I don't understand a lot of science, but I trust the scientific method. That is the difference between religion (based on zero facts) and accepting science that one may not completely understand.

This does not mean that someone should think something is a fact because a scientist has made a claim. But, once something has undergone the scrutiny of the scientific method and is accepted as a scientific fact, one does not need to understand the science in order to accept it and repeat those facts--that is not the same as it being like a religion.

@Joanne You are right, but most of people don't understand the method, they simply think something like that: If scientists say it is true, then it is.

That creates that situation that eggs change from being healthy every week and any article starting at "scientists proved" becomes truth.

This blind acceptance without even checking the sources creates this fake news environment or for example this discussion about climate changes or anti vaxxers. They all think the negationists always claim they have science at their side, and they really think this. But the lack of fundamental knowledge of what is and how science works creates this obvious mistakes

You could easily have an atheistic religion, but I would not call atheism itself a religion.

@skado hmm. Guess it depends on our def of Religion; i drink a cup of coffee eevry morning, religiously.

@bbyrd009
Yes, our language is quite limber.

well, are ideologies that start negating reality to survive that different from religion?

No, It cannot. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any gods. But, this does not mean that some religions (such as Humanism, Satanism) cannot have atheists as members.

@Joanne well, so you say maam, but i beg to disagree wadr; i know many religious atheists, so self-deemed imo simply bc they have rejected religious theism, or are just mad at Yah

word

It just depends on how you define “religion” and people define it differently, as the video explains.

@skado Different personal definitions have no standing. Unless you can give me an actual, standing definition of religion you can't possibly make statements about it. It's like building a wall with different sized and shaped bricks with no mortar. It will be a fragile structure at best and will collapse at the first test of strength.

@skado How "some people" define a word doesn't matter. General consensus and common use in language for word usage is communication works. We, the majority of English speakers, define "religion" as a belief involving the supernatural.

@sterlingdean, @Observer-Effect
"there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion"
[en.wikipedia.org]

@skado Ok. The scholars don't have to agree. General, common, usage is what matters in communication. When somebody says "religious" in conversation, 99% of the time we know what they mean.

@Observer-Effect
Suit yourself.

@skado Ok, gosh - thanks!

@sterlingdean The idea of ‘religion’ is a Western term born of the Enlightenment. If you were to speak in such terms in the East the general populace would have no idea what you are talking about. What the West calls religion is just a part of the fabric of many people’s lives.

@Geoffrey51 That is non-answer. Christians say they don't have a religion but a 'personal relationship' with God. Another way to try and deflect and avoid the term. If there is a belief in some higher, supernatural power that cannot be detected by any means and somehow affects the outcome of events, its a religion no matter what you choose to call it.

@skado Well, thanks for your permission to follow logic and reason.

@sterlingdean, @Observer-Effect
If I have offended you I apologize. That was not my intention. We both know we don't need anyone's permission to have our own thoughts. But when someone says "X" and the other person says "Not X" I don't know where to go from that point but to wish them well and end the conversation. I don't see the point in getting into a "is too, is not" confrontation.

I am aware of the popular understanding. That's what popular means - everyone understands it. I think it's also useful to understand the scholarly perspective, but if you don't, that's fine. If you're not interested I have no motivation to push it on you. So I don't know what else to do but leave you to your preferences. I know you don't need my permission to have a nice day, so I won't say it.

@sterlingdean Religion isn’t about Christians. I see what you are saying but the term religion labels a whole range of behaviours which are not in accord with Eastern thinking.

If we are to discount the Eastern and Indigenous approach, then the Abrahamic religions remain which have been commented upon ad Infinitum with the same certainty of circular referencing found within their texts.

If we want to discuss ‘religion’, then these extra-Abrahamic ideas need to be engaged with. If they are not to be engaged with, we are discussing the ideas which lie within the bounds of the C17th thinking, and lead to discussion about God, in a purely monotheistic sense.

@sterlingdean, @skado Unfortunately ‘popular’ means just that. It’s a preference rather than an investigative appraisal.

Ask a humanist or a Satanist. They adhere to tenets of their religions, but they do not believe in the supernatural.

@Joanne IMO, those are philosophies, not religions.

hu·man·ism: noun
an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.

And there are still Satanists who view Satan as a supernatural being. THAT's a religion.

Precisely!

I have to wonder why some people constantly push that either atheism is a religion itself or that it is comparable with religion, like religion itself us some big homogeneous entity instead of 4 or 5 thousand competing belief systems.

Wonderful simple analogy, I'll be using that!

@Observer-Effect I confess, it is not original :

[goodreads.com]

also :

[atrivialknot.wordpress.com]

@Allamanda Atheism is a "stance"? Babies are born atheists, but do they have a stance? I think of a stance as being a conscious position on a subject. Not simply a lack of belief.

@Allamanda So, until just now - improvising here, I've never thought about being a seal hunter. Now I have thought of it, and I don't want to be a seal hunter - so I suppose now I perhaps do have a stance. But, did I have a stance on the idea of seal hunting before just now?

@Allamanda they absolutely are related, athiesm is literally a-thiesm, or the absence of thiesm. If thiesm didn't exist neither would athiesm. Well athiesm would exist but we wouldn't even know it.

But that doesn't actually give thiesm any credence. I honestly don't think people know what they're looking for, besides an answer to "something". Which kinda blows since any answer will do, making the criteria for being "the truth" dismally low. Unfortunatly.

True, atheism itself is not a religion. But, there are atheists who belong to some religions and adhere to the tenets of that religion: Humanism and Satanism, for example.