It seems like they want to bring certain ideas down a notch by calling the idea a religion. Strangely, they use the assertion as an insult.

There are dictionary definition of religion, but I've seen sociological ones which include these elements:

1) A belief system that explains why we exist, and how we came to be,
2) A belief system that explains what happens to us after we die, and,
3) A belief system that tells us what we need (or should) do to prepare for after-death disposition(s)
4) A moral code that tells us what we should (or must) do, and
5) A moral code that tells us what we should (or must) NOT do.

I would say that the more a belief system includes these elements, the more it is a "religion," irrespective of how it was started and how it is structured and led.

Explain which ideas you're talking about--this is very vague?

Atheism? Or something else?

What I posited is not applicable to ideas, but rather belief systems, which may be highly structured and articulated -- or not.

"I believe there may be a God, but I don't think about it much, and I don't go to church or anything" is more than an idea, it is a belief system, if a very informal and unstructured one. Therefore, it IS a kind of a religion. Perhaps we might term it a "proto-religion" or a "sub-religion." As I said, these criteria do not include things like structure, organization, leadership, or practice.

ThingsIthink posed a question. Not knowing what he/she/it had in mind, I just thought I'd throw these thoughts out for discussion.

Maybe because they can spot a fellow zealot?

Or why people being zealots feel the need to call other zealots.

IMHO, there are many reasons to be critical of religion. The religious people that are saying stuff like "Atheism is a religion" are really trying to say to the people critical of religion, "Oh yeah? Well you are just as bad as us."

Every time they try saying that atheism is a religion, I see it as an admission that they know the criticism is true.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/11/2015 12:17AM by MJ.

I think that they are saying that the way atheism (or whatever given belief system) is being discussed in that instance is as dogmatic as religion.

Because when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail...

Some of us have bigger toolkits :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/11/2015 12:25AM by ificouldhietokolob.

if those bozos call everything else a religion it makes them feel that their religion is legitimate..

Not just 'save their souls' but save them from meaninglessness, from the existential condition, and make their life worth living. All things people believe (or "know" or put their faith in) that will do this are "idols" of their religion. This includes objects they gotta have, consolations they continually resort to, people they "must" be with (even impulsively), or ideas that they think they can rely on. Anything Out There, different from oneself, that people think they need to complete themselves.

Yes, that kind of religion is an illusion: there is nothing outside that can complete you, because your incompleteness is also an illusion. But hey, what human being doesn't feel the need to grasp onto something? That's our own illusory nature.

Maybe that's a good distinction between religion and spirituality--where do you think the saving power lies, outside or inside?

ThingsIThink

One thing to keep in mind is that most of us here, being Westerners and ex-Mormons, tend to think of religion in very narrow terms. But outside of us is a big wide world in which religion is every bit as real as Mormonism or Catholicism, yet assumes a very different shape.

For example, some religions are entirely non-creedal. Others just promote a certain attitude toward life. Others are pantheist, others are non-theist, others are mostly about performing rituals, others have no conception of a fallen race or perfect supernatural beings, etc.

Beyond that, many secular worldviews take on the function of religion for their adherents. In his book "Sacred Causes", historian Michael Burleigh shows how certain political philosophies in the end became indistinguishable from religions.

So when we are speaking, say, sociologically, it makes sense to refer to something like communism or Nazism as a political religion, and indeed, many scholars do so, because that is the most apt term for a worldview which entails things like a system of ethics, and a "one true truth" claim, and which institutionally requires sacrifices or ritual performance, etc.

The use of the term "religion" in these contexts is not at all pejorative. It is just the most appropriate term to use.

If they are thinking critically, they are saying that whatever they're talking about is dogmatic. I've said this about values/belief systems of various kinds (political, etc.), and I'm not religious. That's the analogy people are making.