Okay, lets leave the label of atheist alone for a minute and just think of people with the atheist viewpoint Isherwood mentioned of 'there are no gods' as individuals. Wouldn't they still, by default be following a religion? A buddhist is still a buddhist if he/she isn't part of a community of buddhists so a communal following wouldn't be required.
Although those people would honestly think they believe that there are no gods - is that a viewpoint they
can take or is the real belief that they don't believe in the current gods depicted by mainstream religions. It seems that they would be following the same system that qualifies a religion as a religion. So then what makes them
not a religion?
Quote:
|
Some people might say I have a religion and claim that my scripture is scientific documents and my spiritual leaders are scientists etc. This is of course, bollocks, and is an example of trivializing the word religion so that it can apply to totally irrelevant things.
|
Just thought I'd ask because this is the viewpoint that the whole debate was started for. What qualifies a religion in your eyes? In post 11 I put down my opinion on what a religion would require to be a religion. Is there anything you would take out and/or add which would therefore support your statement that science as a religion is 'bollocks', and if so why?