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.

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.

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.

There might be instances where the meaning of a term never changed or isn't context-sensitive. My point, and I think the same point that sapphi_snake was making is that the term "religious" does not have that same meaning today. Point being, when someone asks me whether I'm religious, they are most likely not asking me whether I have thought about my origins or end.

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

Scoobes, at the start of my post I admitted that I am no doctor or have any kind of advanced degrees besides an associates. I am just trying to be honest with the board members that my life profession is not the study of the universe, or the beginnings of life. Many times in forums people speak as if they are the end all authority on everything and make people believe they are some kind of professional. However, this does not make me dumb nor does it make me ineligible in a debate. I understand you think I am dumb for my belief in a higher power according to your first post on this topic. In the same regard I personally consider it foolishness to believe there is absolutely no higher being or God in existence. I do not however believe you are dumb personally and I expect you do not think I am dumb other than my belief system. Just the fact that you have abstract thought and can make arguments for your beliefs proves that you are smart and take time to try and do research in your education endeavors.

I never said you are dumb and I'm sorry if I implied it (I was tired yesterday so I probably came off as cranky). I simply stated that your analogies make little sense in the contexts you presented.

I will first begin by replying to your argument on chaos within the human body including the issue of the appendix. you said:

Chemistry and physics also explain much of the complexity in the universe and will constantly strive to make the information more accurate. You say things work in unison, and they will.... for a while. For instance, what's the appendix for? (other than to randomly kill you). Science explains it as an artifact of our evolution and had a use at some point. Things work in unison, until they don't. You're placing order in the chaos of the human body.

For so long many medical professionals and doctors alike have been asking the question of what the appendix is even for. As we know many times this organ can become infected due to stuck bacteria and causes the need for it to be removed. Many people have been able to live happy lives without their appendix. This is true. You also gave arguments that we will know more as we learn more and use new instruments to find those new truths. Well, through studies universities and research facilities have been finding out there is evidence to support that the appendix indeed helps support the immune system. It is full of lymphoids and killer cells that support your digestive system in getting rid of bad bacteria and the like. So indeed it does have a purpose. And doctors do not always just take it out anymore but may try to administer antibiotics to save the appendix. Also remember that the body has the ability to compensate for loss of certain organs. For instance we can have a kidney taken out and the body will naturally compensate to the other kidney. That is signs for order and design in and of itself. Also the gull bladder can be removed and our amazing body will compensate for the its bile creation. But, we must not forget that all of these organs do have a purpose and are there for a reason. You may ask, "then if we can live without them, why have them?", because they help make our quality of life better. Our bodies are better off without having to compensate for these organs. If the appendix is removed the body has plenty of other sources of lymphoids and killer cells. I agree the appendix is much less important but it does assist the body's function as a whole.

Again you seemingly put human design concepts into chaos. The human body is far from a perfect machine, the appendix is just one case. The eye is far from perfect, genetic defects have survived in significant portions of the population, virtually everything in the world will seemingly increase the risks of getting cancer and I still manage to bite the inside of my tongue (that's actually a joke by Dara O'Brien but I felt it worth putting in). You say the body can survive and compensate for the removal of an organ, but that in no way suggests design. The body will adapt to the changes, yes, but if the body is so designed, why remove it in the first place? Many people have genetic defects from birth which mean they have to undergo surgery in order to survive. It's either the chaos of nature or an incredibly poor design.

What you have to remember is that whilst the body has evolved and adapted to the environment of the Earth, a lot of it (and the world) still doesn't work in harmony. The small slice of the universe we see in our short lives appears to work because as human beings we put things into patterns and models so we can understand them.

For example, even a simple concept such as the molecular bonds in different molecules is simply a model we've put forward. We consider it fact because it works everytime and have maths that suggests it is true, but the actual mechanisms for such things could be different. Our minds create a model in order to allow us to grasp these concepts and put order to the chaos in the universe. The order and design you see says more about us as human beings (in terms of psychology and interpretation) than the universe itself.

You will probably think this is one of the dumbest things you have heard based on what you have already stated, but here goes: I think that science actually proves a higher being (creator) and disproves there not being a higher being. Indeed to have science you must have processed thought, logic, and evidence. You can give me all sorts of models and calculations the scientists have made but there is by no means to prove the beginning of space, time, and matter. It is impossible to prove with complete conclusion the first building block and how it was set in motion to begin the universe. So I admit no one can affirmatively prove there isnt a higher being, and no one can affirmatively prove there is a higher being. We use science and logic to make guesses about the beginning, but no one officially observed and documented it. There are more holes in the belief of atheism than theism. I have questions for you:

Where did the space for the universe come from? Where did matter come from? where did the laws of the universe come from? Where did energy come from? How is it that matter was given the properties to automatically organize itself? How did life learn to reproduce itself?

This is where my earlier comment of you not having a huge scientific background shows. You've obviously studied science but you don't seem to understand the different thought processes in science and faith. You contradict yourself by first saying you think science proves the existence of a higher power then admit there is no affirmative proof. Your belief that a higher power exists is faith, not science.

You also say there are more holes in atheism... but that's not actually possible as atheism isn't really a belief as such. Quite the opposite. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a higher power. Nothing you presented is actually evidence of a creator and you admited as much, so all those "holes in atheism" are equally "holes in theism" because theism doesn't actually offer a full explaination, just a "higher power". The difference is that science will constantly try to plug any holes in our knowledge and further expand it, whilst faith will remain static.

The questions themselves show that you're not distinguishing between faith and science. Faith automatically invokes a creator as an explanation to the ways of the universe. It's actually a somewhat lazy way to think about it because no true understanding has been gained. Scientists will instead thrive to answer those questions with hypothesis, observation and evidence. It will continue to look for the answers and self-corrects as more evidence is presented. We don't have all the answers yet, science will damn well keep looking.

For example, 3000 years ago, a similar question would have been, "Why do we have day and night?". Back then, stories about gods explained that away. Now we have more information available and we know it's because the Earth rotates on its axis.

The last question for instance, we're likely very close to an answer. My present understanding is that simple nucleic acid catalysts formed that could eventually catalyse replication of itself. That eventually lead to the development of life. 

No scientist can give you a definite answer on any of these even using their models and calculations. Can you have the pieces to a pencil sharpener in a can, shake up the can, throw it into the air and then it automatically establish order and become a pencil sharpener? no. No matter where you see chaos present in our universe there is also order to keep it all together. There is in fact laws in place. Can dead matter create the laws of the universe? For that matter what made the dead matter? the huge holes are an endless cycle. I argue a higher being is in the realm of science, because the order of the universe and everywhere proves it. What was it that established the law of gravitational pull so that our planet would be able to revolve around our star? For all planets to orbit their home star?

I conclude that you cannot view the universe and not see some form of established order in place. Tell me how you could explain this.

I think my responses above have covered most of this. For your last point, it says more about our interpretation of the universe than the universe itself. We place order and models to allow us to understand the world/universe. Even the concept of a creator is an ordered model, just one that lacks empirical evidence and observation.

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