Is Atheism a religion?

pauldla

Statistician wrote: »

Faith is only one aspect of religion.

Take the faith out of religion and what are you left with?

Penn

DuPLeX wrote: »

No I don't wear a cap.You can call me an Atheist if you like , do not make me one !
A religion as I see it is a predigested world view which is adopted by people who are too lazy to figure the world out for themselves or too afraid to live with unanswered questions .the older ones usually involve some sort of Prophet and/or Deity But these and increasingly redundant as scientific doctrines seem to be the new way

Well then you're basing your claims on what you to perceive to be religion rather than what it actually is. Not to mention the fact that the reason many of us are atheists is because we did want to figure the world out for ourselves and are not afraid to live with unanswered questions. I didn't choose to become an atheist. I simply tried to make sense of everything for myself, how I saw it. That led me to believe that there is no god, and that there are unanswered questions out there, but that's okay, as the true joy is in discovering the answers.

You're basing your opinions on a) your own idea of what religion is, and b) your own opinion on atheists. Doesn't mean it's right. In fact, I would easily throw that back on you and say that from you posts on this thread, you seem too lazy to try and even accept the fact that your position might be wrong, and to find out the correct answers. You've done nothing but stuck to your own opinions which are based solely on your own opinions. Rejecting the notion that you're an atheist when that's what you are. Reject the term all you like, that's what you are.

Sorry, but your argument is deeply flawed.

mathepac

frozenfrozen wrote: »

its a belief system ...

I agree with the first bit - it's a belief system, just as organised religions have their belief systems, so atheism has its own belief system.

This belief system seems to evidence itself on boards.ie primarily by (purported) atheists pouring scorn on belief systems other than their own, so there seems to be very little of a positive nature to recommend it

DuPLeX

Penn wrote: »

Well then you're basing your claims on what you to perceive to be religion rather than what it actually is. Not to mention the fact that the reason many of us are atheists is because we did want to figure the world out for ourselves and are not afraid to live with unanswered questions. I didn't choose to become an atheist. I simply tried to make sense of everything for myself, how I saw it. That led me to believe that there is no god, and that there are unanswered questions out there, but that's okay, as the true joy is in discovering the answers.

You're basing your opinions on a) your own idea of what religion is, and b) your own opinion on atheists. Doesn't mean it's right. In fact, I would easily throw that back on you and say that from you posts on this thread, you seem too lazy to try and even accept the fact that your position might be wrong, and to find out the correct answers. You've done nothing but stuck to your own opinions which are based solely on your own opinions. Rejecting the notion that you're an atheist when that's what you are. Reject the term all you like, that's what you are.

Sorry, but your argument is deeply flawed.

everything you just stated is equally true of you! your opinions on atheism or religion are no more valid than mine.
And Its more than a little arrogant to try to apply a label to me that I have already rejected.

Zombrex

mathepac wrote: »

I agree with the first bit - it's a belief system, just as organised religions have their belief systems, so atheism has its own belief system.

Belief 1 - The claims of religions do not have enough evidence to support believing in them

Belief 2 - ????

Name the second belief of atheism. Otherwise how can it be a "system" if there is only one belief.

Delirium

mathepac wrote: »

I agree with the first bit - it's a belief system, just as organised religions have their belief systems, so atheism has its own belief system.

This belief system seems to evidence itself on boards.ie primarily by (purported) atheists pouring scorn on belief systems other than their own, so there seems to be very little of a positive nature to recommend it

what is the system of beliefs of atheism?

Statistician

pauldla wrote: »

Take the faith out of religion and what are you left with?

Ritual, (going to Mass etc) community, etc.. Many Catholics are really Atheists.

It's an interesting question really because it shows that you can have religion without faith. Could this also mean that Atheism could, in fact be a religion? (and not just Gnostic Atheism)

Penn

DuPLeX wrote: »

everything you just stated is equally true of you

No, I'm basing my opinions on the actual meanings of words. The actual meaning of the word religion. The actual meaning of the word atheist. That's the direct opposite of what you're doing.

Gbear

Statistician wrote: »

Ritual, (going to Mass etc) community, etc.. Many Catholics are really Atheists.

It's an interesting question really because it shows that you can have religion without faith. Could this also mean that Atheism could, in fact be a religion? (and not just Gnostic Atheism)

That needn't mean that religion is still religion without faith. It could also mean that religion does comprise other non-critical elements that have arisen due to it's communal nature.

So - someone in solitary confinement in prison, who would be incapable of participating in any communal aspects of religion as a result, could be given a bible and "find jesus" - you couldn't really argue he wasn't religious.

You're assuming that people have religion without faith. If they're just going through the motions and/or doing it purely for social reasons then I would argue they are not then religious.

pauldla

Statistician wrote: »

Ritual, (going to Mass etc) community, etc.. Many Catholics are really Atheists.

So, if you take faith out of religion, you are left with lots of people sitting in a room on Sunday morning?

It's an interesting question really because it shows that you can have religion without faith. Could this also mean that Atheism could, in fact be a religion? (and not just Gnostic Atheism)

How does the question show that you can have religion without faith? You're going to have to explain that one to me again, I'm afraid.

DuPLeX

Penn wrote: »

No, I'm basing my opinions on the actual meanings of words. The actual meaning of the word religion. The actual meaning of the word atheist. That's the direct opposite of what you're doing.

actual meaning or dictionary definition ?

Penn

DuPLeX wrote: »

actual meaning or dictionary definition ?

Same thing. Actual meaning of any word is the dictionary definition of the word.

seamus

Statistician wrote: »

Ritual, (going to Mass etc) community, etc..

You kind of need more than that though. There are plenty of things which are ritualistic and community-based without being religious in the slightest. For example on Sundays in Winter, I dress up in very funny looking clothes, meet up with a large group of other people and spend a few hours moving through the streets of Dublin and Wicklow just chatting and having fun, building community ties. Is cycling a religion?

You could equally say the same with the local under-12s football. Groups of people go down there, their children dressed up and partaking in a ritual while the parents chat and build their community. Yet it's not religion.

Surely the defining lynchpin that qualifies it as "religion" is that the reason for the community and the ritual is a set of supernatural beliefs?

I say supernatural as a qualifier in there because you wouldn't call a weekly vegetarians meeting a religious meeting, yet the topic is a matter of belief rather than fact.

The point here is that if you go broadly defining religion, then you suddenly start including all sorts of mundane activities as "religion". So it would seem that religion is actually quite clearly defined and as such there should be no issue showing why atheism is a religion where vegetarianism is not.
There is no doubt that theism is not a requirement of religion (Scientology is an atheist religion), yet at the same time atheism on its own cannot qualify as a religion because it has no rituals, no doctrine, no shared belief system.

Zombrex

seamus wrote: »

Surely the defining lynchpin that qualifies it as "religion" is that the reason for the community and the ritual is a set of supernatural beliefs?

Nail head /thread

Atheists can be religious. Some Buddhists follow supernatural rituals that do not involve a deity. As do certain new age spiritualists. But they involve supernatural ritual. That is the defining characteristic of religion. It is why playing soccer isn't religious, neither is doing the shopping, neither is being part of a book club.

Dades

I think this forum is being subjected to a "denial of logic attack".

Damned Vatican hackers.

Panrich

DuPLeX wrote: »

everything you just stated is equally true of you! your opinions on atheism or religion are no more valid than mine.
And Its more than a little arrogant to try to apply a label to me that I have already rejected.

Stop trying to label me as religious please.

Zombrex

Zombrex wrote: »

Nail head /thread

Atheists can be religious. Some Buddhists follow supernatural rituals that do not involve a deity. As do certain new age spiritualists. But they involve supernatural ritual. That is the defining characteristic of religion. It is why playing soccer isn't religious, neither is doing the shopping, neither is being part of a book club.

yeah the rebirth business would make it a religion
if you don't have that it's a philosophy

oldrnwisr

DuPLeX wrote: »

No I don't wear a cap.You can call me an Atheist if you like , it does not make me one !
A religion as I see it is a predigested world view which is adopted by people who are too lazy to figure the world out for themselves or too afraid to live with unanswered questions .the older ones usually involve some sort of Prophet and/or Deity But these and increasingly redundant as scientific doctrines seem to be the new way

Calling you an atheist is not a faulty syllogism. You have already stated that you don't believe in a God. Ergo you are an atheist. Yes labels have limitations. That's why we're supposed to be having a discussion. Identifying myself as an atheist merely indicates something I don't believe in, not what I do believe in. That doesn't mean that the term atheist has no useful function.

I agree with your definition of religion, or at least I would say that it's a definition which holds true for a great many people. How does it hold true for atheists though? What belief that you think atheists share indicate that we have just accepted something because we were told so and are too lazy to figure things out for ourselves.
Personally speaking, figuring things out for myself is how I became an atheist. Contrary to popular misconception there aren't a lot of people who became atheist because of Richard Dawkins. In fact, I became an atheist by reading the Bible and anything I could get my hands on about every other mythology. I studied physics in college and then learned about biology and evolution on my own. The one thing I don't do is listen to appeals to authority. It goes against everything I stand for.

Statistician

Well I found one.
Here is a religion that has atheists as members:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism

So, a religion without faith?

DuPLeX

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Identifying myself as an atheist merely indicates something I don't believe in, not what I do believe in. That doesn't mean that the term atheist has no useful function.

that term may work for you, but it has no relevance to me, I'm not an atheist.. I do not define myself by my belief or not in a deity

I agree with your definition of religion, or at least I would say that it's a definition which holds true for a great many people. How does it hold true for atheists though? What belief that you think atheists share indicate that we have just accepted something because we were told so and are too lazy to figure things out for ourselves.

It seems you decided that there is no God and therefore ,Christianity was not for you . so you sought an alternative and found Atheism. I have not sought an alternative .

Statistician

There is no doubt that theism is not a requirement of religion (Scientology is an atheist religion), yet at the same time atheism on its own cannot qualify as a religion because it has no rituals, no doctrine, no shared belief system.

I just saw this.

I would argue that Atheism does have a doctrine:
A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.

Atheists all accept a certain principle.
Logging on here is ritualistic for many atheists to discuss atheism

What makes Scientology a religion, but not Atheism?

oldrnwisr

DuPLeX wrote: »

It seems you decided that there is no God and therefore ,Christianity was not for you . so you sought an alternative and found Atheism. I have not sought an alternative .

I haven't sought an alternative. That's what makes me an atheist. Simples.

Gbear

That term may work for you, but it has no relevance to me, I'm not a human... i do not define myself by my position on the evolutionary tree.

seamus

Statistician wrote: »

Atheists all accept a certain principle.

What principle is that?

oldrnwisr

Statistician wrote: »

What makes Scientology a religion, but not Atheism?

Well for one, it proposes a continuation of existence after death.

Gbear

Statistician wrote: »

I just saw this.

I would argue that Atheism does have a doctrine:
A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.

Atheists all accept a certain principle.
Logging on here is ritualistic for many atheists to discuss atheism

What makes Scientology a religion, but not Atheism?

You're getting it backwards.

It's not a case of saying "well, i'm an atheist - better go check what atheists believe so I can conform to that".

Atheist is the description of a person who doesn't believe that there are god(s).
It's like paraplegic or brown-haired person. It describes an aspect of them. It tells you nothing for certain about what else that person is like.

Penn

DuPLeX wrote: »

that term may work for you, but it has no relevance to me, I'm not an atheist.. I do not define myself by my belief or not in a deity


It seems you decided that there is no God and therefore ,Christianity was not for you . so you sought an alternative and found Atheism. I have not sought an alternative .

But Atheism isn't what you choose after rejecting all other religions. It's not an alternative you seek out. If you do not believe in any supernatural deity or god... you are an atheist. If I lost a limb in a car accident as it had to be amputated, I am an amputee. If I am afraid of heights, I am acrophobic. If I don't believe in any supernatural deity or god, I am an atheist. As are you.

I'm not saying you are defined by what you do or do not believe in, but rejecting a term which applies to you does not mean that term no longer applies to you.

Zombrex

Statistician wrote: »

Atheists all accept a certain principle.

So do all people who think the world is isn't flat. Are they also religious?

EDIT - was going to say "the world is round" but that is even too far an analogy, since atheism is a rejection of a belief without even stating what it is replaced with, if anything. People who think the world isn't flat might think it is a square, they still are not flat Earthers

Statistician

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Well for one, it proposes a continuation of existence after death.

Unitarian Universalism does not. So what makes Unitarian Universalism as religion, but not Atheism?

oldrnwisr

Statistician wrote: »

Unitarian Universalism does not. So what makes Unitarian Universalism as religion, but not Atheism?

The requirement to affirm a specific set of beliefs. Namely:

"We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote

• The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
• Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
• Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
• A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
• The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
• The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all;
• Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part."

Next.

Zombrex

Statistician wrote: »

Unitarian Universalism does not. So what makes Unitarian Universalism as religion, but not Atheism?

That is a good question. I would barely classify UU as a religion. While it contains a lot of religious people, being religious seems to be no requirement for joining or participating. So how can it be considered a religion?

EDIT - From readin the Wikipedia page there does seem to be a strong supernatural element to UU, even if it is very undefined. So I guess that would be the main justification for calling it a religion. Again this is not found in atheism (though is found in some atheists)

- Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;
- Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;-
- Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;
- Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;
- Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit.
- Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

Gbear

Statistician wrote: »

Unitarian Universalism does not. So what makes Unitarian Universalism as religion, but not Atheism?

It's entirely possible that just like the people who go through the motions of going to mass but don't actually believe in the Catholic religion, Unitarians aren't strictly speaking religious.

They might be, I don't know enough about them to conclusively say one way or the other, but just because they self identify as religious doesn't mean they are, just like DuPLeX tries not to self-identify as atheist despite meeting all the criteria (not believing in god(s) being the only criteria).

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The requirement to affirm a specific set of beliefs. Namely:

"We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote

• The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
• Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
• Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
• A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
• The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
• The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all;
• Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part."

Next.

That could be a political party. I'd be more inclined to argue that they aren't truly religious.

Dades

Statistician wrote: »

Logging on here is ritualistic for many atheists to discuss atheism

Really? Is that the best you can come up with to compare atheism to a religion? C'mon! I post as much in the Classic Car forum, is that a ritual, too?

Statistician wrote: »

Unitarian Universalism does not. So what makes Unitarian Universalism as religion, but not Atheism?

Unitarian Universalism is a wishy washy religion for those who dislike the authority of organised religion, but like to describe themselves as *spiritual*. It's for those who don't want to belong to a dogmatic church, but need to be part of something.

Some atheists feel the need to be part of something too, and UU makes it okay to be part of their "church" without having to actually believe in anything. Good for them, I say. Rather that, than maintain that ridiculous façade of Catholicism that so many still do.

Statistician

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The requirement to affirm a specific set of beliefs. Namely:

"We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote

• The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
• Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
• Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
• A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
• The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
• The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all;
• Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part."

Next.

Nice try. However, that is taken from the Unitarian Universalist Association. This does not encompass all Unitarian Universalists.

oldrnwisr

Gbear wrote: »

That could be a political party. I'd be more inclined to argue that they aren't truly religious.

I was pointing out the difference between unitarianism and atheism rather than commenting on the status of unitarianism as a religion. I would tend to agree with you that unitarianism is not really religious but the reliance on received wisdom and heavy focus on "the spirit" makes me hesitant. Like Dades has said, it's more like a religion that has had any vestiges of stricture or authority washed away by liberalism. Kinda like caffeine-free Christianity Zero.

DuPLeX

Penn wrote: »

But Atheism isn't what you choose after rejecting all other religions. It's not an alternative you seek out. If you do not believe in any supernatural deity or god... you are an atheist. If I lost a limb in a car accident as it had to be amputated, I am an amputee. If I am afraid of heights, I am acrophobic. If I don't believe in any supernatural deity or god, I am an atheist. As are you.

I'm not saying you are defined by what you do or do not believe in, but rejecting a term which applies to you does not mean that term no longer applies to you.

So is atheism a religion that you have to opt out of ? because I sure didn't opt in ...in other words I'm not an atheist .
Sorry to hear about your leg btw, did you lose it falling off a tall building onto a car ?

oldrnwisr

Statistician wrote: »

Nice try. However, that is taken from the Unitarian Universalist Association. This does not encompass all Unitarian Universalists.

Yes, having read back over the article you're right. However, given the following statements in the article:

"There is no single unifying belief that all Unitarian Universalists (UUs) hold, aside from complete and responsible freedom of speech, thought, belief, faith, and disposition."

"Concepts about deity are diverse among UUs."

"Deliberately without an official creed or dogma"

I'm having a hard time seeing how UU qualifies as religion at all.

Dades

DuPLeX wrote: »

So is atheism a religion that you have to opt out of ? because I sure didn't opt in ...in other words I'm not an atheist .
Sorry to hear about your leg btw, did you lose it falling off a tall building onto a car ?

You'd better produce a smarter reply to the next post you quote or I'm opting you out of this forum.

Bannasidhe

DuPLeX wrote: »

So is atheism a religion that you have to opt out of ? because I sure didn't opt in ...in other words I'm not an atheist .
Sorry to hear about your leg btw, did you lose it falling off a tall building onto a car ?

FFS it really is very simple.

If one believes in the existence of God - one is a theist.
If one does not believe in the existence of God - one is an atheist.

Neither of these means one is a member of a religion.

Gbear

Bannasidhe wrote: »

FFS it really is very simple.

If one believes in the existence of God - one is a theist.
If one does not believe in the existence of God - one is an atheist.

Neither of these means one is a member of a religion.

How could you not be a member of a religion as a theist?

Surely even if you were theistic towards your own made up god you'd be a member of said made up religion?

Dades

Gbear wrote: »

Surely even if you were theistic towards your own made up god you'd be a member of said made up religion?

Well isn't that the point? A religion is more than just a belief. Its a set of beliefs/rules.

If you believe in your own made-up god and rules you're really just a crackpot. Unless you get a following. Then you have a religion.

Bannasidhe

Gbear wrote: »

How could you not be a member of a religion as a theist?

Surely even if you were theistic towards your own made up god you'd be a member of said made up religion?

Nope. I know many people, including my OH, who firmly believe in the existence of God but also believe that all religions are nothing more then attempts to impose control on people - as well as being a power trip for an elite.
They would argue that they have a personal relationship with God which does not require interpretation by a third party.


I'm no longer allowed to quiz OH about this 'God'....:(

Gbear

Dades wrote: »

Well isn't that the point? A religion is more than just a belief. Its a set of beliefs/rules.

If you believe in your own made-up god and rules you're really just a crackpot. And we all know the only thing separating crackpots from "religious" is numbers.

Yeah but Bannas suggested that being either atheist or theist doesn't mean that you are religious necessarily whereas i'd argue that you are definitely religious by definition if you are theist.

Gbear

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Nope. I know many people, including my OH, who firmly believe in the existence of God but also believe that all religions are nothing more then attempts to impose control on people - as well as being a power trip for an elite.
They would argue that they have a personal relationship with God which does not require interpretation by a third party.


I'm no longer allowed to quiz OH about this 'God'....:(

I'd argue that even though they're not part of an organised recognised religion and despite not self-identifying as religious that they are religious by definition.

Does a religion actually need a dogma, commands and so forth? Couldn't there be a relgion where there are supreme beings beyond the mortal world but they just don't give a ****e about us so don't bother interfering?

Hmm... have to cook dinner. I'll think on it.:pac:

DuPLeX

Bannasidhe wrote: »

FFS it really is very simple.

If one believes in the existence of God - one is a theist.
If one does not believe in the existence of God - one is an atheist.

Neither of these means one is a member of a religion.

That is a Narrow Ideological way of thinking which itself is inherent in religion.
I'll Be Clear.....
I did not Say there is a God
I did not say there is Not A God.I don't know and don't really care
And Though its interesting to think on and discuss, given the lack of evidence either way, I Don't think Its worth digging in and defining yourself by or getting dogmatic about. It's not that important.Now if God was to appear to me tomorrow that might change ..............

Bannasidhe

Gbear wrote: »

Yeah but Bannas suggested that being either atheist or theist doesn't mean that you are religious necessarily whereas i'd argue that you are definitely religious by definition if you are theist.

My OH put herself down as 'No Religion' on the census.
She attends no religious ceremonies, rituals etc etc unless it is a wedding or some such and even then she does not participate.
She believes the Bible is not to be taken literally - neither is the Koran. She says Both are deeply flawed works by human authors.
She absolutely believes there is a God - but seriously doubts he is an old dude with a big beard - who created the world. (I don't)
She equally believes all religions are human inventions - and therefore are deeply flawed.

She is a theist with no religion.
She takes herself off to a quiet place to commune alone with her creator.
I do not know what form this communing takes - it's none of my business.

Bannasidhe

DuPLeX wrote: »

That is a Narrow Ideological way of thinking which itself is inherent in religion.
I'll Be Clear.....
I did not Say there is a God
I did not say there is Not A God.I don't know and don't really care
And Though its interesting to think on and discuss, given the lack of evidence either way, I Don't think Its worth digging in and defining yourself by or getting dogmatic about. It's not that important.Now if God was to appear to me tomorrow that might change ..............

No - it is back to the dictionary and what the words mean.
No ideology involved.

I don't care if you believe or do not believe.

I do object to you telling me what I believe.

DuPLeX

Dades wrote: »

You'd better produce a smarter reply to the next post you quote or I'm opting you out of this forum.

What ? toast little old heretic me ?

DuPLeX

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No - it is back to the dictionary and what the words mean.
No ideology involved.

I don't care if you believe or do not believe.

I do object to you telling me what I believe.

I have not told you what you believe ...Merely that someone seems to have .... Dictionaries are not carved in stone, The definitions in them are updated from time to time usually sometime after the usage of a word has changed. They are updated by mortal fallible people ... and are as much reflective as definitive . in short they are just books Just like the Koran or Bible

Gbear

DuPLeX wrote: »

I did not Say there is a God
I did not say there is Not A God.I don't know and don't really care

The debate isn't about whether there is or isn't a god and what that means (agnosticism and gnosticism) but rather what we believe. It's a very important distinction.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

I don't know whether there is a god (agnostic)
I do not believe there is a god (atheist).
I have seen insufficient evidence to believe god(s) exist but I cannot entirely rule out the possibility, even if it is remotely small.

Calling myself those things is a label but so is "male", "white", "tall", "irish". I can't escape from those labels and trying to do so would be childish.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My OH put herself down as 'No Religion' on the census.
She attends no religious ceremonies, rituals etc etc unless it is a wedding or some such and even then she does not participate.
She believes the Bible is not to be taken literally - neither is the Koran. She says Both are deeply flawed works by human authors.
She absolutely believes there is a God - but seriously doubts he is an old dude with a big beard - who created the world. (I don't)
She equally believes all religions are human inventions - and therefore are deeply flawed.

She is a theist with no religion.
She takes herself off to a quiet place to commune alone with her creator.
I do not know what form this communing takes - it's none of my business.

Right. So if you believe in ghosts, by my previous criteria, you would be religious. So you need both supernatural faith and some kind of dogma or command structure to dictate how to rule your life.

Your OH's lacks a command structure and Unitarianism appears to lack a supernatural element. Ergo, neither are religions?
Yep. That covers it I think.