> At 11:57 PM 10/20/95 -0600, Harald Illig wrote:
>
> >Bull-shit!
> >No need to nake up new and unusual definitions; Religion is in every dictionary
> >and the #1 definition shows it's a worship of god(s). No gods, no religion.
> >It's not all that difficult, really.
>
> I don't see any reason to hold dictionary definitions to be sacrosanct.
> Languages evolve; 19th century companies often employed computers, but
> they were people, not machines. Often progress in philosophy can only
> be made by re-examining and redefining concepts. That's why Virus has
> redefined religion, meaning, and just last week in the death discussion,
> personal identity.
It's hard to communicate when people keep changing the definition. As
long as you are explicit in what you mean by religion, and acknowledge
that it is not the conventional definition of religion, then you probably
won't run into too many complaints.
Speaking as an atheist, I know that when religious people (in the
"god-worship" sense of the word) confront an atheist, they try to redefine
religion or worship, so that you are not an atheist. "Everyone worships
something, whether it's money or God or blah blah blah..."
So we are warey of people who try to redefine religion.
(see first paragraph)