Nielsio you're just hurting your own cause when you make statements like this:

"If something cannot be rationally explained, and can only be propagated through indoctrination, propaganda and violence, then it's a religion."

Many religions that uses violence as a means to an end (take Christianity for example) are bastardizations of the original belief system. Nothing in the Christian bible says to force your beliefs on anyone else.

Even if what you say is true, I don't see how that undermines what I'm saying.

* If something cannot be rationally explained, you have to resort to other means to induce belief.

* If some person or group uses indoctrination and propaganda, that doesn't mean they use violence. So? Just because you refrain from using violence doesn't mean you are transferring belief rationally. i.e. this is an it-could-be-worse fallacy.

* Whenever a group does use violence to induce belief, it's a religious belief. This doesn't mean all religious belief uses violence all the time.

Were they trying to convert the Chinese?

This sure is a convenient way for an atheist/agnostic to define religon. While you definition might be usable for a omniscient being who knows exactly what is fact and what is symbol it isnt useful for humans.

Clearly people as a whole dont take symbols as fact, if they know for sure they are symbols.

So using your definition you can just label anyone who believes something you don't as religous (which you have every right/reason to do). But the problem is once you have labeled them religous then you can "prove" their beliefs aren't factual based on the fact they are religous. (I don't mean prove as in logically/philosophically but that you will use it in conversation in such a way that people think you have proved something)

But in actuality you haven't progressed your arguement at all and it is still just "you believe something I don't" but using the definition of religous you have transformed this to "what you belive are facts are actually symbols" which sounds much more "scientific".

So im asking for the sake of posters that arent familar to you that you stick with "You believe something I dont believe there is evidence for".

Nielsio do you consider Keynesian economics a religion?

Do you mind posting here? I am also interested in hearing what you have to say.

Try this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfN3BKkWW8k&fmt=18

(I don't expect that link to stay working long)

Ofcourse.

It's very easy to see or show if someone can explain something rationally and/or if the beliefs they have are religious or not. All it takes is a few questions, at most. You see, we have a body of knowledge. Religious ideas are either undefined (meaning it doesn't make sense to believe them), or they connected with our body of knowledge is incredibly shoddy.

The reason for this is understandable too. You see, a religious idea is something you have to make up, something you have to fantasize. Because if something cannot be explained rationally, the belief has to come from somewhere, right? So then when you start to ask specific questions about their belief, one of two things happens. Either they stop interacting with you immediately, or they get really angry.

But my theory is also that religious belief is a form of trauma; something the mind has developed to get through certain situations. So that all makes sense.

In your definition of religion, are superstitions religious beliefs?

Wikipedia says:

"Superstition is a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge."

Just another word for theism/religious belief imo.

I think your definition of religion includes way too many things. If you say Keynesianism is a religion, or that Wade Boggs' ritual of eating chicken before every baseball game is a religious ritual, most people are going to disagree with you. Or they won't understand what you mean by "religion." If I were you, I'd consider defining a new word or just writing "things that are not based on reason."

Another problem is that defining religion as being irrational isn't consistent with the way the word is used. Religious people say they are religious. If a Christian man says, "I'm a religious person," he obviously doesn't mean "I'm an idiot." Defining religion as it is used helps us understand each other.

I think when you believe that karma, rebirth, the cycle of samsara, the three marks of existence, dependent arising, emptiness, nirvana, buddhahood, refuge in the 3 jewels, and buddhist cosmology are all symbolic and the Buddha didn't really mean them it isn't true to describe yourself or your views as Buddhist.