A word's etymology is a chronicle of its history, not a definition. As I showed before, roots and past meanings do not imply current meaning in a word. So pointing out what a word used to mean in no way helps discern the meaning of a word today. Of course, what's lost here is that nowhere in the word's history was it ever defined as "faithfulness or loyalty to God," as you previously insisted, so you are incorrect when you say "it is there in its etymology." It most certainly is not. And your initial claim--that "belief" has a "complex structure of meanings [which make it un]suitable for precise analysis"--is not supported by anything you've said since. "Faith" once implied loyalty, but faith is not the same word as "belief." Even if the word did suffer from the problem you say it does, that would not prevent "precise analysis" of the concept of belief. For example, the term "atheism" actually does have the problem you speak of, in that it can actually mean a lack of belief in gods, or an active belief that no gods exist--which are two quite different ideas. Yet atheism is no stranger to precise analysis. We, and others, have had long and fruitful discussions about its meanings on this forum and others, and the murkiness of the word itself has never been a hindrance to that. Actually, a murky or imprecise term tends to promote analysis, since it's relatively ineffective as a shorthand for a single mindset or worldview. In other words, you seem to creating a problem that isn't there. That's a vague comment. Care to get specific? You're strawmanning. I never claimed that I or atheists or non-believers were authorities in anything. I pointed to the dictionary, which offers the definition of the word as used by English-speakers today. As Fraggle has pointed out before, English is a democratic language, so definitions are based on how the word is actually used. No one is claiming authority. Maybe you should put down the :m: for a little while so you can keep track of the actual arguments being made.