Not really, no. African folk religion is considered just as legitimate a religion in every African country I’ve ever been in.
I’m explicitly conceding some degree of admiration for how swiftly you moved the goalposts there, that’s for sure.
Of course it is. The only reasons to emphasize that something is “technically” a thing is to imply the “…but not really”, or to dispute someone else saying it isn’t a thing… They make memes about it and everything. Since I wasn’t saying CFR isn’t a religion, the first sense applies.
And I dispute that, based entirely on the number of them who practice aspects of a religion that posits a supernatural aspect. Even if they’re just burning joss, they’re not being naturalists at all.
Many Chinese told you, unprompted, “I’m just going through the motions, here”?
No. Do you practice any rituals around that belief, that you share with a group?
Many avowed atheists are religious. The two are not antonyms. I think this is one fundamental disconnect we have - I’m definitely not saying practitioners of folk religions can’t be atheists.
Do you? This would say different:
Anyway, I’m not questioning what you’ve experienced, I’m questioning your extrapolating your personal experience to the majority of Chinese, counter to what they’ve self-reported.
Yes, there is a good phrase here that I’ve heard people say: I’m religious but not spiritual (to turn the regular phrase on its head). Those who are into the ritual but don’t believe in the spiritual aspects. Now, I’m not saying that’s what the folk religion practitioners are doing, but there seems to be a very wide disconnect between orthopraxis and orthodoxy here.
I understand that you thinking in formal, traditional terms of the definitions of “religion” and possibly “religious”. However, my thoughts are in reference to the original question about “religious people” possibly becoming a “minority”. When you try to define “religious” it can have several different meanings. My thoughts were meant to convey, that in the strictest sense of the word, “religious people” will never be in the minority because the majority of human beings have and will continue to worship someone or something whether it be money, sex, themselves or someone else, pleasure, anything they offer religious devotion to even if it’s an “invisible pink unicorn.” That includes atheists, agnostics and every other human being on this planet. It’s undeniably the nature of man to worship even if he is not tied to some mainstream or non-mainstream religion.
You’re using the word “worship” in a very inclusive and commonly misused context. Money, sex, self and various other temporal pleasures are very different from religious practices.
If nothing else, religious practices involve a delay of gratification.
“There are no atheists in foxholes” is a presumptuous and patronizing statement that speaks for others. I am an atheist and a former Eastern Orthodox Christian. I prayed when I was religious and hoped that God would grant my prayers. Since I left religion, I have not prayed or relied on faith in a god in any times of trouble. I consider it as irrational as writing to Santa Claus and hoping to get a response.
I agree, but humans do seem to have a natural tendency towards religion/spiritual beliefs. Remove organised religion and what happens to that tendency?
I understand. However, I did not say religious worship. I said worship, which can mean idolizing or giving religious devotion to anything from a rock to a tree and as was mentioned, sex, money, and so on. All of these words and their meanings are closely linked together. Would you agree?
Absolutely not. I’ve never worshiped, idolized or given religious devotion to anything in my life since I discovered that I’m an atheist, neither material nor immaterial things. Why should I?
Claims similar to, ‘I’m spiritual, not religious’, and the like. Also a bunch of pseudo-scientific bullshit spouted by the likes of Deepak Chopra and similar woo-hucksters. But saying people worship money, or drugs, or sex have no more basis than me saying I worship sailing and skiing. I mean, I really enjoy those things and spend time and resources on doing them as often as I reasonably can. But I don’t “worship” them. Even if I did, to the detriment of my own well being and that of my family, it would not be worship as much as a mental disorder for which I might need professional attention.
Expanding the definitions of “religion” and “worship” so broad as to support your statement doesn’t make your statement true-It makes your definitions nonsensical.
I think this is kind of a meme among some religious people. But I don’t believe it’s true. Sure, people have to spend their time doing something, and some people get obsessive about work, hobbies etc, but that’s hardly universal. What would idolising mean in your definition? How would you identify what a given person idolised?
I understand. However, in reality the definitions of those words “religion”, “worship”, “religious” and others take on different meanings to different people even the so called scholars. My point was and still is that you cannot confine people who are “religious” to any particular religion. All of us have a spiritual side even if we deny it or neglect it.
I’ve heard it said that even if true, the statement “there are no atheists in foxholes” is not an argument against atheism – it is an argument against foxholes.
That includes atheists, agnostics and every other human being on this planet. It’s undeniably the nature of man to worship even if he is not tied to some mainstream or non-mainstream religion.