Posts from Choose Your Religion

I agree with Doug regarding atheism.

Added 6 minutes later
Although, one can differentiate between them, as the main difference between atheism and all other beliefs and ideologies lies in the fact that a person can use religion to be happy, but atheism cannot provide that.

No way. I agree only in that Marxism-Leninism ultimately turned into a religion, with its own cult. But atheism in general – no, I don't agree.

Asceticism is hedonism.

Atheist heretics.

Although a distinction can be made, the main difference between atheism and all other beliefs and ideologies is that a person can use religion to be happy, but atheism cannot.

A belief that is not atheism does not necessarily have to be a religion. If Doug had given an example of a belief without a cult, it would not be considered a religion. In fact, philosophical concepts are often beliefs (or ideologies, depending on personal preference) without a cult (although other philosophical concepts still require religion and a cult).

It seems to me that proponents of the idea that "atheism = religion" don't quite understand the essence of the matter. Atheism doesn't obligate one to anything except the absence of belief in the supernatural. Religion, on the other hand, is belief in this very supernatural, coupled with a certain philosophy. Atheism can be a part of a philosophy.

Religion is faith in the supernatural, combined with a specific philosophy.

As I said before, this is not enough. A cult is needed. Otherwise, any idealist could be considered a religious person, which is not the case.
As for the idea that religion necessarily calls for faith in the supernatural, there are also doubts. The fact that religion requires a certain ideology is undeniable, but what that ideology should be... Let's just say that pagans often believed in perfectly natural things as part of their religion, but attributed additional qualities to them (in all cases, hmm? Maybe not in all cases) and chose them as objects of worship. As a simple example, consider cows in India. Yes, Hinduism is much more than just cows, but if a natural object is part of a religious worldview, why couldn't a religion be hypothetically built entirely on natural objects, without the supernatural? In my opinion, it could. But faith is important. In any sense, in general, but it is important. And most importantly, a cult. Without a cult, there is no practical part of religion; only a worldview, a philosophy, remains.

In the case of cows, for example, people believe in the existence of a supernatural aspect to a natural thing. So, this is also a belief in the supernatural.

I'm not an expert on Hinduism, but it seemed to me that they don't see anything supernatural in cows. That is, the animal is "sacred" not because of any unusual properties, but because of traditions/history/something similar. I may be wrong, though.

Ah, well, as another example, I can bring up cats in Ancient Egypt. As I understand it, nothing special was attributed to cats, but they were worshipped, thereby pleasing Bast, who was somehow connected to them. One could argue that the supernatural lies precisely in Bast, and without her, all of this would be meaningless. Yes, that's true, but they worshipped cats, not Bast. Where is the line drawn when a cult transitions from worshipping the supernatural to worshipping the natural?
Marxism-Leninism (precisely it, and in the form it ultimately took under the influence of the USSR) clearly possesses a cult – worship, veneration, and certain things that are very much like rituals, almost exactly corresponding to them. And if I see an animal that looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... So it's not surprising that people see this as a religion – because the cult exists. Belief also exists – but not in the supernatural. So, the definition here largely depends on how this question is resolved.
But to extend this to all atheism is definitely meaningless; such inferences do not apply to atheism as a whole.

Ugh, you chose the most boring option.

Ugh, they chose the most boring option.

Oh, and now I know Dag's religion.

I can fix it.

Dude, I personally think that the cult of personality is a completely rotten idea, but it doesn't have a supernatural element. Why do people follow the leader's precepts? Because their minds have been manipulated, they think he's a cool and infallible guy who did everything right. There's no magic involved. The cats of Egypt? They are worshipped because of Bast, that very supernatural aspect.

Cop, I myself think that the cult of personality is a rotten idea, but it doesn't have a supernatural element.

I'm not arguing against that.
However, another idea came up, but I'll leave it for now, as it's already late. Maybe I'll formulate it later... ))