In another forum they talk a lot about this:
When is a religion not a true religion.
Society accept it as a religion due to its age
and the tradition itself is referred to as religion
but a lot of the atheists say that it lacks the faith
in supernatural gods and only religions that have
that faith in such gods are true religions the other
are traditions and not religions.
the evolved religions that don’t require the fundy faith
get upset over being declared “not a religion as we see it”
why would atheists know more about our religion
than what we do ourselves? Angry and upset feelings.
Think atheistic Buddhism. Some atheists that are Buddhists
do look down upon Buddhism that they see as religious.
I got interested in one such Buddhism. Jodo Shinshu Buddhism
and they have a metaphoric view on Amida Buddha.
The cool thing is that they have a minority of believers
that really think that Amida do exists and these are as
angry as the religious that don’t think God exjsts.
Sorry I am not good at retelling this in a good way.
Anyway this thing religion is not easy to relate to.
This is not about the definition of religion but the entity itself
I should read the OP again because I feel unsure of what that means
Let’s do a thougt experiment that I am very fond of..
Religion existed long before http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
And now almost 2000 years later we still have religions but other than
way back thousand of years before Nicaea. So statistically some 1000 years
in the future there could be a very small minority that still do religion.
Say 5% of humanity are stubborn enough to do religion.
What is most likely based on what we know now that that religion is Fundy
or Liberal? Does it have a God or many gods. Does it accept atheists or
try to convert us to be believers.
Is it not rather unpredictable? Can one saw the seed of what it will become
in the future? Can we help our coming generations to get a religion that is
as naturalistic as possible.
Read here http://secularbuddhism.org/2012/11/29/secular-humanism-and-secular-buddhism/
Secular Humanism and Secular Buddhism
Doug Smith | November 29, 2012 ...
By “secularized Buddhist” I mean Buddhism shorn of its supernatural claims,
such as literal rebirth, effective karmic causation, and the like.
What I hope for is a Naturalized Buddhism and by that I mean a Buddhism
that has nothing Buddhism left and not the meditations and all the claims
of what it do and does not do.
What I mean is that I want something that really works and based on science
and not on faith and subjective personal experience as Buddhism does.
And I want that Amida there but not referred to as Amida Buddha.
Amida of Science and not of religion. That is a thought experiment I like.
Some day in the far far future, say many hundreds years from now.
Even thousands of years those that live then should have matured enough
to get rid of all references to faith in Buddha or God and have a truly naturalistic religion.
Are you with me?