[_ Old Earth _] The origins of the universe

[saved4life]

The way dictionaries work is people apply the word in different situations, and the "dictionary people" eventually include the "misuse" of a word as a new "use."

This is actually the way that languages evolve (minus the "dictionary people"). Thus, what you perceive as religion is not held by the consensus. The word religion can properly and adequately be used to describe anything held with "ardor and faith."

I will not debate this point, both dictionaries cited have given at least one definition of the word, equal to every other definition of the word, which defines religion in a way that does not carry a connotation of spirituality, deity, or supernatural.

BL

First thing, there are "dictionary people." They sit on committees (such as The American Language Association) that shape the direction of the language and try to keep its integrity.

The last definition of a word is always the less-employed and most specific to a particular minority usage.

If you tell a person you are religious, they will assume you are not an atheist, and rightly so.

Just because some people say that "surfing" or "rock n roll" is their religion, and that you can look up that usage in a dictionary, doesn't mean that a person who then equates that with being a Muslim or a Christian is being intellectually honest or even sensible.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

I said I wouldn't debate this... I can't believe I still am.

If someone said "Surfing is my religion," that would be considered slang. Note that there is not a reference to the fourth definition (under Webster's) as being a slang usage. Also of importance is that you can believe in something "religiously" without being "religious."

Please note that these "dictionary people," properly called editors, enter words and their definitions based on popular usage, not on "keep[ing] its integrity."

http://www.webster.com/service/howwordsgetin.htm

This is a moot point. Your assertions of absurdity are the same as one who continues to claim that 2+2=3 even after being shown a mathematical textbook. I will not debate it any further, period.

BL

 

[saved4life]

I said I wouldn't debate this... I can't believe I still am.

If someone said "Surfing is my religion," that would be considered slang. Note that there is not a reference to the fourth definition (under Webster's) as being a slang usage. Also of importance is that you can believe in something "religiously" without being "religious."

Please note that these "dictionary people," properly called editors, enter words and their definitions based on popular usage, not on "keep[ing] its integrity."

http://www.webster.com/service/howwordsgetin.htm

This is a moot point. Your assertions of absurdity are the same as one who continues to claim that 2+2=3 even after being shown a mathematical textbook. I will not debate it any further, period.

BL

Wrong. Here's the last definition of the link I posted:

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Surfing is an "activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

According to the dictionary, surfing is a religion.

You are dead wrong. You have no idea that there are governmental agencies charged with defending the integrity of the language??? They do not just let popular usage defile the language.

When they do, it reduces communication. This is a prime example! You people calling atheism a religion instead of an absense of religion!!

Dictionaries are tools to help facilitate communication, not obfusicate it. Obviously Christianity is a religion in the 1st sense of the definition, and atheism is certainly not.

Debate over. I win. :

 

[Blue-Lightning]

ROFL! Governmental language protectors??? :

Whew! That was a good one. Maybe you have confused English with French or Spanish?

!:

BL

 

[saved4life]

ROFL! Governmental language protectors??? :

Whew! That was a good one. Maybe you have confused English with French or Spanish?

!:

BL

The ALA gets funding from the same source as the U.S. Library of Congress. It is a de facto governmental agency.

You're ignorant.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Perhaps you could give me a link to something about them? Otherwise this is just another cockamamy conspiracy theory.

BL

 

[saved4life]

Perhaps you could give me a link to something about them? Otherwise this is just another cockamamy conspiracy theory.

BL

I don't know if they have a website, but you can do a search on them.

Have you written a college essay paper?

Who makes the grammatical rules by which your papers are formatted...and graded? Who makes up the rules for how your sources are cited? Who makes the decisions whether a source is properly cited or plagarism? (Which is against the law!)

You think something as important as the language of the country wouldn't have a governmental hand in it????????

 

[Blue-Lightning]

I believe you are referring to the MLA (Modern Language Association), not the ALA, which to my knowledge does not exist. The MLA sets guidelines for English grammar, syntax, bibliographies, formatting, etc, and is arbitrarily accepted by various groups as authoriative. There are additional guideline setting associations, such as the APA, "Chicago," and "Trebulan." Again to my knowledge, none of these entities declare definitions or words valid to the English language other than to declare slang and/or colloquialisms unappropriate for proper English.

Dictionaries are the sole deciders of which words enter and leave their respective dictionaries. Should a word become common or understood within the English language, that word and its definition(s) are introduced. This is why you may find a small amount of variation within multiple dictionaries.

BL

 

[saved4life]

I believe you are referring to the MLA (Modern Language Association), not the ALA, which to my knowledge does not exist. The MLA sets guidelines for English grammar, syntax, bibliographies, formatting, etc, and is arbitrarily accepted by various groups as authoriative. There are additional guideline setting associations, such as the APA, "Chicago," and "Trebulan." Again to my knowledge, none of these entities declare definitions or words valid to the English language other than to declare slang and/or colloquialisms unappropriate for proper English.

Dictionaries are the sole deciders of which words enter and leave their respective dictionaries. Should a word become common or understood within the English language, that word and its definition(s) are introduced. This is why you may find a small amount of variation within multiple dictionaries.

BL

MLA is a separate association. The ALA certainly does exist and gets governmental funds.

Anyway, calling atheism a religion is like calling a thin person fat (as in phat!) or the sun cool (as in "that's one cool sun!")

Just because popular usage will chip-away at the original meaning of a word doesn't mean that people who are having a conversation shouldn't be aware of the main meaning of a word, and not point to ancillarily definitions to detract from the actual contextual usage.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

You have yet to show me any information about the ALA and I have yet to find anything about it on the internet. I would think, working in a library, that I would have heard of it before, but who know's....

Now, let's get another thing clear. Although it sounds odd and perhaps opposite of what you are familiar with, one can call atheism a religion. Understanding that religion does not necessarily indicated a belief in a deity or the supernatural, atheism can be a religion. It sounds odd to you, I know, but it is 100% correct.

I think that you are so adamant about your version of the word religion because you detest your conception of the word religion so much. Either way, both fit nicely into the term belief system.

BL

 

[saved4life]

You have yet to show me any information about the ALA and I have yet to find anything about it on the internet. I would think, working in a library, that I would have heard of it before, but who know's....

Now, let's get another thing clear. Although it sounds odd and perhaps opposite of what you are familiar with, one can call atheism a religion. Understanding that religion does not necessarily indicated a belief in a deity or the supernatural, atheism can be a religion. It sounds odd to you, I know, but it is 100% correct.

I think that you are so adamant about your version of the word religion because you detest your conception of the word religion so much. Either way, both fit nicely into the term belief system.

BL

I know what you're saying, but I still disagree with it.

Rather than it being my aversion to religion that makes me object to people calling "atheism" a religion, I see it as religious people trying to equate secularism with faith..as if it somehow puts them on the same ground.

I also don't like the word "belief" used in relation to scientists or agnostics because it also denotes faith...but let's not go there. :

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Your assumption that there is no god(s) is a position taken in faith. The reason being that it is scientifically impossible to prove a non-existance, and as a result, you must make your decision based on faith. Whether or not that faith is based on intelligent and informed knowledge or not is another question for another day.

While faith can refer to having faith in the chair that you sit in every day without first checking it all the way to faith in the existence/nonexistence of a deity, I do not think that anyone would try and equate your faith to faith in God. They are very separate although based on the same act.

BL

 

[saved4life]

Your assumption that there is no god(s) is a position taken in faith. The reason being that it is scientifically impossible to prove a non-existance, and as a result, you must make your decision based on faith. Whether or not that faith is based on intelligent and informed knowledge or not is another question for another day.

While faith can refer to having faith in the chair that you sit in every day without first checking it all the way to faith in the existence/nonexistence of a deity, I do not think that anyone would try and equate your faith to faith in God. They are very separate although based on the same act.

BL

Eh, let's not go there.

I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic. I don't say there's no god, but I act/live as if none of the world religions know either.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Good. I respect an agnostic's opinion of spirituality much more than I respect an atheist's.

BL

 

[saved4life]

Good. I respect an agnostic's opinion of spirituality much more than I respect an atheist's.

BL

I'm an extreme agnostic, though! :

...meaning that I don't ever hold out any hope for being converted later in life. I've had too many incidents happen in my life where I thought God was talking to me, but realized it was just my crazy mind. :

I figure if it is so subtle that it could all be your mind's doing, then it's not God talking to you. God wouldn't be up there in heaven thinking, "hmm...maybe I should have been a bit more obvious with showing him that it was me talking to him...kinda like what I did for Moses and Noah." :

 

[Blue-Lightning]

I know what you're talking about. I too had the same kind of thoughts until I got my "burning bush."

BL

 

[saved4life]

I know what you're talking about. I too had the same kind of thoughts until I got my "burning bush."

BL

I read your post on how you converted when you put it up a while ago. I respect that.

My threshold for belief in seeing God's hand in everyday life is just very high.

For example, a person who believes in God might think that the rain that helped stop the wildfires in so. Cal was God's work.

For me to think it was God's work, the fire would have had to just have stopped spontaneously in an instance...without the natural interaction of things that either keep a fire going (WIND!) or slow it down (RAIN!).

Anyway...nice talkin' to ya, and sorry if I was snippy. :

 

[victorhadin]

I hate to interrupt you guys when you are evidently having so much fun, but this thread does have an initial subject matter which we might talk about... :wink:

 

[saved4life]

I hate to interrupt you guys when you are evidently having so much fun, but this thread does have an initial subject matter which we might talk about... :wink:

I say threads should be able to go on as many tangents as they want...just like real conversations.

:

 

[Featherbop]

Well, lets see.

God created the universe it laws, everything else. God knows how it all works. If he wants to operate under His own rules, he would know how to.
If He doesn't, its still not a problem.

Existance. What annoys me is that when people say: It doesn't make sense that God would exist. But I can sometimes sympathyze. Its important not to rule something out that you don't understand.
But anyway, God existed before tyhe creation of time, but before that Its not possible to know. Somethings just can't be fathomed.

But here are some possibilities:

God is something that could never be non-existant. He must always be there. Hard to ex[plain. I'll have to thnik about this more.

And I forgot #2.

Wow, I should really just quit.