Thanks for asking that because I should say that.
The definition I'd like everyone to use in this thread:

Ritual:
The total of sacred/holy acts that connects the participators to:
-the sacral(/supernatural) reality
-eachother
-(usually) an event from history

Whether you agree to that definition is irrelevant and I'd like to leave that out of the discussion.

I think religion without rituals are/would be very unorganized. A religion without a ritual is more of a philosophy than an actual organized religion.

^ this. So basically it is a belief that is acted on in no way?

Good news guys. The God who made this unfathombly vast universe in it's splendid array cares about each and every one of us. Even though we rebelled against him and betrayed him, he chose to have mercy on us and take punishment we deserved on himself. He, (the same God who spoke our universe into existence), humbled himself and became a man, suffering horrible agony for our sake so that when this short and troubled life is over, we might enjoy spending eternity in his perfect and holy presence. He wrote a 66-book love letter to humanity explaining the gift he freely gives us, and has made it readily available for us to read. All we have to do is accept the atonement he provided for us through his death and ask forgiveness for the crimes we committed against him, and we will live forever in paradise with him. I know it seems hard to believe, so I encourage you to pick up a copy of the book I'm referencing and read it for yourself. I personally know many people who wholeheartedly believe this story is true, and who would be happy to answer any questions you may have. (I'd even be willing to answer any questions if I'm able) Sorry if I offended anyone, but I just wanted to share the good news since it pertains to this thread topic. :)

And in regards to the specific question, I think rituals should be a means to an end, not an end in themselves.

I'll give the definition used for religion too:

'A religion is a view of life in which people assume there are higher powers which you might not be able to see but which influence existence: God or gods, life after death, angels, demons, ghosts, a heaven, a hell.'

@Yoyoyozo: I would agree it would probably be rather unorganized, but is organisation a vital part of religion?
I understand where you're coming from when you say it'd be more like a philosophy, but what if someone devotes his life to something he cannot prove but is so confident about, making every decision in his life based on said belief, spending every moment of his life in this state of mind? Would that be a mere philosophy?

@KingCyrus: Read above. If it defines your state of mind, I'd say it's acted upon in a lot of ways.

@Slyguy: Uhh... Well, I protect your right to believe that and all that :-)

I agree very much to your answer to the question though. I guess my question stems from this.

@steephie isn't that the definition of a philosophy? A set f beliefs that one lives by

OK, let's present a hypothetical religion without rituals.

We shall call it, Superdeityism. Now, those who follow this religion believe that there is a moral code, and that all that Superdeity requires of them is to follow that code. So, they follow the code.

Now, to uses steephie's definition, would this following of the moral code be considered " a sacred/holy act that connects the follower to the super natural reality (Superdeity)"?

You define religion as simply a view of life that includes a belief in higher powers. Surely, it is possible to have such a view of life without participating in sacred or holy acts that connect one to said higher power. In fact, such a set of conditions probably describes the lived practices and habits of most Western people. The statistics seem to suggest that there are relatively few out-and-out atheists who flatly deny the existence or possibility of existence of any higher power out of hand. Many people have no interest or desire to participate in the rituals of organized religion (i.e., Christian sacraments, participation in worship services, prayer, etc.), and yet still hold to a view of life that at least allows for a higher power.

So, going off of your definition of religion as a "view of life" instead of as a commitment to live a certain way based on certain accepted principles, it seems that many people are part of 'religion' without rituals. I personally would quibble with your definition of religion, but, going off that definition, it seems clear that religion is possible without ritual.

@Yoyoyozo: I wouldn't know honestly, but the question is rather whether it fits the definition of religion as quoted before. A clear distinction between such a belief and a 'normal' philosophy would be that such a belief would include believing in something supernatural.

The question is "is religion possible without rituals" the answer is no. There has to be some action that is done. Just like what sulram was saying, there will be individuals that don't carry out these rituals, but for the religion itself to survive, there must be something that is done in observance of that religion. Give an example of a religion, or make one up, that doesn't have your definition of ritual.

Question to you, Yoyoyozo: Why would a religion need to survive to be considered a religion? Can't a religion simply be the religion of a single person, dying out when this person dies?

As for the example, I would think of someone who believes people have eternal souls and reincarnate for example, but has no desire to share this belief with others. He lives his life, forms his idea's and decides what to do based on and devoted to this core principal.

@steephie - If we take your example of a single individual who has this particular religious belief, then, by your definition of rituals, he is not participating in religious ritual by living his life, nor by forming ideas. But, by deciding what to do and, presumably, acting in accord with his decision, based on this core religious principle, is he not then participating in a ritual which connects him to the supernatural reality that he believes in? Presumably, the content of the man's actions will determine the state in which he is reincarnated, and thus, the content of his actions connects him to the supernatural reality because they influence and determine the state of his next life. It seems to me that any action which is based on a religious belief, and is done as a result of that religious belief, fulfills your definition of ritual.

I guess the question is a bit what one would define as a 'sacred/holy act'.

Definition of holy/sacred according to the same source:
'Seperated (/seperately stated? translation is a bit tough here), taking(/occupying) a special place, devoted to God.'

So I guess a holy/sacred act would be more like an action done out of devotion to what someone believes in, rather than a choice to do something 'casual', taking into account said belief/religion.

Does that make sense to anyone?

Well then there's no discussion. I can just believe that I can be reincarnated after death and then carry on with my life. By definition yes it can exist.

*Winces* That was tacky. Sorry Steephie. I didn't even answer the question. Awkward. I think that was just my inner cynic coming out. I'm kinda just restless in life right now.

But anyway, actually talking about your question this time, I might actually have some useful experience in this area. Since I'm both what you could consider "religious," and I've struggled with borderline OCD in the past, I think I understand your question pretty well. In my opinion, not all religious rituals are necessary for religion, but if you are going to consider yourself religious, partaking in certain rituals is probably something you should do.

For example, (I'm not entirely sure what your religion is,) but I'm guessing it involves being kind to people, because you seem like a pretty nice guy. So let's say your religion tells you to love others. In order to love others, do you have to partake in rituals? Yes and no; it depends on the ritual. I'd think in answering the question, one must look at the intention behind participating/not participating in the ritual. If you love others, there are probably certain behaviors you should engage in that some people could consider ritualistic, such as helping people in need and giving to charity when you can. But just because you give to charity and help people doesn't mean you are loving them, (AKA practicing your religion), you could just be acting out of self-righteous pride. On the other hand, just because you aren't giving to charity or aren't helping people out every singlr time you can, doesn't mean you don't love them. You maybe couldn't afford to do so, or had other obligations to fulfill.

I guess what I'm saying is if you're truly practing a religion, you're going to perhaps engage in certain "ritual" behaviors, but the focus should be on your religion, not the rituals themselves. Could you practice religion without any rituals whatsoever? Perhaps. But I'm not sure you really would truely be following your religion. I hope that makes sense.

@slyguy steephie says that moral ideas don't count. He's talking about things that are done in a "sacred" place, like communion or something.

But aren't those "sacred" acts done for a greater purpose? Wouldn't those acts be done with theintention of growing closer to God and therefore be considered "moral ideas"? These definitions seem pretty subjective to me. It's hard to have a discussion on this or answer the question. :(

@Yoyoyozo and rest: I'm merely reflecting. It's for an essay.

@Slyguy270 (and rest): What if you embrace the idea that there is definitely something supernatural while also embracing the idea that any attempt at explaining this will be faulty because humans are too simple-minded to even think of something that comes close to the truth? Following this logic, you'd probably have faith in the fact that there is something supernatural while at the same time refusing to think of it as something specific because that will only distract from the truth. The same would count for rituals: they just distract from the truth. As such, you actively believe in not following any rituals..

Steephie, pretty sure you just defined deism.

^ +1

Interesting thread. I guess a related topic would be whether religious rituals have any value in themselves. It's not only possible but quite easy to get sucked into a system of rituals but deny the underlying substance/meaning/truths that the rituals represent.

Mujus, but the sense that steephie is using them in, would basically encompass any religious act.

Religion without rituals = Darwinism

What you describe is pretty much similar to "fashionably spiritual".

Steephie, with rituals or without, religion is also without value if it's merely a matter of following rules in order to be good enough to succeed spiritually (go to heaven). It's also empty if it's just about feeling spiritual.

66 books? Nah, 73 books! And counting!

Impossible. Humans are ritualistic creatures. It is far easier to take religion out of the man and leave the ritual than it is to take the ritual and leave the religion.

Mmmmm....coffee.

Hmm, I don't really know as much about those books included in the Catholic Bible as I should. Thanks for bringing it to my attention Jeff, I'll get back to you on that.

"And counting?" Are you Mormon Jeff?

*those extra books*

Lots of books of the Apocrypha. If some are good enough for Catholics, then there is probably something to the others too.

While a "66-book love letter" sounds nice, there was certainly a lot of controversy surrounding the finalization of Christian canon.

And no, not Mormon. I'm a disbeliever.

This pretty much sums up my views on the issue Jeff: http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html

I'm not a huge fan of posting links, but this is a pretty good article. I encourage you to take a look if you're interested Jeff.

Further proof that atheism is a religion - with rituals!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJz5IISDgTA

And just for the record Jeff, I completely understand where you're coming from. I admittedly was raised in a Christian family, but I firmly refuse to believe in any ideology or hold any opinion that I can't logically back up. I struggled with many questions and doubts about Christianity for a long time, but I can honestly say that over time, God has answered so many of my questions and satisfied so many of my doubts, that I truely cannot deny his existence, nor that the Bible is his Word.

Ruined my phone, hence I'm not really reacting anymore..