Definitions
So, Shannon ranted about Atheism. Which, like a moth to a flame, brought out the old "yes, Atheism is a religion" line. I figure I might as well explain here -- and I'll also branch off into Mormonism while I'm here.
In order to say something like "my wife is a swell frood", both you and I need to have a fairly good understanding of what the heck "frood" means. (Not to mention "swell", "wife", and of course what the precise meaning of "is" is...)
Now, for most of the time this isn't a problem. Our lexicon is robust and common, and there are very few words that I would use that you don't already know, cannot grok from my syntax, or can't just look up in a dictionary. However, if you go running to the dictionary for a phrase that's key a statement of mine, it's probably going to just wind in confusion for the both of us. Because dictionaries suck.
Don't get me wrong. The folks at Webster's do a bang-up job and for most instances get it close enough to let a student unstick themselves and elevate their reading level. But because English is an adaptive and not a prescribed language, a dictionary writer will be forever chasing the actual language that they seek to make a guide for. (It's kind of like trying to map the waves on an ocean, or a woman's thoughts, or a man's moods. As soon as you're done, it's all changed.)
The key problem is that the definition you use of, say, "religion" is dependent on your overall beliefs about that word. Just like your definition of "geek" almost certainly has little if anything to do with the circus. (Had you need to refer to that definition, you'd almost certainly add context to so indicate, such as "circus geek")
When an Atheist says "Atheism is not a RELIGION", they're using an implicit definition of religion as "a theistic belief." Which, from where I sit, is just not a good definition. Christinaity and Judaism would certainly be religions by that standard, but what about Naturalism? Is Shinto a religion? Shaminism? Satanism? Would Cthulu-ism be a religion? What if I want to worship Barack Obama, not as a messiah but just as he is?
If you do a search on The Free Dictionary, you'll find definitions that require a belief in either "supernatural" forces or a distinct creator-figure. Religions without either aren't all that hard to find (most of which would refute the term "supernatural" the same way Atheists refute being called a religion.)
From where I sit, a religion is "a coherent system of beliefs about the nature of reality." An Abrahamic religion believes that a singular benevolent Creator made reality. An Aborginie believes that reality is a dream. A Hindu believes reality is the manifestation of a constant life-force. Religions differ not only on their essential claim, but also their specifics -- I believe Jesus of Nazareth was part of God living as man, one friend of mine believes Jesus was a distinct but contiguous "person" of God that lived as man, and another believes that Jesus was just God Jr.
My definition is better than the tyrants or the Atheist's or the dictionary's because mine is non-judgemental. From a perspective of agnostic utility, a definition that requires one to evaluate (judge) the beliefs of another to determine if they are a "religion" or not is a bad one. A good definition should be as broadly and cleanly applicable as possible -- we want to have a better definition that a tyrant who says "Shinto doesn't mention God, so it's not a religion and I can kill you for practicing it."
Which, of course, leads me to Mormonism.
There was a time in this country when churches took each other to court, arguing that the other wasn't truly "Christian" (and they were guilty of essentially trademark infringement) on the grounds of the other church's beliefs. After awhile, the courts decided to just stay the heck out of it -- but the churches kept at it. If you take a list of all the Christian Churches in your city (at least 12 churches, darn it!), and go to each of them one by one, I GUARANTEE that you will find one that believes that one of the others isn't "really Christian."
Most of the ones that justify that will use one of a handful of precepts: the divinity of Jesus Christ. The trinity, as espoused in the Athanasian Creed. Biblical inerrancy. Depending on where you live, you might also find "racial makeup", "apostic succession", "liberalism", or even "compassion" as well. But, again, all of those are judgemental definitions. They're crap.
How does the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" enter into this? (I mean, aside from having a stupidly long name?) Because Mormonism is the only established American Christian denomination that the other ones will look at, whisper about, and say that it's not Christian. And not because they think Joseph Smith saw a New-er Testament in a hat, or that four wives is the key to "special heaven", but because they believe that Jesus Christ was the physical son of God. Not God born from a virgin, but God Jr. born from God getting it on with the then-virgin Mary.
But I've known Mormons. I know you've seen them on TV, both making entertainment and trying to server our country. I don't think that Mitt Romney or Harry Reid aren't Christian, and I suspect they'd be offended if you tried to tell them such. (Just like I don't think my non-mormon Jesus-wasn't-God friend isn't a Christian.) So, how the heck do I define "Christian?"
"A Christian is someone who believes that God exists, that Jesus of Nazareth was Him or empowered to act as Him, and who tries to follow His teachings."
No crap about the nature of God, or the debatable specifics, or tangential dogma. Just the essentials of the faith, in as wide a tent as I could cast them and still have some strength to the tent.
In order to say something like "my wife is a swell frood", both you and I need to have a fairly good understanding of what the heck "frood" means. (Not to mention "swell", "wife", and of course what the precise meaning of "is" is...)
Now, for most of the time this isn't a problem. Our lexicon is robust and common, and there are very few words that I would use that you don't already know, cannot grok from my syntax, or can't just look up in a dictionary. However, if you go running to the dictionary for a phrase that's key a statement of mine, it's probably going to just wind in confusion for the both of us. Because dictionaries suck.
Don't get me wrong. The folks at Webster's do a bang-up job and for most instances get it close enough to let a student unstick themselves and elevate their reading level. But because English is an adaptive and not a prescribed language, a dictionary writer will be forever chasing the actual language that they seek to make a guide for. (It's kind of like trying to map the waves on an ocean, or a woman's thoughts, or a man's moods. As soon as you're done, it's all changed.)
The key problem is that the definition you use of, say, "religion" is dependent on your overall beliefs about that word. Just like your definition of "geek" almost certainly has little if anything to do with the circus. (Had you need to refer to that definition, you'd almost certainly add context to so indicate, such as "circus geek")
When an Atheist says "Atheism is not a RELIGION", they're using an implicit definition of religion as "a theistic belief." Which, from where I sit, is just not a good definition. Christinaity and Judaism would certainly be religions by that standard, but what about Naturalism? Is Shinto a religion? Shaminism? Satanism? Would Cthulu-ism be a religion? What if I want to worship Barack Obama, not as a messiah but just as he is?
If you do a search on The Free Dictionary, you'll find definitions that require a belief in either "supernatural" forces or a distinct creator-figure. Religions without either aren't all that hard to find (most of which would refute the term "supernatural" the same way Atheists refute being called a religion.)
From where I sit, a religion is "a coherent system of beliefs about the nature of reality." An Abrahamic religion believes that a singular benevolent Creator made reality. An Aborginie believes that reality is a dream. A Hindu believes reality is the manifestation of a constant life-force. Religions differ not only on their essential claim, but also their specifics -- I believe Jesus of Nazareth was part of God living as man, one friend of mine believes Jesus was a distinct but contiguous "person" of God that lived as man, and another believes that Jesus was just God Jr.
My definition is better than the tyrants or the Atheist's or the dictionary's because mine is non-judgemental. From a perspective of agnostic utility, a definition that requires one to evaluate (judge) the beliefs of another to determine if they are a "religion" or not is a bad one. A good definition should be as broadly and cleanly applicable as possible -- we want to have a better definition that a tyrant who says "Shinto doesn't mention God, so it's not a religion and I can kill you for practicing it."
Which, of course, leads me to Mormonism.
There was a time in this country when churches took each other to court, arguing that the other wasn't truly "Christian" (and they were guilty of essentially trademark infringement) on the grounds of the other church's beliefs. After awhile, the courts decided to just stay the heck out of it -- but the churches kept at it. If you take a list of all the Christian Churches in your city (at least 12 churches, darn it!), and go to each of them one by one, I GUARANTEE that you will find one that believes that one of the others isn't "really Christian."
Most of the ones that justify that will use one of a handful of precepts: the divinity of Jesus Christ. The trinity, as espoused in the Athanasian Creed. Biblical inerrancy. Depending on where you live, you might also find "racial makeup", "apostic succession", "liberalism", or even "compassion" as well. But, again, all of those are judgemental definitions. They're crap.
How does the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" enter into this? (I mean, aside from having a stupidly long name?) Because Mormonism is the only established American Christian denomination that the other ones will look at, whisper about, and say that it's not Christian. And not because they think Joseph Smith saw a New-er Testament in a hat, or that four wives is the key to "special heaven", but because they believe that Jesus Christ was the physical son of God. Not God born from a virgin, but God Jr. born from God getting it on with the then-virgin Mary.
But I've known Mormons. I know you've seen them on TV, both making entertainment and trying to server our country. I don't think that Mitt Romney or Harry Reid aren't Christian, and I suspect they'd be offended if you tried to tell them such. (Just like I don't think my non-mormon Jesus-wasn't-God friend isn't a Christian.) So, how the heck do I define "Christian?"
"A Christian is someone who believes that God exists, that Jesus of Nazareth was Him or empowered to act as Him, and who tries to follow His teachings."
No crap about the nature of God, or the debatable specifics, or tangential dogma. Just the essentials of the faith, in as wide a tent as I could cast them and still have some strength to the tent.