David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > "Gametech" <voltronalpha at hotmail.com> writes: > >> David Dyer-Bennet wrote: >>> "Gametech" <voltronalpha at hotmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> Religions : >>>> >>>> 1 aBelief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers >>>> regarded as creator and governor of the universe. >>>> bA personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief >>>> and worship. >>>> 2 The life or condition of a person in a religious order. >>>> 3 A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings >>>> of a spiritual leader. >>>> 4 A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or >>>> conscientious devotion. >>>> >>>> I'd use example 4 to best describe the broad scope of religions, >>>> which IN *no* way asserts the existence of a non-material >>>> world and I'd do so because some religions do not assert the >>>> supernatural, for benefit below is zeal and conscientious. >>> >>> This definition exists to cover phrases like "a religious devotion >>> to fine wine", and has nothing to do with the sort of religion we're >>> discussing. >>> >> err wouldn't that make the word like an adjective then? I think >> purely you've decided that anything that interferes with your >> ability to believe religion means only what you think it means is >> irrelevant > > English words cross those boundaries every day, but I can phrase it so > as to use the noun if you prefer: "Wine is his religion". And that statement means something entirely different to me. > >> It HAS EVERYTHING to do with the *kind* of religion I'm discussing, >> sorry if I like a duller knife to describe religion than you do. > > What religions do you feel you need to bring that definition in to > cover? Islam, christianity, judaism, hinduism, buddhism, and the tao > and shinto beliefs seem to fit fine under the more central > definitions. As do wicca, most forms of modern paganism (can't think > of an exception, but I'm not an expert there), and the LDS (mormons). > What religion do you feel needs to be included in this discussion that > *doesn't* fit? They seem to fit? They *All* fit under definition #4 Oh and there are quite a lot of people whom refer to Agnosticism as a religion, and there are many references to the agnostic church. agnostic.com? ( I don't know whom is the authoritive website on that religion) how could that not need definition #4 to exist, under other definitions of religion it would be contradictory.