Originally posted by Adam Poe
By all means, point out where I have applied logic incorrectly, or evaded a question in this debate or others.
I don't really need to. Anyone who has read the last few pages and who has just a smidgen of "common sense" can see through your "smokescreening" tactics. Moving on, I still don't understand how any of my posts have been insulting. The only reason why you deem my comments to be offensive is because you've been proven wrong multiple times. It's okay to be humbled every now and again my friend. No shame in it. We can't win every battle. Except your defeat with humility...and move on.
Originally posted by Adam Poe
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":
Still grasping at "straws"...or should I say "strawmen" arguments...🙄
You truly don't get it do you? Your opinion of the Dalai Lama means nothing. The Dalai Lama's opinion on what can or can not be classified as a religion means nothing.
The Dalai Lama is not a skilled lexicographer who studies the English language and compiles English language dictionaries. Nor is he a skilled legislature who determines which belief systems are categorized as a religions under the law.
He's just a little man, who wears a red robe..and a funny little hat. In addition to this..he believes himself to be the "Bodhisattva incarnate." And I'm supposed to take his opinion seriously?...😆 😆
Come on now my friend..certainly you can see the foolishness behind the premise of this argument. It's utterly ridiculous that you continue to present that "Buddhism is not a religion because Dalai Lama says so--" argument, and you only continue to set yourself up to be ridiculed more each time you post such drivel. But again..I truly commend your tenacity, it's definately made this an entertaining debate.
Originally posted by Adam Poe
"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."
Good..you know how the US Government works. I'm sure you did well in your Highschool Civics class. But I have a question for you...
How the hell does all this make the Dalai Lama -- any more capable of defining what is and what isn't classified as a religion?
Answer:
It doesn't. You're smokescreening again. Diverging into other topics..to take away from the weakness of your arguments. Try better next time.
Originally posted by Adam Poe
The site may have made reference to Buddhism as a religion...
..but the Dalai Lama clearly states this is not the case.
Which makes your God a liar my man..or at the very least grossly misinformed. Pick your poison my friend.
Originally posted by Adam Poe
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.
Def: "His Holiness" the Dalai Lama
The traditional governmental ruler and highest priest of the dominant sect of Buddhism in Tibet and Mongolia, understood by Tibetans to be the living incarnation of the bodhisattva of compassion.
Def: HolinessBelonging to, derived from, or associated with a divine power; sacred.
Regarded with or worthy of worship or veneration; revered: a holy book.
Living according to a strict or highly moral religious or spiritual system; saintly: a holy person.
Taken from Reference.comBuddhism
The idea of an everlasting Buddha is a Mahayana notion popularly associated with the Mahayana Buddhist scripture, the Lotus Sutra. That sutra has the Buddha indicate that he became Awakened countless, immeasurable, inconceivable myriads of trillions of aeons ("kalpas"😉 ago and that his lifetime is "forever existing and immortal".
I don't know of any regular human beings whose lifetimes are stated as being "immortal".....😆 😆
Originally posted by Adam Poe
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.
Def: StrawmanThe Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the "straw man"—not held by his opponent.
As the "straw man" metaphor suggests, the counterfeit position attacked in a Straw Man argument is typically weaker than the opponent's actual position, just as a straw man is easier to defeat than a flesh-and-blood one. Of course, this is no accident, but is part of what makes the fallacy tempting to commit, especially to a desperate debater who is losing an argument.
Your argument against me on Homosexuality was weak, so you began to diverge off into another topic in a pathetic attempt to damage my credibility. Unfortunately the strawman was easily refuted by me...instead of you..lol. Kind of set yourself up to be defeated..ya know..😆 Thanks again.
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.
Thanks for the assist again..bud. Lexicographers exstensively study the words they define, and determine how a word is defined by its current usage and guess what..other than how yourself and the Dalai Lama define the term, Buddhism is currently defined as a duh..duh..duh..duh
RELIGION!!!
Seriously bud..hang it up.
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.
And as I've stated ad infinitum...the government is the one who "classifies" a belief system as a religion and gives one "authority" to practice it. The only way you can give your argument any type of credibility..is by proving that an individual has some sort of "authority" higher than that of the government. Simple as that.
You all are also making the foolish assumption that an individual has unlimited choice to determine what religions they can and can not practice. This is simply not the case my friends. All governments do indeed "regulate" religion. Some governments, however, have fewer regulations than others.
The United states for example..allows one to practice any religion they want..as long as they are not "violating" any of the laws administered by the state/national government. Why do you think the Branch Drividians were not allowed to continue practicing their belief systems, or Charles Manson isn't allowed to continue killing and sacraficing people to the Devil..because they were engaging in acts that broke the law. Such as murder, treason, etc.
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.
Refer to the above. You guys have obviously lost this strawman. But I do commend you for your tenacity..despite the weakness of the arguments presented.
Fin