But you are insisting on a definition of religion that many people, including experts in the field of religious studies, do not share. That is a factual matter. You are not asking to be allowed your own opinion, you are asking to be allowed your own facts.

It's like arguing with an anti-vaxxer or creationist.

Of course "what is the definition of religion?" is a fact-based topic. "Christians believe Jesus is God" is a fact regardless of whether "Jesus is God" is a fact. What various religions teach and practice is probable fact regardless of whether the claims those religions make are true or false.

In this case, your definition of religion contradicts the fact that some religions have no deities and others have deities but define their membership by taking certain actions rather than holding certain theistic beliefs. Therefore, your definition of what constitutes religion is *factually* wrong.

Think of it like politics, if it helps: when Donald Trump says tariffs will boost the U.S. economy, does the fact that what he's saying isn't true mean everybody else is free to make up their own opinions on whether or not he said it? Or is the fact that he said it a fact?

I do not agree with you. That is not my understanding of the word religion in my language which is Czech.

It DOES NOT MATTER. You've been told what the definition is for large parts of the world, including scholars, AND you're refusing to address that you started all this with a massively insulting statement that is still up.

you understand wrong and Jews aren't gonna be magically different about how they believe in practice because you're using a different language

Then congratulations! You're now wrong in two languages.

I won't claim to understand Czech - and maybe their word for religion specifically excludes non belief in any gods. But also, this conversation has been happening in English, so your native language isn't relevant here. You need to update your priors.

I just checked Czech-language Wikipedia and confirmed that both Buddhism and Judaism are referred to there by the term "náboženství" (religion). The article on Confucianism refers to it as a philosophy instead, but later describes it as a "systém náboženských" (religious system).

So even if this were a discussion of the meaning of the word náboženství rather than the meaning of the word religion, they'd still be wrong. Náboženství/náboženských are *not* exclusive to theistic beliefs.

It gets funnier, actually! the Czech Wikipedia entry on "Náboženství" itself has an entire section on the evolution of how religion has been defined and understood that outright calls the way our Czech friend is defining it a discredited, Eurocentric error: cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A1...

Beautiful. Hang it in the Louvre.

So now read this. cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ateismus

I should probably not be shocked that you linked that article without reading it to make sure it supports your argument, but it's still incredibly funny that you did. It flat-out says that some forms of atheism involve a total rejection of religion and others don't--exactly what I told you.

There is no agreed upon definition of religion but yours is objectively wrong.

There is, however, a reasonably agreed-on definition of religiosity and self-identification is basically most of it.

OK let's try this. God or gods may or may not exist and nobody can prove a thing about it. Therefore, whatever anyone thinks on THAT SUBJECT is beyond criticism. You're asserting things not about gods tho, you're asserting things about people. The things people do can be verified factually.

Sure nobody can prove that for now. I doubt that someone will ever be able to do so. But saying that I cant critise your view of life and world just because you believe in it is in my opinion very coward. You do not have to change your belief if someone disagrees with you.

It’s like we are discussing our clothes and you’re insisting that everyone has to be wearing blue because it’s Wednesday and you can’t conceive of a Wednesday without a blue shirt. My shirt is green and it’s still Wednesday. Your conception changed neither of those facts.

you're very explicitly disagreeing on something that is not a matter of what people believe in but asserting their malicious motivations specifically because they *don't* believe something you also disbelieve but are accepted members of a group *you* define by belief

criticism requires coming from a place of knowledge and this "criticism" is just lashing out at information that doesn't match your preconceptions

Because those words are contradicting themselfs in my view. Religion and atheism. So I do not understand how anyone can do both. Even after this discusion I do not understand that. But many people say that they view themselfs like that. It is wierd to me but I do not care what anyone believe.

*your* definition contradicts *other people's* lives, yes, which is generally a good indicator that you need to find another definition

People have explained how, though? Many times. So your continued lack of understanding feels kind of disingenuous, at least as a justification to keep insisting that your opinion is valid instead of wrong.

And it's not even about an opinion, no matter how often they phrase it that way, it's an insistence on the right to believe alternative facts. "String theory" is what you lace your shoes with, "arugala" is a Jewish pastry - same difference!

Yeah, the opinion framing is really frustrating. It’s just a limited understanding of what things mean and a refusal to learn.

Its limiting understanding what those words mean to you and limiting understanding what those words mean to me and it looks like to some others because I am not the first one who is confused. I can say the same as you that you are refusing to learn that.

we're not refusing to learn that other people have your same poor definitions, we get that, but that doesn't mean that those definitions aren't poor or that they're clearly based in a narrower perspective

So dont tell me that I am refusing to learn when I spent hours disscussing this thing.

but you can learn that those words have meanings beyond what you previously understood, and instead you keep saying that it’s your opinion or that isn’t how Czech works. okay, the words are different in Czech, fine, but you can expand your understanding in English.

Thank you,finaly someone acknowledging that it could be caused by language barrier which was I trying to say. Probably not skillefuly but I am no diplomat.Now I know that there are some poeple who says they are religious atheist and they dont mean what I see in those words.Sorry about inconvinience.

It has already been explained to you that theism = a belief in a higher power. This is why the word for lack of such belief is atheism, and not, say, areligious. Irreligious is a thing, but it refers to not practicing a religion, and has nothing to do with belief.

Not in Czech language. Atheism can have both meanings. And it is also quite not exactely defined word in other languages.

but this is a conversation in English.

which, like it's perfectly normal to not already know the nuances of a word in a second language, particularly if there's a partial cognate in your first, but when you encounter that the appropriate response is, like, "oh oops" and revising how you use the word

exactly.

What language are we speaking now, genius?

English. It is also not defined in English. I tried to look it up and I found that poeple does have different views on what atheist and religion means.

If my believe would be that I have to kill every living fish because they are evil I bet you would critisize that.

I would criticize that, but I would not argue that you are in fact not doing it, nor would I argue with whatever name you give yourself. You do not have to agree with Jewish atheists. You have to accept that they exist and are practicing their religion in a way that is accepted in the group.

That's the worst part here - not the ignorance, but insisting on the "right" to speak over Jews about how THEIR religion works.

You do not understand what I mean. For me an atheist is someone who does not believe _____. Who does believe _____ is a religious person. And you cant be both. So my point of view is different than yours and others in this discusion. It doesnt mean that you have to agree with my definition.

Ok, but if i were to say that calculus is the study of plants, I would be FACTUALLY INCORRECT. Like you are, right now. Words mean things. Religion does not mean what you think it does. Whether or not god exists, religion exists. In many different forms.

There are also different languages with different meanings of the same words or with multiple meanings of the translation. So no, one word doesnt mean that everybody will every time understands what the other side means.

okay but you're having alternative definitions that fit the topic provided for you, or reasons yours isn't working, and you're refusing them

I dont think so. I tried to look it up and found that people does not agree what atheist or religious exactly mean. It does not have one meaning.

okay, but this is a conversation in English about English words?

I have pestered a Czech friend of mine anyway but it's ass:30 over there so they said they'd get back to me. Regardless, whether we call them religions or not, Jewish, Buddhist, pagan, etc atheists exist, and nobody outside those faiths gets to say they are doing their cultures incorrectly.

Exactly. I don’t know anything about Czech but there must be a way to express these ideas in Czech and even if not it doesn’t change how those religions exist and are practiced.

wait you are criticising now? why is there a need to criticise? you have an opinion, that is fine. others are saying you are speaking from a narrow perspective, and you don't want to consider this and maybe shift perspective, also fine. so then just let other people be. there's no harm here.

That's not an accurate portrayal of your own argument thus far.

Dozens of Jewish people, a few Buddhists, and I'll add one Druid to the pile are here to tell you that our religions do not demand a theistic outlook. What is under discussion is not whether there's a higher power, but WHAT WE DO.

putting myself forward as an unspecified pagan who also does not have a theistic outlook.

For me, it's ritual. Mmmmm ritual

scrumptious, delectable ritual