Originally posted by whobdamandog
When used correctly..and not for the sake of dodging obvious answers to simple questions. This type of behavior, has been demonstrated by you throughout this debate and many others.
By all means, point out where I have applied logic incorrectly, or evaded a question in this debate or others.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
No one has insulted you Adam.
Originally posted by whobdamandog ...you are a lost cause my friend.
Originally posted by whobdamandog I truly commend your tenacity..but I believe you are letting it delude you from using the God given "common sense" we are inherently instilled with. Then again, far be it from me to make assumptions about the gifts that God has given to you..it could be that "common sense" is something that he never instilled you with...
Originally posted by whobdamandog And I doubt you will bud...because you're just trying to mislead and confuse the masses..which is what "people" like you do best. You never put anything credible on the table..you just throw out a few random numbers/studies to support your "personal/moral agenda", and then pray to your "Gods" in hopes that no one will catch you in a lie. Truly pathetic my friend. If this is the best that you can come up with..then I definately will have pity for you..when you've revealed the worst.
Originally posted by whobdamandog You sound like a fanatical religious nut Adam. Only someone who indoctrinated with in some sort of cult like "religion"..would believe that a little man in a funny robe and hat, is the Supreme authority when it comes to defining things...
Originally posted by whobdamandog Much like yourself, your "God" is a liar.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Your position boils down to this:Buddhism is not a Relgion..because the Dalai Lama says so
That is foolish and child like argument. <--this is the Truth.
IF the Dalai Lama was not qualified to give an expert opinion as to what Buddhism is or is not, the argument would be not be sound.
This is an example of a "foolish and child-like argument":
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Thus the only true "authority" that both the Dalai Lama and the Pope have..is that given to them by those whom allow them to practice their beliefs.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
And just like a Supreme court judge, the Dalai Lama/Pope have no more "Authority" than what is given to them by their Governments.And just like a Supreme court judge, they must abide by the written laws and regulations given to them by the Government. In this case these regulations represent how a religion is defined.
"The highest court is the Supreme Court of the United States which consists of nine justices. The court deals with federal and constitutional matters, and can declare legislation made at any level of the government as unconstitutional, nullifying the law and creating precedent for future law and decisions."
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Much like yourself, your "God" is a liar. Particularly since his own web site contradicts what he has stated.
Tibet.com is maintained and operated by the Office of Tibet in London, and serves as a liaison office and source of information on matters relating to Tibetans inside and outside of Tibet. The site may have made reference to Buddhism as a religion, perhaps because lay people often refer to it as such, but the Dalai Lama clearly states this is not the case.
Moreover, Buddhists do not worship the Dalai Lama or Buddha as a god. In fact, Buddhism holds no belief about the existence of a Supreme Being.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Adam this entire argument on BUDDHISM commits Straw Man fallacy..seeing as how the topic of this thread is HOMOSEXUALITY..give it up bud...However there is one reasonable comparison we can make between the two arguments..you've failed just as much in proving your position on this topic, as you have in the original topic of the thread.
This is not the correct use of the Straw Man fallacy. For my argument to have committed the Straw Man fallacy, I would have to assert, "You are incorrect that Buddhism is a religion, therefore homosexuality is genetic."
Someone is having difficulty proving his arguments, and it is not me.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
You are making a poor assumption, just as Adam Poe is. Whether or not the Dalai Lama practices Buddhism is not relevant to a Government's or English lexicographer's ability in defining what classifies as a "religion."Case in point: What makes the Dalai Lama an expert on what a "religion" is defined by?
Answer: Nothing
Is the Dalai Lama a skilled English language lexicographer for a Dictionary?
Answer: Of course not.
Does he determine what "belief systems" are classified as "religions" under the law?
Answer: Nope.
Without even bring the "Authority" argument into play..one could argue that the Dalai Lama's doesn't even have the knowledge/or ability to determine what qualifies as a religion.
Merriam-Webster Online...To decide which words to include in the dictionary and to determine what they mean, Merriam-Webster editors study the language as it's used.
...Change and variation are as natural in language as they are in other areas of human life and Merriam-Webster reference works must reflect that fact. By relying on citational evidence, we hope to keep our publications grounded in the details of current usage so they can calmly and dispassionately offer information about modern English.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
I'm not overlooking anything. You can't be an authority on something unless someone allows you to have it. A person can't become a Doctor without first getting a license to become one. An individual can't become a Lawyer unless they pass the state bar. They can't call themselves Doctors or Lawyers just because they've studied in the field..the Government requires them to do these things in order to "practice" these professions.Case in Point:
An individual has no more authority to declare what his belief system is..then those who allow him to practice it.
Anyway..in order for your argument to stand..you have to provide evidence for me which supports the following arguments.
a) The Dalai Lama is a skilled English language lexicographer.
b) The Dalai Lama receives his "authority" from some source..higher than the government which rules over him.
Without providing evidence supporting these 2 things..then the Dalai Lama's opinion..carries no more "authority" than the average slub standing on the street corner..who debates in comic book/movie forums.
Originally posted by Wanderer259
The government may have authority over Buddhist practicioners, including their spiritual leaders, ie the Dalai Lama, but that does not mean the government is an authority on Buddhism.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You have yet to answer Wanderer259's question. Allow me to rephrase the question and pose it to you again, "Does the People's Republic of China have the authority to declare Buddhism a science, because it has control over Tibet, yes or no?" Again, you cannot have it both ways; either a government is not authority on what is and is not a religion, or a government can declare anything to be a religion, or any religion to be a cult, fantasy, and so forth.