Take it up with webster's if you feel that they have incorrectly defined a word.  A dictionary is to be an authority on words. 

Theocracy - 1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided 2 : a state governed by a theocracy

Yes you are right that it puts clergy in charge yet for what purpose?  The purpose is so that religion is expressed completely.  The clergy are just a conduit for that religion, so in reality a brand of Islam could be a theocracy for example like in Saudi Arabia.

You are correct by that Jews are a special case BUT I was not being exhaustive in when I was stating that fact.  That's  just one example.

In a way... it's not a special case as two related identities. There is a Jewish people and a Jewish religion, just like there was once a Germanic people and a Germanic religion.

There are even cases where religion defines nationality even though the religion is not unique to the nationality. In (the former) Yugoslavia between Slovenia and Macedonia, a Catholic is a Croatian, a Muslim is a Bosniak, and an Orthodox Christian is a Serb. In Iraq a Christian is an Assyrian and when he converts to Islam he pretty much becomes an Arab. Many Lebanese patriots saw Christianity in the same way regarding a Phoenician rather than Arab nationality, and in Egypt Christianity is a defining characteristic of Egyptian rather than Arab nationality.

Non sequitur. I didn't say anything about it and when in doubt, assume things are normal; i.e. omnipotence and infallibility are attributes of the being described by the word "G-d".

What is it with you people asking about clarification on issues that are parallel to the subject?

Do I ask you how your tea usually is when you mention that you drank coffee yesterday???

Inflexible much?

So?

How is it relevant what YOU are talking about when the subject is WHAT a word means?

Meaning there was no Jesus, or just that he wasn't supernatural?

Some religions believe in spirits and not gods. Animists are often atheists. But what does this have to do with their belief in ghosts?

As a level of belief in the supernatural the word "atheist" is useless. I believe in far fewer supernatural things than most atheists I have met. Just consider all the people who believe in horoscopes. The idea that stars influence our fortunes requires supernatural forces (because stars, per physics, don't). These people are very often atheists, and I understand Christian churches discourage belief in astrology. (Judaism forbids it.)

I wasn't the one that brought up the belief in such things. As far as i'm concerned it isn't part of the conversation, though out of consideration I commented on the specific topic of ghosts/spirits, etc. So to me, it (ghosts, etc. ) doesn't have anything to do with it. I was talking about atheism as per gods/deities

The difference being?

@ The People's Party:

Alright, fine, I'll concede the point. You've got some good arguments for the word "religion" being applicable to atheists. However, that's using the word so broadly that... well, what's the point? What does it even mean anymore? To create a completely fictionalized (I think?) example, what if the word "apple" could be broadly interpreted to mean any sort of fruit? Sure, most people would use it for the original purpose, but when the word is used in a situation where it has to apply to all sorts of fruit, then the more specific definitions would be lost, but would remain as points for confusion.

Case in point, I was pretty much arguing the semantics based off a more specific definition of religion that includes community and spirituality that I've become used to using and hearing myself. I don't see what there is to be gained in labelling atheism a religion, since it implies that atheistic thinking is something it's not.

If you want to call a specific athiestic philosophy--like Secular Humanism--a religion, alright, there's little to be gained in disputing that, but calling atheism a religion seems as absurd to my mind as calling theism a religion. Religions CAN be atheistic or theistic, but the reverse is not always correct.

Yes, we already told you that your usage of "atheist" == "doesn't believe in the supernatural" is wrong.

In reality it really doesn't accomplish anything like you said.  I do appreciate you compliments that I formed some good agruments.  The apple example would be better replaced with the word coke.  Most people in the southern part of the States call all forms of carbinated beverages a coke as in Coca Cola (even if its a pepsi product or pepsi for that matter) while if you go to the rest of the country if you asked for a coke you're gonna get a coke and not a bonanza of other carbonated options.

The dictionary comes in handy with semantic issues hence why I was quoting the dictionary.  It wasn't the fact that I didn't get what you were saying or I was being obtuse.

I've met a fair amount of people that claimed the dictionary wasn't an authority or an authority on words/definitions (and I guess spelling for that matter).  I didn't think you were a person of that particular caliber. In reality, its utterly pointless to have a discussion with people that feel that dictionary isn't some type of an authority due to the fact only they are able to define and decode the words they speak.  I love having discussion but those discussion turned into absolutely ridiculous (trust me I've had plenty of ridiculous and those are on the very bottom of that spectrum).

SS1, Was it you that questioned my use of lepton?

Ok, let's look at that angle.

What's your point?