antishock8 wrote:LifeOnaPlate wrote:The normative use has become relatively meaningless to me, to be honest. I still use it in the normative sense, as you noted above.
I'm not sure you're going to understand this, but I'll try anyway. What you're doing is being deceptive.
Well, I
am a Mormon.
You use a word that you clearly understand has a certain meaning, understand that most reasonable people will interpret it in a normative manner, apply a new definition to it without alerting anyone of your intention, and then claim that the word you're using in a normative manner loses its definition to you when it suits you to redefine it...
I believe you are complicating matters unduly. Most times when I use the word religion I use it in its normative sense. Occasionally, as in this thread, I indulge in a deeper discussion about the nature of "religion" as I personally see it. This isn't deceptive. I was very open about describing how I understand the word, etc.
BUT, your redefinition is nonsense to which no reasonable person would understand.
I understand you don't comprehend my definition. In normal communication, when one misunderstands another, one can ask for clarification. One can do this in a variety of ways. For example, one can restate what they understood the other person to have said and ask if they understood correctly. Another way is simply saying "I do not understand. Can you clarify?"
There are, however, some folks who aren't interested in any type of civil dialog who may resort to insults. Unfortunately, they often block off the avenues of understanding they might otherwise have driven through.
In other words you're being a deceiver. I know you don't like that notion, but it's true. You really need to think about how you're conducting yourself when you're discussing ideas with other people. If you practice deceit, whether it's intentional or not, imagine how people will view you and what you're defending. It's no good.
Well, it's not really that I "don't like that notion," as much as I simply disagree with it.
antishock8 wrote:Well, I'll help you out:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+religionYou'll note that most of the definitions are pretty congruous, In other words, belief in a supernatural power is central. There are other words that would probably suit your attempts to liken non-religious types with religious types concerning belief/faith better than 'religion/religious'.
I believe one can be very religious while not believing outright in anything that can be called "supernatural." That's my point. I understand many of the normative definitions of religion, but in looking at the past regarding how the word has been used, and looking at the present, and other factors, as I have been trying to describe, I see religion as something more than the simple definitions. I'm sorry I haven't articulated my view enough for you to grasp it, but as I pointed out, I am still working on it myself. Deceptive? Maybe to you. I disagree. I've been very open in this thread.