The trouble with atheism

Originally posted by Alfheim
Thats just one defintion of athiesm. There is implicit atheism and explicit atheism. You are passing off implicit atheism as the only example. That is incorrect.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Ok thats your opinion...basically. As Pittman seems to put it that the disbleief in supernatural [B]for him is part of athiesm.[/b]

Originally posted by Alfheim
Well again I think thats just a matter of opinion. Yes athiesm and thiesm cannot be considered to be a religions but they can be.

Originally posted by Alfheim

Dont really see how that makes any differnce to the debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Implicit atheism and explicit atheism are subcategories of atheism coined by George H. Smith (1979, p.13-18). Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it".[B] Explicit atheism is defined as "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it", which, according to Smith, is sometimes characterized as antitheism.[1] [/B]

And in your own words? Just to check whether or not you actually understand what you quoted.

Originally posted by Alfheim

Dont see what that has to do with anything. I predict your going to accuse me of not knowing what a meme is therefore my arguments are null and void.

No afterlife.

Originally posted by Alfheim
How does it not support my point?

[B] Does it or does it not say that atheism is a doctrine?? Isnt that one of the things ive been saying.[/B]

no, what you have been saying is that atheism is a belief on par with religion.

Doctrine is much different

Psychologicaly, the "there is a God" and "there is no God" would be represented in the brain as patterns of firing in certain regions, and in that sense, to our brains, there is no real way of differentiating the types of belief.

However, if we move out of functional neurology and into behaviour, there is almost no comparison. The "There is a God" promotes people to behave in predictable (depending on faith) ways, and the title of their religion has some descriptive power with regard to the individual.

"atheism" does not work this way, neither does "theism". Both are doctrines, however, neither of them are belief systems. Atheistic people still have ideologies that replace those of a particular religion, and they are better described by those. The term "atheist" will tell you nothing about who I am, however, "naturalist" (which I would identify myself as) would give you a fairly good grasp of what I am all about.

Oh, and as a point of clarification, I wasn't so much accusing you of vilifying atheism (you did pick a pair of socially unacceptable examples of "atheistic religion though) as saying that the term atheism is, in its most basic sense, a prejoritive term that is a product of a worldview that burnt atheists at the stake. I'm sure as a Hethan you can understand how words can be made up or changed to support the view of the religious authority

Originally posted by Alfheim
Dont see what that has to do with anything. I predict your going to accuse me of not knowing what a meme is therefore my arguments are null and void.

No afterlife.

I wouldn't have used the term if I didn't think you knew it. Contrary to what you think, I actually respect your intellect, if not necessarily your world view. I don't think the "belief is truth" doctrine comes from an underactive intellect 😉

thats not a bad example, though I don't necessarily agree with it.

I don't personally see what afterlife has to do with God, however we may be in a situation where there are few ideologies that have no god but afterlife.

Possibly some parapsychology that looks at ghosts or spirit "energy" (lol) would claim that life "energy" lives on after death without the need of God.

To say that atheism is the denial of all supernatural is to confuse atheism with naturalism or materialism. Both have atheism as a doctrine of their philosophy, if expressed in diferent words.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Yeah you can.

Look at point number 5.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evangelical

–adjective
1. Also, e·van·gel·ic. pertaining to or in keeping with the gospel and its teachings.
2. belonging to or designating the Christian churches that emphasize the teachings and authority of the Scriptures, esp. of the New Testament, in opposition to the institutional authority of the church itself, and that stress as paramount the tenet that salvation is achieved by personal conversion to faith in the atonement of Christ.
3. designating Christians, esp. of the late 1970s, eschewing the designation of fundamentalist but holding to a conservative interpretation of the Bible.
4. pertaining to certain movements in the Protestant churches in the 18th and 19th centuries that stressed the importance of personal experience of guilt for sin, and of reconciliation to God through Christ.
5. [B]marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause. [/B]

Originally posted by Alfheim
Yeah so? My point is to some people it is and it can be just because its not for you doesnt make a difference.

Originally posted by Storm

Are you even aware what those terms mean, because you have shown to use concepts you only have a vague understanding of. [/B]

Ok I tell you what i'll define them and you tell me if I dont understand them.

implicit athiesm - Simply the disbelief in God, nothing else period eg baby.

explicit athiesm - The deliberate disbelief in God.

Originally posted by Storm

Which supports that atheism doesn' t consist of an integrated system of doctrines, beliefs, and ideas, unlike a religion.

No it doesnt. Maybe they are not connected to him but to some people it is. If you look at some religons the reason why the supernatural exists is because of God. You dont have to be a rocket scientist to realise that in Satanism they dont believe in miracles because they dont belive in God. They dont believe in the afterlife because they dont belive in God, they think martydom is stupid because there is no afterlife etc. Satanism is like an anti-religon.

Originally posted by Storm

Contradiction? [/B]

So theism has to be a religion? It cant just be a belief in god.

Originally posted by Storm

What I say doesn' t have to make a difference. [/B]

Er its a discussion forum.

Originally posted by Storm

And in your own words? Just to check whether or not you actually understand what you quoted.[/B]

Ive done it already.

Originally posted by Storm

Incorrect. [/B]

Your opinion?

Originally posted by inimalist
no, what you have been saying is that atheism is a belief on par with religion.[/B]

Im saying it can be and for some people it is, but this is not the case for everybody.

Originally posted by inimalist

Doctrine is much different[/B]

Ok help me out....

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/doctrine

1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Furthermore...one of the meaning of the word religous is to be consicentous about something. Having a doctrine about a belief can come under the classification of a religion.

Originally posted by inimalist

Psychologicaly, the "there is a God" and "there is no God" would be represented in the brain as patterns of firing in certain regions, and in that sense, to our brains, there is no real way of differentiating the types of belief.

However, if we move out of functional neurology and into behaviour, there is almost no comparison. The "There is a God" promotes people to behave in predictable (depending on faith) ways, and the title of their religion has some descriptive power with regard to the individual.

[/B]

Uh, sorry dont understand why this is relevant.

Originally posted by inimalist

"atheism" does not work this way, neither does "theism". Both are doctrines, however, neither of them are belief systems.[/B]

What the difference between a beleif system and a doctrine?

Originally posted by inimalist

Atheistic people still have ideologies that replace those of a particular religion, and they are better described by those. The term "atheist" will tell you nothing about who I am, however, "naturalist" (which I would identify myself as) would give you a fairly good grasp of what I am all about.[/B]

Ok dont see how this changes anything.

Originally posted by inimalist

Oh, and as a point of clarification, I wasn't so much accusing you of vilifying atheism (you did pick a pair of socially unacceptable examples of "atheistic religion though) as saying that the term atheism is, in its most basic sense, a prejoritive term that is a product of a worldview that burnt atheists at the stake. I'm sure as a Hethan you can understand how words can be made up or changed to support the view of the religious authority[/B]

Yeah.

Originally posted by inimalist

I wouldn't have used the term if I didn't think you knew it. Contrary to what you think, I actually respect your intellect, if not necessarily your world view. I don't think the "belief is truth" doctrine comes from an underactive intellect 😉[/B]

Ok but your comments you made before were pretty insulting. I did not get that impression.

Originally posted by inimalist

thats not a bad example, though I don't necessarily agree with it.

I don't personally see what afterlife has to do with God, however we may be in a situation where there are few ideologies that have no god but afterlife.[/B]

Well this is the thing. I dont thinl this applies to everybody but im sure for some atheists it will. Look at Satanism its like its the opposite of Chrisanity. God exists therefore such and such exists, God doesnt exist therefore such and such does not exist.

Alot of religous people believe in certain things because God created them eg miracles. Im pretty sure there are some athiests who dont eblive in miracles and that is due to the fcat there are no gods or god.

Originally posted by inimalist

Possibly some parapsychology that looks at ghosts or spirit "energy" (lol) would claim that life "energy" lives on after death without the need of God.[/B]

I know.

Originally posted by inimalist

To say that atheism is the denial of all supernatural is to confuse atheism with naturalism or materialism. Both have atheism as a doctrine of their philosophy, if expressed in diferent words. [/B]

Im saying that is the case in SOME cases but opinions will vary.

Originally posted by ThePittman
The reason there is a #5 is that the term has now reflected the degree that these Christians followed their faith, which is why the term is in the 5th spot. You have about 20 different definitions of this word and only 1 doesn’t refer to Christianity. [/B]

That still doesnt change the fact that atheism could be a religon.

Originally posted by lord xyz
And you base that on nothing, [/B]

Were have you been? Er the dictionary, encyclopeadia britannica and the eytmology of the word religion.

Originally posted by lord xyz

you even reject my post due to arrogance only. [/B]

Again read above and stop getting me mixed up with yourself. Dont get it twisted.

Originally posted by Alfheim
That still doesnt change the fact that atheism could be a religon.

Originally posted by ThePittman
What the hell does that have to do with my post, you asked me why the term "evangelical atheist" was so stupid and I pointed out why.

Because I thought were implying that becsue of this Atheism cant be a religion.

Originally posted by ThePittman

As for someone making Atheism a religion I guess someone could but that is just as stupid as making an apple an orange, it is no longer an apple but an orange just as making Atheism a religion it is no longer Atheism.

No its not, because as we discussed changing atheism into a religion does not change the orginal meaning of the word.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Because I thought were implying that becsue of this Atheism cant be a religion.

No its not, because as we discussed changing atheism into a religion does not change the orginal meaning of the word.

The problem is that you are trying to broaden the terms of these words so much that they can be applied to anything and everything. In about 99% or every definition or meaning of the word “religion” implies a type of spiritual belief, just because you find one that doesn’t refer to a spiritual belief doesn’t mean that is the meaning of the word. Language especially the English language is not a dead language and one word can have a myriad of different definitions and meanings because of common use, dictionary will put in the common terms and also the uncommon terms.

Originally posted by ThePittman
I’m not talking about changing the meaning of the word,

Neither am I. 😐

Originally posted by ThePittman

someone could create a doctrine and whatever to make Atheism a “religion” but there very definition of the word and what it means to be an Atheist would be removed and you would change it from Atheism to some form or new religion. If you change something from what it was to something completely different can you still call it that like with the apple and orange, if you made the apple into and orange you can’t still call it an apple?

The problem is that you are trying to broaden the terms of these words so much that they can be applied to anything and everything. In about 99% or every definition or meaning of the word “religion” implies a type of spiritual belief, just because you find one that doesn’t refer to a spiritual belief doesn’t mean that is the meaning of the word. Language especially the English language is not a dead language and one word can have a myriad of different definitions and meanings because of common use, dictionary will put in the common terms and also the uncommon terms.

Ok let me explain again. The word athiest is disbeleif in god or gods even when you go back to the orginal meaning.

Now the original meaning of the word religion are many. It has different meanings some of them to do with spiritual some of the are NOT spiritual.

http://www.etymonline.com/

c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegare "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300.

Read what this guy has to say.

"To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name." [Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885]

Therefore if you look at the orginal meaning of the word religon some of it applies to being spiritual some of it does not. In fact it implies that anything that you are zealous about can be a religion.

This is NOT from the dictionary this is me going back to the original meaning of the word. This is an eytmologist dictionary.

ok, wait, i get what you are saying

so ya, language is subjective and mailable, so if you manipulate words you can make them mean whatever you want

so yes, in a strictly bastardization of language type of way, "atheism" can be a "religion" if we use completely modified definitions of the words.

The problem is, religion isn't just a word. And words are only valuable as symbols for things. Religions are cultures. From any objective analysis of religion and atheism there is no practical similarities.

So from an academic, ivory tower look at strange definitions of words you might be right, but in reality what you have come up with is meaningless as a symbol for any type of communication

Originally posted by Alfheim
Neither am I. 😐

Ok let me explain again. The word athiest is disbeleif in god or gods even when you go back to the orginal meaning.

Now the [B]original meaning of the word religion are many. It has different meanings some of them to do with spiritual some of the are NOT spiritual.

http://www.etymonline.com/

c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegare "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300.

Read what this guy has to say.

"To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name." [Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885]

Therefore if you look at the orginal meaning of the word religon some of it applies to being spiritual some of it does not. In fact it implies that anything that you are zealous about can be a religion.

This is NOT from the dictionary this is me going back to the original meaning of the word. This is an eytmologist dictionary. [/B]

The reason that people are trying to label Atheism as religion varies but most of the time it is to try and compare them to something that they are against or don’t believe in trying to belittle or question their views. It would be the same as me comparing a Christian to a Satanist; they at the root are the same in belief. The definition that you are using and trying to compare is basically a group of people with the same common interest, the only reason you would use the word religion is to inflame people that are atheist, why not use a more common word?

Originally posted by ThePittman
As I have said that is only one definition of the word and 99% of all of it refers to a spiritual belief.

What the hell are you talking about? That was the word evnaglelical not religion. If you bothered to read my post its not just one meaning that is non-spritual there are several.

Originally posted by ThePittman

By that same token religion would also include, law, video games, sports, cars, reading books, studying and so forth. They could also be called cults, sects, and deviants and so forth because all of them would mean a group of people.

Yes religon is anything you are comitted to. Im not making this up thats what its eytmology means.

Originally posted by ThePittman

The reason that people are trying to label Atheism as religion varies but most of the time it is to try and compare them to something that they are against or don’t believe in trying to belittle or question their views. It would be the same as me comparing a Christian to a Satanist; they at the root are the same in belief. The definition that you are using and trying to compare is basically a group of people with the same common interest, the only reason you would use the word religion is to inflame people that are atheist, why not use a more common word?

Look this is winding me up.

1. You dont like wiki
2. You dont like the dictionary
3 You dont like the orignal meaning of the word religion. (which was your idea in the first place).

The fact is that the original meaning of the word can apply to anything. I know it sux and you dont like it but read it again.

c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegare "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300.

Reading through the original meaning of the word common sense dictates its about anything you are committed to.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Were have you been? Er the dictionary, encyclopeadia britannica and the eytmology of the word religion.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Again read above and stop getting me mixed up with yourself. Dont get it twisted.

Originally posted by Alfheim

Reading through the original meaning of the word common sense dictates its about anything you are committed to.

ok

and if "Religion" can mean anything, it looses all of its explanatory power as symbol. Symbols, and therefore language, are only useful because they convey information. You have removed all the information that the term religion carries for an academic evaluation that supports whatever your motive behind calling atheism a religion is.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, wait, i get what you are saying

so ya, language is subjective and mailable, so if you manipulate words you can make them mean whatever you want

No im going back to the ORIGINAL meaning of the word religon. The same way I did with atheism. If you look at the orignal meaning of atheism Buddhism is not a religon because some Buddhists belive gods.

Originally posted by inimalist

so yes, in a strictly bastardization of language type of way, "atheism" can be a "religion" if we use completely modified definitions of the words.

Im not modifying anything im going back to the orginal meaning.

Originally posted by inimalist

The problem is, religion isn't just a word. And words are only valuable as symbols for things. Religions are cultures. From any objective analysis of religion and atheism there is no practical similarities.

So from an academic, ivory tower look at strange definitions of words you might be right, but in reality what you have come up with is meaningless as a symbol for any type of communication

Look all I know is this. The orginal meaning of the word religon are several. Here are some.

1. To read over and over again
2. To be careful
3. To be consicientous

Now do you think its a stratch of the imagination and unreasonable from this to deduce that anything you are zealous to or comitted to can be a religion?

Originally posted by inimalist
ok

and if "Religion" can mean anything, it looses all of its explanatory power as symbol. Symbols, and therefore language, are only useful because they convey information.

Tell me what you want me to do? I want you to tell me what yopu want me to do. That what the eytmology says not me. If you have a problem take it up with the people who created the site.

Originally posted by inimalist

You have removed all the information that the term religion carries for an academic evaluation that supports whatever your motive behind calling atheism a religion is.

Your doing it again your insulting. What the hell do you mean motive? 🤨

Doesnt it eytmology mean that it can apply to anything???? Am I saying that because I want it to say that or is it actually what its saying??

Originally posted by lord xyz
The dictionary, encyclopeadia britannica and the eytmology of the word religion...what? You need to finish that sentence there.

I dont need to finish anything.

Originally posted by lord xyz

What? You answered my post with something completely irrelivant,

Yeah sure.

Originally posted by lord xyz

don't blame this on me because I followed your mistake and still proved you wrong.

Whatever makes you feel happy.

Originally posted by Alfheim
No im going back to the ORIGINAL meaning of the word religon. The same way I did with atheism. If you look at the orignal meaning of atheism Buddhism is not a religon because some Buddhists belive gods.

Im not modifying anything im going back to the orginal meaning.

aside from the fact that I believe your interpretation is wrong (I'll get to this in a moment) going back to the origional meaning of the word (even if we assume it has nothing to do with the divine) specifically because it has different meaning than the modern usage of the word IS MANIPULATING the word, and speaks volumes about the subjectivity of language. This is a VERY important point. Language changes, people's experience with words change and therefore so does the meaning of those words.

More examples of this would be "incredible" or "gay". And the vast majority of words do not mean the same thing as the combination of the words they are derived from, such is the nature of language.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Look all I know is this. The orginal meaning of the word religon are several. Here are some.

1. To read over and over again
2. To be careful
3. To be consicientous

Now do you think its a stratch of the imagination and unreasonable from this to deduce that anything you are zealous to or comitted to can be a religion?

ok, now, see how you have highlighted 3 VERY select meanings? lets take a look at the wonderful etymology of religion you posted:

c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power,"

wow, the first sentence says that in 1200ad, the term religion was invented to describe the life of monks and belief in the divine. well, strike one.

from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.);

ok, so going as far back as the latin origins of the word (5th century ad) it speaks of what is sacred and the life of monks again. Strike two.

according to Cicero, derived from relegare "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods."

so here we have a senator from the Roman government, some 2 thousand years ago, saying that it comes from read again, however this is contrasted by all the etymology done since then that connects it with the idea of the bond between man and god. Lets just say this was a foul ball, still 0-2 count.

Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens.

ball one I guess /shrug

Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300.

you sir, are OUT! We'll say it was a pop fly for effort though

Of particular importance here is that "legere" is also the origin of the word lecture. So by your interpretation, is reading the same thing as lecturing?

not to mention you have never answered the point about linguistic symbols or atheistic memes.

Originally posted by Alfheim

Your doing it again your insulting. What the hell do you mean motive? 🤨

Doesnt it eytmology mean that it can apply to anything???? Am I saying that because I want it to say that or is it actually what its saying??

im very much not insulting you

I however do take a hobby in language, especially in semantics. Etymology is a much different field of linguistics. Etymology deals with origins and roots of words, semantics with meanings.

I'm sure even the wiki for semantics is decent, you should check it out.

Originally posted by Alfheim
What the hell are you talking about? That was the word evnaglelical not religion. If you bothered to read my post its not just one meaning that is non-spritual there are several.

Yes religon is anything you are comitted to. Im not making this up thats what its eytmology means.

Look this is winding me up.

1. You dont like wiki
2. You dont like the dictionary
3 You dont like the orignal meaning of the word religion. (which was your idea in the first place).

The fact is that the original meaning of the word can apply to anything. I know it sux and you dont like it but read it again.

c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegare "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300.

Reading through the original meaning of the word common sense dictates its about anything you are committed to.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=define:religion&spell=1

You are also getting me confused with others, I don’t have a problem using wiki or dictionaries, however they are not the end all of the word but just the common definitions of the word. Yes by the very root of the word you could call Atheism a religion but only because the root of the word only means a group of people with a common view, but why would you call it a religion when 99% or the world uses it to refer to a spiritual belief? I could go around calling Christians cultist, it is an accurate term with the meaning of the word, yes but why would I do that but to inflame them.

Originally posted by inimalist
aside from the fact that I believe your interpretation is wrong (I'll get to this in a moment) going back to the origional meaning of the word (even if we assume it has nothing to do with the divine)

Eventhough thats NOT what I said. 🤨

Originally posted by inimalist

specifically because it has different meaning than the modern usage of the word IS MANIPULATING the word,

Er do you know the modern meaning of the word religon can apply to everything as well.

Originally posted by inimalist

and speaks volumes about the subjectivity of language. This is a VERY important point. Language changes, people's experience with words change and therefore so does the meaning of those words.

Take it up with the eymologists not me.

Originally posted by inimalist

More examples of this would be "incredible" or "gay". And the vast majority of words do not mean the same thing as the combination of the words they are derived from, such is the nature of language.

Yeah and the modern meaning of the word religon can aplly to anyhting you are commited to as well.

Originally posted by inimalist

ok, now, see how you have highlighted 3 VERY select meanings? lets take a look at the wonderful etymology of religion you posted:

Again did I or did I not state that there were spritual meaning to the word religon? 🤨 Please are you going to stop insulting me?

Originally posted by inimalist

[b]c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power,"[/B]

Yeah I know.

Originally posted by inimalist

wow, the first sentence says that in 1200ad, the term religion was invented to describe the life of monks and belief in the divine. well, strike one.

Yes I know.

Originally posted by inimalist

[b] from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.);

ok, so going as far back as the latin origins of the word (5th century ad) it speaks of what is sacred and the life of monks again. Strike two.[/B]

Sure

Originally posted by inimalist

[b]according to Cicero, derived from relegare "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods."
[/B]

Well there are two examples there that do not refer to anything spirtual neccesarily. Not one but two.

Originally posted by inimalist

so here we have a senator from the Roman government, some 2 thousand years ago, saying that it comes from read again,
however this is contrasted by all the etymology done since then

Bro I don think all the other defintions predate cicero actually.

Originally posted by inimalist

that connects it with the idea of the bond between man and god. Lets just say this was a foul ball, still 0-2 count.

Er not it actually uses the word OR.

"to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods."

Therefore it can mean either place an obligation on or bond between humans and gods.

Originally posted by inimalist

[b]Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens.

ball one I guess /shrug[/B]

Er no theres three.

1.Bind fast
2 Place an obligation on
3.To be careful

Originally posted by inimalist

[b]Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300.

you sir, are OUT! We'll say it was a pop fly for effort though

Er thats after Ciceros time. So ciceros defintion is more orginal inst it?

Originally posted by inimalist

Of particular importance here is that "legere" is also the origin of the word lecture. So by your interpretation, is reading the same thing as lecturing?

At the end of the day that is one of its meaning dont shoot the messenger.

Originally posted by inimalist

not to mention you have never answered the point about linguistic symbols or atheistic memes.

Yeah I did, you remember the bit where I said no afterlife. You decided to forget that now.

Ok heres my take this is the meaning refering to religon.

1. 1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows,"

2. "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power,"

3."religious community,"

4. respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods,

5. "particular system of faith"

6. "recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher, unseen power"

7."bond between humans and gods."

There four that are not partuclary to do with religon.

1. "go through again, read again,"
2. "to bind fast"
3. "place an obligation on,"
4. "careful,"
5."scrupulous, exact" (Im actually not to sure what this means.)

So basically there 7 meaning refering to religon and 5 not refering to religon. So basically were going to ignore the other 5?

Secondly the earlist recordings of the word religon come from Cicero they seem to predate everything else, but I would like a sceond opinion on this. So if we want to go back to the original meaning it didnt start off with anything to do with religon. From my understanding the dictiuonary uses figures like 1200c and 1100c next to cicero it says 5c isnt that earlier?

Originally posted by ThePittman
For both evangelical and religion both, look at the varying sources and 99% of them all refer to a spiritual belief. This is the common meaning of the word.

With evangelical yes, not with religon. I listed 5 meanings that dindt have anyhting to do with spirituality. I think the ealirest one didnt have anyhting to do with it.

Originally posted by ThePittman

You are also getting me confused with others, I don’t have a problem using wiki or dictionaries, however they are not the end all of the word but just the common definitions of the word.

Yeah well why were you moaning? I know there not the end of the world

Originally posted by ThePittman

Yes by the very root of the word you could call Atheism a religion but only because the root of the word only means a group of people with a common view, but why would you call it a religion when 99% or the world uses it to refer to a spiritual belief? I could go around calling Christians cultist, it is an accurate term with the meaning of the word, yes but why would I do that but to inflame them.

Look it was your idea to look through the root meaning of the word not me. Your argument was even if people have a new meaning for a word thats not what it means im just doing what you asked me to do, now you wanna change your argument?