Qwertyuiopasd wrote:daftbeaker wrote:We've already got a word for people that don't have a religion. This might come as a shock but the word for people that are not religious is 'atheist'. Please try and remember that because I am fed up of repeating it now
Well, by your definition, I suppose, which is where the conflict is coming. I reject the idea of religion as "people believing in god or gods." And the study of comparative religions tends to agree with me.
Ok, make a list of all the religions you know. How many of them include the worship of a god? I'm willing to bet just about all of them.
Qwertyuiopasd wrote:And if you are expanding to add "immortality, divine order, reincarnation or karma," how can you do that and still call it atheism? After all, all atheism says is "no gods." Nothing about immortality, reincarnation, karma, or anything like that. Just, no gods.
And that would be an issue if I said that that definition was anything to do with atheism. I didn't, I said it was my expanded definition of a religion. Any belief that includes one or more of those things I would probably class as a religion. Atheism has none of them, ergo it's not a religion.
Qwertyuiopasd wrote:And Taoism and Confucianism are religions. You can keep saying the opposite, and I can keep saying the opposite. But considering I'm from the academia perspective here, and all my books, teachers, resources, etc, classify them as religions, so I'm going to go with that.
And I'm coming from the non-academic common sense perspective which is that if there's a bunch of philosophies about life I will call them philosophies.
Unless I missed it you still haven't explained why science is a religion according to your definition
Edit - How would you classify Plato, Nietzsche, Kant etc?