Correction: "religious"

[Daniel Carrera]

It has come to my attention that the word religious can, indeed, be
correctly used in contexts that have nothing to do with God. The word
"religious" apparently can also be used to mean "strict" or as a reference
to zealous devotion to something.

I was not aware of this alternative definition. I am sad that it exists
because it casts people of faith in a bad light. Someone can say that
they are "religious" and mean that they believe that God exists, and the
listener might interpret that they are saying that they are zealous and
strict. I guess I'll have to avoid using that word.

In any event, I stand corrected.

--
Daniel Carrera, Math PhD student at UMD. PGP KeyID: 9AF77A88
.-"~~~"-.
/ O O \ ATTENTION ALL PASCAL USERS:
: s :
\ \___/ / To commemorate the anniversary of Blaise Pascal's
`-.___.-' birth (today) all your programs will run at half speed.

 

[Lothar Scholz]

Hello Daniel,

Friday, September 5, 2003, 7:59:33 PM, you wrote:

DC> I was not aware of this alternative definition. I am sad that it exists
DC> because it casts people of faith in a bad light. Someone can say that
DC> they are "religious" and mean that they believe that God exists, and the
DC> listener might interpret that they are saying that they are zealous and
DC> strict. I guess I'll have to avoid using that word.

I was using the word to describe people who think that "something can
make a better world" without giving rational explainations, only based on
their belive that this will happen. This is religion.

So not only R.Stallmann but also, G.W.Bush and his Voodo Priests are
religious even if they only believe in the Dollar God.

 

[Tobias Reif]

At least insert [OT] in the subject line.

TIA,
Tobi

 

[Daniel Carrera]

I was using the word to describe people who think that "something can

make a better world" without giving rational explainations, only based on
their belive that this will happen. This is religion.

Is that also a standard definition of the word "religious"? I have never
heard it. But I think we just showed that I don't necessarily know what
this word means.

So, if I tell you that I have faith in God, but it is based on reasoning
and evidence (archelogy is handy for this), would you say that I am
"religious".

Given this definition of religious, I guess I am not a religous person at
all. I strongly oppose believing things without any basis.

So not only R.Stallmann

How does RMS fit this definition? I'm not defending RMS, I'm just
asking.

but also, G.W.Bush and his Voodo Priests are
religious even if they only believe in the Dollar God.

That I agree with, but we probably shouldn't discuss it. It is flambait.

--
Daniel Carrera, Math PhD student at UMD. PGP KeyID: 9AF77A88
.-"~~~"-.
/ O O \ Warning label on a blanket from Taiwan:
: s :
\ \___/ / "Not to be used as protection from a tornado".
`-.___.-'

 

[Daniel Carrera]

At least insert [OT] in the subject line.

Sorry, didn't think of that. I simply wanted to say "I stand corrected".

--
Daniel Carrera, Math PhD student at UMD. PGP KeyID: 9AF77A88
.-"~~~"-.
/ O O \ Warning label on a blanket from Taiwan:
: s :
\ \___/ / "Not to be used as protection from a tornado".
`-.___.-'

 

[Scott Thompson]

but also, G.W.Bush and his Voodo Priests are

That I agree with, but we probably shouldn't discuss it. It is
flambait.

I should also point out that, although I've only met George Senior, I
come from the same city in West Texas that George W. and Ms. Bush lived
in for quite some time, Midland , TX. Given the climate of the town
and what little I know of the Bush family from second-hand information,
to say that G. W. Bush's religion is anything other than the worship of
God is a rather misguided statement that blatantly ignores both the
evidence and the facts.

Flamebait indeed.

Scott

 

[Martin DeMello]

It has come to my attention that the word religious can, indeed, be
correctly used in contexts that have nothing to do with God. The word
"religious" apparently can also be used to mean "strict" or as a reference
to zealous devotion to something.

I was not aware of this alternative definition. I am sad that it exists
because it casts people of faith in a bad light. Someone can say that
they are "religious" and mean that they believe that God exists, and the
listener might interpret that they are saying that they are zealous and
strict. I guess I'll have to avoid using that word.

I don't believe this definition extends to describing a *person* as
'religious', though. Thus, "he observed the highway code religiously",
or "he maintained a religious devotion to Ruby", or even "he was
religious in his attention to detail" are all okay, but "he was
religious" is unambiguously a reference to the "God" sense of the word.

martin

 

[Tobias Reif]

I am not a moderator, but as a member/subscriber I really would
appreciate it if you guys would religiously stick to inserting "[OT]" in
the subject lines of such posts.

The traffic is very high already, and people who are interested in
Ruby-related topics can send [OT] posts to the trash.

TIA,
Tobi

Martin DeMello wrote:
[...]

 

[Martin DeMello]

I am not a moderator, but as a member/subscriber I really would
appreciate it if you guys would religiously stick to inserting "[OT]" in
the subject lines of such posts.

Sorry, my bad.

martin

 

[Lothar Scholz]

Hello Martin,

Saturday, September 6, 2003, 10:32:31 AM, you wrote:

MD> religious" is unambiguously a reference to the "God" sense of the word.

Which is incorrect because at least one of the 4 most important world
religion don't have a unique abstract thing called "God".

This shows that you only think about western style religions (which of
course includes the islam).

 

[Bob X]

OT

USE IT!