My comments about evidence in philosophical arguments is that no evidence in itself is of overwhelming and conclusive importance. Interpretation of evidence is a crucial stage in all scientific and philosophical enquiry. A small amount of very weak evidence can be interpreted correctly to produce correct statements, a large amount of very strong evidence can be interpreted incorrectly to produce incorrect statements. Evidence can come in the form of concrete facts or it can come in the form of other opinions and other interpretations, in which case the testing of the evidence and its interpretation may be carried out by examining the internal coherence of all the interpretations. Concrete facts may therefore well be a minor player. The choice of the words "of secondary importance" in my supposed admission is actually your choice of words, not mine. Do correct me if I have said otherwise because I would need to revise my meaning if I had sad that - I tend to think I would avoid the word 'secondary' because it might imply that I support a process of reaching conclusions by putting evidence second chronologically in a sequential process of analysis, which seems a bit out of order to me.

I certainly do not think the english language is there to constrain us, I think it is there to liberate us to discover new ideas and philosophical concepts - same with any language. As it happens I do not think that I have broadened the definition of religion at all, when referred to dictionaries by others I have repeatedly come back and pointed to exactly the definitions contained therein. It is not true to say that I have changed the definition of a religion such that anything could be a religion. Please do not misrepresent me.

I have very much opened the argument that capitalism is a religion up for discussion and I have developed and elaborated on my argument with every post - except obviously those off-topic posts about Churchill's words which was an unfortunate diversion. To say that I have not held my argument up for discussion is a misrepresentation and I would ask you not to misrepresent me in that way.

I disagree that capitalism has not shaped the way we deal with the ideas of life, death, spirituality, creation, and morality. It is central to my argument that capitalism has imposed itself upon all these areas.

I do not agree that dictionaries are a source of research about the internal coherence of the arguments that people put forward in philosophy. Dictionaries are a source of information about words, in particular their most common usages. They are not legislation and they do not contain rules and regulations about what people are allowed to say and what they are not allowed to say. Even given that I think this, I do not think that I have not gone outside dictionary definitions of religion or capitalism in this thread. Languages do not exist because words have definitions. Languages evolved with the human ability to attach complex sounds to concepts. Definitions come after the invention of the sound - don't they? It is also incorrect to say that "you always use one word in precisely the same way each time." The same individuals use the same words differently, and different individuals use the same words differently.

The freedom to change words, to change their meanings and to invent words is why languages evolve and why the world has had many thousands of different languages. Even given this fact, I still do not think I have strayed from the actual definitions of the words religion and capitalism. I certainly do not think I can just start using words however I choose and expect others to follow. I have not attempted to do so. I have from the start presented arguments about concepts and ideas. You and others have misrepresented me as changing words and their meanings during this thread, which I would ask you not to do. I have used the dictionary definitions of the word religion.

It is incorrect to say my arguments are based on "nothing". You say that "there are no united states money churches. There are no sunday services to praise money. There are no prophets to the all mighty dollar. There are no holidays exclusively to praise capitalism or any saint (or whatever) specifically or even indirectly devoted to capitalism." The definition of religion requires none of these things.

In my view it is incorrect to say that there are no "morals, life lessons, moral codes, or anything that Captialism teaches." On the subject of Superman fandom you have described a form of entertainment that sounds to me like a cult TV series. I probably wouldn't spend a lot of time arguing with someone who described it as a religion, though my preference would be to say it is cult entertainment. I think there are differences between a cult entertainment production and a big religion. Coca Cola certainly has iconic status in the religion of capitalism, and Harry Potter is a bit of a cult. You can describe them as religions if you want to, but my preference would be to describe them as products and productions that have a bit of a cult status. Using words in this way doesn't cause my argument to fail.

I don't really understand why you are suggesting I am saying that capitalism has no teachings, morals, guidelines of a religious nature - my argument is that it is full of them. I am sure the guy who owns McDonalds would be as bemused as I am at his being described as a minister of the church of McDonalds. Accountants appear to me to regard money with ardent devotion. Some of them realise they have got a boring job, but then so do a lot of priests. I have not used the expression 'tenant of faith' in respect of capitalism. I disagree that Capitalism has not "quashed anything."

I accept that you reject my hypothesis that capitalism is a religion. Although you argue very forcefully and you have misrepresented a lot of what I have said, I am grateful for your reply.