No, you're reformulating the verse. I'm asking for context. What was the discussion about?

locked it away in the middle of nowhere already

Why would they do that lol

People would be in awe of this creature. It's speaking the perfect word of god, understandable to all. It cannot be killed and clearly defies all scientific understanding of our modern age. (This thing would pre-date the birth of true science though and more than likely prevent science even coming to be - there would be no need of science or any kind of human progress if we had an indisputable communication channel with god such as this)

I can't help but chuckle at the puny god that you seem to believe in though. God - if it exists and I genuinely believe that question is unanswerable - would be an entity outside time and space way beyond the tiniest comprehension of any human. It would have absolute power over every aspect of the universe. Protecting a dog from any number of humans with any type of weaponry would be such a trivial task for such a being. If the dog didn't want to be moved, it wouldn't move. If it wanted to pass through a wall it would pass though like a red hot ball bearing through butter.

God is beyond absurd things such as leaving behind dogs. Look at the sky at night if there's no light pollution. There you can see a glimpse of God's glory and power

Why not? It's coming anyway, no need to hurry it along. There are things to do while you wait.

Sorry, but it's true. I'm afraid you're going to have to take it up with a higher authority than me (i.e. the dictionary people) if you want to change how the word is used.

It's the word for changing someone's belief system not, as you seem to think, giving someone a new belief system.

Sorry, but I'm correct here.

Also, here's additional lesson for you - you started your reply admitting that the question was asked in bad faith, that I did spot what you were talking about, and that you do know that I'm talking about atheism. Then you finish with "so my question stands".

No it doesn't. You understood fully what I was talking about in both the post you replied to and my response. So it doesn't stand - you already knew the answer.

Look, I don't mind you having a crack at being Mr I'm-Very-Clever-Catch-You-Out-On-Word-Meanings, but at least do it well.

According to the first page of my search the Cambridge, Merriam Webster, Dictionary.com, Collins dictionaries all imply conversion needs also adopting a new belief/opinion/religion.

I feel it's a commonly propagated lie within certain religions that atheism is a belief, which of course it's not (it's the lack of belief, like most people have about fairies, flat Earth or the Mayan end of the world). I don't know if your mention of this statement is that you agree or not, but if you do - how do you arrive at the position that questioning is being the same as (lexical) conversion?

I get that a large part of Abrahamitic religions in particular is to obey and not question, as well as theism being necessary to be accepted in the religion (and not a heretic); is it that the questioning positions you outside of the religion and thus deconverts? Is that how you arrive at the "change"?

I apologise for the clumsy phrasing, but if we're reading the same text and coming to different conclusions, I must assume we're using words differently and would need to backtrack to find our last point of common understanding.

No, it's fine.

I've grabbed your Collins as an example - I promise it's not been cherry-picked, it was the first I clicked on!

"If someone converts you, they persuade you to change your religious or political beliefs. You can also say that someone converts to a different religion."

Would it qualify as changing my religious beliefs? I think so. It's you that's inferring that it needs to be to another religion.

Ok, second part.

"I get that a large part of Abrahamic religions in particular is to obey and not question, as well as theism being necessary to be adopted into the religion"

No you don't, because you're wrong. I don't mean that in a harsh way - it's easy to look at listen to all of the hard-line religious folk and think that's the norm. The truth is that they're weirdos.

A big part of most Abrahamic religions is questioning the dogma, theology, even the scripture. It's been this way forever too.

And yes historically, bad people have used religions (and still do) as a pretext for horrific atrocities, but unfortunately that's a problem with any organisation that places too much power on an unhinged leader.

Look, an example might help. A little while back, the Church of England put out a statement about how they didn't intend to change their stance on not allowing gay marriage in churches. It was, to my eyes, an utterly unnecessary statement to make, and moreover, completely at odds with the "unconditional love" message.

I asked my vicar if we could talk about it and explained that I don't feel comfortable being associated with a religion that publicly makes statements like that.

I found out that she herself has performed several same-sex marriages, just not in a church. As have many of the other vicars around here. Some haven't. Her mentor in the church is transexual, not secret - she's written a book about it.

The truth is that the upper ranks of the Anglican church are trying to prevent a schism with the more hard-line Anglican churches in Africa. The statement was just one of many that have been put out, it's just that this one got attention from the press.

The rank-and-file vicars don't even share exactly the same theology as each other. Like I said, many officiate same-sex marriages, some will not. Some believe that when people die, their souls go straight to heaven or watch over us, some do not (why wouldn't they? Well, it isn't actually in the Bible).

There's a wide, wide range of interpretations and you are encouraged to keep asking questions.

Like I said, it's easy to look at the loud people and think they're the norm - but it's not the case. They're the very, very vocal minority.

Yikes I've written way more than intended. I hope that helps!

Thank you for your generous answer.

Your perspective on what your religion views as up for question is very interesting, although it gives rise to many follow up questions (how does proclamation work when obviously contradicted by lower clergy? Who gets to question which parts of the dogma? If everything is up for question, what is the commonality of the religion?) I'm afraid we'll have to leave for another time if we're to get anywhere on the primary topic.

You cite Collins:

"If someone converts you, they persuade you to change your religious or political beliefs. You can also say that someone converts to a different religion."

I'll give you that it's the weakest of the lot, but I read "converts to a different religion" as having you leave the first to then adhere to another.

As we previously established atheism isn't a religion I find it hard to see that you could have been converted.

If we look at the usage for beliefs, Collins isn't very clear if the definition includes "into another belief", luckily the other three are and include the new belief in their descriptions.

So, I seem to find that the lexical definition for conversion does indeed include another positive end belief, in contrast to what you claimed the dictionary people were about. I was curious if there were subtle differences in world view behind this, but currently I understand this more as a difference in how we understand definitions rather than how we view questioning.

Absolutely.

For the avoidance of doubt, atheism is not a religion.

The whole issue is about definitions.

But, before we finish up, I do have a question for you, if it's ok?

You probably noticed that several people have jumped on the same thing. Where do you guys get these identical discussion points? In particular the whole "atheism is so different from any religious belief, world view, or philosophical position that I'll have online arguments insisting on specific word usage". Is it just from other online commentators?

It just seems strange - even when there's no ambiguity, any topic that mentions atheism will have someone pop up arguing that you can't use certain common words because atheism is different. You need to use special words like "deprogramming" instead.

I mean, this behaviour has to come from somewhere. I'm just genuinely curious from where.

Thank you for the clarification.

I'd say the semantics arguments come from countering religions' manipulative perversion of language.

Many religions use tricky language to confuse, conflate and abuse. One such example is that Christian apologists have conflated atheist with heretic for the better part of two millennia. Which is of course absurd, as most Christians are atheist towards Hindu gods, and are thus definitionally more atheist than Hindus.

Yet atheist/heretic/apostate remains as a dirty label, and includes judgement of character, and in many parts of the world persecution or lesser worth.

Reclaiming the word serves in part to actually give it usefulness beyond a boogeyman, to allow for discussions on fundamentals of belief, epistemology, and the contrast of belief vs reasons vs knowableness.

It also helps bridge some of the damage religion has done. When religious people get some nuance to the boogeyman term, they typically are more open to seeing the human cost of stereotyping and shunning people because of that label.

Other perverted terms common to religious trauma are gnosticism (ofc), but also love, grief, acceptance, morality and righteousness.

Things that us having to break free from religion all had to relearn the hard way, and typically while hiding from our still religious close ones.