No to use the existential evidence of certain phenomenons in a metaphysical sense as the criteria to define whether some thoughts constitutes religion or not is very limiting. Get to know more about Buddhism and you will know why Buddhism is considered a school of thought and not really a religion in the sense as how we see religion in the conventional sense.
I think we've been all over this already earlier on. In my book, anything that puts forward a belief system concerning life after death, gods, goddesses, demigods, demons, reincarnation and spirits, immortal sentient beings, higher planes of non-corporeal existence and all the rest is a religion. What else could it be? I would have thought anyone who was a buddhist would be only too pleased to hear buddhism respectfully termed a religion by a non-buddhist, rather than just simply a healthy life choice of equal with but of no more value than, say, courtesy. Whereas a buddhist who rejects these buddhist beliefs may well be a follower of buddhist behaviour, ethics, teachings and philosophy but cannot be a buddhist. In terms of your "buddhism" what are your beliefs?
I don't feel there is any superiority in religion over anything else tbh; I won't feel offended or belittled in any way if a non-Buddhist not to choose regard Buddhism as a religion. I am not a Buddhist myself but to me, like I told you before, I believe Buddhism is more a school of thoughts, a profound discussion on philosophy of life, how one relates to him/herself and to others including other creatures of the world and to the universe in a whole when dealing with many issues, problems, relationships one encounters in his/her life and it's a lifelong journey and quest to seek the state of being where one is truly be at peace with oneself and others and the world and be in harmony with all. It's a very arduous and exhausting journey where one has to overcome many obstacles and challenges but at the same time get to enjoy the liberating feeling of being void of all excessive obsessiveness and truly be happy in heart. I don't know if you have watched the movie "Up In the Air" starring George Clooney where he goes to all the speaking engagements and tells his audience to put everything away into a backpack and set it on fire and feel how light one would be. Buddhism is a little like that when it comes to dealing with all those excessive obsessiveness except it deals with it in a more constructive and positive way instead of "putting it all in a backpack and setting it on fire". There are rituals and practices that you see being practiced by the believers and practitioners of Buddhism but they are not arbitrary practices for the sake of a ritual; rather they are techniques rather that are designed for you to learn and explore the teaching of Buddhism in your lifelong quest for a state of being. This is all I know about Buddhism. Since I am not a Buddhist and has never studied Buddhism in any depth, this is just some very shallow understanding of Buddhism of mine according to what I have read.
Religions have been a major force for social cohesion during the early development of human societies. However, I cannot help the uncomfortable feeling that members of a given religion seek at some level to regard and treat non-members of their religion, like me, differently. And I don't mean in a positive way.
You must surely be correct. At the heart of all religious systems is mysticism; the claim that it is possible to have communion with an ultimate reality. It's a key defining aspect. In that regard Buddhism is no different to any other religion. Even where some Buddhists do not support the idea of a supreme being, the proposition is that a follower can rise to one kind or another of existential understanding or higher levels of consciousness. That is mysticism by definition. A proposition away from simply general philosophy. There is that point where Buddhism in all guises obliges itself to dispel with logic and reason to enter the same realm of all other faith based religious belief.
I think what you mean is inequality (inequity) does not exist in Buddhism. I think most here would agree that the idea of God, coming from the Abrahamic faiths, means there is always going to be a supreme leader, God, and subcategories of creatures. This view takes hierarchy for granted and in perpetuity (it will never change). If you mean Buddha is NOT at the top of a hierarchy, yes, i agree. But Buddha is the most perfect state of being possible, and ultimately, the only state of being possible, as all other states are temporary and pass away. Presumably, Buddhist monks are working on awakening to the same sense of (state of) being that Guatama awoke to, after some seeking, especially in the way of meditation. The implication is that anyone can awake to the same state, since all temporary states of being derive, somehow, from that original state. The propaganda in the original post (OP) ignores this and speaks from ignorance for political points. No matter how far off-track Buddhism strays from it's original emphasis, it's presumption of equality can never be compared to a religion committed to maintaining a hierarchy. I see the commitment to hierarchy as the cornerstone of violence. If hierarchy is a validly ordained divine condition, nothing prevents men from justifying classifications amongst themselves, and enforcing those classifications with a sword, or through politics (deceptions to gain economic class). I see this belief as an initiator of force, and everyone else defending themselves from the initiation of force. Peace through submission to a hierarchy is in no way comparable to Guatama's version of what it means to awaken to the state of Buddha.
OddTrader, are you agreeing with this 12 year old kid? Whose probably been brainwashed by politico parents? If so, i'm disappointed. And murray t turtle likes this? I'm neither disappointed nor surprised. Both of you are like boats, adrift at sea, without anchors. Look at the very first statement, the premise, coming from the kid: "SINCE THE dawn of mankind, humans have attempted to answer the most complex and perplexing questions of the universe through religious beliefs." Hello? Answering questions with beliefs? While that may be true of humans, it's not how questions are actually answered! And it's not how Guatama (Buddha) had his questions answered. Here's an equally stupid statement: SINCE THE dawn of mankind, humans have attempted to answer the most complex and perplexing questions about nutrition through religious beliefs about what to eat.