"O.E. belyfan "to believe," earlier geleafa (Mercian), gelefa (Northumbrian), gelyfan (W.Saxon) "believe," from P.Gmc. *ga-laubjan "to believe," perhaps lit. "hold dear, love" (cf. O.S. gilobian "believe," Du. geloven, O.H.G. gilouben, Ger. glauben), ultimately a compound based on PIE *leubh- "to care, desire, love" (see belief). Spelling beleeve is common till 17c.; then altered, perhaps by influence of relieve, etc. To believe on instead of in was more common in 16c. but now is a peculiarity of theology; believe of also sometimes was used in 17c. Related: Believed (formerly occasionally beleft); believing. Expression believe it or not attested by 1874; Robert Ripley's newspaper cartoon of the same name is from 1918. Emphatic you better believe attested from 1854."
So the source meaning of believe is based around loving something. Is there a better word to ascribe to the meaning of knowing something exists? So we can move away from the issue of the definition of the word blurring across meanings. I don't think believe as a word to describe thinking god is real needs to be blurred with I believe my hand is in front of my face. I don't want to pull the discussion down into BS theoretical philosophy; just would like a better term to differentiate here. Any suggestions on how theists can word their beliefs, and how we atheists can word our descriptions of the things were KNOW exist.
I know it's just vocab, just would like to hear some different approaches for a change (maybe this is a new thread).
If we dig a little deeper into what you are addressing, it illustrates how deeply language affects the ideas that are associated with religion. It's not a very precise language since it melds these old European ideas with the foreign religions that were imposed on them from the time of Roman conquest. I think your point is important and arrives in a parallel path to what the OP says: modern religion is the product of the melding of prototype religions, languages and cultures. Confusion in and over religious ideation is just as easily analyzed as the confusion that normally arises over language and the etymology of words.
You can create a long list of words that trace the jumble of Nordic, Greek, Roman and Hebrew mythology that have come together to form the modern Western ideas about religion and religious terminology. You will be quickly led from linguistics into history. Religions and religious ideas are ancient, so to try to get to the bottom of what they are saying, and why, necessarily involves understanding the history of religion itself. From there you will arrive at the idea in the OP, that religions do not spring up out of local discoveries of cosmic truths, but from superstitions, myths, fables and legends that cultures have relied on since the dawn of history to explain phenomena for which they had no science. Now that we live in an era in which science is nearly free from the yoke of religious superstition, we are able to see this from a global perspective that was not available to them.
Thus the Gott/Guth/Goth (God) that one was beliebed (beloved) in order to get to Haven (heaven) to be with the Angelos (evangelios - messengers, angels) by avoiding the Deuwill (devil, demon, daemon), etc., takes us on a journey though Nordic, Roman, Greek and Hebrew concepts alone, and that's just scratching at the surface. Angels, the devil, and Hell in modern context can be traced to Persian influence, in the era of Alexander the Great's mixing of cultures. Jesus speaks of a fiery hell - not a Judaic concept, but a Persian one - just as one example. Jesus himself mixes several archetypes - Hebrew rabbi-prophet, Greek martyr (Socrates with the cup), Persian son of God (Mithra) with twelve followers (zodiac) who died and rose on the third day (the sun at solstice), etc., and the Roman contribution to the founding of Christianity begins with the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem and the insurrection of the Hebrews against them, which introduced severe punishments like crucifixion.
We could keep drilling deeper and we would be pursuing world history and anthropology, which certainly support your idea of the significance of language and cultural roots in the development of ancient religions.
More directly to your point, the words "believe" and "know" are ideas themselves founded in ancient culture. One is founded on emotion and the other is founded on the intellect. Besides the plain reasoning you used, I think we can trace the roots of language and history, as your reminder of etymology shows, and quickly converge on a host of ideas that support the strongest of arguments against religion: that it's founded on ancient superstition.
Unfortunately, as far as dialogue with "beliebers" is concerned, there is rarely in any interest in digging around at the roots of their ideas. So it's rare to get their participation in uncovering ancient history and culture, for the same reason they avoid the basic idea stated in the OP. They already know religion is based on superstition, they just don't like to be reminded of it.
