Lots of bashing for the belief of God....

[trestres]

sapphi_snake said:

trestres said:

GameOver22 said:

sapphi_snake said:

trestres said:

sapphi_snake said:

trestres said:

sapphi_snake said:

trestres said:

He never brought up religion...

He's going by the philosophic study of God. Someone doesn't necessarily need to be religious to believe in God. I agree with you though that religions are fabricated, but he never brought up religion, you did.

Theologians aren't necessarily religious either.

That just makes no sense.

No, you make no sense. By the strict definition EVERYONE is religious, because to be religious "re - ligare" in latin, means to try to find about one's origins. Every human does this, even if you are atheist you want to know how everything came to be, there's a urge in everyone to find out about the beginning and then again about the end.

Then you brought up religion as the sole cause why changing definitions was wrong, but YOUR definition of religion is flawed, since everone is religious. You seem to believe that in order to be religious you need to believe in God. No, every human is religious by nature.

But in the sense that you mean "religious", which is to follow a strict set of rules given by a certain God and his canon, then no, someone can still believe in God and not be "religious".

Religion is defined as a "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe". So no, not all people are religious.

Look at the word etymologically and it doesn't mean that, at all.

The etymology isn't important, as words are just signifiers, that themselves have no meaning if they're not assosicated with a concept (signified) to form a sign.

Very true! No offense to our previous discussion, but that is the best thing you have posted so far. Its not really that etymology is unimportant. It just isn't necessarily relevant to understanding the current meaning of the term.

Well, that's true definitions do evolve, but the multiple meanings could still be valid, and most of the times, the original meaning prevails. Just like omnipotence has the classical meaning and the modern meaning, religion is the same. And most specifically "religious". Perhaps the term religion does agree with the definition he gave me, but someone being "religious" is totally different.

Even atheists are religious if going by the original meaning of the word, since I doubt any capable human can affirm that he never thought about his origins and about his ending.

You'd be surprised how often that's not the case.

Looks like our discussion was a misunderstanding, since we were both using different definitions for a same word. Both valid, but in different contexts.