Everyone, whether they choose to admit it or not is religious.

[Paroxys]

The Webster definition of "religion" reflects popular belief. It is always referring to old ideological systems and newer ones that resemble the old ones. However, religions serve a function as the author of this thread proposed. Any world-view and way-of-thinking system that serves that function is a "religion", although, "world-view system" would be a better term.

So, in this context, the author is correct. "Religion" or "world-view systems" do provide them with a sense of community, a feeling that you are not alone because others believe as you do. This would even apply to people who do not want to be close to each other and are content just knowing others elsewhere believe as they do.

Why do we need this sense of community? Because we evolved in small social hunting gathering groups over millions of years. World-View systems are the only way we can manage to live and work together in much larger groups or nations. Only with their ideology can we bond together in them.

And when these religions or world-view systems divide until that bond is shattered, society begins to break down and people feel an approaching doom.

Secular Humanism and the "Secular religion" of East Asian Marxism are also religions or world view systems.

What you are essentially arguing is that "in the context of the author, the author's definitions are right." You were really going for the hat trick (or Holy Trinity if you prefer a religious metaphor) with this one weren't you? Cute, meaningless, and wrong. The thing here is though like the author, you fail to specify why that particular defintion is the proper defintion to use that the all ought to adopt. That is for what reason should we accept his defintion as true? By what criteria? and why are those criteria more legitimate than any other criteria for determining context in meaning? My a priori issue still stands, not one semblance of reason has been provided as to why we ought to accept the author's chosen definition. (Note that, this really isn't a problem in math or science as context and criteria are both standardized).

Hell even your own argument supports my contention. You concede that "world-view system" is a "better" term than "religion" meaning the two aren't identical. Yet despite this, you go on to contradict yourself, and like the author, assert that all world-view systems are necessarily religions. YOU'RE DOING THE EXACT SAME THING HE DOES ONLY WITH DIFFERENT WORDS. All religions may be world-view systems, but not all world-view systems are necessarily religions. Which is something you yourself explicitly state. You, just like the author fail to provide any reason as to why these two concepts are equivalent, and as I will point out again, state definitively that one term is better than another.

As it stands, pretty much all of my arguments are still uncontended. In fact, on a second reading of your "argument" you're really not doing anything different from the author at all. Line by line this your "argument":
-There are other definitions of the word religion
-One defitnition of the word religion is the one the author uses
-Hence I establish an equivalency where it is neither explicit nor implied
-Despite my equivalency, I assert that the one word is better than the other (a contradiction)
-Using these defintions, the author is correct
-Reasons X, Y, Z which serve absolutely no purpose in addressing any of my arguments. In fact all this is a nontopical misdirect hoping to claim some logical legitimacy. Sorry pal, not gonna work.

Very well said. I think this describes really well how everyone is religious.

Of course you would say that. You know why? Because he's not saying anything different than you. Doesn't mean that he actually addressed any of my arguments, which you would know, if you actually addressed any of my arguments.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

What you are essentially arguing is that "in the context of the author, the author's definitions are right." You were really going for the hat trick (or Holy Trinity if you prefer a religious metaphor) with this one weren't you? Cute, meaningless, and wrong. The thing here is though like the author, you fail to specify why that particular defintion is the proper defintion to use that the all ought to adopt. That is for what reason should we accept his defintion as true? By what criteria? and why are those criteria more legitimate than any other criteria for determining context in meaning? My a priori issue still stands, not one semblance of reason has been provided as to why we ought to accept the author's chosen definition. (Note that, this really isn't a problem in math or science as context and criteria are both standardized).

Hell even your own argument supports my contention. You concede that "world-view system" is a "better" term than "religion" meaning the two aren't identical. Yet despite this, you go on to contradict yourself, and like the author, assert that all world-view systems are necessarily religions. YOU'RE DOING THE EXACT SAME THING HE DOES ONLY WITH DIFFERENT WORDS. All religions may be world-view systems, but not all world-view systems are necessarily religions. Which is something you yourself explicitly state. You, just like the author fail to provide any reason as to why these two concepts are equivalent, and as I will point out again, state definitively that one term is better than another.

As it stands, pretty much all of my arguments are still uncontended. In fact, on a second reading of your "argument" you're really not doing anything different from the author at all. Line by line this your "argument":
-There are other definitions of the word religion
-One defitnition of the word religion is the one the author uses
-Hence I establish an equivalency where it is neither explicit nor implied
-Despite my equivalency, I assert that the one word is better than the other (a contradiction)
-Using these defintions, the author is correct
-Reasons X, Y, Z which serve absolutely no purpose in addressing any of my arguments. In fact all this is a nontopical misdirect hoping to claim some logical legitimacy. Sorry pal, not gonna work.

So, since you know so much, what is your definition of religion and why doesn't it apply to everyone?


Of course you would say that. You know why? Because he's not saying anything different than you. Doesn't mean that he actually addressed any of my arguments, which you would know, if you actually addressed any of my arguments.

So, since you know so much, what is your definition of religion and why does it not apply to everyone.

 

[Paroxys]

So, since you know so much, what is your definition of religion and why does it not apply to everyone.

How does me providing a definition address any of my points. I'm not the one asserting a particular thesis. If you want to impose your values onto others, then its up to you to show that you are indeed correct. That we ought to accept your values as true. It's what Issac Newton did, when he wanted to make assert that his conception of gravity was correct, he had to prove it. If you want to assert that "everyone is religious" then you have to prove it.

To put this another way. For what justifiable reason do I need to provide my own counter-thesis when my position from the start has merely been: "Prove that you're right, that your position is the correct one to adopt, that your definitions are the correct ones to use."

But to humor you. I don't even need to offer my own definition. plenty of people in this thread have offered alternative dictionary definitions to religion and shown how those definitions contradict the claim that everyone is religious.

To say this again and very slowly, and clearly. What I'm asking is:
1. Why should we use your particular definition and interpretation of religion over the other ones suggested by others? Why is your definition the "correct" or "better" one to use?
2. What sort of criteria are you using when determining the the "goodness" of a particular definition? And why are those criteria better than other criteria for determining "goodness" of meaning?

Perhaps it would be prudent to illustrate with an example. I know some christians who define religion as specifically, Christianity. They claim that if you're not christian, then you aren't religious (clearly by this definition of "religion" not everyone is religious since not everyone is Christian). Is this a "good" definition of religion? Why or why not?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

How does me providing a definition address any of my points. I'm not the one asserting a particular thesis. If you want to impose your values onto others, then its up to you to show that you are indeed correct. That we ought to accept your values as true. It's what Issac Newton did, when he wanted to make assert that his conception of gravity was correct, he had to prove it. If you want to assert that "everyone is religious" then you have to prove it.

To put this another way. For what justifiable reason do I need to provide my own counter-thesis when my position from the start has merely been: "Prove that you're right, that your position is the correct one to adopt, that your definitions are the correct ones to use."

But to humor you. I don't even need to offer my own definition. plenty of people in this thread have offered alternative dictionary definitions to religion and shown how those definitions contradict the claim that everyone is religious.

To say this again and very slowly, and clearly. What I'm asking is:
1. Why should we use your particular definition and interpretation of religion over the other ones suggested by others? Why is your definition the "correct" or "better" one to use?
2. What sort of criteria are you using when determining the the "goodness" of a particular definition? And why are those criteria better than other criteria for determining "goodness" of meaning?

Perhaps it would be prudent to illustrate with an example. I know some christians who define religion as specifically, Christianity. They claim that if you're not christian, then you aren't religious (clearly by this definition of "religion" not everyone is religious since not everyone is Christian). Is this a "good" definition of religion? Why or why not?

Saying that the only religion is Christianity is not true, it is like a doberman stating that if you are not a doberman, you are not a dog. The Bible itself speaks of other religions being out there. People worshiping their idols and false Gods.

"Galatians 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:"
According to this reference in the New Testament their is a Jewish Religion.
If Christians claim to believe in the Bible and state that there is only one religion and that it is Christianity, then they don't believe in their own religion and must believe in something else (their own personal religion).



It sounds to me like your thesis is that everyone is not religious.
If this is so what is your definition, and how can you prove your thesis?
Lead by example. This will eithir disprove my thesis or prove my thesis, I am leaning on it will only prove my thesis more true.

Thus far I have given more evidence on my thesis that everyone is religious than any opposing view of how not everyone is religious. I guess I am just more right.

 

[Draka]

Is this still going on?

yaddoe, you aren't more right, you're more deluded. It's not that there hasn't been any evidence to the contrary of your opinion, there's been mounds of it. You just ignore it.

 

[outhouse]

Is this still going on?

yaddoe, you aren't more right, you're more deluded. It's not that there hasn't been any evidence to the contrary of your opinion, there's been mounds of it. You just ignore it.

Im inclined to agree 100%


this has to be one of the most epic failure's for a thread.


It is a waist of bandwidth

 

[Thief]

Saying that the only religion is Christianity is not true, it is like a doberman stating that if you are not a doberman, you are not a dog. The Bible itself speaks of other religions being out there. People worshiping their idols and false Gods.

"Galatians 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:"
According to this reference in the New Testament their is a Jewish Religion.
If Christians claim to believe in the Bible and state that there is only one religion and that it is Christianity, then they don't believe in their own religion and must believe in something else (their own personal religion).



It sounds to me like your thesis is that everyone is not religious.
If this is so what is your definition, and how can you prove your thesis?
Lead by example. This will eithir disprove my thesis or prove my thesis, I am leaning on it will only prove my thesis more true.

Thus far I have given more evidence on my thesis that everyone is religious than any opposing view of how not everyone is religious. I guess I am just more right.

'Guess' would be correct.

300+ postings and the line in the sand is still getting kicked about.

If you say... belief in God is sufficient to then be called 'religious'.....
It is then to negate the differences between all religions.
All that believe....while not holding to a practice.....are correct.

To say religion is the practice you perform in response to your belief in God....
None are right...all are wrong.
And between each other is this line drawn.
Each to his own...and the other guy has it...wrong.

I don't have any such thing.
I say...to be religious....you need some kind of practice....a creed.

But if you desire and do insist...you can say my practice has two statements of creed.

Love God.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

If this is all it takes to say 'Thief is religious'.....fine.

But I have no congregation...no followers....and nothing else that can fill the cup labeled...'religion'.

 

[charles brough]

Everyone has a worldview, yes -- but the point everyone is trying to make to you here is that "religion" isn't synonomous with "worldview." Not all worldviews are religious.

I think I know what you mean. I say that all ideology including religions are world-view systems but some world-view systems are not "spiritual." I suspect we can agree on that. However, sticking strictly do definitions, isn't "spiritual" dealing with spirits? To me, that means that old world-view systems, and new ones that adopt old "spirit" concepts, are simply old in their world-view.

Does it still seem I forgot or missed something? :no::yes:

 

[charles brough]

What you are essentially arguing is that "in the context of the author, the author's definitions are right." You were really going for the hat trick (or Holy Trinity if you prefer a religious metaphor) with this one weren't you? Cute, meaningless, and wrong. The thing here is though like the author, you fail to specify why that particular defintion is the proper defintion to use that the all ought to adopt. That is for what reason should we accept his defintion as true? By what criteria? and why are those criteria more legitimate than any other criteria for determining context in meaning? My a priori issue still stands, not one semblance of reason has been provided as to why we ought to accept the author's chosen definition. (Note that, this really isn't a problem in math or science as context and criteria are both standardized).

Hell even your own argument supports my contention. You concede that "world-view system" is a "better" term than "religion" meaning the two aren't identical. Yet despite this, you go on to contradict yourself, and like the author, assert that all world-view systems are necessarily religions. YOU'RE DOING THE EXACT SAME THING HE DOES ONLY WITH DIFFERENT WORDS. All religions may be world-view systems, but not all world-view systems are necessarily religions. Which is something you yourself explicitly state. You, just like the author fail to provide any reason as to why these two concepts are equivalent, and as I will point out again, state definitively that one term is better than another.

As it stands, pretty much all of my arguments are still uncontended. In fact, on a second reading of your "argument" you're really not doing anything different from the author at all. Line by line this your "argument":
-There are other definitions of the word religion
-One defitnition of the word religion is the one the author uses
-Hence I establish an equivalency where it is neither explicit nor implied
-Despite my equivalency, I assert that the one word is better than the other (a contradiction)
-Using these defintions, the author is correct
-Reasons X, Y, Z which serve absolutely no purpose in addressing any of my arguments. In fact all this is a nontopical misdirect hoping to claim some logical legitimacy. Sorry pal, not gonna work.

Phew!! All that because you don't like the way I define the word? ! Perhaps it is an emotional issue with you. I made my point (I hope) clearer in post #328 and it may satisfy you. My reason for the distinction in defining the word is that most such terms in the social sciences are defind in multiple ways ( a very unscientific proceedure useful for rationalizing) or (as with "religion") defined in a "loaded" way---both ways are used to keep social theory consistent as much as possible with our secular ideals and a liberal Christian outlook.

Peace

 

[Paroxys]

It sounds to me like your thesis is that everyone is not religious.
If this is so what is your definition, and how can you prove your thesis?
Lead by example. This will eithir disprove my thesis or prove my thesis, I am leaning on it will only prove my thesis more true.

Thus far I have given more evidence on my thesis that everyone is religious than any opposing view of how not everyone is religious. I guess I am just more right.

Apparently you seem to be lacking basic reading comprehension skills. As I've stated before, I've not offered up a thesis of my own. Or rather, you could say my essential stance is: "If you want others to believe your claim, prove it." I don't have to offer up a position of my own to say that you're wrong, you could just be wrong. That is, if you argued that everything in the world is blue, I would not need to argue that everything in the world is red to refute against your claim. To make this as abundantly clear for you as possible, my position is this:

IT'S NOT OUR JOB TO DISPROVE YOUR THESIS. IT'S YOUR JOB TO PROVE IT. IF YOU WANT TO ASSERT YOUR VIEW AS THE CORRECT ONE, PROVIDE REASONS AS TO WHY THAT YOUR VIEW IS CORRECT.

Even if you've "provided" evidence concerning your thesis, since you haven't addressed fundamental problems concerning your advocacy at all. Pretty much all my of substantial contentions have still gone unanswered.

1. Why should we accept your definitions over other definitions of the word "religion", "religious", "belief", etc.?
2. Why are the standards and criteria that you use to determine the correctness or goodness of definitions "good" or "better" than alternative standards and criteria?

These two are a priori issues. They are asking, why we should accept your basic premises as true. Just because you can provide "evidence" (which you really don't, all you really do is a verbal circlejerk) based on YOUR premises, if you provide no reason for us to accept your premises then your conclusion is rejected anyway, despite any evidence you can provide. Beyond this there is a major flaws in your argument itself:

3. You haven't shown that system of beliefs and religion are equivalent. You can say that all religions are systems of beliefs, based on your premises. However you cannot say that all systems of beliefs are religions. Again back to dogs and 4-legged animals. All dogs are 4-legged animals. Just because you can say this, it does not imply that all 4-legged animals are dogs. Which is what you're doing with religion and system of beliefs. Plus, you haven't even addressed my counterexamples: math, or my system of "beliefs" for sorting.
4. Even if we were to assume that that equivalence is true and concede that everyone has a group or set of beliefs. You haven't shown how a set or group is the same as a system.

Saying that the only religion is Christianity is not true, it is like a doberman stating that if you are not a doberman, you are not a dog. The Bible itself speaks of other religions being out there. People worshiping their idols and false Gods.

Back to my example to try and illustrate my point. You say that this is a bad or wrong definition because it is not "true." Hence we should not accept this definition of "religion". By what standards and criteria can you say that this is wrong?
Regardless, these Christians would then argue, that they are in fact, correct because "God told them so" (not necessarily from the Bible, but say from prayer or something). That is their interpreted "word of God" is the correct standard and criteria that we ought to use.

According to this reference in the New Testament their is a Jewish Religion.
If Christians claim to believe in the Bible and state that there is only one religion and that it is Christianity, then they don't believe in their own religion and must believe in something else (their own personal religion).

This right here is a very good example of my point. You argue that these people are not "Christians," yet these people themselves adamantly call themselves as such. Why is your definition of "Christian" better than their definition of "Christian".
On a side note, they would argue that other religions are "false religions" and therefore not really religions.

 

[Paroxys]

Phew!! All that because you don't like the way I define the word? ! Perhaps it is an emotional issue with you. I made my point (I hope) clearer in post #328 and it may satisfy you. My reason for the distinction in defining the word is that most such terms in the social sciences are defind in multiple ways ( a very unscientific proceedure useful for rationalizing) or (as with "religion") defined in a "loaded" way---both ways are used to keep social theory consistent as much as possible with our secular ideals and a liberal Christian outlook.

Peace

It isn't really that I have a beef with you persay, it was more of the fact that the author thought he could use your post as a way of addressing my arguments. Hence, I had to spell out how nothing you said addressed any of my arguments at all. Rereading my post, though, perhaps there was misdirected hostility meant for the one who tried to misappropriate your words as a way to address mine (and the fact I really wanted to use the term "hat trick").

And it isn't really that I like or dislike the way you define a word. It's more of me asking you why your particular definition is a good one to use. Like in the social sciences, when talking about psychology studies. When people think of a way to measure something like say "tired" they either refine the term they are trying to measure (i.e. mental exhaustion, physical exhaustion, desire to sleep, etc.) or provide a reason how their particular measure encompasses the term as a whole. In different contexts, words can mean completely different things. Why in this context, is it good to use your particular definition. Beyond this, I just found it somewhat interesting that you claim one term to be "better" than another, but yet still use them equivalently. Again, as Meow Mix mentioned, we could concede that everyone has a world view, or view on the world, but does having a world view necessarily make you religious or a subscriber to a religion?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Is this still going on?

yaddoe, you aren't more right, you're more deluded. It's not that there hasn't been any evidence to the contrary of your opinion, there's been mounds of it. You just ignore it.

I'm sorry, Empty statements saying "That is wrong" is not evidence.

 

[Orias]

In the fact that religion is a system of beliefs that one uses to guide one's life, every decision a person makes whether good or bad is based on religion.

according to Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online
Religion: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices


Oh okay, noting the word religious in the definition of religion is defining the word with the word. It is as you say circular reasoning to do so

according to dictionary.com the word religious means
"of, pertaining to, or concerned with religion: a religious holiday."
pretty much something or someone that has something to do with religion

okay, what is religion? Religion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

a system of beliefs

What is ardor? ardor means loyalty
What is faith? firm belief in something for which there is no proof
What is an opinion? belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
What is a thought? something (as an opinion or belief) in the mind <he spoke his thoughts freely>
Religion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Wow, so long as someone has an opinion on something they are religious.

Unless of course you don't care.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

'Guess' would be correct.

300+ postings and the line in the sand is still getting kicked about.

If you say... belief in God is sufficient to then be called 'religious'.....
It is then to negate the differences between all religions.
All that believe....while not holding to a practice.....are correct.

To say religion is the practice you perform in response to your belief in God....
None are right...all are wrong.
And between each other is this line drawn.
Each to his own...and the other guy has it...wrong.

I don't have any such thing.
I say...to be religious....you need some kind of practice....a creed.

But if you desire and do insist...you can say my practice has two statements of creed.

Love God.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

If this is all it takes to say 'Thief is religious'.....fine.

But I have no congregation...no followers....and nothing else that can fill the cup labeled...'religion'.

Must one have a belief in God in order to be considered religious? I don't think so. If that were so then Buddisim would not be a religion.
A religon is just as system of beliefs that one develops and uses to guide their life. Everyone has a system of beliefs such as morals, that they use to guide their life.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Everyone has a worldview, yes -- but the point everyone is trying to make to you here is that "religion" isn't synonomous with "worldview." Not all worldviews are religious.

So what is your definition of religion? Do you have a better deffinition than any of the definitions I have given?

It is really nice when people try to correct someone and instead of just saying "your wrong" saying "that is incorrect, here is the right answer" Hence why it is called a correction.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

please take note: you are not everyone...


are those beliefs concerning religious doctrine?

1. I was trying to say that I have some beliefs that are stronger than some of my other beliefs.

2. My belief in change, can sometimes be concerning religious doctrine, when it is, it is usually I was too stubborn to really follow this principal of doctrine for a long time, but I am ready to follow it now. (example, for a long time growing up I never really took the time to read and study my scriptures and then one day I committed my self to do so and I have been studying them ever since.)
Either that, or I come to a whole new understanding of the doctrine that I never had before. (An example would be me just a few years ago coming to a whole new understanding on the doctrine of Baptism and the Sacrament and how they go hand in hand.)

 

[McBell]

I'm sorry, Empty statements saying "That is wrong" is not evidence.

Jumping up and down screaming "I'm Right!" is not evidence either.
But that has not stopped you from trying to pass it off as such.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Apparently you seem to be lacking basic reading comprehension skills. As I've stated before, I've not offered up a thesis of my own. Or rather, you could say my essential stance is: "If you want others to believe your claim, prove it." I don't have to offer up a position of my own to say that you're wrong, you could just be wrong. That is, if you argued that everything in the world is blue, I would not need to argue that everything in the world is red to refute against your claim. To make this as abundantly clear for you as possible, my position is this:

IT'S NOT OUR JOB TO DISPROVE YOUR THESIS. IT'S YOUR JOB TO PROVE IT. IF YOU WANT TO ASSERT YOUR VIEW AS THE CORRECT ONE, PROVIDE REASONS AS TO WHY THAT YOUR VIEW IS CORRECT.

Even if you've "provided" evidence concerning your thesis, since you haven't addressed fundamental problems concerning your advocacy at all. Pretty much all my of substantial contentions have still gone unanswered.

1. Why should we accept your definitions over other definitions of the word "religion", "religious", "belief", etc.?
2. Why are the standards and criteria that you use to determine the correctness or goodness of definitions "good" or "better" than alternative standards and criteria?

These two are a priori issues. They are asking, why we should accept your basic premises as true. Just because you can provide "evidence" (which you really don't, all you really do is a verbal circlejerk) based on YOUR premises, if you provide no reason for us to accept your premises then your conclusion is rejected anyway, despite any evidence you can provide. Beyond this there is a major flaws in your argument itself:

3. You haven't shown that system of beliefs and religion are equivalent. You can say that all religions are systems of beliefs, based on your premises. However you cannot say that all systems of beliefs are religions. Again back to dogs and 4-legged animals. All dogs are 4-legged animals. Just because you can say this, it does not imply that all 4-legged animals are dogs. Which is what you're doing with religion and system of beliefs. Plus, you haven't even addressed my counterexamples: math, or my system of "beliefs" for sorting.
4. Even if we were to assume that that equivalence is true and concede that everyone has a group or set of beliefs. You haven't shown how a set or group is the same as a system.




Back to my example to try and illustrate my point. You say that this is a bad or wrong definition because it is not "true." Hence we should not accept this definition of "religion". By what standards and criteria can you say that this is wrong?
Regardless, these Christians would then argue, that they are in fact, correct because "God told them so" (not necessarily from the Bible, but say from prayer or something). That is their interpreted "word of God" is the correct standard and criteria that we ought to use.


This right here is a very good example of my point. You argue that these people are not "Christians," yet these people themselves adamantly call themselves as such. Why is your definition of "Christian" better than their definition of "Christian".
On a side note, they would argue that other religions are "false religions" and therefore not really religions.

My definition of Christian is anyone who believes in following Jesus Christ.
I am not calling those Christians Un-Christian by any means, I am just stating that they are either hypocritical (When their doctrine says one thing and they say another.) or just ignorant.

All I am stating is that I am right until proven wrong. (Innocent until proven guilty) (Until one black swan is found, all swans are white. That is just the way the world works. Before someone discovered the Americas, to the rest of the world's knowledge the Americas did not exist. Until the first platypus was discovered, to the world it did not exist. There may very well be evidence out there to prove me wrong, but until it is found, everyone is Religious. Have fun on your wild goose chase.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Unless of course you don't care.

Everyone has an opinion about something.
Even not caring is an opinion.

 

[Orias]

Everyone has an opinion about something.
Even not caring is an opinion.

If you want to make a semantical debate about words, then sure, not caring becomes an opinion, but otherwise its just not having interest or an opinion on something.