Aliasing religious → religion
Link to alias

Reason:

They are inherently related anyways, religion will allow us a little bit of liberty for the following:

Related implications:

• lol_religion -> religion
• jewish -> religion
• jesus_christ -> religion
• christian -> religion
• hindu -> religion
• bible -> religion
• islamic -> religion
• atheist -> religion (lol)

Related aliases:

• jew -> jewish
• christianity -> christian
• muslim, islam -> islamic

Religious

Given that our system is Tag What You See, that shouldn't even be a tag, so +1 to aliasing it to religion.

I'm not sure how I feel about that atheist -> religion suggestion. :/

But anyway, there's also the sacrilegious and sacrilegiously_delicious tags. The former can be implicated to religion, the other could be... aliased?

Also, christian_symbols -> christianity; shinto -> religion.

temple/shrine/church/priest -> religion?

I've made the following changes:

• Implication: religious -> religion (approved)
• Implication: lol_religion -> religion (approved)
• Implication: jewish -> religion (approved)
• Implication: christianity -> religion (approved)
• Implication: bible -> religion (approved)
• Implication: jesus_christ -> religion (approved)
• Implication: hindu -> religion (approved)
• Implication: islamic -> religion (approved)
• Implication: sacrilegious -> religion (approved)
• Implication: christian_symbols -> christianity (approved)
• Implication: shinto -> religion (approved)
• Alias: sacrilegiously_delicious -> sacrilegious (approved)
• Alias: jew -> jewish (approved)
• Alias: christian -> christianity (approved) (flipped from OP)
• Alias: muslim -> islamic (approved)
• Alias: islam -> islamic (approved)

I left temple/shrine/church/priest//atheist as-is because I'm not 100% on those ones.

Also be sure to implicate pointless_bickering

parasprite said:
I left temple/shrine/church/priest//atheist as-is because I'm not 100% on those ones.

I don't know about the last one but the others seem fine.

"atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

so that probably wouldn't fit anywhere under a religion tag.

oh and just as an FYI, don't even start with me on ANY religious discussion/argument. seen enough of that *insert profanity here* on youtube and i'm sick of the futility of such stupid arguments. i simply don't want anything to do with ANY religion, it's SO not worth the fuss.

1 thing i learned from such people in youtube comments is discussing religion with a religious person is like talking to a brick wall and having any opinions that differ from theirs = attacking them.

imho, it's ALL complete and utter BS. that's just my opinion however and i have NO intention on it going beyond that. (yes, i happen to be an atheist as per the definition i quoted above...and happily so.)

treos said:
"atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

so that probably wouldn't fit anywhere under a religion tag.

Under TWYS, you usually wouldn't be able to tag that without some hint of religion being present in the post. :P

Not saying you can't, just that it would probably work anyways. I don't think it's worth bothering over an implication either way (after all, it's only tagged on 4 posts, 2 of which are on a single comic).

The atheist tag seems weird to me.
Under TWYS, isn't 'atheism' a more appropriate tag? It's not like 'atheist' is comparable to 'scientist'. One's an absence of belief, the other is a profession with identifiable clothing clues.

For comparison, we have the tags communism, patriotism, racism, feminism, capitalism, satanism, and buddhism.

savageorange said:
It's not like 'atheist' is comparable to 'scientist'.

Contrary to- *banned*

parasprite said:

• Implication: christian_symbols -> christianity

Actually, is the christian_symbols tag even needed? It seems rather vague and images such as these could be tagged simply as cross (which they already are):

post #13448 post #256406

Maybe it'd be best to alias it to christianity?

treos said:
oh and just as an FYI, don't even start with me on ANY religious discussion/argument. seen enough of that *insert profanity here* on youtube and i'm sick of the futility of such stupid arguments. i simply don't want anything to do with ANY religion, it's SO not worth the fuss.

1 thing i learned from such people in youtube comments is discussing religion with a religious person is like talking to a brick wall and having any opinions that differ from theirs = attacking them.

imho, it's ALL complete and utter BS. that's just my opinion however and i have NO intention on it going beyond that. (yes, i happen to be an atheist as per the definition i quoted above...and happily so.)

Why do atheists always have to state that they're atheist on the internet even through no one cares? Also, I learned from the any social media in general that discussing religion with an non-religious person is like talking to a brick wall and having any opinions that differ from their = attacking them.

imho, it's not ALL complete and utter BS. that's just my opinion however and i have NO intention on it going beyond that. (yes, i happen to be an agnostic...and happily so.)

Genjar said:
Actually, is the christian_symbols tag even needed? It seems rather vague and images such as these could be tagged simply as cross (which they already are):

post #13448 post #256406

Maybe it'd be best to alias it to christianity?

a cross doesn't really mean that religion though. ive seen many kinds of T shaped symbols that arent Christianity.

Well, you can create a theology tag. This tag can handle all religions plus atheism, agnosticism, ignosticism, irreligion or all other theological views.

blackest_vulture said:
Well, you can create a theology tag. This tag can handle all religions plus atheism, agnosticism, ignosticism, irreligion or all other theological views.

Replace theology with cosmology and it would fit.

Atheism and agnosticism are not theology - they are views on the cosmos, not on any religious text or canon. Hence theology is just as unsuitable as religion as an implication for them.