Is Misanthropy Holding You Back? Insights from Psychology and Stoicism

We recently published two blog posts on misanthropy and infidelity (see links below), and our readers asked us to delve deeper into the topic of misanthropy itself. Since we're interested in Stoicism and Psychology, we decided to blend these two perspectives to explain what misanthropy really means.

Misanthropy is a term used to describe a general dislike or hatred of humanity. It is a complex psychological phenomenon that has been studied by psychologists and philosophers alike. From a psychological perspective, misanthropy can be seen as a form of negative social cognition, characterised by negative attitudes and beliefs towards other people. From a Stoic perspective, misanthropy can be seen as a symptom of an unhealthy mindset that prevents one from living a virtuous life.

Classification

Misanthropy can be classified in different ways depending on the context and the underlying causes. Here are some of the classifications of misanthropy:

• Self-inclusive misanthropy: This refers to a general dislike or distrust of humanity that includes the individual themselves. Self-inclusive misanthropes may view themselves as flawed, unworthy, or incapable of living up to societal expectations, and may feel a sense of self-loathing or hopelessness.
• Self-exclusive misanthropy: This refers to a general dislike or distrust of humanity that excludes the individual themselves. Self-exclusive misanthropes may view themselves as superior, enlightened, or above the flaws and shortcomings of the rest of humanity, and may feel a sense of detachment or superiority.
• Environmental misanthropy: This refers to a dislike of humanity as a whole, often based on concerns about environmental destruction and the impact of human activity on the planet. Environmental misanthropes may view humans as a destructive force that is causing irreparable harm to the earth.
• Social misanthropy: This refers specifically to a dislike or distrust of other people, often based on negative experiences with individuals or groups. Social misanthropes may view people as selfish, cruel, or untrustworthy, and may prefer to avoid social interaction.
• Intellectual misanthropy: This refers to a distrust or disdain for the intellectual capacity of humanity, often based on a belief that most people are ignorant, irrational, or incapable of critical thinking.
• Cultural misanthropy: This refers to a dislike or rejection of the cultural norms, values, and beliefs of a society or group. Cultural misanthropes may view these norms as oppressive, superficial, or arbitrary, and may reject them in favor of alternative perspectives.
• Political misanthropy: This refers to a distrust or rejection of the political systems and institutions of a society, often based on a belief that they are corrupt, ineffective, or unjust. Political misanthropes may view politics as a futile or even harmful endeavor.

It's worth noting that these classifications are not mutually exclusive, and some individuals may exhibit multiple forms of misanthropy at the same time.

Psychology

Misanthropy is often associated with negative emotions such as anger, resentment, and cynicism. Individuals who experience misanthropy may have had negative experiences with people in the past, which has caused them to develop a general distrust or dislike of others. This negative social cognition can manifest in a variety of ways, from avoiding social situations to openly expressing contempt towards others.

One of the key factors that contribute to misanthropy is social isolation. People who are socially isolated are more likely to experience negative social cognition, including misanthropy. This is because social isolation can lead to feelings of loneliness, boredom, and a lack of purpose, which can contribute to negative attitudes towards other people.

Another factor that can contribute to misanthropy is cognitive biases. People who experience misanthropy may have a tendency to focus on negative aspects of social interactions and disregard positive experiences. This cognitive bias can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy, where negative attitudes towards others lead to negative social interactions, which in turn reinforce negative attitudes.

Ancient Stoics were keen observers of human psychology. Here are a couple of quotations relevant to our discussion:

"Choose not to be harmed and you won't feel harmed. Don't feel harmed and you haven't been." - Marcus Aurelius

This quote highlights the importance of cognitive reframing, which is a technique that can help individuals overcome negative social cognition, including misanthropy. By choosing not to be harmed by negative social interactions and focusing on positive aspects of social interactions, individuals can develop a more positive mindset towards others.

"We are more often frightened than hurt, and we suffer more from imagination than from reality." - Seneca

This quote emphasizes the role of cognitive biases in contributing to negative attitudes towards others. By recognizing that our imaginations can lead us to exaggerate negative social interactions, we can learn to separate reality from our perceptions of it and develop a more positive mindset towards others.

Stoicism

Stoicism is a philosophy that emphasizes the importance of living a virtuous life. From a Stoic perspective, misanthropy can be seen as a symptom of an unhealthy mindset that prevents one from living a virtuous life. This is because misanthropy is often associated with negative emotions, which can lead to a lack of empathy and compassion towards others.

The Stoics believed that virtuous living involves developing a deep sense of empathy and compassion towards other people. This is because virtuous living is not just about following a set of moral principles, but about developing a sense of connection and responsibility towards the world around us. Misanthropy, on the other hand, can prevent us from developing this sense of connection and responsibility, as it leads to a general sense of contempt and disregard for others.

From a Stoic perspective, misanthropy is not only a symptom of an unhealthy mindset but is also an obstacle to virtuous living. This is because misanthropy can lead to a lack of compassion and empathy, which are essential components of virtuous living. The Stoics believed that developing a sense of empathy and compassion towards others is essential for living a virtuous life, as it allows us to connect with others on a deeper level and develop a sense of responsibility towards the world around us.

"Men are disturbed not by things, but by the views which they take of things." - Epictetus

This quote emphasises the role of mindset in determining our emotional reactions to social interactions. By changing our views of things, we can change the way we feel about them and develop a more positive mindset towards others.

"The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts." - Marcus Aurelius

This quote highlights the importance of developing a virtuous mindset in order to live a fulfilling life. By cultivating positive thoughts and emotions towards others, we can develop a deeper sense of connection and responsibility towards the world around us and live a more virtuous life.

TL;DR

Misanthropy is a complex psychological phenomenon that can have negative effects on an individual's well-being and ability to live a virtuous life. From a psychological perspective, misanthropy is characterized by negative attitudes and beliefs towards other people, which can be exacerbated by social isolation and cognitive biases. From a Stoic perspective, misanthropy is seen as a symptom of an unhealthy mindset that prevents us from living a virtuous life by hindering our ability to develop empathy and compassion towards others. Overall, it is important to recognize misanthropy as a negative and potentially harmful mindset and work towards developing a sense of empathy and compassion towards others in order to live a virtuous and fulfilling life.

Links

1. Broken Promises: The Relationship Between Extramarital Affairs and Misanthropy
2. Broken Hearts and Broken Trust: The Connection Between Betrayal and Misanthropy

Broken Promises: The Relationship Between Extramarital Affairs and Misanthropy

Glenn Close and John Malkovich in Dangerous Liaisons (1988)

Extramarital affairs, by their very nature, involve deceit and betrayal, both of which can have a profound impact on the individual who experiences them. Infidelity can lead to feelings of guilt, shame, and emotional turmoil, which can ultimately result in a loss of faith in humanity and a general sense of misanthropy.

When a person engages in an extramarital affair, they are breaking a sacred promise and violating the trust of their partner. This can result in a sense of guilt and self-loathing, as the individual may feel that they have betrayed not only their partner but also their own values and principles.

Furthermore, infidelity can be emotionally destabilizing, leading to feelings of isolation, loneliness, and a sense of being disconnected from others. The betrayal of one's partner can lead to a breakdown in communication and trust, which can make it difficult for the individual to form meaningful connections with others in the future.

Over time, these negative emotions and experiences can accumulate, leading to a general sense of disillusionment with humanity as a whole. The individual may become jaded, bitter, and resentful towards others, seeing them as untrustworthy and deceitful, just as they themselves had been.

In conclusion, extramarital affairs can be a significant contributing factor to the development of misanthropic tendencies. The emotional toll of infidelity can be profound, and the resulting loss of trust and faith in others can lead to a general sense of cynicism and pessimism about human nature. It is therefore essential that individuals who find themselves tempted to engage in such behavior consider the potential consequences carefully, not only for themselves but also for their relationships and their view of the world around them.

The Great Programmer

I have just read something which got me thinking about my old theory of The Great Programmer ;).

I started my today's reading with the following article (if you want to follow the links, I recommend skipping this one and going straight to the source - i.e. the next two): A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution.

The first article refers to another article, by professor James M. Tour*, available here: Layman’s Reflections on Evolution and Creation. An Insider’s View of the Academy; and a video recording of the professor giving a talk: Nanotech and Jesus Christ - James Tour at Georgia Tech.

It was all interesting and I do recommend checking out those sources (especially the last two).

My thoughts?  I am not really convinced by professor Tour's argument as I view macroevolution as just an emergent property of a complex system which means that chemistry is just a medium for this system and not really important to understand macroevolution as a whole (as long as we understand all the basic interactions between the simple elements (i.e. molecules) the system is composed of - which, as far as I know, we do). What follows is that the system may be too complex for us to ever be able to explain macroevolution on the level of abstraction professor Tour is talking about.

Of course it is possible that I just do not know enough about chemistry and/or macroevolution to fully appreciate professor Tour's thoughts on the subject.

I also do agree with him that the new dogmatism becoming so prevalent in academia is not only troubling but unbecoming to scholars.

Even if I am right though, it does not mean that evolution disproves intelligent design as both those theories are not mutually exclusive (unless one chooses an arbitrary (and probably least intelligent ;) ) definition of intelligent design).  In case you were bored, here are some of my thoughts about that (and The Great Programmer) I wrote down some time ago: On computer programming, atheism and human cognizance

On computer programming, atheism and human cognizance

What started as a light-hearted comment to one of my friend's Google+ posts about the structure of the snowflake ultimately got me thinking about epistemology and the self-imposed limits of human cognizance. In the comment I had jokingly stated that all snowflakes were probably just an artefact of an L-system (*) written by a bored programmer. Now, when one starts thinking about it, the following chain of thoughts immediately comes to mind: Creator / God, Reality / Universe, Evolution, Atheism, Richard Dawkins. All right, I admit that the last sentence was only half-serious but I am sure that now you will be able to understand why I came to the conclusion described below.

For someone like me, atheists like Richard Dawkins seem to be completely irrational when they try to use Evolution as “proof” that Life and Universe could not have been created. Till now I was assuming they had behaved that way just because, as any fundamentalists, THEY ARE irrational (and they are) but now I see that the reason for their madness is twofold. So what is the second reason? It is just that they are not computer programmers ;). For any programmer or mathematician (**) it is natural and obvious that one system can be just an artefact of another system – e.g. a snowflake or a snowflake-like structure (system 1) which may be perceived by us in 3D space and is a part of our material reality can be a product (or a by-product) of functioning of a completely different system 2 which may operate in a totally different space (if you are still not bored but at the same time a little “lost in space”, you may want to check some Wikipedia articles on mathematical concept of space and to fully appreciate the vastness and importance of this topic read about the algebraic space, function space, topological space and so on) and thus may be immaterial and impossible to directly visualise. And yet system 2 may produce something as tangible as snowflakes. One can also put it differently and more succinctly – one system may be just an emergent property of another (possibly hidden) system (again, if you feel a little lost, you may want to read a Wikipedia article on complex systems theory).

What I describe above is so obvious to us (i.e. mathematicians, programmers, system scientists etc.) that we do not usually think about it or even consider that others (and especially other scientists) could have such an impaired perception / poor understanding of reality – which explains why it took some effort for me to consider the possibility that an evolutionary biologist like Dawkins could lack that additional layer of perception which would perfectly explain his flawed reasoning that led him to conclusion that Evolution contradicts the idea of God. Well, it does not. Evolution and God are perfectly compatible. God may be viewed as a programmer who created the Universe/Multiverse, life and each of us by creating a system (or writing a programme/algorithm if you will) which makes our Reality and lets all the events unfold precisely as planned. The material part of this creation (i.e. what Science deals with and what materialists postulate is the only thing that exists) is a chaotic system (you may want to read about Chaos Theory as well - a very cool part of Mathematics) and this brings about another interesting topic – namely that of Free Will. Since chaotic systems are deterministic in nature there is no free will if you are part of such system unless you believe in the concept of soul which is not a part of the material world but is interfaced with it via your material body.

Ah, so many interesting topics and so little time.

To save you some googling:

* An L-system or Lindenmayer system is a parallel rewriting system, namely a variant of a formal grammar, most famously used to model the growth processes of plant development, but also able to model the morphology of a variety of organisms. An L-system consists of an alphabet of symbols that can be used to make strings, a collection of production rules which expand each symbol into some larger string of symbols, an initial "axiom" string from which to begin construction, and a mechanism for translating the generated strings into geometric structures. L-systems can also be used to generate self-similar fractals such as iterated function systems.

** If you do not understand why computer programmers and mathematicians were put in one bag I recommend reading “On the cruelty of really teaching computing science” by one of the titans of computer science famous prof. Edsger Dijkstra. Here are some interesting quotes:

“A further benefit is that it gives us a clear indication where to locate computing science on the world map of intellectual disciplines: in the direction of formal mathematics and applied logic, but ultimately far beyond where those are now, for computing science is interested in effective use of formal methods and on a much, much, larger scale than we have witnessed so far.”

“The programmer is in the unique position that his is the only discipline and profession in which such a gigantic ratio, which totally baffles our imagination, has to be bridged by a single technology. He has to be able to think in terms of conceptual hierarchies that are much deeper than a single mind ever needed to face before. Compared to that number of semantic levels, the average mathematical theory is almost flat. By evoking the need for deep conceptual hierarchies, the automatic computer confronts us with a radically new intellectual challenge that has no precedent in our history.”

Can a True Buddhist Continue Teaching Buddhism

I have just watched Neuroscience and the Emerging Mind: A Conversation with the Dalai Lama featuring, apart from the Dalai Lama, Larry Hinman of the University of San Diego, V.S. Ramachandran of UC San Diego and Jennifer Thomas of San Diego State University.  It was meant to be a scientific and philosophical discussion of human consciousness.  The introduction was quite promising (they started talking about neuroplasticity, memory, mirror neurons etc.) but, unfortunately, I feel that, ultimately, the potential of having these four speakers gathered in one place was wasted - mainly because of the language barrier.  There was one thing, however, which made me think.  The Dalai Lama mentioned a difference between what he calls the traditional Buddhism (created in India and preserved by the Dalai Lamas and their followers) and many variations of Buddhism which emerged later (and also Hinduism).  The difference lies in the traditional Buddhist belief that there is no soul or self (as the Dalai Lama said, the Buddhist belief in "soulless").  This immediately raised the following question in my mind:

If there is no soul, if the self is just an illusion, why put so much effort into fighting the suffering?

Since it is just the self that experiences suffering and the self is just an illusion, there is no suffering at all as there is nothing real to experience it.  If there is no suffering, there is no place for compassion and altruism - the two things Buddhism (and the current Dalai Lama) talk about and try to promote.  Why would the Buddha decide to help people end their suffering by showing them the truth about the non-existence of the self when there is no suffering and no people?  The act of a true Buddhist believing in what he/she teaches and yet continuing his/her teachings seems absurd when viewed from this (Buddhist?) perspective.

"The Divide" Embodies Ideals of Atheistic Capitalism

I have just watched The Divide and it made me think about the new socially created reality the western world is preparing for humanity.  It is a secular world without God where human beings are no more than animals fighting for resources, survival and pleasure.  It is a world where the measure of success is survival and power over others no matter the cost as long as it is not "the successful" who has to pay it.  It is a world ruled by fear where altruism, empathy, sense of justice, mercy and goodness of heart are nothing more than a sign of weakness and an object of ridicule.  It is an ugly world with no room for ethics, no appreciation of aesthetics, a world deteriorating into a primordial goo of barbaric hedonism and savagery.  Fallen creatures (or should I say beasts) inhabiting that world are no longer civilised... they have no manners, no style, no higher needs, no beauty in them.  Do we really want to enter this brave new world?  Do you want your children to live in a world depicted so thoroughly in The Divide?  Do you want them to become such creatures themselves?

The microcosm of The Divide shows what it means for an average human being to attain complete freedom promised by Atheism where there is no God serving as a mirror reflecting our deeds back unto us and showing us what we are and what we can become.  Sure, there may be exceptions - there may be some people who, in spite of being atheists and materialists, would not turn into ruthless savages even when subjected to the most extreme conditions.  But an average member of the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, when persuaded to believe that there is no God, no soul, no further existence after death, will be smart enough to understand that there is only one true value in life and that is his/her well-being.  The only rational goal is to survive for as long as possible and to experience as much pleasure as possible and let others pay the cost.  Watch the film and, irrespective of your current belief system (i.e. whether you are an atheist or a theist), ask yourself a very cynical question: "Is our race ready to live in a world without God, in a world where faith is no longer a safety net for the law and social pressures?".  When viewed from such perspective, the divide between atheist and theist beliefs becomes something else.  It is no longer a question of what is true but a question of what truth do we want everyone to believe in.

--

As an aside, for a true atheist and materialist, the truth is what they believe in (metaphysical questions, like the one about the existence of God, are by definition unverifiable using the scientific method - the only verification would be possible post mortem and in their world view there is no post mortem) which means that if such a person chooses to believe in the existence of God then that belief becomes the truth for them.

Atheist propaganda

I have stumbled upon yet another atheist propaganda clumsily disguised as a balanced article whose author pretends to be objective and friendly towards theists and their beliefs. Here are some excerpts with my "subtitles" showing what the author tried to smuggle, in between lines, to his readers' heads:

'Being openly atheist can have drawbacks for some of us. Your God fearing boss might not give you that promotion - or worse.'

Religions other than Atheism make people unethical.

'You are often confused as having God hatred. The ignorant think you belong to a cult.'

Atheists are bright. Theists? Not so much.

'But I am a man of reason and logic.'

Atheists are enlightened. Theists are backward and have huge problems with logic and rational thinking.

'If you say 'cows can fly' I will laugh heartily in your general direction but not completely dismiss you. Show me evidence of the orbiting bovine and I will take that laugh back.'

Theists' belief that God exists is laughable and on a par with statements like "cows can fly".

'You see by default everyone is born atheist in the technical sense of the word. Children are too young to understand the complexities of religion and what it means to believe in a God.'

Theists' beliefs are unnatural because people do not know nor understand them when we are born. If they were true, they would be natural, like atheism, which is natural and therefore true because we know that all babies both understand atheism and are atheists. Apart from the false belief in God, everything else in existence we don't know when we are born, like Physics and the laws of nature, is an exception to this rule and, as such, is true.

'I might add that unlike a lot of my God fearing friends'

Theists live their life in fear. The life of an atheist is better. Be free from fear!

'This isn't the dark ages after all. And besides, I would consider that a form of child abuse.'

Theists are child abusers still living in the dark ages. Atheists are different as they do not train their children to adhere to theist beliefs but allow them to "choose" atheist belief.

'I want my children to learn about God and read the Bible, and when they are old enough even explore other religions if they so desire.'

Atheists are better than theists, because they do not force anything on their children but rather allow them to study Bible and other religions from the atheist point of view (i.e. after children fully "understand" that all beliefs incompatible with Atheism are false).

'The reason I want my children to learn about religion is because although no-one can prove the existence of God to me, I on the other hand cannot 100% disprove the existence of God, even though every last shred of evidence would seem to.'

Not only are atheists the only people who were able to estimate the probability of non-existence of God (and, as such, can make legitimate evaluations of which belief is more probable and which is not) but there is overwhelming evidence (?!) clearly showing to any reasonable mind that there is no God.

No one could even try to prove the existence of God. On the other hand, though it is true that the author cannot FULLY disprove God but it does not mean that disproving God is impossible. Quite the opposite... probably...

'This is what separates believers from atheists. Religious people will not allow for the possibility that God might not exist. If they did, then they are technically Agnostic.'

Atheists are open-minded. Theist are not. Theists who are open-minded stop being theists so, by definition, there are no open-minded theists. Open-minded atheists do not stop being atheists even when they become agnostic and stop claiming that there is no God.

'Science however acknowledges the possibility of God however remote, because good science is about the collection of evidence to support theories, and the subsequent process of trying to disprove said theories.'

There is no God and Science knows it, but it needs to acknowledge the possibility of God to be able to prove its impossibility ;). Atheists do not need to wait for Science to disprove anything because they know the truth and Science will also, eventually, learn that truth.

'When my children get older they will naturally follow what they believe or disbelieve, and I will want it to be their choice - not mine or anyone else's.'

Unlike theists, atheists are good for their children because they allow them to "choose" atheism while theists, in contrast, force their children to choose theism.

'They (children) are too young to understand now but one day they will thank me for it.'

Atheists' children are too young to understand why they have to become atheists but it is for their own good and, since atheism is so much superior to theism, they will eventually feel grateful. Let us remind everyone here that theists' children are abused and forced to believe in theism! No one would be grateful for something like that!

'The chances are high you were doctrined into the same religion as your parents.'

All belief systems other than atheism are guilty of brainwashing their younglings. Atheism is different. Atheism is all about free will and the freedom of choice.

'You could argue the same can be said for atheists - that they need to have experienced religion before simply discarding it. That may be an overstatement, because you could say 'how do you know you wouldn't like Nazism if you haven't tried it?' - as there are some things we can all be certain of without trying.'

All religion (apart from Atheism) is as despicable as Nazism and people should not try it because even without trying it is obvious that it is better for them to be atheists.

'But religion differs in that there is a common theme of peace, harmony, enlightenment etc...and one main difference of course being the Deity in question. Jehovah? Ganesh? Christna? Yet some people will kill in the name of rather than concede there may be more than one God.'

Theists are dangerous hypocrites - they tell you lies about peace and harmony but what their religions are really about is killing and deception. And, of course, there is no God because all belief systems other than Atheism differ between themselves. Oh and Pol Pot did not used to murder families of theists who did not want to become atheists because he was a fanatical atheist but because he was evil. By the way, crusaders and popes were killing other theists not because popes and crusaders were evil but because theism implicates killing and suffering.

'But I like to think that this generation (my generation) might be a little more open minded when it comes to religion.'

Theists are so close-minded. If you want to be cool you have to become an atheist. Choose the bright future, not the gloomy past!

'If we don't keep asking the question, we will be slaves to the religious concept forever without knowing an alternative.'

All theists are blind slaves. Atheists are different because they do not believe in some unproven superstitious nonsense but in scientifically proven truth revealed to all atheists.

'Partly as a 'guess what?' to those who didn't know this about me, and also for anyone who might be afraid to explore atheism.'

Explore atheism or everyone will think you are a coward!

'The mere fact you are questioning religion says you are probably more open minded than your religious colleagues.'

So you are questioning your religion? Good boy...

No? Better start questioning it or everyone will know you are a narrow-minded fool!

New marketing trick is being used by atheists to brainwash less bright

Atheists love to announce to everyone that their credo is on a par with any scientifically proven assertion. Recently, I have noticed that some of them adopted a new way of deceiving agnostics and theists (and, in most cases, I am sure, also themselves) into believing that Atheism is not based on belief. Since it was impossible for them (or anyone else for that matter) to prove their claim that "there's no god" they modified it and now you can hear and read everywhere (e.g. on some buses in the UK) that "there's probably no god". This way they try to avoid the necessity of confronting the fact described in my previous post, where I explained that Atheism is, without doubt, based purely on belief (like any other religion - be it (in alphabetical order ;) ) Christianity, Islam or Judaism).

Are atheists right? Is their new claim any more "scientific" than the previous one? No.

What did they confuse this time?

They abused the word "probably". Since no one can calculate (or even estimate) the probability of (non-)existence of god their use of this word, from the scientific point of view, is invalid. In other words, both their statements are basically the same as "probably" just does not mean anything when (ab)used this way.

So what do I think about the new atheist campaign in the UK? Is it silly? Certainly... but will it be successful? I expect that a crowd of new atheist converts will soon mushroom in Britain. It is a shame that such a primitive trick will wreck havoc among weaker minds.

Atheism - a new religion ashamed of being a religion

Remains of a tiny fraction of ~2,000,000 victims massacred by an atheist regime led by Pol Pot.

As most (if not all) of the Atheists I have met so far seem to have a real problem with semantics and accepting the fact that Atheism, like any other religion, is based on belief, I will follow Jesus's example and explain it using plain words (plus a pinch of elementary Logic).

Let us start...

When one asks a question "Does God exist?", one will get the following answers from the following different categories of people:

Theist: Yes.

Agnostic: I don't know.

Atheist: No.

Let p represent the statement "God does exist.". Here are the statements made by our actors:

Theist: p

Agnostic: p v ~p

Atheist: ~p

Agnostic's statement (p v ~p) is a tautology and, as such, is always true. The other two are not tautologies and, before any of them can become anything more than just a mere hypothesis, must be proven. Since neither Theist (p) or Atheist (~p) can prove their hypothesis, neither of them can be called a fact. Everyone who still maintains that one of these hypotheses is true, is nothing more, than a believer. This is an unquestionable fact and anyone who tries to fool you into thinking otherwise is denying the laws of Logic and, as such, should be called either a fool or a charlatan.

Q.E.D. ;)


Actually, let me share one more thing with you.  Here is a definition of religion by a titan of modern anthropology, professor Clifford Geertz, who studied religion and defined it as a "system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.".  Atheism, Buddhism, Christianity, Communism, Islam, Judaism - they all have something in common: each of them is a religion.  Two of them are different from the others in one respect though - the followers of those two usually do not like to admit that they are part of a religion… probably because religion is just opium for the masses and nowadays everyone wants to be special ;).