Humanism as a religion?

Neither do I

I don't mind, Bags

But people without religion are more open to rules being changed, I think, so I'm not sure I agree with that view, ana.

I think you're wrong there, paigetheoracle. Religion is simply a set of rules that we live our daily lives by - there doesn't need to be any deity involved.

Humanism as a religion? No, you need a belief in God for religion. This doesn't mean I have anything against Humanism, just that is what the definition includes or excludes.

Same here Mishap - I suppose I am a 'humanist' but I really do not need to give my way of life a name.

I've mentioned it before, but I do wonder how many more in the UK would respond to surveys as being not religious, if they had to pay compulsory tax to their affiliated religion, as is the case here in Switzerland. Here, if you say you are Catholic or Protestant on your official documents, a percentage of tax if automatically deducted and paid to your chosen Church. In my County, as well as in Geneva county (Canton), this was voted down recently, and a juge proportion of people who previously called themselves (cultural) Protestants or Catholics, suddenly dropped out (hypocritically still expecting the Church do marry and bury them, visit when sick or bereaved, etc).

If you had to pay compulsory tax to your CofE or Catholic Church - how many of you would continue to do so?

I do not subscribe to any religion. Equally I do not feel the need to look for a word (humanist/agnostic....) to define what I believe/do not believe. I just get on with my life and try not to upset too many people on the journey.

"Reason, decency, tolerance, empathy and hope are human traits that we should aspire to, not because we seek reward of eternal life or because we fear the punishment of a supernatural being, but because they define our humanity. Only in recent years have I come to appreciate that all those qualities I have tried to espouse are precisely what defines Humanism."

Professor Jim Al-Khalili

In this article Polly Toynbee uses humanism/atheism as the antithesis of religion.

I see. That seems hypersensitive to me. Likening someone to someone else for their approach to a subject doesn't seem excessively personal to me. I suppose I don't find Dawkins arrogant because I lived and worked in Oxford for so long.
On the academic arrogance scale he's very near the bottom. As I recall, it was usually students who were the worst rather than professors well-practised in rigorous academic debate. At least Dawkins isn't afraid to publish others' criticism of him on his own website.

I do think that Dawkins comparing Michael Ruse with Neville Chamberlain is rude and a personalisation of the debate. I acknowledge that he is not generally as rude as some others, but I do find him arrogant.

I am not religious and I have no problem with anyone having a go at religious beliefs. I just don't think it's acceptable to go in for personal attacks. I think it works the other way as well - it is unacceptable to make personal attacks on atheists. It's a matter of basic courtesy.

I'm off to bed now, and away for the weekend, so if this discussion continues please don't think I'm avoiding it.

Whenever I am told I must respect all beliefs equally, I ask if I should respect a belief that says that a man is allowed to beat his wife (wives).
It is quite difficult to express a deeply-held, well-researched and totally sincere opinion about religion without somebody complaining that you are insulting them or trying to take away their freedom to worship. I think I will start to complain every time someone takes a swipe at atheism!

Please give an example of Dawkins being rude to people in expressing his opinions.

feetlebaum is the fact that P Z Myers is so rude in expressing his opinion evidence that he is right? I have no respect for anyone who personalises his views in such a way, whatever his argument. That's one if the things I don't like about Dawkins.

'Words mean what I want them to mean'. We can all stick to our own definition - it won't make any difference to anybody else. I don't regard Humanism as a religion, but if anybody else wants to think it is, why should it matter to me?

I think, generally speaking religion is defined in terms of a "belief in, reverence for, and desire to to please a divine ruling power" (OED) and "recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny and as being entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship" (ibid). That is why Buddhism is not usually classed as a religion and, presumably, rules out humanism.

which is exactly what a religion is. I do not see why a religion has to include a belief in a supernatural being. Your last sentence Greatnan is exactly what the follower of any religion would say.

There are, of course, philosophies that do no include a belief in any supernatural being(s) but I would not call them religions. I am not sure why the definition is important - I know what I believe, and whatever anyone wants to call my 'stance for living' won't make any difference to that belief.

You might say 'a belief in a supernatural (divine) being or beings' to include polytheistic religions.

It is as far as I am concerned. How would you define it?

Is that how a religion is defined? Belief in a supernatural being?

How many times do we have to tread over old ground? Most of us have stated our positions several times already. For the last time (huh!), if you need to know how to define humanism, go to:
http://www.humanism.org.uk/humanism

It is emphatically not a religion if you define a religion as being a belief in and observance of the worship of a supernatural (divine) being.

The opposite what? I am not an agnostic, I am an atheist. I score 7 on Dawkin's scale.
I can't prove fairies don't exist but I don't believe in them.

Humanists believe that there is no supernatural being. How does that difer from the opposite.

Seems to me the only alternative is agnosticism.

As a PS: PZ Myers puts it rather pithily:

"Ruse has long been in his maundering dotage, but at least he could be counted on to maintain a thought in his head for more than a few minutes…and sadly, he has now written an inconsistent and incoherent pile of drivel in which he clearly rides his favorite hobby-horses while failing to notice that he’s skewering his own windmills."