Here is SlatestarCodex on whether everything is a religion.
So one critique of these accusations is that “religion” is a broad enough category that anything can be mapped on to it:
Does it have well-known figures? Then they’re “gurus” and it’s a religion.
Are there books about it? Then those are “scriptures” and it’s a religion.
Does it recommend doing anything regularly? Then those are “rituals” and it’s a religion.
How about just doing anything at all? Then that’s a “commandment” and it’s a religion.
Does it say something is bad? Then that’s “sin” and it’s a religion.
Does it hope to improve the world, or worry about the world getting worse? That’s an “eschatology” and it’s a religion.
Do you disagree with it? Then since you’ve already determined all the evidence is against it, people must believe it on “faith” and it’s a religion.
Later he brings up the idea that religion is just another word for culture or sub-culture
Communities and cultures have their share of danger. Their mix of social and epistemological functions means that any evidence challenging the community’s core beliefs will be taken as an attack on the members’ identity. As a result, community members risk ending up mind-killed. That’s not news. And I don’t think this is especially different from the way religious fanatics are mind-killed. And certainly someone could argue that “religion” is the perfect name for a culture built on shared belief.
But I still think it’s unfair to call these communities/cultures “religions”. “Religion” is too easy to use as the Worst Argument In The World here. It’s supposed to imply all of these other connotations of “religion” like “their beliefs are based on magical thinking” and “they use blind faith instead of reason” and “instead of coming up with a world-view based on evidence they just played Bible Mad Libs.” If those are the connotations you’ve got with “religion”, then I think the word “religion” is actively doing harm here, and you should just use “belief-based community” or “movement” or whatever.
