> It's certainly not the first one people may go to but it is by no means the only understanding English speakers have of religion. I'm a native English speaker

> It's certainly not the first one people may go to but it is by no means the only understanding English speakers have of religion. I'm a native English speaker and I will attest that I perfectly well understand that usage. Can you concede that is not the definition the article is using? If you read the article, they portray Qanon as an organized religion,not as an ardent belief someone holds. The meaning portrayed by the author is blatantly dishonest and incorrect. > something that is believed especially with strong conviction" - kinda duplicating the "ardor" but absolutely nothing to do with whether things are facts or otherwise. No, the "ardor and faith" is the definition, since we are hairsplitting and ignoring the obvious meaning the author is using. Qanon people don't consider their belief a matter of passionate ardent faith. Just like flat earthers. Can you read their minds that you disagree with them about the nature of their own beliefs? > By MW's definition? Yes, it can be. Unfortunately, unless that definition is specified we must infer the definitioneant by the author from the context of the article. MW's definition you picked out is irrelevant unless you can show the context is using that definiton.