Perhaps we should begin at the beginning Religion is the social expression of a belief in the sacred or the holy. Whats your definition?
I'm kicking myself for this because I don't like it as a method of argument. I don't mean this to be any sort of authoritative answer or definition. But I want you to know that even the standard understanding of "religion" in English does not necessitate a deity. You should understand that you are defining this word in a very personal, culturally bias manner. It'd be the same as an orthodox jew saying a "prayer" must include the word "amen" or it is not a prayer. It's a very narrow and culturally-specific way of defining a word.
Really? Religion can't be a personal matter? If there were a person trapped in the jungle alone he couldn't be religious? I would generally go with the first definition that I posted above. Although I would modify to "concerning the cause nature, and/or nature of the universe."
No I don't think a person can be individually religious. A person can be individually philosophical or theistic/atheistic,but religion is a social phenomenon. Daoism concerns "the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances"?
Both. Neither one requires a deity. The first one states that something is a religion "especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency". (A) In dictionary-talk, "especially" means along the lines of "the word has a fuzzy definition" (if you're unfamiliar with 'fuzzy definition' - look up wittgenstein) "but usually it includes...". It, however, does not mean "this X to the exclusion of all other Ys". (B) Superhuman does not equal deity. Remember, atheism traditionally means "without belief in deity". Your definition for it is "belief there is no deity". Neither mine nor your definition talks about superhumans. For example, Christians (and Muslims, I think) believe in angels. They are superhuman but not deities.
Yes, Daoism makes statements on the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. It does not necessitate superhuman agencies under certain interpretations, though certainly those interpretations also exist. And yes, Daoism usually involves devotion and ritual. Meditation is usually included as a ritual, and it is prevalent in Daoism. Defining religion as a social phenomenon is something I might think agreeable. It doesn't alter our current discussion in any way, but I think I can agree that there is at least some value in defining it as necessarily social.
Well under some interpretations, none. Under others, the Dao (the "way" or "path") itself is a superhuman agency. In fact, it is the only "agency" in existence. I'm sadly not much of a mystic, nor do I believe that I'm going to get the point across very well on sciforums. Pick up a copy of the Dao De Jing if you really want to understand the various views of Dao. Finally, under some modern perversions, Dao is combined with a form of ancestor worship.
That would be a religion. I think it only adds to incoherency if we have vapid and vague definitions that make no sense. If someone tells me they are religious I don't assume they are atheist. The definition should cover this.
I'm pretty sure the definition I offered up makes good sense. Also, it's rarely debated anymore that certain definitions are necessarily bound to be "fuzzy" (again, look up Wittgenstein). Moreover, modern neurochemistry has shown that we do, in fact, use "fuzzy definitions" in our own natural way of thinking; there is no other way that human beings think! The classic example is the word "game". Try defining 'game'. I bet you can think of at least 10 examples that break every strict definition you come up with. No such strict definition exists to cover all of the various things we call a game. ------- To finish this off, though.... Ancestor worship is not belief in a deity. And atheism, by your own definition, is "the belief that there is no deity". So by your own definition of 'atheism' and your recent acceptance of that last form of Dao I stated as being a religion: someone could be both religious and an atheist.
Thats your definition. Ancestor worship is belief in a deity where I come from. See the worship of Rama, for instance.
Really? In Islam 'angels' are considered gods? I thought Islam stays pretty close to "There is only one God and it is He who is called I Am." thing. No? You are aware that deity = god, yes?
Sorry, my post is unclear... I shouldn't use "angels" as an example... In Islam, dead souls are considered gods?
I don't have any angels as ancestors. Also angels do not have a form in Islam, they are elements of the air, as jinn are elements of fire and human beings are elements of earth. Nothing to do with any ancestors. Not gods, but they are considered holy. I'm sure you have heard of mausoleums? There are many Muslims who consider them as intercessors for prayers.
Yes, I agree. But "holy" is not equal to "a god". And deity = god. Atheism means the belief there is no deity (according to Sam). Daoism (the sort that has ancestor worship) is a religion. --- One could be both an atheist (believe this is no god) and religious (a Daoist who practices ancestor worship).
Yeah, like the worship of Ram, as I said. If you believe in a supernatural agency and have rituals associated with it, its religion. If you are just dancing in a ballroom because you think parties make for good social interaction its not a religion. A+theos, yes The Daoist who worships his ancestor and believes in a supernatural agency is religious, I would not call him an atheist.
But that goes against your own definition. atheist = belief there is no god. Daoist with ancestor worship = a Daoist division that does not necessitate a god. religion = something that includes the category of "Daoist with ancestor worship". See?
Oh, I forgot to reply to this, and it's a good point. Yes, the definition should include the stipulation that it is very usually a deity worship. That's why the definition says "especially".
