What's a “could spelling test”?

And, did they teach you the definition of “redundant”?

If, by “catch all” you mean...
a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

What's your point, that you could have said it shorter?

For instance, this definition would exclude Buddhism.

Further, it doesn't cover many religious views, such as those that claim that G-d created the universe, and set in motion the laws that we call science, but then let things continue without interference

and so doesn't "control human destiny"

So this cannot be a definition of what is and is not a religion.

If even those who make painstaking efforts to define words cannot get religion right, how can you expect the word to be used in such a clear-cut way.

1) You had an obvious typo.

2) You didn't need to use the word “regularly” twice in that sentence.

3) While describing the quality of your education.

Was that a rhetorical question, or could you really not figure that out on your own?

Buddhists are quick to point out they're not religious.

It is neither a religion in the sense in which that word is commonly understood, for it is not "a system of faith and worship owing any allegiance to a supernatural being."

Buddhism does not demand blind faith from its adherents. Here mere belief is dethroned and is substituted by confidence based on knowledge, which, in Pali, is known as saddha. The confidence placed by a follower on the Buddha is like that of a sick person in a noted physician, or a student in his teacher. A Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha because it was he who discovered the path of deliverance.

A Buddhist does not seek refuge in the Buddha with the hope that he will be saved by his (i.e. the Buddha's own) personal purification. The Buddha gives no such guarantee. It is not within the power of a Buddha to wash away the impurities of others. One could neither purify nor defile another. The Buddha, as teacher, instructs us, but we ourselves are directly responsible for our purification. Although a Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha, he does not make any self-surrender. Nor does a Buddhist sacrifice his freedom of thought by becoming a follower of the Buddha. He can exercise his own free will and develop his knowledge even to the extent of becoming a Buddha himself.

Um... yes it does:
an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"

and so doesn't "control human destiny"

So this cannot be a definition of what is and is not a religion.

My options are:
a) accept the definition of religion as postulated by Princeton
b) accept your postulation that Princeton doesn't know what they're talking about
I'll give this decision as much consideration as it deserves.

There's a third option:
You = reading comprehension FAIL.

Is that a complete sentence?

No. I didn't realise I'd written "regularly" twice. Did you seriously think I wrote it deliberately?

Then that rules out Judaism as well, because Judaism has no such institution

I think what you mean is THIS

because then you'd be claiming that Baptists don't believe in a divine power.

You're not that stupid.

You've already made your mind up.

What you mean, is that you didn't and don't give it any consideration at all.

Look, I have given you the options that are available.

All dictionaries are based on common usage

If, by “we”, you mean you and whoever else has decided to alter the definition of the word “religion” - then I suppose you're right. If, by “we”, you mean – do I accept your modification? The answer is no – I still accept the standard definition:
a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him" 
Source: wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

English is not your native language. You might be speaking American.

Need I remind you someone accused you of being difficult to understand, and you were in the middle of defending yourself by bragging about the quality of your education?

Need I also remind you it's not necessary to have complete sentence structure when making lists – hence the reason I chose that format?

My point was three parts:
1) You had an obvious typo.
2) You didn't need to use the word “regularly” twice in that sentence.
3) While describing the quality of your education.

You didn't seem to catch it when I pointed it out either.

And, during your “sterling education in English”, did your granny drill you on the spelling of “realize”?

You're difficult to understand. We're pointing out why you're difficult to understand.

Your defense was difficult to understand.

It's ironic, and quite funny you have so many typos – right in the middle of describing your “sterling education in English”.

You can take this as an opportunity for growth, or to continue to dig yourself a deeper hole. I care not which. Either you become a better person (good), or not (if nothing else, you're entertaining).

It doesn't rule out Judaism at all. You said yourself: It's a set of beliefs and practices. . Jews believe in God – a divine power - which fits well within the definition: an institution to express belief in a divine power
Once again: You = reading comprehension FAIL.

That excerpt doesn't say Buddhists believe they're “religious”, therefore it's 100% compatible with what I've been postulating.

No, I wouldn't be claiming that at all.

You don't know that.

Actually, I did consider it – just long enough to think something like:
That definition is backed by the Princeton name – quite a prestigious place that Princeton. It's their JOB to teach the best and brightest in the world, if anyone knows how to define words well, they'd certainly be among the best in the business. That caries a lot of proverbial weight. You've come up with no credible way to refute their definition. Therefore, I choose to accept the Princeton definition.

Nobel prize winners

Overall, there have been 23 Nobel Prizes awarded to staff and students past and present, with some of the most important discoveries of the modern ages being discovered in Manchester.

Chemistry
Ernest Rutherford (awarded Nobel prize in 1908), for his investigations into the disintegration of the elements and the chemistry of radioactive substances (He was the first to probe the atom).
Arthur Harden (awarded Nobel prize in 1929), for investigations on the fermentation of sugar and fermentative enzymes.
Walter Haworth (awarded Nobel prize in 1937), for his investigations on carbohydrates and vitamin C.
Robert Robinson (awarded Nobel prize in 1947), for his investigations on plant products of biological importance, especially the alkaloids.
Alexander Todd (awarded Nobel prize in 1957), for his work on nucleotides and nucleotide co-enzymes.
Melvin Calvin (awarded Nobel prize in 1961), for his research on the carbon dioxide assimilation in plants.
John Charles Polanyi (awarded Nobel prize in 1986), for his contributions concerning the dynamics of chemical elementary processes.
Michael Smith (awarded Nobel prize in 1993), for his fundamental contributions to the establishment of oligonucleotide-based, site-directed mutagenesis and its development for protein studies.

Physics
Joseph John (J. J.) Thomson (awarded Nobel prize in 1906), in recognition of the great merits of his theoretical and experimental investigations on the conduction of electricity by gases.
William Lawrence Bragg (awarded Nobel prize in 1915), for his services in the analysis of crystal structure by means of X-rays.
Niels Bohr (awarded Nobel prize in 1922), for his fundamental contributions to understanding atomic structure and quantum mechanics.
Charles Thomson Rees (C. T. R.) Wilson (awarded Nobel prize in 1927), for his method of making the paths of electrically charged particles visible by condensation of vapour.
James Chadwick (awarded Nobel prize in 1935), for the discovery of the neutron.
George de Hevesy (awarded Nobel prize in 1943), for his work on the use of isotopes as tracers in the study of chemical processes.
Patrick M. Blackett (awarded Nobel prize in 1948), for developing cloud chamber and confirming/discovering positron.
Sir John Douglas****roft (awarded Nobel prize in 1951), for his pioneer work on the splitting of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles and also for his contribution to modern nuclear power.
Hans Bethe (awarded Nobel prize in 1967), for his contributions to the theory of nuclear reactions, especially his discoveries concerning the energy production in stars.
Nevill Francis Mott (awarded Nobel prize in 1977), for his fundamental theoretical investigations of the electronic structure of magnetic and disordered systems.

Physiology and Medicine
Archibald Vivian Hill (awarded Nobel prize in 1922), for his discovery relating to the production of heat in the muscle. One of the founders of the diverse disciplines of biophysics and operations research.
Sir John Sulston (awarded Nobel prize in 2002), for his discoveries concerning 'genetic regulation of organ development and programmed cell death'. In 2007, Sulston was announced as Chair of the newly-founded Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation (iSEI) at the University of Manchester.[38]

Economics
John Hicks (awarded Nobel prize in 1974), for his pioneering contributions to general economic equilibrium theory and welfare theory.
Sir Arthur Lewis (awarded Nobel prize in 1979), for his pioneering research into economic development research with particular consideration of the problems of developing countries.
Joseph E. Stiglitz (awarded Nobel prize in 2001), for his analyses of markets with asymmetric information. Currently, Professor Joseph E. Stiglitz heads the Brooks World Poverty Institute (BWPI) at the University of Manchester.

You did, I'm sorry, I missed it. In which post did you stipulate “You = reading comprehension FAIL.” as an option? Or do you believe it's not an option at all? This should be interesting...

You realize you just did two things:
a) made my argument for me
b) shot yourself in the foot by dis-crediting your position
If you accept that the dictionary is the common usage of a word, and I've already demonstrated Atheism doesn't fall under the definition... you're accepting that it's not the common use of the word. Which was my point all along:

Religious scholars generally agree that writing a single definition that applies to all religions is difficult or even impossible, because all people examine religion with some kind of critical eye, and the term is therefore fraught with ideological consequences for anyone who might want to construct a universal definition. Talal Asad writes that "there cannot be a universal definition of religion ... because that definition is itself the historical product of discursive processes"[5]; Thomas A. Tweed, while defending the idea of religion in general, writes that "it would be foolish to set up an abstract definition of religion's essence, and then proceed to defend that definition from all comers."[6]

But whether atheism is a “religion” for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16 (1972). A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being (or beings, for polytheistic faiths), see Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 & n.11 (1961); Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d 197, 200-15 (3d Cir. 1979) (Adams, J., concurring); Theriault v. Silber, 547 F.2d 1279, 1281 (5th Cir. 1977) (per curiam), nor must it be a mainstream faith, see Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707, 714 (1981); Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1110 (7th Cir. 2003).

Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion. Fleischfresser v. Dirs. of Sch.
Dist. 200, 15 F.3d 680, 688 n.5 (7th Cir. 1994) (internal citation and quotation omitted); see also Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 340 (1970); United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 184-88 (1965). We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir. 2003) (“If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”). Kaufman claims that his atheist beliefs play a central role in his life, and the defendants do not dispute that his beliefs are deeply and sincerely held.

The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 125 S.Ct. 2722 (2005). The Establishment Clause itself says only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion.” In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as “the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.” Id. at *10 (internal quotations omitted). As the Court put it in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985):

At one time it was thought that this right [referring to the right to choose one’s own creed] merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.

Id. at 52-53. In keeping with this idea, the Court has adopted a broad definition of “religion” that includes nontheistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones. Thus, in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, it said that a state cannot “pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can [it] aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.” Id. at 495. Indeed, Torcaso specifically included “Secular
Humanism” as an example of a religion. Id. at 495 n.11.

Good luck proving this one.

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to have it confirmed that I'm difficult to understand, like that 3 people who agree 100% with my views, say I'm difficult to understand. But I just don't see that on the forums. Perhaps you can find 3 such posters on this thread to prove it to me.

For what it's worth, I disagree with you all the time, but don't find it difficult to understand you.

Seriously, was anyone really confused by the use of realise instead of realize?

Thanks. Now I have one. Although you still seem to have great trouble misunderstanding me about Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis.

I think I understand your position viz. all the arguments in favor the Documentary Hypothesis can be explained with other hypotheses.

I simply find it ad hoc, less plausible, more complicated, and unconvincing when compared to the DH.

I keep pointing out that if you've never really read the Bible in the English, or skimmed a bit of it once in Hebrew, and then read it, it sounds very plausible, because it reads as if someone really made a huge effort.

Very few people have that level of expertise with the Bible, and still hold by the DH. But there are hundreds of thousands who do have that expertise, an don't think the DH is plausible.

I've given considerable time to the reading and study of the Bible (nearly 20 years myself, with about half of that as an atheist). I've stuck to English because I don't speak Greek or Hebrew, however on occassion I've ventured into Greek or Hebrew to investigate a certain point.

Even in English the patchwork nature of the Bible is apparent. It's obvious from the first two chapters of the Bible, which contain 2 different accounts of creation.

Then you get to the story of Noah and you suddenly realize that there are two accounts. First he had two of each animal coming aboard, then he had two of each unclean and 7 pairs of each clean, even though the laws of ritual cleanliness didn't exist yet. The duration of the flood is inconsistent (40 or 150 days).

This is inaccurate. Wellhausen did not invent the DH, instead his major contribution was the chronological ordering of J, E, D, and P. His specific proposal has come under fire, but the general proposal of 4 sources plus redactors and editors is alive and well. It still forms the basis of much scholarship in the field. Even researchers who reject the DH still accept that there were multiple sources, various chronological layers, redactions and other editing. The idea that the Pentateuch was written by one man, especially Moses, is dead in the water. Only conservative theologians believe that anymore.