What is the Correct Definition of Religion?

[No one]

Ambrose Bierce:
A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.

[Recusant]

  Hurrah for Mr. Bierce! May his dictionary long remain in print.

[Tank]

So, what is the practice of exercises that we do to maintain or sense of dignity, if it is not religion?

Life without mythology.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

So, what is the practice of exercises that we do to maintain or sense of dignity, if it is not religion?

Habit.

[SidewalkCynic]

We're going to have to go through this bit by bit. When you say "code" what does it refer to? A well-defined system of thought? If not, then what?

I am very confident that I have deliberated the valid collation for organizing technology. The primary application is a knowledge classification system, which is very similar to library classification systems. In the United States we have the Dewey Decimal and Library of Congress classification systems, the UK uses a system similar to the Dewey, and do not know if they have any other sysem. The collation is a list of semantic ques:

0) process
1) system
2) application
3) persons
4) organizations
5) abstractions
6) order

This collation formula generates a broad list of Knowledge Realms:

0) Reality
1) Nature
2) Technology
3) Life
4) Society
5) Culture
6) Time

What is the process of "delineat[ing] the order of technology"?

The collation formula is then interpolated to generate a category list for each of the realms, producing seven lists; and then the categories are interpolated with the collation to produce a longer list of more specific subjects. As the list becomes more detailed it becomes more difficult for me, the lone scientist, to deliberate the nuanced demarcation of the subjects - I have to study all of the possible subjects and calculate the interpolation relationships. I am trying to gain the interest of atheists to participate in the endeavor, before I present it to the general public, which is going to be predominately Christians.

https://www.secularlibrary.com

and that that is the scientific enforcement to stabilize semantics [. . .]

Interesting that you're proposing enforcement of a prescriptive approach to language when I just pointed out that an existing attempt at just such an approach, fully supported by the government of the nation in question, is failing to achieve its aim.

Yeah, I am going to research that, and introduce my system to them.

There's an inescapable reason for this: Language simply doesn't work that way. It's almost completely a bottom-up phenomenon--the population uses it and changes it as it suits them, not as some body of officious do-gooders tells them to.

And the French group and I believe that that is very much in violation of science and reason - language needs to be unchanging and reliable. The problem is very apparent in the United States Constitution - the terms are ambiguous and interpreted differently, which is a violation of what a constitution is supposed to be.

which becomes more important as the evolution of society expects a more reliable semantic structure compared to the less sophisticated eras of the past.

The evolution of society doesn't have any expectations. Evolution cannot be correctly understood as a teleological process. Societal changes take place almost entirely in reaction to events and demographic movements. The desires and efforts of those who may think that they're in charge of directing the way that societies evolve are of relatively little importance.

Scientific discoveries and subsequent applications guide the evolution.

[SidewalkCynic]

We are enduring confusion - theists claim that atheists have a religion!

That is their own construction, and it's usually nothing but a rhetorical cudgel. Those who actually believe it are the ones who are confused. In any case, some degree of confusion is a natural result of the way that humans think and communicate. Outside very strict academic venues this circumstance will continue to pertain.

Wow! Now, you are getting close to arguing to the favor of stabilizing the semantics. There is an atheist, Austin Cline, he publishes at Thought.com, now; and he claims that there are religions that do not have any gods - I think Buddhism is the usual example. So, there is a problem there - the guardians of an organized effort retain the ability to classify their efforts. It would seem that the Buddhists would probably be accepting of my definition for religion, as would the Christians, and I would imagine the Jews would not be offended, either.

You insist that "belief is a form of worship." It might be argued that is the case in a religious context but absent that context, belief and worship are without question two distinct concepts.

I believe it is just the opposite! What is worship without belief in the supposed doctrine?

It's fairly common, really. I attended church for several years and participated in many, many acts of worship, even though I didn't believe. I know I'm far from the only one who did so. Pro forma ritual is a big part of religion.

You neglected to consider the reverse of your question. Even in a religious context, there is a multitude of people who sincerely believe in a god, yet never perform a single act of worship. Even if they were to get dragged into a church service they'd only be in the presence of others who were worshipping, and likely resenting every minute of it. They'd be hard put to participate; wouldn't know the words to say, and would probably only be able to sing along on some of the songs. You may not acknowledge that belief can exist without worship, but you don't dictate what goes on in other people's heads.

(I was a bit rushed for time)
There is a problem with your argument - it has a circular logic to it because you are describing theists as religious - you are not making a distinction. And there is a circular logic (category error) with the definition of religion, that I am arguing - so, this is going to take some time to unpack.

There is a problem with the definition of worship - the current definitions describe it as "strong belief," or "devotion" - look it up.

I believe the better description for worship is the (public/extrovert) exercises that promote the doctrine of organized exercises for maintaining dignity. Worship is only good for promoting the organization - there is no god to receive the kudos.

Describing oneself as believing in gods is worship.

Your attempt to justify your new definition by referring to rhetoric employed against atheists by religious people doesn't bode well if your intention is convince atheists that your definition is correct. Few atheists agree with the religious people's rhetoric in the first place.

Except, of course, when the theists rhetoric supports the atheists arguments - then the theists are the good ones, or reasonable, or something...

Can you cite an example?

It does not happen often, but every once in a while, the atheists will cite some no-name preacher who issues a statement in support of the atheists argument concerning separation of Church and State.

When I take a shower in the morning it's part of maintaining a sense of dignity. Are you telling me that an atheist taking a shower is participating in religion?

Along with the other forms of etiquette, social contributions,  and indoctrination of abstract information.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Speaking as a Christian, in the common usage "religion" relates to the belief in a God or Supreme Being of some sort.  Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods of any type, in its simplest form. I never think of atheism as being a religion.  It's essentially the lack of any form of religion. 

Christians who say that atheism is a religion probably don't spend a lot of time interacting with atheists.

[SidewalkCynic]

I put some time into this last night before I fell asleep.

You insist that "belief is a form of worship." It might be argued that is the case in a religious context but absent that context, belief and worship are without question two distinct concepts.

I believe it is just the opposite! What is worship without belief in the supposed doctrine?

It's fairly common, really. I attended church for several years and participated in many, many acts of worship, even though I didn't believe. I know I'm far from the only one who did so. Pro forma ritual is a big part of religion.

No.

Mediocre "religious" people are inclined to describe the activities as two distinct categories, because their church/organization is inclined to present a package of activites that they are going to describe as "worship services." The more keen theists recognize that belief is the essential part of the activities that "converts" the activities to worship.

You bought in to the church's description of "worship services," as being a distinctly different activity from belief, because it fit your needs for this debate. Chances are you have never had to debate an atheist over the definition of religion - I have never encountered an atheist who is willing to buck the dogma, like me. No atheist has ever joined in to support me, never before, and it will not happen here, either. Even if you are inclined to change your mind about the issue, you are not going to reveal that to the other members, because it elevates my credibility on other issues, and relatively lowers your leadership qualities; which is what is encountered at the atheist organizations - people at the top want to stay at the top, and are not inclined to reveal to the peasant members that there are problems in the established doctrine that has kept everybody happy for the longest time.

Atheists reinforce the dogma when they use the erroneous definition when debating theists who claim that atheists have a religion.

Atheists do not believe or worship gods - can't have a religion

The problem is you probably attended the services to appease your relationship with someone who expected you to participate, and that is worshiping the doctrine of the relationship; but your participation in the activities was not a form of worship of the gods; although, it was in tacit support of the church's membership campaign.

You neglected to consider the reverse of your question. Even in a religious context, there is a multitude of people who sincerely believe in a god, yet never perform a single act of worship. Even if they were to get dragged into a church service they'd only be in the presence of others who were worshipping, and likely resenting every minute of it. They'd be hard put to participate; wouldn't know the words to say, and would probably only be able to sing along on some of the songs. You may not acknowledge that belief can exist without worship, but you don't dictate what goes on in other people's heads.

Attending the services under contest is not worship. If a person describes them self as believing in a god, then that is worship (proselytism) - they are disseminating the information that there is a god. The purpose of overt worship (activities) is to promote the doctrine. The people singing in church are unwittingly promoting the church's activities to gather membership of people who want to sing and do the other activities that the church packages - they call it worship, because they attach a deity to their doctrine for organizing community.

It is amazing that you do not recognize the misplaced definition(s) that have formed the dogma that keeps atheists in the theists' "box," because you are very smart.

[Old Seer]

Religion. A belief system based in a mentality. A psychological concept of fixed convictions.