Dear AJ Philips,

I do not need to prove what the religious process is because it's irrelevant: all I need to show is that religious people for 1000's of years referred to religion as a process rather than as organisation(s).

If you or someone else genuinely wanted to learn about this process, then I could indeed go into its details privately, but in the context of this discussion all that matters is that billions of people over several millennia have used the term 'religion' to describe a process that is sacred to them and its derivative 'religious' to describe those who try to base their life on that process. Whether or not you respect that process and whether or not you believe that it leads anywhere, is irrelevant.

Yes, I made a mistake by describing that process to you here instead of concentrating on the essence of this discussion.

As per your claim that I would commit the Etymological fallacy, all I can and need say is that we, religious people, have been wronged by dictionaries. Perhaps you were not aware of it, but if you continue using the dictionary's definition even after I alert you to it, then you become an accomplice to this identity-theft. Note also that the claim "I just used the dictionary" is dishonourable similar to the infamous claim "I just followed orders".

To make it easier for you, you don't even need to invent a new word for the way you use 'religion': I think the word you are after is 'Creed', along with its derivative 'Creedal'.

I claim that some creeds are typically more religious than others, but I'm well aware that without first reaching an understanding as to the nature of the religious process, there is no way I could prove it to you. Yet, this claim is meaningful and well understood among those who do understand the religious process, be they of different creeds or of no creed at all, including possibly some of the readers of this thread.

Dear Yuyutsu,

<<I do not need to prove what the religious process is because it's irrelevant…>>

You do need to prove what your idea of the religious process is if you are stating it as fact and suggesting that it corrects or invalidates what others say about religion.

Had you taken my advice and presented your claims as opinion instead of fact, then you would still bear a burden of proof, but it would be well within your rights to say, “That’s just what I believe, so bugger off”, if I harassed you for evidence of your claims.

<<If you or someone else genuinely wanted to learn about this process...>>

Oh, I’d be fascinated to learn more about this process you speak of. Understand, however, that if you claim it to be the one true process, then you will bear a burden of proof regarding that claim.

<<... in the context of this discussion all that matters is that billions of people over several millennia have used the term 'religion' to describe a process that is sacred to them and its derivative 'religious' to describe those who try to base their life on that process.>>

Are you now going to invoke the argumentum ad populum fallacy to support the Etymological fallacy? If the above is all that matters to this discussion, then that’s precisely what you would be doing, because the context of this discussion is that your understanding of religion is the right one and that those who criticise religion are, therefore, attacking something that is not actually religion.

Once again, if you are going to suggest that what you say corrects or invalidates what others say, then you bear a burden of proof. You need to demonstrate why you are right and others are wrong. The best you’ve done to achieve this, so far, is to label the (arguably) altruistic suicide-bomber as selfish when it could easily be said that your desire to rid yourself of your ego and selfishness is also selfish, since it would (presumably) benefit you.

Continued…

...Continued

<<Whether or not you respect that process and whether or not you believe that it leads anywhere, is irrelevant.>>

Indeed it is.

<<Yes, I made a mistake by describing that process to you here instead of concentrating on the essence of this discussion.>>

That essence being, of course, that your understanding of religion is the correct understanding, and that the critics are attacking a kind of strawman.

Once again, your only mistake was to assert as fact that which you could not demonstrate.

<<Perhaps you were not aware of it, but if you continue using the dictionary's definition even after I alert you to it, then you become an accomplice to this identity-theft.>>

The whole idea of me pointing out your committing of the Etymological fallacy was to demonstrate that this isn't the case at all. Do you not appreciate the significance of committing such a fallacy?

<<Note also that the claim "I just used the dictionary" is dishonourable similar to the infamous claim "I just followed orders".>>

So you’re now accusing me of the Nuremberg defence? You think that adhering to a dictionary definition of a word, and its common usage, is similarly dishonorable to killing Jews simply because one is ordered to? I can at least demonstrate that killing Jews is wrong; you haven’t yet demonstrated that your understanding of what constitutes religion is the true one.

You are becoming hysterical.

<<To make it easier for you, you don't even need to invent a new word for the way you use 'religion': I think the word you are after is 'Creed', along with its derivative 'Creedal'.>>

But “creed” doesn’t embody the institutional nature that seems to inevitably result over time from what you believe religion to be.

By insisting that everyone else come up with a new word for what we refer to as "religion", you’re engaging in Etymological-fallacy-esque thinking. It should probably be you, and the relatively few who agree with you, who need to come up with a new term.

You can have “schmeligion”, if you like. I don’t think I’ll be needing it anymore.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<Oh, I’d be fascinated to learn more about this process you speak of. Understand, however, that if you claim it to be the one true process, then you will bear a burden of proof regarding that claim.>>

So you expect me to provide an objective proof for a subjective process? You must be kidding!

The only proof for a subjective process is to undergo this process yourself (something which I never asked or expected you to do).

But you knew it all along...

<<Are you now going to invoke the argumentum ad populum fallacy to support the Etymological fallacy?>>

No, I am only invoking our intellectual-property rights. The use of 'religion' to describe dysfunctional organisations (to which most of us do not even belong), is akin to someone else using our TradeMark which we attach to our products after investing in them for generations with diligence love and care, to sell their own inferior and faulty products. This becomes even more serious if we are then being sued or stoned for the faults of those products which aren't ours.

<<Once again, if you are going to suggest that what you say corrects or invalidates what others say, then you bear a burden of proof.>>

Yes, I can prove that this intellectual-property is ours: vast amounts of scripture show that we've been using the term 'religion' for thousands of years and that by this we referred to the process we undergo, rather than to any organisation(s), let alone dysfunctional ones. There is nothing that I need to prove beyond that, including the details or results of the process itself.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<But “creed” doesn’t embody the institutional nature that seems to inevitably result over time from what you believe religion to be.>>

Religion (which you claim is only what I believe it to be), does not necessary result in institutions. Occasionally it does, which the world then sees, but most of the time it doesn't, which then nobody takes notice. Also, there are organisations (Scientology is probably the most known of these) which claim to be religious, but never were. More common are organisations which claim to be religious and indeed have been advancing religion in the past, at least to some extent, but decayed over the centuries and are now in poor shape.

Creed, on the other hand, often denotes institutions. As well as the belief-system or doctrine itself, the word 'Creed' also denotes the body of people (church, denomination or sect) which uphold that doctrine.

I therefore suggested you the word 'creed', but of course, if you are not happy with it, then you are free to choose another word, so long as it is not 'religion' or 'faith'.

Dear Yuyutsu,

All these posts and still no headway. Your confidence is tipping over into insanity.

<<So you expect me to provide an objective proof for a subjective process?>>

Of course not, and I never asked for that. If you claim, however, that there is a right way and a wrong way to go about this process, then that is an objective claim, and the onus will be on you to prove that before we can proceed from there. Similarly, I can’t objectively prove how you should taste your food, but I can objectively prove how you should eat it.

<<No, I am only invoking our intellectual-property rights.>>

So, to avoid committing the etymological fallacy, you're claiming intellectual property rights? I'm sorry, but the common, and dictionary, definition of 'religion' has been in use for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. For you to come into this world now and suddenly tell us all that we can't use the word the way we have been, and that all those people throughout history were wrong to use it in the way that they were, is the height of arrogance. You are not an authority, so your argument and your ‘TradeMark’ comparison are invalid.

<<The use of 'religion' to describe dysfunctional organisations (to which most of us do not even belong)...>>

Most of you? So most people who are (actually) religious don't belong to the major religions? I'm sorry, but you have not demonstrated this yet, and are taking great pains to avoid doing so.

<<...akin to someone else using our TradeMark which we attach to our products after investing in them for generations...>>

This is not a recent change in definition, and the change evolved naturally with no sinister intent anyway. No-one has suddenly come in and deliberately wrecked everything you've been working on. You began your journey in the knowledge that the definition had already evolved from its etymology eons ago, so don't play the victim.

That being said, actually, it is in fact you who is attempting to steal the word.

Continued…