>In most languages, "religion" will imply an ordered belief in a supernatural entity and set of accompanying practices

Buddhism is considered a religion and does not fit that description.

Your emphatic capslock notwithstanding, there's no single defining element. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

> Buddhism is considered a religion and does not fit that description.

That's a can of worms. A pretty big one, actually.

https://buddhism-controversy-blog.com/2015/05/27/why-did-the...

How so? Reincarnation is every bit as supernatural as Christian Heaven, and there are accompanying practices that are supposed to influence the outcome of that via karma.

I did not think impersonal entities were what the gp post was talking about; apologies if they were. But even including impersonal supernatural entities, the wikipedia page I cited shows that's not a defining characteristic.

It does not follow, from the claim that belief in supernatural entities is not a defining characteristic of religion, that the rejection of supernatural entities is a religion. You might be able to argue that they are orthogonal issues, but then a lot of religious people would disagree vehemently with you!

> In most languages, "religion" will imply an ordered belief in a supernatural entity and set of accompanying practices.

"Religion" isn't a word in "most languages". "Religion" in English and the closely-related terms in closely-related languages may mean (or at least strongly imply) something like that (though with a god or God, specifically, not merely "a supernatural entity") simply because of the dominant belief systems to which the terms applied in the West (mostly, varieties of Near Eastern Monotheism), but even so they are frequently applied to systems from outside which don't have an "ordered belief in a supernatural entity", such as Confucianism.

> If it does become a synonym, then we'll simply need a NEW word to distinguish between "belief in supernatural entity" vs "no belief in a supernatural entity"

With, again, the caveat that it is more specific (referring to one or more gods, not merely any supernatural entities), we already have such a word, adopted specifically to focus in on that aspect and not the other elements of belief and practice which "religion" typically includes and may sometimes be used to refer to without an identifiable god anywhere in sight: "theism".

I think NikolaNovak is making the point that advocates of the "atheism is a religion" view equivocate over what it is that atheism is supposedly a case of.

> In most languages, "religion" will imply an ordered belief in a supernatural entity and set of accompanying practices.

That is simply not true.

"Religion is a modern Western concept.[12] Parallel concepts are not found in many current and past cultures; there is no equivalent term for religion in many languages."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_religion

"Religion is a modern Western concept. Parallel concepts are not found in many current and past cultures; there is no equivalent term for religion in many languages."

Ah, so there are entire cultures that are atheistic. Your argument has just achieved circularity!

> In most languages, "religion" will imply an ordered belief in a supernatural entity and set of accompanying practices.

Rather, in modern, western English we consider "religion" to mean that. Islam for examples uses the word 'Deen', the meaning of it includes how you looked at the world and your entire way of life.

Deen means basically exactly the stuff you say religion is not a synonym for :)

If Deen - or any other concept - posits one or more dieties as creators of the universe, then atheism is explicitly not the same; on the other hand, if it does not, then it is irrelevant to the claim that atheism is a religion.

Interestingly free will is one such supernatural entity.

If you don’t believe we are zombies you hold a supernatural belief.