You're simply wrong if you think the modern notion of those terms is the same as even their recent historic meaning, much less their old meanings. Much of the m

You're simply wrong if you think the modern notion of those terms is the same as even their recent historic meaning, much less their old meanings. Much of the meanong you're probably familiar with is their co-opting to fiction rather than honest worldview. It would be like if I insisted scientists don't mean anything because scifi abuses the same language terms! I would argue that my definition is perfectly in line with the historic view of those terms and how they're used by people who model their worldview with them. Similarly, what part of my definition do you not feel is fair -- they're not any more real than protons, another ficticious entity, but they're not any less useful as a conceptual entity. Ill note you only claimed I was confused, but didn't actually explain how and have demonstrated zero knowledge of the idea Im trying to convey. Have you considered you're simply confused, not me? Again, you seem genuinely unwilling to consider that maybe people have a more nuanced and sophisticated view than your pop-culture based caricature, and insisting that we can only mean that nonsense by the words, despite the several millennia of them being used the way Im using them.