>"He specializes in applied ethics and approaches ethical

>>2664383
You're retarded.

>>2664383
>how is utilitarianism not a religion?

How IS utilitarianism a religion? It's a philosophy. Not a very compelling one in my view, since it can't justify its central premise, but it's not even close to being religious in character.

>>2664489

>You're

>>2664500

haha wow, religion of autism I guess.

>>2664500
isn't "religion" the concept of holding faith in an unfalsifiable premise as truth?

>>2664559
No. The term "religion" should more correctly be used as "religions" because there is no one universal element in human religious practice; there's absolutely nothing you can point to that every religion without exception has in common.

>>2664383
>utilitarianism
>a religion
So... Doing whatever works is a religion now?

File: unitarian_universalist.png (259KB, 1520x1436px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1520x1436px

>>2664383
I think you have confused "Utilitarianism" ( a philosophy of maximizing happiness and stability while minimizing suffering), with "Unitarianism" (a liberal protestant religious movement).

>>2664559
Religion is a system of spiritual belief shared by a group. The spiritual aspect is what makes it religious.

>>2664559
Religion generally involves the worship of a supernatural god or gods. When it doesn't, but acknowledges the existence of supernatural forces, it's mysticism - then there's some gray areas like ancestral worship, but this doesn't go anywhere near that gray line.

...and how is utilitarianism unfalsifiable anyways? Either it works or it doesn't. Might require long term application to verify, but it's entirely falsifiable and doesn't rely on the supernatural in any way.

>>2664559
no, that's the most autistic definition of religion i've ever heard
not all religions make "faith" a central notion
"falsifiability" is an outdated notion from the philosophy of science
and it's an open question in epistemology whether all beliefs ultimately depend on premises that can't be justified, so depending on how that question is answered, everyone would be necessarily religious if your definition were true

>>2665612
how are they all instances of one thing or members of the same type (religions) then?

>>2664383
People who follow ideology blindly arent much better than religious people following their own dogma blindly. Though its still not a religion. Its basically the same shit in diffrent wrappings.

Ayn Rand — 'There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist. '