Defining 'Religion'

well there are about 3000+ of them please provide your data or once again cite it.

I am not going to continue to remind you that you need citations, if you want your changes to be considered

 

How about you cite religions that don’t have any belief in supernatural agency? Oh, and you can’t use the government allowing non-religions to be legally protected as an example of them being religions.

 

again the purpose of the thread is to define religion using combined authoritative attributes and if you wish to challenge the decisions of the authoritative sources you need to do that with other authoritative sources which again I repeat now for the 3rd time requires you to cite them.

Likewise you need to cite that nontheists are seen as nonreligions if you want your points to be considered in this thread.

Its becoming quite obvious that you have no citations to back your hypothesis.

If you wish to argue what is and what is not a religion without official citations do it here http://www.politicalforum.com/index...gical-hipocrisy.537453/page-3#post-1069379809

 

Sure, here it is:

What about them? Dictionaries are doing a decent job at describing languages (and indeed spend a lot of effort making sure they do it well) both accurately and easy to comprehend. It seems to me failure to use them is not an issue on the part of the dictionaries.

That being said, judging from your posts, both in response to me, in response to others and in response to no one (such as OPs), it seems to me you fail to grasp which misunderstandings you invite. I don't mean to defend anyone who actually has misused the language, but given how you write, it would not at all surprise me if their misunderstanding stemmed more from your writing than from them not knowing how a dictionary works.

I've restated what has come across from your posts. If what I've been repeated back seems like pretzels, it's because that's how it's come across to me.

Well, firstly, those who write dictionaries get around to a lot more words than you do, and secondly, if you had done it half as well as they had, I wouldn't have any of the comments I've had on your approach.

Do you have another example? Obviously, to me it looks like I'm making sense and you don't. Any idiot could proclaim themselves easy to understand. If I am to assess if it's you or someone else who's causing the misunderstanding, it would be biased of me to consider my own posts.

You stated in your OP that your definition was how the word "should be used going forward". That seems to me the opposite of fluid.

That you are suggesting some other approach which you can't seem to make understood.

Yes, I think your approach would be more confusing than the status quo. The status quo has (in some way or other) made itself prevalent throughout English language use (as well as all other languages to the best of my knowledge).

I agree. However, in defining "religion", you've tore open a more fundamental issue regarding definitions, and our disagreement over the word universal was a good example of one of the issues I had with your arguments.

Yes, the "universal" definition of religion. I have a pretty good idea of what you mean by religion and frankly, I don't find it super interesting. I am much more interested in the linguistics of what you've been saying.

The explanation you have given on the bell curve is not unambiguous (indeed, if it works as I suspect it does, it is both incomplete and currently misleading). Of course, I wouldn't want to accuse you of that unless I understood what you meant, so I'm giving you the change to make yourself understood.

What role does the 99% play? If it was to supersede this, let's say at 99.5%, do you think that it stops being a universal definition?

I haven't seen you mention any such presumption. That'd be a very important part of that full explanation I keep asking you about. I don't think you've mentioned it in any previous response to me.

Again, you would have to specify how that presumption works. Does it also have a 95% rule? If so, given that there are a lot more things that are not commonly called religions than things that are commonly called religions, that presumption has a much bigger impact than the inclusion criteria. Even more so if there is not a 95% rule.

 

this is where it gets exponentially tedious with you. I make a comment, you make a presumption. I say you are making a presumption and you come back with:

You managed to grow salt lake from one crystal.
If not the dictionary then you.
It was or should have been perfectly clear that i used the word universal to mean 'most' not 'all', again you chose all and then made a federal case that it should be all instead of most when most is line 2 of the definition.

and you were wrong because you were not able to connect the simple dots between my stated target of 95-99% which required universal to be interpreted as 'most'. Instead you argued it had to be all. Most likely you didnt bother to look it up and read line 1 years ago and never looked back to learn it had an alternative meaning.
Most cases I automatically connect the dots, and when I dont I ask the intended meaning you simply ran with your version. Had I not said 95-99 you might have had a case.

As I said before the wrong things are better.

I agree

Most certain is, its tests the 'universality' of it. If you cant find an exception then its purpose has been achieved.

 

However that doesnt make sense and since you posted no reason I have to conclude it doesnt make sense to you either.

communication leading to understanding not a one way street, it takes 2.

just because its been that way iyo it should stay that way huh? Oh did you take a poll?

It supports the need for a more accurate definition as I have set out to approach. Its a great example of what we go through in most so called debates out here. Didnt matter how much I tried to explain to you what it meant and the intended use, 'most' not 'all' you insisted the only use should be all and are still arguing over it.

I dont think you do and if you want to get into the linguistics you really need to start by accepting that the word universal can be used in the context of most.

its every religion the definition applies to, which is why I told you to try and find one that it did not apply to since the exception proves the rule, and you didnt even try.

You didnt just ask me the intended usage instead you demanded it should be all, just like the bell curve, I have explained that several times as well

Maybe but you have thin ice to stand on since you demanded I use universal your way rather than the way I intended it to be used.

no need to apologize for the shitty dictionaries, they totally suck, and here is a perfect example of our supreme arbiter on the usage and meaning of English words; 'The Oxford Dictionary': That stated (atheism is the belief that God does not exist) and today says: (atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods) and it just sort of skipped their asshelmet minds to include the original (atheism is the belief that God does not exist) in their later versions. It just sort of magically evaporated on them. Its the purpose of DICTIONARIES to record and maintain records and bring forward the word meanings of the past. 1) 2) 3) 4) and so forth. They did not do that.

That is editorial dictionary fraud not to include the usage spelled out in previous editions for any word.

Yet they brag:
More than 100 years in the making, The Oxford English Dictionary is now universally acknowledged as the world's greatest dictionary—the supreme arbiter on the usage and meaning of English words, a fascinating guide to the history and evolution of the language, [and proven above to be a lie] and one of the greatest works of scholarship ever produced. The Washington Post has written that "no one who reads or writes seriously can be without the OED." Now with the Compact, the world's greatest dictionary is within the reach of anyone who wants one.

Now for the illterates, spammers and thread derailers the subject which is the topic in this COLOR text above is DICTIONARY not atheist. Any comments made to argue atheist or atheism or lack of belief or any such **** instead of DICTIONARY is a thread derail from the intended meaning.

anyway the point is you are apologizing for which is promotion of the continuation their **** work, and sorry for all the emphasis on the word 'dictionary' its not intended for you.

 

I disagree, or you have extremely low standards.

moral
adjective

1. of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. noun
   a. the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc.
   b. the embodiment or type of something.
   c. morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.

So where in that definition do you see that ethics is the 'study' of morals? (philosophy)

You dont, most people have no clue what so ever that there is a distinction.

The dictionaries today are so politically corrupt you can wipe your ass with them.

The only way you would know a distinction even exists is if you 'research' it, the days of simply looking up a word and expecting to get a core definition are long gone.

Ethics - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
Jump to Moral psychology - Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct. ... As a field of intellectual inquiry, moral philosophy also is related to the fields of moral psychology, descriptive ethics, and value theory.


ethics
noun
plural noun: ethics; noun: ethics

1. 1.
   moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity.
   "medical ethics also enter into the question"
   synonyms: moral code, morals, morality, values, rights and wrongs, principles, ideals, standards (of behavior), value system, virtues, dictates of conscience
   "your so-called newspaper is clearly not burdened by a sense of ethics"
   • the moral correctness of specified conduct.
     "many scientists question the ethics of cruel experiments"
2. 2.
   the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.

Its literally hidden under several layers to make it hard to form a good word usage basis.

You can apologize for them if you like, I have higher standards and they suck.

 

Why would you expect to find anything about ethics in the definition of moral? Sounds what you're looking for is more a encyclopaedia entry than a definition. It's not impossible to include "ethical" as a definition (indeed some dictionaries do) but that's different from telling you that ethics is the study of morality.

Definitions are about semantic bounds, not a list of everything that has anything to do with the topic. It's not there to tell us everything about the concept (that would be closer to an encyclopaedia) but to give us an understanding of when it stops being an applicable word for a specific concept/whatever.

If you have mixed up some of the responsibilities of a dictionary and an encyclopaedia, that would explain both why you think dictionaries are doing it wrong and why I (and likely linguists and similar) disagree with the way you put together definitions.

 

I wouldnt but there is thats the problem not the solution.

nope merely the senses the word was established, and not added because one idiot on the planet used it in some way like the oxford claims to do but doesnt.

Im sure they can figure out a way to use hub cap if they wanted to. The way you are suggesting should be under synonyms not exchangeable with the target word.

They can be but there is no such rule.

Thats not the problem the problem is they are using in appropriate word combinations with insufficient explanations, if they leave all the garbage out there would be no need, however all uses should have a source and how that source used it.

Not at all there is no formal line as you would try to impress us, the object of a dictionary is to promote clear understanding of usage etc, not muddy the water, that is the responsibility of people posting on political forums.

We have your opinion but aside from that you have not cited anything 'wrong' with my definition

 

I find it's often not clear what you mean.

I interpreted your statement (the end of the posts in this link) as that there was a presumption included in your definition that anything that isn't a religion shouldn't be covered by the definition of religion. Then again, it is unclear, you write "its" (I assume you mean "it's") but it's not clear what the "it" is referring to.

How was that to be clear before I asked for clarification? Universal in the "all" sense would make perfect sense in the context.

I didn't argue that it had to be all, I argued that that's the most straightforward interpretation. You are allowed to use another interpretation, but unless you're deliberately trying to be misunderstood, it warranted clarification.

There is more than one way to interpret "95-99%" and there was also talk about a bell curve, which I'm still not sure how it's supposed to be interpreted.

Sounds about right (well, I didn't look it up). That's how we deal with the vast majority of words.

This was primarily before you had said anything about 95%.

I don't understand what you mean. Why are wrong things better?

So you are trying to tell me what logic I am allowed to use to dispute your logic?

 

Where?

"the senses the word was established", I don't understand your grammar.

I trust the Oxford dictionary more than you on the topic of how people use their words. Not only are they actually experts on the subject, you seem to pick up particularly skewed understandings of words.

They can be both. "Feline" and "cat" are both (at least for the noun feline).

Unclear what you're referring to. Are you saying they can be about semantic bounds or that they can be lists of everything you might want to know? There is a rule for what a definition is.

I don't see any of that as a problem. If you can't make yourself understood either way, then a dictionary is not going to help you. I don't have a particular problem with you using universal to mean most, but if you can't see how that would require clarification, then you seem to have a poor grasp of how your language is interpreted. At that point, no wonder you disagree with everyone you write to.

No, a dictionary's purpose is to reflect the language. That can of course be used to get a clear understanding of language, but it's not going to compromise its intent to reflect the language because you can't deal with it.

I've barely even read your definition. My disagreement does not lie in whether you have captured some interesting aspect about religion, but in that your approach to how definitions are decided and how words are used seems to clash with reality.

 

Likewise with universal it can be both 'all' OR 'most'.


universal

1 : including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception; especially : available equitably to all members of a society

• universal health coverage

2 a : present or occurring everywhere
b : existent or operative everywhere or under all conditions

• universal cultural patterns

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

• a universal state

• universal practices

b : comprehensively broad and versatile

• a universal genius

4 a : affirming or denying something of all members of a class or of all values of a variable
b : denoting every member of a class

• a universal term

5 : adapted or adjustable to meet varied requirements (as of use, shape, or size)

• a universal gear cutter

• a universal remote control

I cant be responsible for your failure to read and interpret what I said in context by your expectation of me writing a thesis on how every word is used as this can go on endlessly with every word in the thesis as well.

Its the readers responsibility to comprehend which slot is being used and which context fits.

There are as many entries for universal as 'most' as there are for universal as 'all', it is not rare what so ever.

Blind misplaced trust.

They are not picking popular usage for all words, the political words they pick their favorite authors, not popular usage.

thats a false analogy, surprised you would even go there since it should be clear to you that its not a case of cant deal with it, but a case of correcting dictionary promoted politics when they blend the words like ethics and morals with no explanation when they are in fact 2 completely different, ethics being the study or philosophy review of morals.

While its true that you asked for clarification you went on to argue and make a federal case that my usage was so rare it was incorrect even though I gave you several links demonstrating universal is used as most. You didnt look at the 'or' in the definition and simply accept it.

I have a valid complaint about these dictionaries that pick and choose which words to 'properly' express and which to turn to mud.

Its seems the OED doesnt have problems stating origins when its non political!


Home British & World English 420

Definition of 420 in English:
420
noun
US
informal

• 1usually as modifier Used to refer to cannabis or to the act of smoking cannabis.
  
  ‘a 420-friendly hotel’
  ‘we already got the obligatory 420 joke out of the way’
  1. 1.1 20th April (abbreviated 4/20 in the US), considered as an occasion for smoking or celebrating the smoking of cannabis.
     ‘thousands of cannabis smokers converged on Hippie Hill for the annual 420 celebration’
     ‘Happy 420!’

Origin
1970s: apparently coined as a code word by high school students in San Rafael, California in 1971 with reference to 4.20 p.m., the time at which they regularly met to try to locate an unattended plot of cannabis plants.

Look what a perfect job the can do when they arent pushing a political agenda!

 

As you said before, communication is a two way street, it is the responsibility of both parties to make communication work. Sloppy readers and sloppy writers both cause misunderstandings.

Do you suggest that the number of entries to either interpretation makes it more or less valid? Or the number of uses of the word? In either case, I'd like you to back that statement up.

Right, but trust in some dude on a forum couldn't be misplaced?

Do you suggest you have a more rigorous method than the OED?

I'm not particularly seeing that in the OED, but I'm getting significant vibes of that from you. Your visit into linguistics seems remarkably correlated with specific non-linguistic arguments you make. At the same time, dictionaries seem consistent with the usage I observe among others, on both sides of any political spectrum I have bothered with.

That's because I wasn't making the point that your interpretation was incorrect per se, but that it was unclear.

I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make here. Dictionaries have different approaches when it comes to etymologies, synonyms, origins, etc. of words.

 

sure but universal was perfectly clear.

yup

yep, look at the assinine way they define agnostic. its no wonder brits are so ****ed up in their usage. Most cases I would take a webster any day before that POS.

I dont. So you making that up? sample? citation? anything?

well there is only 2 ways to understand it, how damn hard can it be?

Not much of a difference, in fact they usually copy one another, choose the same sources.

 

Religion is a bunch of bull. Think about it...
If you're born in India you're probably Hindu. If you're born in America you're probably Christian. If you're born in Pakistan you're probably Muslim. That's a coincidence, isn't it? Always born into the right god. Isn't that lucky. All those others are going to hell but you were born into the right god so you're going to heaven.

 

thanks for your post, however this thread is about 'defining' religion on a reasonable academic level, something that could be placed into a dictionary, not your rants, agreement, or disagreement toward religion. There are countless threads you can express your feelings in, please refrain from doing so in this thread as it is off topic and will be reported as such.

Otherwise if you have something constructive to offer the purpose of this thread please contribute.

Here is where we left off, I suggest reading the previous posts however to review past arguments rather than repeat them.

The attributes chosen are a comprehensive list compiled from philosophers, dictionaries etc, not random opinions so that is what we are referring to as 'constructive'.

 

Why the word salad? To define the term "religion", or any term, really, one has only to copy paste a dictionary definition that one finds online. And it should be the one definition the poster personally prefers, which then becomes necessarily the one correct definition for everyone in the universe, because the poster copy/pasted it. And, well, that makes it absolute fact, now and forever.

I learned that from a poster named kokomojojo.

 

its a necessity that in trying to communicate anything that at least one definition applies to what is being conveyed and yes for what is being conveyed often time one and only one definition applies and other times not so much.

The word religion is one of those words that has a multitude of legitimate attributes and the problem with that word at least on this board is people close their eyes to the several variants that are as I said legitimately labelled a religion.

 

Just to save everyone some time:

You are not-so-cleverly trying to place all manner of belief systems on the same shelf as religion. In this way, you plan to craft a tenuous, overwrought equivalence between evidence based paradigms and paradigms based on faith. As you are completely unable to elevate faith-based paradigms to the status of rational credibility enjoyed by evidence based paradigms, you are left no choice in your crusade to craft this equivalence but to undermine and debase evidence based paradigms.

Basically, your house looks like 5hit, and there is nothing you can do about it. So,instead, you are trying to vandalize your neighbors' houses in order to make yours look better by comparison.

 

Oh? What makes you think that? Give me an itemized list that is an example of all "manner of belief systems" and lets take a closer look at this. If you see something in the definition that does not pertain to an attribute of religion I too want it out of there.

 

Because this attempt is tired and transparent, and this thread is just another reiteration in a long series of similar attempts by you and by others.

 

ah... thats too bad, rants are not very helpful and have to be disquallified, I thought you had something constructive to add. Thanks anyway.