Capitalism - the Ultimate Religion

[theVOID]

I still don't think you've made a case for Capitalism being religion. Communism bears much more resemblance.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

I think capitalism has affected all human relations.

...and... what? I know you think that but so what? Superman affected lots of people around the world - even more than christianity and has a powerful following of fans but Superman fandom is not a religion any more than anything else that's popular is a religion.
Also... I get that you want to sound educated, but I might recommend actually forming your own opinions and using quotes and explaining them only to help your main point. If I wanted to debate Karl Marx, I'd resurrect him from the dead and discuss the political situation with him.

I would suggest that this profound disagreement between us on very deep level is the real reason you are taking issue with my description of capitalism as a religion, your other argument which involves dictionaries is just an attempt to insulate your position from my unashamedly subjectively-arrived at assertions by invoking the dictionary as an iconic oracle of supposed objectivity, which of course it isn't. It's just a guide to the popular usage of the day.

Ugh... No no no no no no NO.
This isn't about me using the dictionary to beat my chest and say that I'm the most objective man at the table. This is you trying to define something as a religion when a religion is defined as a different kind of noun. Even you provided the definition in this post to make some attempt to argue otherwise but this entire arguement boils down to you misidentifying one noun as another noun using somewhat convulted logic.

Even if the dictionary were an oracle of objectivity, which I categorically deny it is, the way you've copied and pasted from dictionary.com means that unfortunately you've lost that web page's italics and therefore you have, I suspect inadvertently, though rather conveniently for you, implied that what dictionary.com cites as possible examples are actual definitions! Here's what dictionary.com actually says.

Wonderful. Now you're accusing me of using very subjective judgement because I told you that your definition of what a religion is is wrong and I supposedly "conveniently" left things out of my copy-paste of dictionary.com's definition.

Now with the dictionary quoted correctly, and looking more like the original it's easier to go through it and see how capitalism fits. From what I can see, capitalism, being (in my and Marx's opinion) a system that revolutionises the whole relations of society, ticks the boxes of definitions number 2, 3, 5 (by reference to 2 and 3), and 6. For me it ticks all these boxes because for capitalists (and there are many), capitalism is has an ideological basis and is not just an accidental economic system. Indeed there are strong arguments for capitalism to tick the box of definition number 1 as well since many capitalist supporters would say that capitalism is indeed a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. Yes, really - there are such people around!

How conventient. Let me know when you actually have any of these arguements because thus far you've provided none.
In other words - if you think it fits examples 2 - everything else, how about providing an arguement for why this is the case so I can simply tell you that since capitalism isn't a set of beliefs it can't fit any of them. It's a system where every part of it is well defined - it has to be well defined because you can't base a society off it if it wasn't. If a part is less-than-optimally defined, then that's why all societies have a group of people specifically devoted to defining a lacking aspect of it.
So say that because you may or may not fully understand the system and you have confidence that it can work doesn't make it a belief - otherwise I could potentially argue that my computer is a religion because I believe in the owner's manual and technical specifications of how the computer works and operates.
This is what makes social engineering, economics, and government more of a science and not at all like a religion.
And no, telling me that you can argue that or that it does fit x and y and z aspects of a definition isn't an arguement nor is it any kind of point.
Just becuase you understood the plot to the South Park episode called "Margaritamaker" (or whatever that episode was called/spelled as) as a documentary doesn't mean it's generally true now or ever.

Of course, my own arguments do not depend on simply the content of dictionaries.

Then you may as well be arguing that Capitalism is an "apple." Things are defined in a way for a reason and just because languages are a living thing doesn't mean you can redefine things at will and have it be based on fact.

Luckily we don't live in that particular universe.

Yes... living at a time where space travel, time travel, green women, earth is a utopia where war, disease, and poverty were all eliminated, and hyper-deadly diseases can be cured over the course of a single star trek story arc must be a real hell to live in.

In reality dictionaries can't dictate meanings to us, they can only report approximations to the most popular usage. If dictionaries were the real source of definitions, neologisms would never arise. Dictionaries can only ever be a guide to popular usage. The real definitions of words are to be found in every individual's human experience, beliefs, senses, ideas, emotions and a load of other things. This is why it takes effort for people to understand each other, and they do not always succeed, let alone agree.

That doesn't mean that the dictionary is wrong and that doesn't make you correct by erroneously twisting the usage of one noun to mean the same thing as another noun. In any case, you stated that capitalism is a religion and thus far you've failed to make any arguement and what arguements you have made are flimsy at best.
Just because you're miffed that dictionary dare to properly define words and not compensate for every single usage as it occurs doesn't make them wrong. You've entered a purely semantic arguement based on your own "truthiness" (which, thanks to a hero of mine, has been a word since his hit show has arisen within the past decade) and not the facts to which an arguement to be properly based.
... In other words, just because you feel like capitalism is a religion doesn't mean it actually is one.
There is a lot that can be said in how some people treat political issues and private enterprises like a religion but you've outright attempted to state that a system of trade within a civilization is the same thing as a religion, which is easily not the case. I'm not interested in your tirade against fascist dictionaries and their definitions of "words" just because you want to attach one to the other.

To round off, it is not because capitalism is merely "important" in people's lives that I define it as a religion, it is because it is revolutionary in every aspect of their lives. I do not rely on dictionary definitions to make my mind up what words mean because I think the way words are used is vastly more personal than that, however as it happens, I can easily make capitalism fit the dictionary definitions you have cited. Just because two dictionary definitions look different does not mean that they do not overlap or merge in meaning. In any event a concept like capitalism cannot be adequately defined by a dictionary which can only provide a rough guide to popular usage, not legislate against new usages. That's why people write books about capitalism - at least in part, to define it better. Same with religion.

So you decided to tell me that 'my arguements allow me to fit capitalism to now define it in every way as a religion' but decide to then go on a tirade about a completely different arguement on how you're above dictionaries.
Yes, people write books on both religion and capitalism. People also write books on sesame street, space travel, sadism and masochism sexual techniques, and dracula - sometimes all in the same book. That doesn't make any of those a religion. You may as well tell me that communism is an apple because both are readily identified with the color red.

[Sami]

I still don't think you've made a case for Capitalism being religion. Communism bears much more resemblance.

Neither bear any resemblance to religion in my opinion.

[theVOID]

I tend to agree, although we owe religion for this insipid idea of total heirachy.

[Existentialist]

[quote='TheDarkestOfAngels' pid='97535' dateline='1286255054']
[quote='Existentialist' pid='97513' dateline='1286234119']I think capitalism has affected all human relations.[/quote]
...and... what? [/quote]
...and... what you should do now is read some of my other posts, because my case that capitalism is a religion does not rest on the sentence you have quoted here. If my case did rest on the notion that capitalism has merely "affected" human relations, that would indeed be an insipid case.

Even if you just read the first 2-3 lines of Post #1 of this thread you might be able to produce some more substantial material to criticise my position. And if you want to produce a serious evidence-based rational argument, you might want to read my Posts #1, #20, #36, #38, #54, #56, #66, and #67 in this thread. I hope it's helpful for me to list them like this so you can quote me more comprehensively. For example, yes, to use your example, Superman affected lots of people around the world. But I would ask you, is Superman, as I said in the first line of Post #1, "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 (... etc, etc)"? Hardly.

So I agree totally with your words when you say, “Superman fandom is not a religion any more than anything else that's popular is a religion.” Capitalism is popular – of course, but that’s not what makes it a religion, so I would suggest that rather than quoting a fraction of a sentence out of context, you would do better to concentrate on addressing a bit more of what I’ve actually said during this thread.
[quote]Also... I get that you want to sound educated, but I might recommend actually forming your own opinions and using quotes and explaining them only to help your main point. If I wanted to debate Karl Marx, I'd resurrect him from the dead and discuss the political situation with him.[/quote]
See my opinions in the post listed above. They do contain quotes from writers like Marx.
[quote]Ugh... No no no no no no NO.[/quote]
Do you mean "no" by any chance?
[quote]
This isn't about me using the dictionary to beat my chest and say that I'm the most objective man at the table. This is you trying to define something as a religion when a religion is defined as a different kind of noun. Even you provided the definition in this post to make some attempt to argue otherwise but this entire arguement boils down to you misidentifying one noun as another noun using somewhat convulted logic.[/quote]
"some attempt"? I think you mean I showed you that the dictionary definition of religion fits capitalism. I also referenced Walter Benjamin and Max Weber who said the same thing.
[quote]
[quote='Existentialist' pid='97513' dateline='1286234119']Even if the dictionary were an oracle of objectivity, which I categorically deny it is, the way you've copied and pasted from dictionary.com means that unfortunately you've lost that web page's italics and therefore you have, I suspect inadvertently, though rather conveniently for you, implied that what dictionary.com cites as possible examples are actual definitions! Here's what dictionary.com actually says.[/quote]
Wonderful. Now you're accusing me of using very subjective judgement because I told you that your definition of what a religion is is wrong and I supposedly "conveniently" left things out of my copy-paste of dictionary.com's definition. [/quote]
I can confirm that's a good approximation to what I accused you of.
[quote]
How conventient. Let me know when you actually have any of these arguements because thus far you've provided none.
In other words - if you think it fits examples 2 - everything else, how about providing an arguement for why this is the case so I can simply tell you that since capitalism isn't a set of beliefs
[/quote]
and practices? ... read the dictionary, you quoted it!
[quote]
it can't fit any of them. It's a system where every part of it is well defined - it has to be well defined because you can't base a society off it if it wasn't. If a part is less-than-optimally defined, then that's why all societies have a group of people specifically devoted to defining a lacking aspect of it.
So say that because you may or may not fully understand the system and you have confidence that it can work doesn't make it a belief - otherwise I could potentially argue that my computer is a religion because I believe in the owner's manual and technical specifications of how the computer works and operates.
This is what makes social engineering, economics, and government more of a science and not at all like a religion.
And no, telling me that you can argue that or that it does fit x and y and z aspects of a definition isn't an arguement nor is it any kind of point.
Just becuase you understood the plot to the South Park episode called "Margaritamaker" (or whatever that episode was called/spelled as) as a documentary doesn't mean it's generally true now or ever.[/quote]
Sorry I can't understand what you're saying here. By all means try again or PM me, I'm afraid I can't make enough sense of what you're trying to say.
[quote][quote='Existentialist' pid='97513' dateline='1286234119']Of course, my own arguments do not depend on simply the content of dictionaries.[/quote]
Then you may as well be arguing that Capitalism is an "apple." Things are defined in a way for a reason and just because languages are a living thing doesn't mean you can redefine things at will and have it be based on fact.[/quote]
Well, no because I'm not into redefining words arbitrarily, and obviously an apple is a piece of fruit, whereas capitalism is an economic, sociological and ideological system which has so many similarities to belief systems that are indisputably religions that I'm prepared to argue that it is one. Obviously I'm not the first person ever to want to explore the proposition, seeing as Max Weber's co-writer said the same thing in 1921.
[quote]
Yes... living at a time where space travel, time travel, green women, earth is a utopia where war, disease, and poverty were all eliminated, and hyper-deadly diseases can be cured over the course of a single star trek story arc must be a real hell to live in.
[/quote]
Granted that wouldn't make it hell. The terrible script and bad acting would make it hell.
[quote]
[quote='Existentialist' pid='97513' dateline='1286234119']In reality dictionaries can't dictate meanings to us, they can only report approximations to the most popular usage. If dictionaries were the real source of definitions, neologisms would never arise. Dictionaries can only ever be a guide to popular usage. The real definitions of words are to be found in every individual's human experience, beliefs, senses, ideas, emotions and a load of other things. This is why it takes effort for people to understand each other, and they do not always succeed, let alone agree.
[/quote]
[quote]
That doesn't mean that the dictionary is wrong
[/quote]
Agreed. Mostly incomplete though - a very broad brush of popular usages and incomplete information, but definitely not a law or a rule-book for using particular words. Also lacking neologisms.
[quote]
and that doesn't make you correct by erroneously twisting the usage of one noun to mean the same thing as another noun. In any case, you stated that capitalism is a religion and thus far you've failed to make any arguement and what arguements you have made are flimsy at best.
[/quote]
See the Post list above. Why are the arguments I've made flimsy? I'd be interested in your opinion.
[quote]
Just because you're miffed that dictionary dare to properly define words and not compensate for every single usage as it occurs doesn't make them wrong.
[/quote]
I'm not miffed. Why would I be miffed at a dictionary? They're not the law, they can't deliver justice and injustice, they merely provide information, often somewhat incomplete.
[quote]You've entered a purely semantic arguement based on your own "truthiness" (which, thanks to a hero of mine, has been a word since his hit show has arisen within the past decade) and not the facts to which an arguement to be properly based.
[/quote]
Ultimately however many facts are before us, we all have to make our own decisions, because we have to translate the facts into our brains in order to decide what to make of them, and our brains provide an incomplete representation of what the facts are.
[quote]
... In other words, just because you feel like capitalism is a religion doesn't mean it actually is one.[/quote]
I'm not arguing that capitalism is a religion just because I feel it is a religion. I have argued on the basis of observation and evidence of capitalism, and my understanding of the characteristics of religion. I've set my evidence and observations out in this thread as listed at the top of this post. Have a look. After all that evidence and argument, I still have to make my own decision, but it is based on something substantial, not just a feeling as you allege.
[quote]
There is a lot that can be said in how some people treat political issues and private enterprises like a religion but you've outright attempted to state that a system of trade within a civilization is the same thing as a religion,
[/quote]
I said it's not just an economic system nor is it, as you are now arguing, a mere "system of trade". It's got its own ideological culture, its own social strata, it is massively political and at its core seems to be widely worshipped (among other things - see all my posts listed above)
[quote]
which is easily not the case. I'm not interested in your tirade against fascist dictionaries and their definitions of "words" just because you want to attach one to the other.
[/quote]
tirade? Where?

Fascist? How?
[quote]
So you decided to tell me that 'my arguements allow me to fit capitalism to now define it in every way as a religion' but decide to then go on a tirade about a completely different arguement on how you're above dictionaries.
[/quote]
I'm sorry but I can't fully make sense of what you're trying to claim I've decided to tell you, but apart from that, I didn't go on a tirade - I think my arguments are a bit more measured than that. And I expressed my view of dictionaries because you copied and pasted a page from dictionary.com in an effort to prove that am wrong to take the position I do, an effort that was unsuccessful. Expressing my views about dictionaries was not a random detour on my part, it was a direct and immediate answer to your post.
[quote]
Yes, people write books on both religion and capitalism. People also write books on sesame street, space travel, sadism and masochism sexual techniques, and dracula - sometimes all in the same book. That doesn't make any of those a religion. You may as well tell me that communism is an apple because both are readily identified with the color red.
[/quote]
Again, I would say that my argument that capitalism is a religion is not based on the fact that people have written books about religion and capitalism. I said that capitalism cannot be adequately defined by a dictionary (because you had just quoted one at me), which is the reason why people write books about it, and other books about religion. If you're going to address my argument rationally, you'll need to quote what I actually said about capitalism being a religion, not what I said in answer to you quoting a dictionary at me.

If you wish to go on debating the fine detail of what I've said so far, feel free. Personally I plan to move on soon to why I think a lot of people become profoundly angry to be asked to seriously consider the argument that capitalism is a religion. It is, of course to do with the survival of capitalism, particularly its need to hide from full view its structure and its authoritarian mechanisms. I'll elaborate in more detail later on.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

...and... what you should do now is read some of my other posts, because my case that capitalism is a religion does not rest on the sentence you have quoted here. If my case did rest on the notion that capitalism has merely "affected" human relations, that would indeed be an insipid case.

Or how about instead of diferring me to posts I've already largely responded to, you can just have a bloody point to make.
So far, I've yet to see an arguement you've made that actually affirms capitalism as a religion of any kind other than your word an the word of a few people you've quoted that it is.

Superman affected lots of people around the world. But I would ask you, is Superman, as I said in the first line of Post #1, "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 (... etc, etc)"? Hardly.

A few points -
Superman comics cannon is authoritarian in the sense that you cannot really go against it without backlash. The decades-long cannon is frequiently inconsistent in many respects despite making claims to be universal (such as superman's powers or other universal tenants in superman cannon). The comic books themselves (as well as television, movies, and other media) are all the tenants of this 'faith' and it has elevated a tiny number of individuals to the status of prophets, saints, and celebrities who hold the gaze of the hypnotized masses (the creators, writers, and actors who have all added content to the superman cannon.)
So - YES - that arguement can be made, following your inane arguement, that superman fandom constitutes a religion.
The reason this happens is because you've defined capitalism and religion both so broadly that anything popular or any form of governing or economic system can be a religion according to your own arguements.

"some attempt"? I think you mean I showed you that the dictionary definition of religion fits capitalism. I also referenced Walter Benjamin and Max Weber who said the same thing.

You didn't show me anything. You posted the definition and hinted that it fit all definitions without giving any explainations whatsoever and ignoring my counterarguements in the process. Granted, this is only because of the reasons I've outlined above in this post.

I can confirm that's a good approximation to what I accused you of.

And so far, that's about the best arguement you've made.

it can't fit any of them. It's a system where every part of it is well defined - it has to be well defined because you can't base a society off it if it wasn't. If a part is less-than-optimally defined, then that's why all societies have a group of people specifically devoted to defining a lacking aspect of it.
So say that because you may or may not fully understand the system and you have confidence that it can work doesn't make it a belief - otherwise I could potentially argue that my computer is a religion because I believe in the owner's manual and technical specifications of how the computer works and operates.
This is what makes social engineering, economics, and government more of a science and not at all like a religion.
And no, telling me that you can argue that or that it does fit x and y and z aspects of a definition isn't an arguement nor is it any kind of point.
Just becuase you understood the plot to the South Park episode called "Margaritamaker" (or whatever that episode was called/spelled as) as a documentary doesn't mean it's generally true now or ever.

Sorry I can't understand what you're saying here. By all means try again or PM me, I'm afraid I can't make enough sense of what you're trying to say.

Let me get this straight - you just told me to bugger off and re-read your previous posts because I pointed out that a statement of yours has no point to it but when I lay an entire point in front of you and you can't make heads or tails of it?
...
Fine. Let's try this again.
Capitalism is not a religion.
It professes no beliefs about existance and the purpose of life, morality, or any other thing I can recall off the top of my head that religions traditionally cover.
There is no central figure or figures of worship or anything to worship, like Jesus, Bhudda, Zeus, Hercules, Anubis, and so on.
There are no tenants of faith, rules, or codes in which a person is to live their life by. The closest arguement for capitalism in this respect is the social order aspect of an economic system but religion typically covers a person's code of behavior and not simply the method in which they maneuver in a social-economic way. In other words, capitalism doesn't tell you if murder is right or wrong or how you should live your life.
There are no rituals of any kind that are similar to any religious connotation or similarities. In other words, there are no capitalist weddings, celebrations, or observations.
I could go on, but I'm pulling all this from memory and I've made my point - capitalism is not a religion in any sense of the related terms, as defined.

Well, no because I'm not into redefining words arbitrarily, and obviously an apple is a piece of fruit, whereas capitalism is an economic, sociological and ideological system which has so many similarities to belief systems that are indisputably religions that I'm prepared to argue that it is one. Obviously I'm not the first person ever to want to explore the proposition, seeing as Max Weber's co-writer said the same thing in 1921.

No - you've simply generalized the definitions so much that you can fit them together - like rubbing off all the points on a cube so it can fit through a circle hole. The problem is that they aren't defined in such a manner as to go together.

Granted that wouldn't make it hell. The terrible script and bad acting would make it hell.

ACE Eddie Award: 1 Nomination
ADG Excellence in Production Design: 3 Nominations and 1 win
AMLA Awards: 1 Win
ASCAP Film and Television Music Awards: 9 Wins
BAFTA Awards: 1 Nomination
Emmy Awards: 155 Nominations and 33 Wins
Hugo Awards: 13 Nominations and 1 Win
NAACP Image Awards: 1 Win
Peabody Awards: 1 Win
People's Choice: 1 Nomination
Saturn Awards: 18 Wins
Screen Actors Guild Awards: 2 Wins
Taurus World Stunt Awards: 1 Nomination
TV Land Awards: 1 Win
Writer's Guild of America Awards: 1 Win

Yes.... Star Trek and its six television shows, eleven movies, and countless novels represent a terrible show.

They're not the law, they can't deliver justice and injustice, they merely provide information, often somewhat incomplete.

Which, again, doesn't give you the leeway to redefine them just because you think the dictionary doesn't have the defintion you've chosen to have to make the case for this arguement.

I've set my evidence and observations out in this thread as listed at the top of this post. Have a look. After all that evidence and argument, I still have to make my own decision, but it is based on something substantial, not just a feeling as you allege.

Where? In the previous posts you claim I've not read? I've been posting since page 2 - I've seen all of your posts and I've yet to see any actual arguement for your position that doesn't rely on simply stating your arguement without actually presenting an arguement.

I said it's not just an economic system nor is it, as you are now arguing, a mere "system of trade". It's got its own ideological culture, its own social strata, it is massively political and at its core seems to be widely worshipped (among other things - see all my posts listed above)

Umm... Capitalism has none of those things.
You keep bringing these over-generalizations up as though it were a bygone conclusion and while it's adorable you're still not actually raising any points.
I suppose my response is that no, none of these things are actually true and the reason that is is for the reasons I brought up earlier in this post in regard to the fact that no one actually worships capitalism or treats it as though it were an actual religious faith.

[Existentialist]

...while it's adorable...

If your latest post is an example of how you reply to someone when you're adoring them, what do you do when you don't like them?

On this basis I do suspect a smidgen of insincerity in your post there, but that's just in my judgement which is fallible. 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.

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!

However there are other dimensions to this, and as ever I'm interested in opening the debate out, rather than having the debate funnelled down to a mutual contradiction session. 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?

I think we all identify with capitalism. It is the system that feeds, houses and clothes us so it wouldn't be surprising if we all felt at least some loyalty to it. But not only that, we are all dependent on capitalism. Whether we work in the private sector or the public sector, we must at least pay some attention to the principles of division of labour and be aware of our own productivity. In fact, if we don't show some loyalty on both these issues, we'd all be out of a job. Some of us are.

But there comes a point at which it becomes impossible for anyone to dare to disagree. The work-ethic conservatives are coming down on us all like a ton of bricks nowadays. If you have more children you can't expect the state to pay child benefit for them because it was your own fault for having them. If you don't go out to work you can't expect to receive more in State benefits than you would get in a full-time job. The assumptions about what the welfare system is meant to achieve are changing, and the victims of the change deserve it because they are guilty and sinful - as Walter Benjamin whom I quoted earlier said, guilt is a part of the religion and, unlike in the Roman Catholic Church, there is no possibility of expiation.

Yes, you could get on your bike and look for a job. Perhaps even find one. But even then there's no expiation; you may work in a call centre whose products you disagree with, you may work for a government whose policies you don't want to implement. Is there really a job for everybody?

And where does this compulsory guilt come from? Who says we must be profitable, productive and efficient? The answer is simple. God. Or rather, in this religion, capital. But even to say so in the workplace or in politics is to blaspheme.

Isn't that where the resistance to identifying capitalism as a religion really comes from? We assess our position in the capitalist system and we seek to minimise our guilt - ie ignore as many as possible of the methods of punishment that the religious patriarchs could heap upon us the more we step out of line. The more we identify with them, the less we are likely to suffer. So there is massive economic welfare associated with buying in to the ideologies and beliefs of this particular system - it's a religion that has bought our compliance, on the basis that we cannot sell it to anybody else. Indeed, there is nobody else! Just capitalism and its one true, unquestionable god, Capital.

[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.

[fr0d0]

The man’s question in Matt 6:20, “What do I still lack?” refers
to gaining eternal life (v. 17) and Jesus’ answer in v. 21 answers this
question. Jesus’ method of dialog highlighted to the man what he was
really lacking. He would not have made His point as well if He had just said
“Money is your God!”

The man’s reaction proved correct Jesus’ statements
“where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matt 6:21) and “No
one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or
he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both
God and Money” (Matt 6:24). The man leaves because, if a choice must be
made between money and Jesus, money wins.

In Christianity money is regarded as a god. People replace god with a focus on money and what it can get.

[solja247]

Wow. That was interesting read. Well, I have to say socialism is the best system we have.