Reply #234: I'm happy to "take it up" with Webster

[RainDog]

because, frankly, you are unable to understand, apparently, the distinction between religious tenets and a system of beliefs. "

"Take it up with Webster?" Fine. Here's a definition from Webster for belief: "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing"

Words and phrases can and do have multiple meanings. The definition of such a phrase depends upon context in many cases. Therefore, if someone says "get out of here" when someone makes a silly joke, this does not mean another person should leave the premises. When that phrase is used to warn someone way from potential danger, it does mean someone should leave the premises.

Can we agree on this? That words have meanings that develop in context?

Webster, whose goal was to also provide information about the multiple meanings for words, provides more than one definition for them. You have chosen to apply your definition to any and all. This is what makes your thinking lazy...or, more to the point, worthless in any discussion - because you refuse to accept multiple applications of the same word based upon the context.

By your definition, however, cooking is a religion. Why? Because there is trust or confidence in butter to melt at a certain temperature. Because water boils every time vapor pressure of the liquid equals the environmental pressure surrounding the liquid. Because entire books are written with the assumption that such events can and do occur. Because cooks will argue with you when you try to claim that you can saute onions without heat.

To any rational person, however, a declaration that cooking is a religion is a ridiculous comment to make. Yet it is based upon a system of beliefs, so, according to your "logic" how can it not be a religion?

So, yes, take it up with Webster. You need to learn that words have meaning in context, and not just a meaning that you want to assign them because it fits your ideological posturing.