How to define "Religion" as a whole?

It's not my definition.

Never said it was.

Well I was saying that it really doesn't fit even if you restricted to that particular definition... unless you look at it as the rejection of another person's perception of truth to be a perception of truth (E.G. if person A is wrong therefore person B is right) but even with that thinking it still doesn't match up, in that atheism has nothing to do with an explanation on how the world works, granted there are shared views among most open atheist, but those ideas are not dogmatic or exclusive to atheism (e.g. you don't have to accept evolution to be an atheist).

You could say the same about people who are catholic, not everyone follows the same principles. People practice their religion in different ways, with Atheism there is no institution that dictates what's in and what's out so we may have very different views inside the same religion.

Alright wow, didn't expect to be this late in responding. Kkz, starting with the easiest...

Totally agree with it.

What a hard topic.

I don't usually insult people directly, but wow, you're a moron. It's not like the professor doesn't know what a dictionary is. Or every other scholar studying religion for that matter. In addition, something is wrong with the dictionary definition, or else such an apparently age-old question as "what is religion" wouldn't exist.

As far as I know, Buddhism doesn't exactly care about what or how the universe is. Hell, buddhists don't care what Nirvana is. They only need to get there via enlightenment. I'm not entirely sure about Hinduism (as it is a big clusterfk supergroup of religions from India), but it would arguably not care about the purpose of the universe either. At least, I have no idea what brahman is actually supposed to do or what its purpose is.

I could be wrong about the Hinduism part, but I'm 99% sure about Buddhism.

Religion is the source of answers to the unanswered questions of humanity. Whatever you can't explain with logic/science/whatever falls to religion to explain.

That might be a bit too broad, but you sure do attack the problem by explaining its origins. That said, it wouldn't be farfetched to make an argument saying that Judaism originally a scheme to bewilder the masses and dupe them into paying the expenses of the priestly class's living. And since Judaism is commonly recognized as a religion, and not just a society or cult (corrupt off-shoot of religion), that's pretty shaky grounds.

Even without that argument, there are a myriad of stories and tall tales not associated with religion that do exactly as what you think religion is. Sure, they could have later been incorporated into religious texts (story of Noah's Ark), but a good number of stories still do not have homes in such literature.

Whether atheism is religion or not is a controversial topic. Then again, the entire definition of religion is controversial as well. I wouldn't throw out your theory merely for the sake of there being small exceptions. Is Newton's theory any less relevant because it doesn't cover the realm of the small? It's a definition that should serve you well considering the aim of the paper for you to state how you define religion. In a humanities course, there is no correct answer. Personally, I think your definition is pretty damn good.

I would simplify it to, "Religion gives reason to the existence of reality." However, that definition pre-supposes that all people are religious.

I think the definition is damn good too, and obviously Newton's theory isn't 100% correct. Still, if better can be done, as Einstein has improved on Newton, why not try for it? And even from there, it is possible that Einstein doesn't explain everything, as shyt implodes on itself when you try to combine his two theories of relativity together.

I've always wondered about whether atheism is a religion all on its own. Since it is impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the existence or nonexistence of god or some other deity, atheism stretches the imagination of humanity by pretending god does not exist. Agnosticism however does not. On the other hand, I can't think of a religious system that doesn't involve something supernatural. I should ask my professor about that...

As for your definition, I will have to think about it. It's pretty good, but I'm not sure there is a reason for the existence of reality for Buddhism and Hinduism, only how.

Personally I agree with Shidoshi's definition. Religion at its essence was something to provide an explanation to the unknown. Humans fear the uncontrollable/unknown, so religion not only gave them a "comprehensible" explanation, but also a sense of comfort.

Nowadays, the most popular ones focuses more on giving an individual a purpose for their life, and it proposes a certain lifestyle instead of providing answers(science has pretty much taken that role). Imo, this definition does not apply to religion as a whole though. It's pretty hard to give a short description of what religion if one focuses on it as a whole and what it meant for people back in the past and in the present.

Looking at dead religions such as the Greek pantheon didn't escape my thought. It is true that religion constantly evolves throughout history. Hell, the cross in Christianity was a terribad thing to show to other Christians until past the 11th century AD.

I think of religion as something to give purpose, outside of just survival. Even used too prevent chaos and keep order, to give consequence too those who see things in a more, instinct way. I mean the beginning thread's of Christianity that divided them was the evolution of the devil, and then followed the truth of jesus. Although this does not confront all religions obviously, it does give a basic understanding of what religion tries to teach and control.

So everyone is starting to say that religion is a means of controlling society. Glad I'm not the only one that thought that. Once again, Buddhism becomes a problem, as it doesn't exactly address society in its doctrine. But I could be wrong.

Atheism does not deny the possibility of divine, simple that there is not enough evidence to support the claim of the divine.

As well it has nothing to do with the explanation of the natural world.

Atheism is the express belief that there is no deity or god. Simply stating that there's not enough evidence to support the existence of such falls under agnosticism. The lack of evidence of the existence of a god or deity does not necessarily mean there is no god or deity.

The latter statement I agree with, which makes it a problem if I say atheism is a religion and I include ideas from dictionary definitions.