hmm I sort of understand the second rule thank you for explaining it. When i said I hated religion I meant it, I hate what it stands for, the idea not the actual meaning. Religion has become a way for people to neglect their passions when it comes to what they worship and to just be a part of something and go through the motions.

I provided the definition to show you that those with a common belief when it comes to how things came to be, and thoughts on where we go when we die are religious. Even if you don't believe anything at all that is still a religion. If someone who is a christian becomes an atheist and gives up all their beliefs to believe that nothing happened to get us here, they still are believing in something that has to do with the beginning of our universe. I'm sorry if I am not making this clear. I will do so at a later time, I have to go somewhere now but I will write you more later.

I don't think you are being unclear about the definition of religion, I just think that the definition you suggest isn't very useful or that you are not using it consistently. You are essentially saying that anyone with an opinion about the beginning of our universe is religious. As I said before, that is an incredibly broad statement.

The difficulty with this definition becomes even clearer when we look at it in the context of your first paragraph. You say that you hate what the idea of religion stands for, but how can you hate people having an opinion about the beginning of the universe?

Sorry to keep harping on this, but it's a very important point with a number of legal and social implications. In fact, it's a definition such as the one you are promoting that creationists used to try and argue that the state is promoting religion in school by teaching science. I don't know what your stance is on creationism, but it is my opinion that opening the gates to mixing science and non-science in schoolrooms by saying they are all forms of religion could potentially cause massive problems.

If science is a religion because it has opinions about origins, then you are also implying that science and religion belong together. I don't think this would be a good thing. Science should have no business examining your faith, and faith should have nothing to do with how science is carried out.

I agree that some people are part of organized religions just because that's how they were brought up or because they like the community. Many of those people also don't know much about the religion they say that they follow. If this is what you hate, I can understand that. But you need to draw your lines much clearer to avoid being misunderstood. Perhaps when you have more time to respond you can do so.