Do you believe in God?

[BHRxRacer]

Convenient. Modern or classical?Luckily, belief is irrelevant. The "A" prefix, from classical Greek, specifically means "Absence of". Look. It. Up."Religion in god/s" doesn't make any sense.

"Theos", from classical Greek, specifically means "Deity". "Atheos" thus specifically means "Absence of deity".

"-isma", from classical Greek, specifically means "doctrine". "Theisma" thus specifically means "deity doctrine" (or "belief in god/s") and "Atheisma" specifically means "Absence of deity doctrine" - or absence of belief in god/s.Belief in no gods is a completely different concept from no belief in gods. That's why nontheism and atheism are different words for different things.

I don't remember if modern or classical, I think classical. "Absence of" pretty much equals "non", but okay. It's not religion in god, it's religion of no god. Every human has a religion.

nontheism isn't Latin, It's a made up English-Latin hybrid. You may use it differently, but you(or others) made it up.

Let's just wait.

 

[Famine]

"Absence of" pretty much equals "non", but okay. It's not religion in god, it's religion of no god.

Nope. It's no religion.

Every human has a religion.

I don't. Nor do other atheists. I wonder why you are making this claim.

nontheism isn't Latin. It's a made up English-Latin hybrid.

Actually it is Latin. "Non-" is a Latin prefix that means "not".

Non- (not) + Theos (deity) + -isma (doctrine) = No-god doctrine = Belief in no gods.

This is distinct from

A- (absence) + Theos (deity) + isma (doctrine) = Absence of god-doctrine = No belief in gods.

Of course you haven't been paying attention to your etymologies too closely. "Atheism" isn't Latin - it's Greek.

You may use it differently, but you(or others) made it up

All language is made up. In your own words...

So your problem is how they're made up rather than just the fact that they're made up, right?

Theism is the belief in gods. Nontheism is the belief in no gods. Atheism is no belief in gods.

Suck it up and move on with that in mind.

 

[Scaff]

Back up his qualifications how? I don't think he'll scan his certificates. I'll show him this discussion, ask for feedback/sources and copy paste.

So we simply have to take your word on his qualifications do we?

Sorry to say but I have no intention of doing so, particularly given that a good number of cited sources have ben provided already which quite clearly show the etymology of the word.

@Famine 's definitions would be accurate if he'd replace "belief" with "religion". That's what my friends said, and why I believed what he said years ago, because it's exactly the same in Arabic. The word "religion" in Arabic means one's collective belief, that includes the belief of no gods.

That make no sense at all.

It's not religion in god, it's religion of no god. Every human has a religion.

Please define religion and explain how I have one (because I don't).

nontheism isn't Latin, It's a made up English-Latin hybrid. You may use it differently, but you(or others) made it up.

Let's just wait.

Without some form of independent verification what we are waiting for is worthless.

 

[dddsprayshop]

O wow.. this is interesting and also boring.

Okay, my feelings about: do you believe in "GOD"
NO. i don't believe the fantasy based on the logic: "it is written or fortold, so (a) god exists".
Am i an Atheïst? I don't know, it's a word, maybe yes, maybe no.

There is something, i mean, i've had deja vu's, at least i recognized things before seen or lived it.
Is it energy? Nature? re-incarnation? Aliens? God? Not proven to me personally, so how?
God? is it that easy to explain? Just like santaclaus?
Angels for god and elves for santaclaus? Is that how it really work?
How every person on the world is helped or monitored?

A friend of mine once said the funniest and maybe true observation.
The bible is the best lie that is ever made up, it is the biggest bestseller and still holds number 1 on the bestseller list.

 

[Danoff]

So your problem is how they're made up rather than just the fact that they're made up, right?

Not entirely accurate. My problem is upon what basis one decides that a set of statements constitutes an accurate representation of reality. There are different levels of knowledge. Allow me to explain:

1) That you exist as the thinker of your thoughts

This is the most fundamental level. Only you can know this about reality and no other 100% pure knowledge can be determined to this level. You know that you exist, and that you exist in a form that is at least partially represented as the thinker of your thoughts. You might be a computer program running on a mainframe on an alien world, but whatever you are, you exist, and what you are is at least partially described as the thinker of your thoughts. The question "what if someone else is the thinker of my thoughts" is pointless, because that means you're them.


2) Logic (deductive reasoning)

Logic is the next most fundamental level. It is a set of tautologies - things that must be true by definition. If you assume A, and you assume the rule that A implies B, then you can conclude B. This much is self-fulfilling. The leap to logic is to apply any of these rules to your perceptions. There is always an acknowledged assumption about the property of the universe that you're applying logic to. For example: If gravity exists, and gravity implies that this object will orbit, then the object will orbit. We don't really know that gravity exists just as we don't know that the earth exists. We don't know that gravity will continue to exist in the future either... or the object for that matter. But if they exist - even merely as perceptions, and they exist as they have in the past, then they will be have as described.

3) Mathematics / Human Rights

These are derived from logic, the 2nd most well understood characteristic of reality. I only put them below #2 because they are derivations, really they are #2, because all derivations are is the set of rules from which they are derived.

4) Science (inductive reasoning)

Science is merely a collection of theories (models) that describe all available evidence (data). Think of science as a best-effort explanation that is required to fit an amazing set of data (all available data ever recorded). Science fits only the evidence that we have, so more evidence can require science to change. This means that whatever theory (model) science puts forth, it might have to be adjusted in the future. Science is an approximation of reality. As we better observe and discover reality, that approximation will change. Science should not be regarded as truth, but rather as an estimate. Questioning science requires questioning the data set that the science is based on. Sometimes that's easy (not much data), and sometimes it's very very hard (lots of data).

5) Probability

This is the assumption that reality will behave in a certain way because, even though inductive reasoning would tell you that it is possible that it will not behave in that way, such an outcome rarely occurs. This is, for example, the "knowledge" that when you get in your car and go to work that you will make it to work alive. It isn't actually knowledge, you may die during that trip, but you act as though it is knowledge because you estimate the chances of dying on your way to work to be low. Think of this as a form of science that gets to ignore the rare data points. In otherwords, science without the scientific method being adhered to.

6) Guesswork

This is an attempt to describe some aspect of reality with only one piece of the data set - your immediate perceptions. An example of this would be when you decide to go see a movie. You see a movie trailer or poster (that's your data set to determine whether you will like the movie). You know that your data is biased (they want to sell it to you) and you attempt to adjust for that based on some unknown criteria (a guess at how biased it is). Then, using only that limited data set which you know is flawed, you draw a conclusion that you barely have any hope of defending - which is that you have a reasonable chance of liking the movie and that it is worth the currency that it is going to cost. This is guesswork. You do this when being wrong doesn't hurt very much.

Religion is number 6.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Not entirely accurate. My problem is upon what basis one decides that a set of statements constitutes an accurate representation of reality. There are different levels of knowledge. Allow me to explain:

1) That you exist as the thinker of your thoughts

This is the most fundamental level. Only you can know this about reality and no other 100% pure knowledge can be determined to this level. You know that you exist, and that you exist in a form that is at least partially represented as the thinker of your thoughts. You might be a computer program running on a mainframe on an alien world, but whatever you are, you exist, and what you are is at least partially described as the thinker of your thoughts. The question "what if someone else is the thinker of my thoughts" is pointless, because that means you're them.


2) Logic (deductive reasoning)

Logic is the next most fundamental level. It is a set of tautologies - things that must be true by definition. If you assume A, and you assume the rule that A implies B, then you can conclude B. This much is self-fulfilling. The leap to logic is to apply any of these rules to your perceptions. There is always an acknowledged assumption about the property of the universe that you're applying logic to. For example: If gravity exists, and gravity implies that this object will orbit, then the object will orbit. We don't really know that gravity exists just as we don't know that the earth exists. We don't know that gravity will continue to exist in the future either... or the object for that matter. But if they exist - even merely as perceptions, and they exist as they have in the past, then they will be have as described.

3) Mathematics / Human Rights

These are derived from logic, the 2nd most well understood characteristic of reality. I only put them below #2 because they are derivations, really they are #2, because all derivations are is the set of rules from which they are derived.

4) Science (inductive reasoning)

Science is merely a collection of theories (models) that describe all available evidence (data). Think of science as a best-effort explanation that is required to fit an amazing set of data (all available data ever recorded). Science fits only the evidence that we have, so more evidence can require science to change. This means that whatever theory (model) science puts forth, it might have to be adjusted in the future. Science is an approximation of reality. As we better observe and discover reality, that approximation will change. Science should not be regarded as truth, but rather as an estimate. Questioning science requires questioning the data set that the science is based on. Sometimes that's easy (not much data), and sometimes it's very very hard (lots of data).

5) Probability

This is the assumption that reality will behave in a certain way because, even though inductive reasoning would tell you that it is possible that it will not behave in that way, such an outcome rarely occurs. This is, for example, the "knowledge" that when you get in your car and go to work that you will make it to work alive. It isn't actually knowledge, you may die during that trip, but you act as though it is knowledge because you estimate the chances of dying on your way to work to be low. Think of this as a form of science that gets to ignore the rare data points. In otherwords, science without the scientific method being adhered to.

6) Guesswork

This is an attempt to describe some aspect of reality with only one piece of the data set - your immediate perceptions. An example of this would be when you decide to go see a movie. You see a movie trailer or poster (that's your data set to determine whether you will like the movie). You know that your data is biased (they want to sell it to you) and you attempt to adjust for that based on some unknown criteria (a guess at how biased it is). Then, using only that limited data set which you know is flawed, you draw a conclusion that you barely have any hope of defending - which is that you have a reasonable chance of liking the movie and that it is worth the currency that it is going to cost. This is guesswork. You do this when being wrong doesn't hurt very much.

Religion is number 6.

So in other words, it's how they're made up. Okay.

More later I guess.

So we simply have to take your word on his qualifications do we?

Sorry to say but I have no intention of doing so, particularly given that a good number of cited sources have ben provided already which quite clearly show the etymology of the word.


That make no sense at all.



Please define religion and explain how I have one (because I don't).



Without some form of independent verification what we are waiting for is worthless.

Why should I take your word or @Famine 's then? How do I know you're not two 12 year old drop outs pretending to be college professors? Wow..

Would you scan your qualifications and upload them here? Really?

 

[Famine]

Would you scan your qualifications and upload them here? Really?

I'm reasonably sure that I have done, actually. That notwithstanding, I've met quite a few members on the site - some of whom won't like me but will still verify every piece of information about me - and, over the elevenish years I've been here I've built up sufficient reputation (as has @Scaff) for what I claim about myself to reflect reality.

As for why you should take our word... well you don't have to. But Scaff was kind enough to show you to an online etymology dictionary and I'm sure you have other etymological resources available to you than a friend who lives in Italy and is fluent in Latin (which is an amusing concept by itself - he'll explain to you why) and Classical Greek.

 

[Scaff]

Why should I take your word or @Famine 's then? How do I know you're not two 12 year old drop outs pretending to be college professors? Wow..

Would you scan your qualifications and upload them here? Really?

That would be why I didn't make a claim without supplying independent supporting citations.

I only ask that you do exactly as I have done.

Now I recall that you still haven't answered a question of mine, and I would appreciate it if you did.

Please define religion and explain how I have one (because I don't)?

 

[Danoff]

So in other words, it's how they're made up. Okay.

Nope. I explained that thoroughly.

 

[Liquid]

Languages and etymology entered the thread? Me sir, me! Me! Me! Me!

Can BHRx prove that his friend is fluent in Latin? On the very face of it, it sounds like being backed into a corner; "I need to prove a point about Latin. Where did they speak Latin? In what we now call Italy? Okay - I have a friend from Italy, he speaks Latin."

Given that "Italy" as a nation didn't exist until 1,385 years after the Latins/Romans last ruled that particular peninsula and that Italian is as similar to Latin as English is to Ænglisc, I would like some evidence that you are in contact with someone who is fluent in such a language. Because if they were, they'd have already proven you wrong and @Famine & @Scaff's etymological points correct.

For a start, atheism (ἄθεος) is Greek* and nontheism is Latin. You don't seem to want to understand that. As Famine said, they are different words for different meanings, whether you like it or not.

Atheism is not a religion.

*Proof your friend is fluent in this too, please

 

[TenEightyOne]

A momentarily differing note; this excellent advice from a "reader" of Viz, a satirical British comic that isn't as funny as it used to be etc. etc.

 

[BHRxRacer]

I'm reasonably sure that I have done, actually. That notwithstanding, I've met quite a few members on the site - some of whom won't like me but will still verify every piece of information about me - and, over the elevenish years I've been here I've built up sufficient reputation (as has @Scaff) for what I claim about myself to reflect reality.

As for why you should take our word... well you don't have to. But Scaff was kind enough to show you to an online etymology dictionary and I'm sure you have other etymological resources available to you than a friend who lives in Italy and is fluent in Latin (which is an amusing concept by itself - he'll explain to you why) and Classical Greek.

I'm a newbie here, and I never met you or saw anything that proves what you say so excuse me. It's also why I don't share anything about my profession, education or "measured IQ" about myself, it'll always get down to "prove it" which I won't.

Using references doesn't always prove anything. First of all, it rather makes you look like a master of copy paste. Second of all, a lot of the sources are either incorrect, inaccurate (as seen in Islam thread) or simply adjusted for political correctness.

I know what you mean regarding Latin. He told me it's difficult, and there's 1000 versions of it or something. He's fluent in Greek. I mistyped that a couple of times now I know, that I'll give you.

That would be why I didn't make a claim without supplying independent supporting citations.

I only ask that you do exactly as I have done.

Now I recall that you still haven't answered a question of mine, and I would appreciate it if you did.

Please define religion and explain how I have one (because I don't)?

I wanted to know what on earth is going on first with the "prove it" thing. If that's what things will come down to I'd rather back out of everything and not post in this section.


I did answer anyway, you said it doesn't make sense. Despite it being the literal definition in Arabic. Basically, everything you believe now, god or no god, aliens or no aliens, rights or no rights, is your own personal religion. It's the set of rules that you live your life by. That's in Arabic. Years ago I thought what you guys thought, that atheism means no religion. Then that friend came along and explained that it technically it does mean it's a religion, a religion of no god (what @Famine referred to as nontheism). I had known him for years, and it didn't just take his word for it. He had references that you guys love so much.

Nope. I explained that thoroughly.

You just divided the answer to "how they're made up" into 6 categories. 6 "how"s.

Languages and etymology entered the thread? Me sir, me! Me! Me! Me!

Can BHRx prove that his friend is fluent in Latin? On the very face of it, it sounds like being backed into a corner; "I need to prove a point about Latin. Where did they speak Latin? In what we now call Italy? Okay - I have a friend from Italy, he speaks Latin."

Given that "Italy" as a nation didn't exist until 1,385 years after the Latins/Romans last ruled that particular peninsula and that Italian is as similar to Latin as English is to Ænglisc, I would like some evidence that you are in contact with someone who is fluent in such a language. Because if they were, they'd have already proven you wrong and @Famine & @Scaff's etymological points correct.

For a start, atheism (ἄθεος) is Greek* and nontheism is Latin. You don't seem to want to understand that. As Famine said, they are different words for different meanings, whether you like it or not.

Atheism is not a religion.

*Proof your friend is fluent in this too, please

Prove you're a human with a reproductive system not just a bot.

 

[Danoff]

You just divided the answer to "how they're made up" into 6 categories. 6 "how"s.

"Made up" is the erroneous part of your claim. Logic is not "made up". It's not man made at all, at its most fundamental it is a feature of reality. Mathematics is likewise not "made up". 2+2 does not equal 5 in our universe. Mathematics is based entirely on logic, it is derivative of that more fundamental knowledge set.

 

[BHRxRacer]

"Made up" is the erroneous part of your claim. Logic is not "made up". It's not man made at all, at its most fundamental it is a feature of reality. Mathematics is likewise not "made up". 2+2 does not equal 5 in our universe. Mathematics is based entirely on logic, it is derivative of that more fundamental knowledge set.

So now you're equating rights to mathematics. Awesome. If that was the case there wouldn't be any argument about them then. Oh wait.

 

[Danoff]

So now you're equating rights to mathematics. Awesome. If that was the case there wouldn't be any argument about them then. Oh wait.

Are you saying nobody has ever argued about mathematics or logic? Yes I am equating rights with mathematics, they are both derived from logic.

 

[synchromesh]

For me at least I don't believe in god in the sense that there's some guy with a white beard in the clouds. To me there isn't "a god", there's "your god", something individual to you that you can always look up to.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Are you saying nobody has ever argued about mathematics or logic? Yes I am equating rights with mathematics, they are both derived from logic.

The word argued is wrong here. 2+2=4 (as commonly known) is not arguable or debatable. Logic, if it was proven to be logical, is binary. True or False. So no, nobody "argued" either of them. They argue theories, or try to prove whether or not logic is logic.

For me at least I don't believe in god in the sense that there's some guy with a white beard in the clouds. To me there isn't "a god", there's "your god", something individual to you that you can always look up to.

Refreshing to see something on topic.

 

[synchromesh]

I'm new to this thread, I never post in the rumble strip and I saw this and said hey, I'll give my opinion. Thanks!

 

[Danoff]

The word argued is wrong here. 2+2=4 (as commonly known) is not arguable or debatable. Logic, if it was proven to be logical, is binary. True or False. So no, nobody "argued" either of them.

No. Yes. and No.

No the word is not wrong. Yes logic is either correct or incorrect (as with rights). No it is not the case that logic and math have never been argued. In fact, for the majority of human history, logic and math were not even understood.

 

[BHRxRacer]

No. Yes. and No.

No the word is not wrong. Yes logic is either correct or incorrect (as with rights). No it is not the case that logic and math have never been argued. In fact, for the majority of human history, logic and math were not even understood.

They "argued" to understand it, not argued in the sense that once they're proven they can be debatable. Rights can't be "correct".

 

[Danoff]

Rights can't be "correct".

Why?

 

[BHRxRacer]

Why?

Show me a right that can be correct (undebatable)

 

[Danoff]

Show me a right that can be correct (undebatable)

All of them. Property, for example.

This is not the proper thread for this discussion. The Human Rights thread exists for this reason.

 

[Scaff]

I wanted to know what on earth is going on first with the "prove it" thing. If that's what things will come down to I'd rather back out of everything and not post in this section.

So you enter a debate and expect your factual claims to simply be accepted as fact without any form of independent validation or citation?

If that's the case then I suggest you start (one of the many) noise filled blogs that litter the net, as that would be a better forum for you views. Here we expect claims to be backed up, I guess we are just odd like that.

I did answer anyway, you said it doesn't make sense.

It doesn't

Despite it being the literal definition in Arabic.

Citation required.

Basically, everything you believe now, god or no god, aliens or no aliens, rights or no rights, is your own personal religion. It's the set of rules that you live your life by.

No that's a world view and moral code, neither of which is a religion, nor do they require a religion.

On your basis Santa and Unicorns are religions.

That's in Arabic.

Citation required.

Years ago I thought what you guys thought, that atheism means no religion.

How many times does it need to be explained, atheism doesn't mean 'no religion'. It means 'without religion'. Your constant attempts to re-define it to suit your own agenda is not going to work.

Then that friend came along and explained that it technically it does mean it's a religion, a religion of no god (what @Famine referred to as nontheism). I had known him for years, and it didn't just take his word for it. He had references that you guys love so much.

So supply these references, because every time I've seen that claim made its been by the religious forcing some very suspect (i.e. total bollocks) redefinition of terms.

What I am far more interested in, is what do you define as being required for a religion and why?

 

[Liquid]

Religion, n.

From the Latin religionem meaning "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods" "obligation, the bond between man and the gods"

Atheism is not a convoluted form of religion as it is a distinct mindset of being without a belief in gods. Religion by its very definition requires an active belief or observance of gods, something atheism does not have and funnily enough, means the exact opposite. And that's before one discusses the lack of doctrine, dogma, cult, manifesto and bylaws associated with religions; more things which clash with what atheism is.

Argue the toss all you want, @BHRxRacer, but you cannot change the meaning of words to suit your own world view. We are still waiting for your evidence that you have some access to a supreme knowledge of Latin and Greek; amusing in itself because your definitions have been inaccurate thus far.

As for me being a bot, I'm afraid I've got some bad news. I'm actually a dog.

 

[Danoff]

I cannot believe we're still talking about the difference between atheism and non-theism. Can we all just agree that these different concepts exist and allow ourselves to use these words to represent those concepts in this discussion?

 

[Dotini]

No discussion of atheism and nontheism can be complete without introducing the term irreligion.

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

Not to be confused with secularity.

Irreligion (adjective form: nonreligious or irreligious) is the absence of religion, an indifference towards religion, a rejection of religion, or hostility towards religion.[1] When characterized as the rejection of religious belief, it includes explicit atheism, religious dissidence, and secular humanism. When characterized as hostility towards religion, it includes anticlericalism, antireligion, and antitheism. When characterized as indifference to religion, it includes apatheism. When characterized as the absence of religious belief, it may also include implicit atheism, agnosticism, ignosticism, nontheism, religious skepticism, and freethought. Irreligion may include forms of theism, depending on the religious context it is defined against. In 18th-century Europe, the epitome of irreligion was deism.[2]

A 2012 survey found that 36% of the world population is not religious and that between 2005 and 2012 world religiosity decreased by 9 percentage points.[3] The Pew global report in 2010 noted that many that are not religious have some religious beliefs and the majority of nonreligious come from Asia and the Pacific.[4] According to one source, it has been estimated that 40–50% of non-religious people hold belief in at least one deity, or in some higher power.[5]


Non-theism can include positions of belief in a non-personal deity, such as deism, pantheism and transtheism. I think animism includes nicely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism

 

[BHRxRacer]

So you enter a debate and expect your factual claims to simply be accepted as fact without any form of independent validation or citation?

It's preposterous to have to validate who I am.

Can you validate you're a British citizen? smh

It doesn't

It does, but I understand how you feel. Don't worry, just a psychological reaction. If it did make sense to you, your life would be a lie. Your subconscious won't allow you to think that

No that's a world view and moral code, neither of which is a religion, nor do they require a religion.

Citation required.

Citation required.

Again, preposterous. @TenEightyOne said that he won't/can't argue Arabic with me. I said it in the Islam thread, there aren't any English-Arabic citations online. The best I may find are fully Arabic ones, and YOU have no means of translating them so it's pointless. Having worked briefly as an Arabic to English translator myself(citation required too?), I can tell you that even some firms or interpreters haven't got a clue about classical Arabic or etymologies of words. And don't even get me started on google translate.

Let me try to shut this thing once and for all before I started losing my temper over an internet forum.

1) Arabic is my native language. BUT OH NOZ I HAVE TO SCAN MY PASSPORT TO PROVE IT

2) I aced every (ancient/traditional)Arabic course I took through my education. BUT OH NOZ I HAVE TO EITHER SCAN MY TRANSCRIPTS OR INTERVIEW MY TEACHERS AND SCAN THEIR IDs TO PROVE THEY'RE NOT ACTORS.

3) It's literally how my Islamics university professor* defined it in a lecture, and what was written in the book. It may have been a long, long time ago, but I remember it very well. I'd lended my book to someone and she never gave it back. If you insist, I'll make a broadcast in an old group and see if anyone has a copy.


WHAT DO YOU KNOW

http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/دين_(معتقد)


I love how it literally says دين(معتقد) س , or Religion(belief) at the title. Proves what I said to @Famine , when I said his definitions would be accurate if he replaced "belief" with religion".


الدين، مصطلح يطلق على مجموعة من الأفكار والعقائد التي توضح بحسب معتنقيها الغاية من الحياة الكون، كما يعرّف عادة بأنه الاعتقاد المرتبط بما وراء الطبيعة الإلهيات، كما يرتبط بالأخلاق [1]، الممارسات والمؤسسات المرتبطة بذلك الاعتقاد. وبالمفهوم الواسع، عرّفه البعض على أنه المجموع العام للإجابات التي تفسر علاقة البشر بالكون.

Religion, a term given to the collection of ideas and beliefs that define one's purpose in life, interaction with the universe (with other humans, animals, plants, trees, space. Universe =/= space. "Universe" in Arabic originally means "becoming" or "creation"), morality and practices. It is commonly associated with supernaturals and theology. It is broadly definied as the set of answers that explains a humans relationship to the universe (see above for what universe means).


Also love how the English wikipedia uses the term "world views"


TLDR Religion = collection of inter-related beliefs you use to go about your day.

*Before anybody makes an ass of himself and assumes I was a religion major, I wasn't. We have a mandatory Islamics course for all students.

On your basis Santa and Unicorns are religions.

If they affect how you go about your life, yes.

How many times does it need to be explained, atheism doesn't mean 'no religion'. It means 'without religion'. Your constant attempts to re-define it to suit your own agenda is not going to work.

Semantics, you know what I meant. Don't nitpick, you're better than that.

So supply these references, because every time I've seen that claim made its been by the religious forcing some very suspect (i.e. total bollocks) redefinition of terms.

You're not implying I'm religious are you?

What I am far more interested in, is what do you define as being required for a religion and why?

A brain.

As for me being a bot, I'm afraid I've got some bad news. I'm actually a dog.

Prove it.

 

[Famine]

I love how it literally says دين(معتقد) س , or Religion(belief) at the title. Proves what I said to @Famine , when I said his definitions would be accurate if he replaced "belief" with religion".

"Religion in god/s" doesn't make any sense.

الدين، مصطلح يطلق على مجموعة من الأفكار والعقائد التي توضح بحسب معتنقيها الغاية من الحياة الكون، كما يعرّف عادة بأنه الاعتقاد المرتبط بما وراء الطبيعة الإلهيات، كما يرتبط بالأخلاق [1]، الممارسات والمؤسسات المرتبطة بذلك الاعتقاد. وبالمفهوم الواسع، عرّفه البعض على أنه المجموع العام للإجابات التي تفسر علاقة البشر بالكون.

Religion, a term given to the collection of ideas and beliefs that define one's purpose in life, interaction with the universe (with other humans, animals, plants, trees, space. Universe =/= space. "Universe" in Arabic originally means "becoming" or "creation"), morality and practices. It is commonly associated with supernaturals and theology. It is broadly definied as the set of answers that explains a humans relationship to the universe (see above for what universe means).

I'm curious... are you genuinely trying to use the Arabic definition of the Arabic equivalent of the word for "religion" to prove that the English language is wrong to define "religion" as it does?

A brain.

Does my dog have a religion? She has a brain.

 

[BHRxRacer]

I'm curious... are you genuinely trying to use the Arabic definition of the Arabic equivalent of the word for "religion" to prove that the English language is wrong to define "religion" as it does?

No. @Scaff didn't believe how I defined it in Arabic, I explained.

edit-

Rather, how it actually IS definied in Arabic (not how I personally defined it). Which is absurd.

Does my dog have a religion? She has a brain.

You love that **** don't you. A sound human brain. There, better?