| Welcome to Exit Mundi Forums. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Is atheism a religion?; A question of semantics. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 26 2007, 11:37 AM (981 Views) | |
| gay | May 30 2007, 06:59 PM Post #16 |
|
Earth Ending Impacter
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
=/ 1. I used TWO definitions in my argument. Neither is made up, I copied them straight off the internet. 2. my source is This. Therefore you have made 2 mistakes in your judgement, first, I used 2 definitions, not one, and second, it's not made up to "suit my purpose", because they have been there for a long time and I doubt they would by psychic enough to suddenly sense my "purposes" and just make one up just as I viewed their website. Your source, if judged in your way by me, is also "one that is made up to suit your purpose". Therefore, we should always have 2 neutral sources in our argument, since yours is one that does not talk about a universal creator, and mine does, as seen in this quote directly from the reference dictionary page:
EDIT: thanks bear, your definition definitely (lol) sorts this one out |
![]() |
|
| koala | May 30 2007, 07:12 PM Post #17 |
![]()
THE GREATEST POSTER OF ALL
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
who cares what webster says. as long as it's something we all can agree on, that should be the definition! |
| A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. You think when Jesus comes back he ever wants to see a fucking cross? It's like going up to Jackie Onassis wearing a rifle pendant. | |
![]() |
|
| Katastrof | May 30 2007, 09:55 PM Post #18 |
|
One Of The Four Horseman
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So basically any sporting event is termed as a religion? |
![]() "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero"(Seize the day put no trust in tomorrow) ~ Horace | |
![]() |
|
| Mister Sinister | May 30 2007, 10:04 PM Post #19 |
![]()
Delusional Granduerist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Your claim was that religion is ONLY defined as that which holds to a belief in a Creator. You used it to classify Buddhism as a non-religion. You offered NO other definitions or alternatives that you didn't simply ignore afterwards. You basically stated that Buddhism was not a religion because THE (Singular denotation) definition is that which has a Creator. Since Buddhism has NO CREATOR it is NOT A RELIGION. So you are still wrong. Also if you had read the definition I brought forth, it states in the very first line: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies , usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. It's there, it just has very little to do with what defines a religion, as your definition also points out by giving FIVE different alternatives and only ONE having to do with a creator. Your statement about Buddhism remains FALSE. Although you gave two definitions you completely shrugged off the second and concluded (in order to suit your purpose) that Buddhism could not be a religion, due to the fact there is no Creator. You completely ignored the better part of what defines a religion. Don't believe me? see the third through fifth alternatives in your definition of the word religion. Besides, couldn't Buddha be considered a kind of Universal governor? So, that makes you incorrect on all accounts. You were wrong about Buddha, you were wrong about your 'use' of two definitions (as you discarded one), and you were wrong about MY definition containing NO reference to an almighty creator.
According to the def you reffered to: as long as the sport taking place was created by a superhuman being and the event is being held to determine the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. But, a sports fanatic can be termed as following his sport 'religiously'. Denoting, but not ultimately defining, something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: To make a religion of pulling for the Maple Leafs. It can certainly be religious, but not a religion. |
![]() |
|
| koala | May 31 2007, 07:38 AM Post #20 |
![]()
THE GREATEST POSTER OF ALL
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
if a group of people worship an ideological figure,entity etc. then they are a religion. |
| A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. You think when Jesus comes back he ever wants to see a fucking cross? It's like going up to Jackie Onassis wearing a rifle pendant. | |
![]() |
|
| gay | May 31 2007, 10:45 AM Post #21 |
|
Earth Ending Impacter
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ok whatever, I don't have much time to skip over your massive quote so I just glanced at it and saw "the Buddha can be regarded as some sort of universal creator". I think...oh wait, I should talk more like you: I know that the Buddha is a state of being, a person (well not a person) in the state of enlightenment. THAT'S IT. He does not magically obtain creative powers and create the universe before it started. So yea, at least that statement in your answer is flawed. EDIT: ok now I have time to quote your entire post and pick out stuff I find wrong. "Your claim was that religion is ONLY defined as that which holds to a belief in a Creator." NO I gave 2 definitions so that people can remain open-minded about the conclusion I came to. You have to take in accounts of all definitions of the word religion, therefore even 1 respected definition renders your conclusion false... ok whatever, I know I can't convince you even if I type out a 1000 word essay with full convincing proof nor am I bothered to do that, so here's a reference to one that I found: click here HANG ON, before having to make false accusations about you, I'll have to rebute your ones. 1. So, that makes you incorrect on all accounts. You were wrong about Buddha What did I EVER say about the Buddha before this post? Or are you picking out on my lack of definition about the Buddha? Look at the top of this post. I didn't say that the Buddha was a universal creator because the Buddha is a state of being, a person (well not a person) in the state of enlightenment. THAT'S IT. He does not magically obtain creative powers and create the universe before it started. 2. you were wrong about your 'use' of two definitions (as you discarded one) No I didn't discard ANY of the definitions, I used BOTH to come to my conclusion that it depends on which definition you use to decide whether Buddhism was a religion. 3. you were wrong about MY definition containing NO reference to an almighty creator I can't help but quote your answer here:
you said "you were wrong about MY definition containing NO reference to an almighty creator" and you said "The definition of religion has nothing and I mean absolutely NOTHING to do with a Universal Creator. " This looks like a contradiction to me. okay, after rebuttal of your 3 false claims, time to make my own accusations ^^ hmm, I have a huge selection here, and not just false ones either. Looks like I'll just pick out 2 so I don't have to spend ages typing a reply to a post on a forum. 1. It's there, it just has very little to do with what defines a religion, as your definition also points out by giving FIVE different alternatives and only ONE having to do with a creator. Your statement about Buddhism remains FALSE No. Einstein once said "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." This doesn't mean that no amount of definitions of religions can ultimately define religion, it means that just one definition, if on the same respective grounds as the other definitions, can put the definition of religion into dispute. Whoa whoa, you're about to say "BUT THE MAJORITY IS ALWAYS RIGHT HAHA MORON". Uhm, not always, as we have seen through the ages, the church had remained the majority about the geocentric theory until Galileo came, and although he was the minority, he was right. "BUT MOST PEOPLE THINK THAT RELIGION IS DEFINED AS BEING JUST A SET OF BELIEFS" No, you can't know what everyone in the whole world thinks, even if you just went out and asked 100 people on the street randomly about definition of religion, I very much doubt you would find the same ratio as you just did on the webpage. 2. And you say "To make a religion of pulling for the Maple Leafs. " is religious but not a religion. I can say "To make a religion of trying to use the force in Star Wars". that's religious but you wouldn't recognize that it's a religion. Well, there's a religion called Jedi Knights now. |
![]() |
|
| Mister Sinister | May 31 2007, 03:33 PM Post #22 |
![]()
Delusional Granduerist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It was a question posed not a statement made. Maybe you should spend more time on your reading comprehension. It'll save you time wasting embarassments like this.
Did I say that? How on Earth are you to grasp what I said when you simply "glanced over my post"? It wasn't even that much. Now you are being rude by claiming my post is TLTR, then fwapping out a grand scale masterpeice of your own.
Well, no, you need to READ the statement in order to have the ability to JUDGE the statement, no? In lieu of time, you just glanced, and in glancing have misquoted me and wasted your time. So, yeah, this entire retort is flawed, just like your statment about Buddhism NOT being a religion is FALSE.
Good I hope this works out for you, now that you are paying attention.
Right, the two definition thing. Well, YOU yourself did not even take that second definition into account, you discarded it immediatley after stating it. Concluding that Buddhism (regardless of the second def you gave) is definitely NOT a religion. FALSE!! Buddhism IS a religion thanks to the second definition you gave. Why you threw it out after typing it in is beyond me. Oh, yeah, I forgot...you had to in order for you to be right, which you weren't. By ANYONE'S definition, Buddhism is a religion, even the one's you posted. Care to recant and say that Buddhism is definitely a religion? Because, it is YOUR conclusion rendered false, by the very definition YOU posted.
No, you will NEVER be able to convince me of something that isn't true. I'm glad you have finally come to your senses...wait a minute, this is not even halfway through your post. Maybe I'm a bit daft, but I gathered the conclusion of this lenghty and pointless essay to be of the opinion that not only is Buddhism a religion, but Buddhism is a BETTER and more pure RELIGION than any Abrahamic faiths that DO have a creator. One of the last paragraphs in this essay: So we return again to the question as to whether Buddhism is a religion. In the sense that it offers us a moral code helping to conjoin us in the living together of a better life, yes, it is a religion. For that is the inner or nuclear meaning of religion -- relinking, rejoining. But if Buddhism is taken to imply belief in a supreme being who rules the universe and can be bribed to alter his decisions by our prayers and solicitations for personal preference, it is not a religion. Jesus H. Vishnu, did you even read this article or did you "glance over it"?
WTF? I was right about Buddhism being a religion, you're the one that is wrong. You said Buddhism was NOT a religion, then posted a definition that says IT IS!!!Read your own definition. Also, please read my posts carefully if you plan to reply to them in turn. Having to sift through your mess and clean up your misquotes and tangent arguements based on those misquotes is a real bummer. Please, if you plan on replying plan on doing more than 'glancing'.
If you did not discard the second and correct definition, you would have been able to properly classify Buddhism as a religion. Instead you ignored it to suit your purpose of being right....well, you weren't. How many more times?
Buddy, if you have a size fourteen foot you can't wear a size 10 shoe and there would be absolutely NO reason to classify it that way. Why on Earth would you use an alternative that doesn't apply to define an institution when there is a perfectly good fit in the exact same definition? IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!
You were STILL incorrect about this...just because you caint reed guud don't mean I'm the one that is wrong.
and you were...
If you'll believe it, I had meant to write virtually in place of absolutely. A small error for which I apologize profusely. It doesn't change the fact that you incorrectly regarded Buddhism as a NON-religion, misquoted my question as to the nature of Buddha, not to mention glancing over my post (like that shows some sort of superiority?) which resulted in numerous errors on your part. I apologized for my mistake, let's see if YOU have the sack to admit how wrong you were.
Don't pat yourself on the back just yet. I still don't see where my claims are FALSE. You are the one calling Buddhism a NON-religion, not me. You're the one who can't seem to wrap their mind around applying the definition that fits, Gay.
Too late. I can't wait to see what you've picked up while 'glancing over'.
So, now your Einstein? Are you REALLY comparing this pithy debate with the debate about the theory of relativity? Man, you need some perspective. Yes, your statement about Buddhism remains false. Buddhism IS a religion thanks to several definitions that include Buddhism as a reference, like this one: 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. Buddhism fits that def, no? THEN BUDDHISM IS A RELIGION!! If I were to say: Because the word 'Bear' can mean to hold somethings weight, a Kodiak cannot be classified as a Bear. Then I would be speaking along the same lines of what you said about Buddhism, and sounding ridiculous having just discarded one whole meaning of the word bear.
????.... Like I said, is the word Bear in dispute? You are right, I cannot KNOW what everyone in the World thinks. However, I can get concrete evidence on what we have agreed words to mean. Words vary from place to place, and that is the reason we have alternative definitions. So that they may encompass EVERYONE'S ideas about what the word should mean. They are not disputes, they are amendments and alternatives.
Jedi Knights are a religious order but Buddhism isn't? Jesus H Fucking Christ, now you have got me steamed!! This wasn't even directed towards you, something you would know if you could comprehend the English language when written. Not to mention the pure unadulterated nonsense that you have strung together in an attempt to look correct. Which is something you were never even close to being. Talk about futile. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today. Learn More · Register Now |
|
| « Previous Topic · Politics and Religion · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2





![]](http://z2.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)







12:28 AM Jul 11