Defining 'Religion'

No. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. It isn't a religion, just like not playing baseball isn't a sport.

 

So do you mean that atheist need to worry about after their physical death?

What you said here is rather superficial. They don't worry about the future simply because they choose to believe that such a future doesn't exist, which however is a faith (without their own awareness though).

 

no. atheists lack belief in a god or gods. So they, by extension, lack belief in anything dealing with an underworld, or valhala, azguard or heaven.

 

What you said here is rather superficial. They don't worry about the future simply because they choose to believe that such a future doesn't exist, which however is a faith (without their own awareness though).

 

no. I quite clearly said........... atheists lack belief in a god or gods. So they, by extension, lack belief in anything dealing with an underworld, or valhala, azguard or heaven

I made no mention of the future.

 

If on the other hand you know for sure that the future exists, do you worry?

You don't simply because you don't know but have faith that it's not the case! It may be out of your own awareness though.

 

We know the future exists, so obviously we worry about it.

uh, it isn't faith that time is linear and moves forward. It's physics.

 

Nice attempt to divert from the fact that your definition is yours and yours alone. Oh, and case you didn't know, Wiki isn't a dictionary. In fact even Wiki isn't claiming what you posted is a definition. This is what your link says incase you forgot to read it:

This article is about Self-knowledge, as it applies to Vedanta. For other uses, see Self-knowledge (disambiguation).

So sad you can't even be intelkectually honest about definitions or your sources.

 

Actually the superiority of the definition is not just my opinion. You have said you are trying to write a definition that includes 95% of all religions. When challenged you have been unable to name one religion not included in my definition. 100% is greater than 95% so clearly my definition, lifted from the expert source you posted, is clearly and inarguably superior.

 

Please do not mention atheism in this thread, as you can see it invites the trolls and frankly is off topic.

I used the religion connected with self-knowledge only to put the usage into perspective so jester can correct his error.

No one cares if it used to change tires in your disambiguation, changing tires is not the context of this topic and not the context it was used, therefore its you who is being disingenous.

You are the one that claimed the stanford definition is all inclusive, and superior to the one we are working on, so we are all waiting to hear your explanation that you keep dodging, then we will have something to debate, until then I cant take you seriously.

 

When I asked you about it, you said "universal only means best bell curve fit for all religions today and have known throughout time" (source). Well, the definition I proposed has a better bell curve fit, but I don't think that makes it a better definition. I have asked you several times for a straight forward description of how you determine what makes a definition universal, but since you seem to be dodging the question, I have to make due with what you've given me.

But sure, we can try again. How do you determine what definition is supposed to be called universal, and what impact do you propose that such a designation has on usage?

As I've said, I only read the posts in which I am quoted (anything else for all the threads would take too long). In what sense is it not sufficient?

Well, my entire point is that your definition won't have any particular validity beyond the conversation/context in which you specify it. It seems a bit circular to specify in a definition the conditions under which it itself becomes valid. If that was an option, you could make the definition "religion is anything that begins with the letter R, and it's true because I say so". If you refer to the clarification in the definition, you'll find that the definition is defined to be true, even though it's clearly a ridiculous attempt at a definition. Clearly, it being clarified in the definition does not make it so.

Eh... what? Yes, can.

I should repeat that I don't have a problem with the idea of this definition existing (although I would say universal solvent is a phrase coined about Alkahest, and I can't find any sources on where Universal studios get their name, although the globe in the logo seems to imply all rather than most). You're taking on the task not to prove that there are examples of it, but that it is so common that it wasn't even worth pointing out.

I said that I was exploring the consequences of your line of thinking, which allows for definitions in which not all conditions are true.

I mean, that is what dictionaries have been trying to do, but they have acknowledged the fact that it cannot always be done while staying true to the actual language. They display several definitions and acknowledge use of all of them. And that's not because they had a common brain clot which spanned volumes and volumes of several (indeed all) dictionaries, it's because that wouldn't be an accurate representation of the language.

I see no reason at all to define words in their own threads, I maintain that it is well sufficient to explicitly define words when it becomes necessary. My solution, to specify any words that open for confusion, would have solved this matter very well.

Not at all, I have repeatedly stated that I do accept that the definition may exist. The problem I had with it was you trying to pass it off as obvious that that was the definition you were using. Now, that in itself is sort of a small point, but it ties into my greater argument in this thread, which is that if there is scope for confusion, there should be clarification.

I didn't look up the words "attempts" or "this" in your OP because it was abundantly clear what they meant. It seemed to me that universal was clear as well. Turns out you meant something uncommon (albeit not impossible). A clarification from the get go would have resolved this.

In particular, this highlights my disagreement with your view. The idea you presented seems to imply that what we should have done is start a thread on a forum and that that decides the definition (since that's what you've tried to do to "religion").

I would like to add (although I'm not sure how relevant it will be) that even those times when universal is meant to mean most, it does so in contrast to particular. A universal remote is one which is noted for approaching all-encompassingness, even though it might not reach it. The same is true for all your other examples as well, however, when you use it, you seem to use it to separate it from a normal definition which is, by definition, all encompassing.

The majority of usage I can see or have ever heard have been regarding all. I do not refuse to accept it, I merely point out that it is not common enough to be assumed true without further explanation. That's of course a quite small point, but it turns out to be very important, since an all-encompassing definition says something about what the word means, whereas your 95% definition, just seems to point out some things about it, which might not be true. It ties nicely into the "real" discussion of the thread, i.e. the authority of language.

 

thats right, I told you precisely how it was being used. Not my problem that you htink only meant the only usage of universal is 'all', its your error.

But the height of humans does not apply to religion.

and I gave it.

ah look at that you found the straight forward definition albeit you spun it, by stating on number instead of a range as I said.

well see when you look at a dictionary you look at numner 1 and say to yourself could this be how he is using it? Nope
then #2, nope,
then #3(b) yep there it is!
Thats how he is using!
Dictionaries are very simple.
In america those who arent on crack learn how to use them in elementary school.
It is not rare, rare is your spin.

No they dont, none do, its a fact that everyone knows.

Nothing like proving my point in spades precisely why we need to re-write dictionaries in this format.

it is obvious to anyone who can read a dictionary.

understanding the definition of universal is elementary childs play compared to religion.

Well at the first sign of not making sense to someone thats the time to open a dictionary and see if the usage exists. since a usage exists and the definition is so simple whats the point in even bringing it up unless you are being argumentative for no reason.

No that is not why the dictionaries do that. the better dictionaries always include context, I chose to do it in a list like the very best quality dictionaries that they are too cheap to print now days.

You have no choice in the case of definitions where several are required to be true and they can be organized and in several different ways.

Does not matter, the gubmint is using it to describe water as a universal solvent, and I totally agree, it does not make my usage rise to the level of arguable.

Sure it will, and it does. Its very complete from what I can see. If you dispute that please show us a religion the listed attributes do not cover and I will add it.

 

[QUOTE="Kokomojojo, post: 1069281944, member: 28583"



You are the one that claimed the stanford definition is all inclusive, and superior to the one we are working on, so we are all waiting to hear your explanation that you keep dodging, then we will have something to debate, until then I cant take you seriously.[/QUOTE]

 

It is obviously all inclusive since you have been unable to come up with a single religion that does not fit the definition.

And by the way the definition I posted was from the Cornell Law Review. Not sure which definition I posted from Stanford. Perhaps you can refresh my memory.

 

[QUOTE="Kokomojojo, post: 1069281944, member: 28583"

I used the religion connected with self-knowledge only to put the usage into perspective so jester can correct his error.



No one cares if it used to change tires in your disambiguation, changing tires is not the context of this topic and not the context it was used, therefore its you who is being disingenous.



.[/QUOTE]

So you admit you have yet to find a dictionary thst supports your definition of self-knowledge.

 

But then when I suggested we actually perform that fit to a bell curve, the conclusions were weird and you seemed no longer to agree with the fitting of a curve to it. You've said a lot of different things in different places and over 12 pages it's unclear which bits fit together.

I agree, so why did you provide instructions which failed to see the difference?

Please regive it, so there are no misunderstandings. At the moment, it seems like you're dodging the question.

That's not a clear enough definition, it doesn't tell me 95% of what, it doesn't tell me what that 95% is supposed to do, and it doesn't argue that it is valid. For instance, I could suggest "religion is defined as every thought", and that would include 100% of all religions, present, past and future, but still not be a very good definition.

That's basically what I did, and I found it quite reasonable to stick with number one. A definition which holds in all cases, or which is agreed upon by all seems like quite a reasonable thing to talk about, so your first "Nope" seems to me not actually to be a nope.

Besides, this approach does not seem fully correct to me. This is what Merriam-Webster has to say about it.

"The significance of this order will vary from dictionary to dictionary, and from publisher to publisher", "The one thing you should remember, however, is that the first sense presented to you is not, as is commonly assumed, the most ‘important,’ or ‘correct’ meaning." (source)

Are you saying that universal remotes can control fewer (or an equal amount of) devices that a non-universal one?

That in no way proves your point. Linguists have battled with these sorts of issues for some time, but they have all gravitated towards the approach in the dictionaries.

Are you saying that by reading the dictionary, it's obvious that definition 3b somehow trumps definition 1?

Well, I found it more likely that you were trying to do an actually all-encompassing definition, and I can't look up your intentions in a dictionary, so it would be much more straightforward to be specified in the argument to begin with.

You seem to be talking about something else. I haven't been commenting on the list structure of your definition. I'm interested in how you have come to think that the nuanced approach adopted by linguists for centuries could be overcome by the idea of just writing down your best guess.

Yes, you have an option, you can do what I propose. Acknowledge that there is wiggle room in the definition, so when you use it in a particular context, specify what you mean, and don't expect that specification to hold true in the next context. That's how I would use it in conversation. A dictionary would want to reflect all possible interpretations, so would list them. And that is what they do.

I don't particularly have a problem with that (I mean, I have several problems with that, but none that are relevant to this conversation).

I dispute the idea that including the right things is enough to make a definition better. If that was the case, "religion is any set of thoughts" would be a brilliant definition, which it clearly isn't. Disputing that definition is clearly not done by suggesting religion which are not included.

PS. I'm going on vacation now, might take a couple of days to respond.

 

Yeh who would want right things in a definition?

Baloney my version has all the wiggle one could ever want, in fact more than dictionaries propose today since it includes all the latest 'usage'.

The context I used was crystal, perfectly obvious, and you are now claiming that you didnt understand the context in addition to your problem with the context the word universal was used which is or should have been crystal clear to you without the need for volumes of words and phrases?

However they do it over several years and its piece meal and modern day self proclaimed critical thinkers are great at arguing but not so good at making rational arguments when there are more than one variable to deal with.

Another false analogy. Is that the best you can do?

Another false analogy. My definition is constructed in a manner that itemizes the bulk of the applicable attributes that result in the classification of religion to aid those who depend on a dictionary as their only source of understanding meaning.

Nope, its takes skill in comparing what one is reading to the definitions given. The context it is being used is obvious, not the dictionary.

I didnt change anything they are doing, merely condensed what they are doing for those who cannot see anything beyond # 1.

Sure! That shocks you?

So you agree that people only see #1 and that approach is completely incorrect approach, are they merely trolling out here is that it?

Thats a problem isnt it when people stubbornly take things out of context.

So now you expect a thesis?

You could suggest you had a nice conversation with it too and that would be equally irrational

Please read back, and waste your own time since it has been explained several times.

Still expecting a thesis and philosophical discourse for every word used, as if that would actually simplify it for you.

Not that I can see, what do you think is weird.

 

Science is the process wherein doubt is removed by testing new and old ideas.
Religion is the process wherein doubt is suppressed by resistance to testing new or old ideas.

 

Still waiting for you to name a religion where the definition I posted doesn't define that particular religion as a religion.

 

it doesnt define any of them, zippo

the one we have worked on here addresses every one that I can think of.


Definition of Religion: The comprehensive personal and cultural practices of value and faith based beliefs, morals, duties of conscience, self-knowledge, truth, often an associated world view, worship, and may include a supernatural being or agency.

Personal - single individual
Cultural - 2 or more individuals
Practice - Corresponding actions or inaction resulting from a belief system
Faith - Acceptance of beliefs which are not necessarily be provable
Beliefs - Conclusions considered to be true
Morals - Personal law, Accepted standards typically with regard to right/wrong, good/evil, value judgements of conscience.
Commitments - The obligation to act in accordance with and adherence to ones strongly held beliefs
Self-knowledge - Careful understanding and realization of ones religion.
Truth - Recognition and acceptance of an ultimate reality
World-View - Ones morals compared to others morals.
Worship - Expression of reverence and adoration to that which one believes to be sacred.
Supernatural-Being - God
Agency - That thought to which fulfills the position of a God.
Sacred - Highest possible level of trust, reverence and adherence to the beliefs, attributes, laws, and doctrines of ones religion.

 

Playing both sides again I see.
Your definition certainly excludes atheists.

 

The definition you seem to think is so inclusive isnt even legitimate definition for religion.
Looks like you are still trying to make hay with no sunshine.
Then you should be happy, or are you feeling left out?

 

Nice duck! And if your only definition of supernatural being is god why not just say god in your definition of religion. Also if I read your intentions correctly your last phrase should read " may include a supernatural being or an agency.

 

Agency - That thought to which fulfills the position of a God.

 

Yes, I got that you defined agency. My effort was to correct your English so you weren't saying " spiritual agency" which would have been " god agency" which would have been meaningless given your definition of agency.