Defining 'Religion'

suit yourself, if you feel that God is not classified as supernatural thats fine with me because this does not use my personal definitions and neither will it use yours.

 

You keep insisting that I insist on not defining religion. I think it's very important to define religion, but I do not think it should be done outside the context of whatever discussion it is to be used in.

I'd say definitions 3 and 5 are specific and/or rare enough not to be assumed without mention. Indeed, I'm not convinced they should go in the dictionary at all. The examples seem faulty. A quick googling reveals several different uses of a "universal state", all of which seem to have to do with all, rather than a majority (a nation state which encompasses all people/lands, a state of mind/emotion/being which applies to all). Universal practices are written to be followed by all (never mind whether they actually are followed), or in some medical contexts, meant to be applied to all patients (or even all people). Similarly, definition 5 seems to describe an exaggeration of the "all"-understanding, rather than a separate understanding (like if I say "everyone knows Coke is better than Pepsi", I don't use "everyone" to mean less-than-everyone, I'm using the word to mean everyone, but the entire statement is an exaggeration). The majority of online dictionaries don't seem to acknowledge those definitions.

Let me see if I'm getting this right.
"universal only means best bell curve fit for all religions"
The selection of things to be fitted is "people that are covered in the definition, of course"
and they are being distributed according to the number of conditions in your definition which apply to them, is that right?

I don't think you are as clear as you think you are. Even if we acknowledge the understanding of "universal" as associated with most rather than with all, that's certainly something that would need clarifying. That is why I don't trust definitions made out of context, they give the impression of being the thing that everyone will understand, but in practice, it's not.

I think you're putting the exception in the wrong place. Let's say there is an idea/group/whatever which seems like a religion but which does not satisfy the conditions set out in the definition. It seems to me that then, they are not a religion, and the exception lies in the mismatch between what "seems" like a religion and what actually is a religion (following the definition).

I am not so arrogant as to propose that I'm presenting some understanding that doesn't have exceptions, I just wouldn't identify the exception as a failure of the definition, but of our whims when we decide that something is a religion when it doesn't conform to the definitions we use.

 

Of course god is classified as supernatural but that doesn't mean the definition of supernatural is god.

And my definition of religion is vastly better than yours and doesn't require adopting imaginary definitions of the words used in the definition.

 

No one said the definition of supernatural is God, that is how it is being used however in the definition of religion.

If you believe definitions taken from dictionaries and philosophy books are imaginary there is not much to discuss.

Here you go peeps, no one here understands how to read a dictionary, they would all flunk law school.

So then you think we should have a different dictionary for every context apparently?

The 'majority' of dictionaries is a pretty poor if not useless measuring stick for defining religion.
You attempt to disqualify the word universal by cherry picking the definition to spin it again the intended meaning. completely ignoring: embracing a major part or the greatest portion

and then you do not see a problem with that form of dictionary reading despite your results are completely inaccurate and NOT the intended meaning.
On one side you claim it should be taken in context and on the other side you take it out of context.

Each condition of the definition counts as a 1, there needs to be a minimum of 3 I think I'd have to look back.

and you get that when you study the matter in this case from the courts and philosophy, dictionaries do not crayola every possible contingency.

I pointed out that they may be exceptions, but its unlikely when the full scope of attributes are used.

 

From your post #164

Religion: Not limited to; The personal or cultural practices of value and faith based beliefs, morals, commitments, self-knowledge, truth, often containing a world view, which may include worship and a supernatural being or agency.
Here is a first draft on the definitions of the words used in the definition:
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.

You are clearly not only trying to fraudulently define religion you are trying to fraudulently define the words used in your definition. Two frauds don't make a truth.

 

well then countless legal briefs and the associated dictionaries are fraudulent according to your standards.

 

Ah the old countless claim with no evidence! Doubt that fools snyone but yourself. Are you going To post another article from a law review and pretend it is a court decision again or are you going to actually find facts this time?

 

Sorry but the purpose of a law review is to examine the decision of the case. Hope that sheds more light on it for you.

As far as I know most G/gods are considered supernatural.

 

Guess you haven't figured out yet that the definition of religion I posted was from your link to the Cornell Law Review you posted as the source for the legsl decisions that you said clarified the definition of religion. Next time read the entire article you are posting as evidence before posting. Will make you look a bit less incompetant.

 

I doubt anything will make him look a bit less incompetent. He displays it quite well.

 

No, I think that when there is a context that invites misunderstanding, we explain what we mean. You seem repeatedly to reintroduce the idea that the problem should be solved centrally, even though I have several times pointed out that I think this can (and should) be solved within each conversation. Dictionaries will of course try to mimic the usage, but it is not a requirement for a conversation to work.

I'm not trying to disqualify the word as such, I am only arguing that you used a rare definition and didn't mention it, which in turn invited misunderstanding. Once I worked out that you're using some other definition, I've been trying to put my finger on what definition is (which is why I wanted you to correct or confirm my understanding of the word universal being a best fit to a bell curve).

So given that definitions in other senses are correct by definition (like all triangles having three sides by definition), do you suggest that by adding the qualifier "universal" to the concept of a definition, you specifically meant to say "less accurate than usual" (and expected people to understand that without any clarification)?

No, I would always argue that it should be take in context, my problem was that you didn't specify what context it was, leaving the meaning unclear. Often, the definition is clear from the context. Indeed, when you used the word universal, it looked as if it was clear from the context. Turns out it wasn't.

Ok, then what if I hypothetically was to suggest a definition of religion with the following conditions:

A man who is taller than 1 cm
A man who is taller than 2 cm
A man who is taller than 3 cm
...and so on until..
A man who is taller than 1000 cm (i.e. a 10 m tall person)

Each condition counts as one, and there are more than 3 of them. The length of human beings (corrected for gender) is famously quite well bell-curve distributed. This definition would fit very well to a bell curve, and if we say "universal only means best bell curve fit for all religions today and have known throughout time", that would mean that what I have presented is a "universal definition".

However, naïvely perhaps, the definition I provided does not strike me as a good definition of religion. It seems to me not a good understanding of "universal".

I don't have a problem with there being exceptions. I think there will be exceptions, and you seem to think so too, so we agree. My point is that when there are exceptions, the problem isn't the definitions being faulty, the problem is our human reasoning being faulty in finding the right definition.

Fundamentally, the definition is the necessary and sufficient conditions for a word to apply. If we find a definition in a book and find an exception to that definition, I wouldn't say that the definition was wrong, I would say what we found in the book wasn't actually a definition. The problem was the dictionary's failure to conform to the definition, not a failure of the actual definition.

Let's say we found a dictionary which said "a triangle is a shape with four sides". We would say that's not right. We would use the definition of triangle which says three sides, so that would be the definition and that definition would be correct. So I would say not that the "four sides" definition is a definition with exceptions, I would say it's not a definition at all, since we don't actually use the word triangle to mean that (assuming of course that the dictionary wasn't written by a tribe in which the word square happens to be "triangle" or something like that).

 

Oh? No kidding? I dont have to look to know for a fact that cornell never said God is not supernatural.

 

you are solving for the mean height, which is incomprehensible when trying to apply the word universal.

Its impossible to describe anything in context. I listed the context; supernatural = God and what did jester do, try to prove the context was wrong.

Not so, when you walk into any department store and tell them you need to buy a universal remote for your tv they point to them and say 'here they are'! It says universal right on the label and no they do not work for every tv known to man, so universal is not commonly known to fit all.

Thats a contradiction, if you go into court without stating your usage of questionable words right in the brief the court has the option to assign their own definition to the words you used. Which is why I added usage below the definition.

The bell curve I am talking about only provides for a broad definition to make it easier for people to comprehend the scope of what is considered religion since its crystal clear people do not in its present typical dictionary format.

 

I agree, that's why I was surprised that you gave instructions which gave rise to that interpretation. The height definition was a hypothetical to show that your instructions lead to some very strange conclusions.

I haven't followed any part of the thread where I am not quoted. I'm not sure what the context is here. Are you trying to argue that supernatural by definition equals God? So if you were to speak about a ghost, is it supernatural? Is if God?

Read what I wrote again. I'm not saying that interpretation is unheard of, only rare enough that it should be specified. When you talk about a universal remote, the context is that we and the store owner know what a universal remote is (technically, I would say "universal remote" has a definition of its own, effectively disconnected to its parent words, just like "Monkey's shoulder" is neither a shoulder, nor belongs to a monkey).

How is that contradicting anything I said? The court is doing what I suggest. If there is no clarification, then a very common interpretation can be assumed (or some other, justified definition) just like I did when you said "universal" and meant it as in "universal remote control".

I think the bell curve is less than clear, as my height example shows. However, I think my interpretation would be super clear, which would be that if there is a context where it matters exactly what religion is, then you spell it out. If there is a particular part of the definition which is important, then you can focus on that bit. If someone says "that's not what religion means", you can say "I'm not suggesting that this is a universal (in either sense of the word) definition, it's just how I choose to define it for the purposes of this argument" although you would have to acknowledge that that might mean that other logic which pertains to religion might no longer apply.

 

Nice try at diversion. Cornell never said the definition of supernatural is god either. But their definition of " religion" is certainly vastly superior and better reasoned than yours. Suggest you actually read the link you posted, that is if it isn't too much trouble for you to get past the title.

 

Anyone can make something simple complicated, when instead of applying the obvious context use another. Its done all the time out here.
your height example will yield average height, so its not useless however where you screwed up is everyone has a height, no one can say for absolute sure that everyone has a religion though I expect everyone with very rare exception does..

Yes that is the beauty of my definition, with little to no exception its all there, you can start with the broad and narrow it down, your way serves to reduce understanding and create arguments rather than education.

as I said, if its all theere you can break it down when its not there you end up with threads like the atheism is a religion thread, where someone will use the most narrow definition and spread it across everything as you very well know is being donw right now in that thread.

That meant you contradicted yourself.

the court is expected to ask the litigants how they use the words in the briefs if there is any doubt, not simply assign whatever they want, hell what kind of fair trial would that be.

I have news for you, even if there is a best fit meaning in context I have seen courts complete demolish someones brief usually in favor of the state.

Why dont you go online and goog its usage, its your interpretation that is rare and almost unheard of.

https://www.shape.com/lifestyle/mind-and-body/25-things-we-can-all-agree-—when-we-need-unity-most

https://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifestyle/life-truths-17-universal-truths-all-share.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/lami...hange-your-life-for-the-better_b_5998144.html

http://www.marcandangel.com/2012/04/30/12-universal-skills-you-need-to-succeed/

I mean seriously?

Yeh I went to the store one day and asked him how universal and good thing because it was not universal enough to include my tv!!!!!
As you should have seen above you are the odd man out on this, not the other way around.

Like I said everyone has height even if they are one molecule. I left it open such that should the day ever come another group or attribute can be assigned as a religion it can be added to the mix.

There is no diversion what so ever. If you are talking about the definition you quoted mine pales it. Theirs is 20 years behind the times. If you want to argue a point out of that link post it so we can all see exactly what you are talking about. If you havent figured it out I wont argue your self interpretive paraphrasing. If your argument is too weak post thats not my problem.

 

Your instructions were: Take everyone who is included in the definition, see how many of the conditions they satisfy, plot the distribution of yes answers, fit a bell curve to it, and the universal definition is the definition that gives the best bell curve. There's nothing in there about there having to be people who don't have the height/religion/whatnot, so I don't see why that would be a problem.

Of course, the conclusions become nonsensical. Could you provide clear, complete criteria for what makes a definition universal (from start to finish, so I don't have to hunt down different parts of the definition from different pages of the thread) please? And what the effects would be of "establishing" such a definition.

I serve only to reduce the illusion of understanding. For understanding, it would be sufficient to write down some observations/arguments. To phrase it as a definition seems to me only give you a justification to ignore anyone who hasn't already bought into your arguments. If you don't keep track of who is using the word in different ways, why, and what conclusions that brings, I think you're missing out a large part of understanding on the subject of that word.

Why are you assigning that thread to me, when the debaters, in particular the OP (I didn't read through all 43 pages of it), didn't do the thing I suggest they do?

How so?

Is that not exactly what I have suggested? If there is room for confusion, then it should be clarified. That's not to say that it then must hold true in any other context.

Ok, let's have a look at these.

This link does not include the word universal. They use the word unity, to describe things that "we can all agree on" (although given that it's not the right word, I wouldn't count that).

They talk about universal as "There are universal life truths that apply to all of us". Even the title says "17 Universal Truths We All Share" (my underlining on all of these, by the way). Now, the rules in question might not apply to all, but the author says that they do. While they may be wrong (or rather, just exaggerate) there is no doubt that they use the word universal to mean applying to all.

Definitions is about what the words mean, and while the writer here presented truths which might not actually apply to us all, they certainly used the word to mean encompassing all. They even spell it out in the line "There are universal life truths that apply to all of us", showing that that is what they mean by the word, even if we may disagree with whether the rules they've found actually are all-encompassing.

"These universal truths apply to you no matter where you are in life or what mistakes you’ve made in the past". Again, they may be exaggerating whether these things actually apply to all, but there is no doubt that they use the word universal to apply to "all, no exceptions".

"There are other skills, however, that can’t be avoided – skills that tie into various aspects of everyday life, that are not only useful, but totally indispensable." They don't seem to be talking about applying to all people or anything in particular, but I think it's pretty clear that by universal, he means with no exceptions. Complete rather than most.

"A universal remote can control all your Audio/Video devices" (source)
Again, it seems to me they use the word to mean "all" (they even explicitly point it out), it's just that the entire statement is an exaggeration.

I don't see how that changes anything. Everyone has a height, but only some have a height over 200 cm for instance. In fact, the number of people with different heights is famously bell-curve shaped.

 

fit a curve to it? obviously you dont have enough understanding of how a bell curve works to argue the point.

No its not sufficient, I have proven its not sufficient, the people on this board have proven its not sufficient, you have provided nothing to indicate its sufficient.

assigning? Only one post, but thats ok if you dont want to read the last page looacy, I dont blame you.

Its clarified in the definition I am working on.

CAN
CAN
CAN

Water Questions & Answers
Why is water the "universal solvent"?

Water is capable of dissolving a variety of different substances, which is why it is such a good solvent. And, water is called the "universal solvent" because it dissolves more substances than any other liquid. This is important to every living thing on earth. It means that wherever water goes, either through the ground or through our bodies, it takes along valuable chemicals, minerals, and nutrients.

https://water.usgs.gov/edu/qa-solvent.html

The Universal Solitude Of Americans: Loneliness On The Rise

A new study from Cigna finds that most Americans feel lonely.

As NPR reports:

More than half of survey respondents — 54 percent — said they always or sometimes feel that no one knows them well. Fifty-six percent reported they sometimes or always felt like the people around them “are not necessarily with them.” And 2 in 5 felt like “they lack companionship,” that their “relationships aren’t meaningful” and that they “are isolated from others.”
https://wamu.org/story/18/05/02/the-universal-solitude-of-americans-loneliness-on-the-rise/

Universal Studios Florida

You're the star here and you'll disappear into one jaw-dropping adventure after another. Dodge evil villains. Defend the earth. Face a fire-breathing dragon. In this theme park, you do way more than ride the movies—you make them come to life.
https://www.universalorlando.com/web/en/us/index.html

Universal Remote Controls: TV Remotes - Best Buy
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/tv-remote-controls/universal-remote.../abcat0107040.c?...
Shop universal remote controls on BestBuy.com. A universal remote control from Best Buy makes it easy to manage many home theater devices with just one ...

A universal remote is a remote control that can be programmed to operate various brands of one or more types of consumer electronics devices. Low-end universal remotes can only control a set number of devices determined by their manufacturer, while mid- and high-end universal remotes allow the user to program in new control codes to the remote. Many remotes sold with various electronic include universal remote capabilities for other types of devices, which allow the remote to control other devices beyond the device it came with. For example, a VCR remote may be programmed to operate various brands of televisions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_remote

well you didnt say that did you.

This is a good example why everything on the planet needs to be defined exactly in the manner I am doing it here because you cherry picked one section of the definition that describes its usage to reflect 'all' while hand waving away the section that describes usage to reflect 'most' or a 'high percentage'.

The typical broad stroke painting a subject with a narrow slice of the meaning and pretending it applies to the whole, all while preaching its usage should be clarified which I did, and what do we see.....a ****ing argument over it.

a : embracing a major part or the greatest portion (as of humankind)


b : comprehensively broad and versatile

Just sort of slipped your mind!

The typical usage of universal in society is not 'all' its typically used as most, the exact opposite your claim.

I explained my position as seen above and you refuse to accept it regardless that it is another usage described in the definition.

Once again you are the odd man out on this, not me.

 

As I said, you obviously didn't even bother to read your own link since the definition I posted came from your link to the article from the Cornell Law Review. You can go back to your post and Actually read the link and find the definition I posted at the end of the article that you posted.

And pretending twenty years is relevent in giving credibility at defining religion is hilarious. The fact is simply that the definition I posted, from the article you thought was definitive is a much better definition than yours and you have so far been unable to find any flaw in the definition.

 

Your definition is not comprehensive and broad since as you have posted, it relys on redefing several words so that the definition of those words are different from those accepted by every major dictionary, whose definitions are based on accepted uses of the words. Claiming you have an accaptable definition that relys on redefining a number of the words used in the definition is intellectually fraudulent.

 

Of course I read it, I dont agree with you thats all. I told you mine is better because theirs is not broad enough to cover everything that is considered a religion. Yo ulike swensson want me to narrow down and that is not the goal of the the thread, the goal here is to come up with a comprehensive definition that includes no less than 95% of all known religions as religions.

I never said the article was definitive, thats your spin. I posted the article in response the what I quoted, choosing to read more into it is your affair.

Oh? great then whats missing?

In what way are they different and how do you think should they be changed to match which dictionary? post it please.

I dont think so, we know that your opinion but until you want to get serious and post it I have no reason to take you seriously.

 

You keep saying the definition is not broad enough to cover everything that is considered a religion and yet you are unable to give one single example of a religion that would not fit the definition. As far as I can tell the only " religion" that wouldn't be covered is your pathetic attempt at claiming athiesm as a religion.

And hilarious that your goal is to provide a definition that covers 95% of all know religions. First of course that wouldn't be an acceptable definition and second even if you achieved it your definition would be inferior to the one I posted thst cover 100%.

 

From the Merriam Webster dictionary:

Definition of self-knowledge
: knowledge or understanding of one's own capabilities, character, feelings, or motivations

And your definition:

Self-knowledge - Careful understanding and realization of ones religion.

Do you really think those are the same definition? And we can do the same for most of your phony definitions.

 

Still nothing more than your unsupported opinion, SSDD.

Your failure to comprehend context is not my fault and its your whole approach that is phony!

Self-knowledge

is a major topic in the ancient wisdom tradition Vedanta, and is acquired after the student makes certain preparations, such as the practice of austerities, cultivating calm, freeing oneself from cravings and aversion, and then performs the ātma-vicāra, or self-enquiry.[1] This knowledge is that all things are one. The consciousness of the individual soul and the soul of God are the same.

This knowledge, while normally acquired under the direction of a guru or teacher, is not taught in the traditional sense, but is experienced directly by the prepared student, by the process of insight alone, who performs the vicāra.

Vedanta is a form of monism or advaita (non-dualism), which sees the world as being all part of a single whole. One of the earliest teachers of Vedanta was Adi Shankaracharya, who wrote commentaries which helped organize and explain the subtle concepts of the Upanishads. Shankara taught that the reason why we suffer in life is because we are seeking happiness, fulfillment, and completeness in the external world of forms, in the form of kama (sense-pleasure), artha (security), and dharma (civic duty). As one reaches the last two stages of life, one realizes that none of these things brought lasting happiness and a sense of completeness. Shankara taught that the source of our suffering is a form of ignorance. Therefore, no action will cure this affliction. The lasting remedy is in the form of knowledge alone, and this is the knowledge of the true nature of Self. Once this knowledge is attained, by direct experience, it is said that one attains a kind of lasting happiness, and this prepares one for transition out of the world of name and form, i.e., death of the body.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-knowledge_(Vedanta)

There you go swensson, its far better to start broad and work your way to the narrow, especially in cases when dealing with authority dependent academically challenged people who are incapable of realizing the broader scope of meaning of making proper distinctions between meanings or words. That is not intended to be a jab at jester, but only as an example to prove how efficient and effective broad to narrow works versus your belief narrow to broad is better.

Look how easy this was to go narrow from broad.

 

Religion is a common belief shared by a group of humans. It is usually with an implicit or explicit advocate about a future.

Atheism is a common belief of the a group of humans, they are the atheists. It is with an implicit advocate that "nothing happens after death" (the implication is that they thus don't need to worry about anything after that point).

Christianity is another common belief shared by another group of humans, and with an explicit advocate.

We humans can't possibly know directly what could possibly lying ahead. It could be good or it could be bad, which humans don't have the ability to confirm. It is thus up to our faith to believe either. This is basically the meaning of a religion (including atheism).