Originally posted by whobdamandog
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.Both sentences sound about the same to me..now your just trying to play with wording.
Belief can be used synonomously in place of "principle"...and activity can be used synonomously in place of practice..the words mean the same thing...lol..good try though...
Since you are having difficulty recognizing the difference between the meanings of “cause,” “principle,” and “activity,” allow me to define them:
cause n. The interests of a person or group.
prin·ci·ple n. A rule or standard.
ac·tiv·i·ty n. A specified pursuit.
Now, let us substitute the respective definitions of “cause,” “principle,” and “activity,” in the definition of “religion”:
“The interests of a person or group, a rule or standard, or a specified pursuit, pursued with zeal or devotion.”
Buddhism still does not qualify.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Yes it does. Go to any website..bookstore..or ask any religious scholar and they will tell you it is. You are welcome to your personal opinion however.
Ask the Dalai Lama, and he will tell you that Buddhism is not a religion but a philosophy. 🙄
Originally posted by whobdamandog
You should really do more research on the terms that you use..Much like Creationism...the Macro - Evolutionary theory is more theistic than it is scientific..no "valid" evidence has been found supporting this theory. All of the alleged "transitional fossils" found supporting this theory have been relegated to being forgeries or to being members of a specific already known species of plant, animal, etc...It's scientific model is very illogical..and contradicts itself in many different ways.
No one is debating the existance of Dinosaurs. Anyway this is a moot point, Dinosaur fossils do not support the Macro - Evolutionary theory in anyway shape or form. To state that they do is pure ignorance.
The following are 22 examples have complete dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps:
Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
The claim that Dinosaur/other fossils are millions of years old is really theoretical, and is not scientifically sound/accurate claim. Many of the fossils ages were determined by Carbon dating..which hasn't yet been proven to be a completely accurate measurement tool. Carbon dating can only semi accurately trace fossils that go back to a few thousand years. To state that fossils have been found over 6000 years old is grossly incorrect, seeing as how there is no definitive/accurate process that can be used to determine the age of objects over several thousand years of age.
Only soft tissues are dated using Carbon 14 isotopes. Fossils are dated using the Isochron methodology.
whobdamandog, I strongly suggest you go and study archaeology and study the different dating-methods cause you clearly don't know much of it 😑
as Adam Poe pointed out: C14 is the most known method, but they don't use it all the time cause you can indeed only go back X thousand years; doesn't mean it's the ONLY known method to correctly date fossils
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Since you are having difficulty recognizing the difference between the meanings of “cause,” “principle,” and “activity,” allow me to define them:[b]cause
n. The interests of a person or group.prin·ci·ple n. A rule or standard.
ac·tiv·i·ty n. A specified pursuit.
Now, let us substitute the respective definitions of “cause,” “principle,” and “activity,” in the definition of “religion”:
“The interests of a person or group, a rule or standard, or a specified pursuit, pursued with zeal or devotion.”
Buddhism still does not qualify.
Let's just end this little wordplay game once and for all...
This definition is taken from the following link...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Buddhism
Buddhism
n 1: a RELIGION represented by the many groups (especially in Asia) that profess various forms of the Buddhist doctrine and that venerate Buddha [syn: Buddhism] 2: the teaching of Buddha that life is permeated with suffering caused by desire, that suffering ceases when desire ceases, and that enlightenment obtained through right conduct and wisdom and meditation releases one from desire and suffering and rebirth
Buddhism is a RELIGION...
Please contact the Dalai Lama and explain to him that he is wrong..lol...😆 😆
okay that puts an end of that little side debate..lol...🙄
let's move on....
The following are 22 examples have complete dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological gaps:Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba.
No "transitional fossils" have been found my friend. If what you have listed above were deemed to be true, then we would no longer have a "theory of Macro Evolution", but instead we would have a "Scientific Law of Macro Evolution."
All of the "transitional" species you listed above have either proven to be frauds(most notably Archaeopteryx) or to be of one species of animal altogether. To continue to argue using this erroneous/misleading data and contradictory arguments is very illogical..and weakens your overall argument.
Only soft tissues are dated using Carbon 14 isotopes. Fossils are dated using the Isochron methodology.
Answer: http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/isochrons2.html
Radiometric rock dating, the methodology of determining the date of formation of a rock sample by the well-established rate of decay of the isotopes contained, depends on accurately determination of the starting points, the original concentrations of the isotopes.
Many methods of estimating these beginning concentrations have been proposed, but all rest on tenuous assumptions which have limited their acceptance.
This most accepted of all methods has two variations, the mineral isochron and the whole-rock isochron. The logically-sound authenticating mechanism of the mineral isochron is applied to the whole-rock isochron, where it is invalid. The long-term stability of the whole-rock is applied to the mineral, where it is inappropriate.
When the isochron data are the result of the rock being a blend of two original species, the diagram is called a mixing line, having no time significance. This paper shows that all whole-rock isochrons are necessarily mixing lines. It is noted that by analogy the mixing-line logic casts strong suspicion on the mineral isochron as well.
Since only whole-rock isochrons play a significant role in the dating game anyway, isotopic geochronology can be rather generally discredited.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Let's just end this little wordplay game once and for all...This definition is taken from the following link...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Buddhism
Buddhism
n 1: a RELIGION represented by the many groups (especially in Asia) that profess various forms of the Buddhist doctrine and that venerate Buddha [syn: Buddhism] 2: the teaching of Buddha that life is permeated with suffering caused by desire, that suffering ceases when desire ceases, and that enlightenment obtained through right conduct and wisdom and meditation releases one from desire and suffering and rebirth
Buddhism is a RELIGION...
Please contact the Dalai Lama and explain to him that he is wrong..lol...
okay that puts an end of that little side debate..lol...
let's move on....
Dictionary.com is a greater authority on Buddhism then the Dalai Lama? Pardon me while I laugh at your absurdity. 😆 😆 😆
First, dictionaries define words lexically, or by the relationship of the word to the vocabulary, words, or morphemes of a language. In other words, dictionaries define words according to their common usage.
Second, since you are so keen on referencing Dictionary.com, I find it interesting that you chose not to post the primary definition of “Buddhism” that does not define it as a religion:
Bud·dhism n. The teaching of Buddha that life is permeated with suffering caused by desire, that suffering ceases when desire ceases, and that enlightenment obtained through right conduct, wisdom, and meditation releases one from desire, suffering, and rebirth.
…In favor of posting the definition that appears at the bottom of the page:
Bud·dhism n. A religion represented by the many groups that profess various forms of the Buddhist doctrine and that venerate Buddha.
Even if the definition you provided is accurate, it does not describe Buddhism, but a religion such as Mahayana, based on the profession of Buddhist doctrine and the veneration of Buddha.
While Buddhists follow Buddhist doctrine, they do not venerate Buddha.
Sorry, try again. 🙄
Originally posted by whobdamandog
No "transitional fossils" have been found my friend. If what you have listed above were deemed to be true, then we would no longer have a "theory of Macro Evolution", but instead we would have a "Scientific Law of Macro Evolution."All of the "transitional" species you listed above have either proven to be frauds(most notably Archaeopteryx) or to be of one species of animal altogether. To continue to argue using this erroneous/misleading data and contradictory arguments is very illogical..and weakens your overall argument.
You are obviously not familiar with the requirements necessary for a theory to become a law. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that gravity exists, yet Relativity is still a theory. 🙄
Furthermore, if no transitional fossils have been found, how do you explain the 22 examples of dinosaur-to-bird speciation with no morphological gaps that I provided? Oh, that’s right, they are all erroneous of fraudulent, despite the fact that you have provided no evidence to prove that is the case. 🙄
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Answer: http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/isochrons2.htmlRadiometric rock dating, the methodology of determining the date of formation of a rock sample by the well-established rate of decay of the isotopes contained, depends on accurately determination of the starting points, the original concentrations of the isotopes.
Many methods of estimating these beginning concentrations have been proposed, but all rest on tenuous assumptions that have limited their acceptance.
This most accepted of all methods has two variations, the mineral isochron and the whole-rock isochron. The logically-sound authenticating mechanism of the mineral isochron is applied to the whole-rock isochron, where it is invalid. The long-term stability of the whole-rock is applied to the mineral, where it is inappropriate.
When the isochron data are the result of the rock being a blend of two original species, the diagram is called a mixing line, having no time significance. This paper shows that all whole-rock isochrons are necessarily mixing lines. It is noted that by analogy the mixing-line logic casts strong suspicion on the mineral isochron as well.
Since only whole-rock isochrons play a significant role in the dating game anyway, isotopic geochronology can be rather generally discredited.
1. Mixing can be detected by plotting the total daughter isotopes against the ratio of daughter isotopes. These would not fall on a straight line if mixing occurred.
2. Isochron plots from mixing can have any slope, even negative slopes. If mixing were common, we would expect a high percentage of isochron results to show negative slopes; They do not.
3. Other factors can produce false isochrons:
[list][*]Protracted fractionation. This requires slow cooling over millions of years and produces only a small error.
[*]Inherited ages. The age given by this method is the age of the source material. Furthermore, this factor requires unusual conditions and usually produces scatter in the isochron plot.
[*]Metamorphism. This produces apparent ages younger than the age of the source material.[/list]
4. False isochrons can be avoided by choosing appropriate samples. The samples must come from an initially homogeneous source and avoiding obvious signs of weathering and metamorphism.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Dictionary.com is a greater authority on Buddhism then the Dalai Lama? Pardon me while I laugh at your absurdity.
Very moot point. The definition of the word was taken from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, which is a very respected/accredited authority in defining English vocabulary.
First, dictionaries define words lexically, or by the relationship of the word to the vocabulary, words, or morphemes of a language. In other words, dictionaries define words according to their common usage.
While I have to commend your extensive vocabulary, I often wonder if you truly understand the meanings of the words that you have written.
lexically is the adverbial form of the adjective lexical.
and its definition is..
representing by means of words/vocabulary
Of course the English language is primarily defined by words..lol..how else would should we define it..by using pictures?
Anyway..What you have written is an elaborate, untruthful, illogical, contradictory word - play so to speak, (You even mentioned that I didn't include the complete primary definition of the word Buddhism, which if you read the definition I provided above, you would realize that your statement is very innacurrate/untrue...pick your poison.)
You've also contradicted yourself in many other ways, however, for the sake of staying on the topic...I'll put a final nail in the coffin of this argument by only addressing the most pertinent inconsistancy in your previous post.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
While Buddhists follow Buddhist doctrine, they do not venerate Buddha.
FYI To venerate something is to highly respect it...I'll even give you some words and phrases that can be used synonymously in place of venerate, so you don't feel like anything has been left out, or like I am being misleading(hint: when a word is synonymous with another..it essentially carries the same meaning.)
Synonyms for venerate: highly respect, revere, honor, heartfelt deference, highly regard, highly recognize,
So essentially what your saying in the line above is...
While Buddhists follow Buddhist doctrine, they do not highly respect Buddha??!!!
or we could try this one...
While Buddhists follow Buddhist doctrine, they do not revere Buddha??!!!
or how about this one...
While Buddhists follow Buddhist doctrine, they do not honor Buddha??!!!
I think you get the point..
So in summary..your logic behind Buddhism not qualifying as a religion is..
1. The English language is defined primarly by words..
2. Buddhists do not highly respect Buddha.
3. Even though the Dictionary/Religious Scholars classify it as a religion, Dhali Lahma said it wasn't one.
4. Even though Buddhists practice Buddhist Doctrine..practicing a doctrine has nothing to do with practicing a religion?!!!
Your right buddy..it all makes sense to me now..🙄
Seriously, I can't believe how silly you sound. The funniest part about it is the fact that you try to conceal your obviosly misleading/contridictory/illogical information, with fanciful word-play. I'm not going to even continue debating this particular argument, because I believe the point is quite clear. That point being......Buddhism is a religion..Fin.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You are obviously not familiar with the requirements necessary for a theory to become a law. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that gravity exists, yet Relativity is still a theory. 🙄
The concept of science in itself is theoretical..and can not be proven by physical means. To believe that everything in this universe can be explained by complex mathematical equations or theoretical paradigm is an outlandish illogical view of the universe, one that requires an incredible amount of faith and assumptions, rather than scientific law/principal/theory.
Furthermore, if no transitional fossils have been found, how do you explain the 22 examples of dinosaur-to-bird speciation with no morphological gaps that I provided? Oh, that’s right, they are all erroneous of fraudulent, despite the fact that you have provided no evidence to prove that is the case. 🙄
Other than your word that these 22 examples are valid, what proof do you have that they are? Anyway..Rather than engage in *** for tat, and recap what has previously been stated, I'll just say refer to previous posts, your public library, the internet, bookstores, or any resource containing knowledge on the subject. You have the right to believe whatever it is you want to believe in, and it's obvious that I can't convince you otherwise. If you really want to know the truth, however, there is much material out there.
1. Mixing can be detected by plotting the total daughter isotopes against the ratio of daughter isotopes. These would not fall on a straight line if mixing occurred.2. Isochron plots from mixing can have any slope, even negative slopes. If mixing were common, we would expect a high percentage of isochron results to show negative slopes; They do not.
3. Other factors can produce false isochrons:
[list][*]Protracted fractionation. This requires slow cooling over millions of years and produces only a small error.
[*]Inherited ages. The age given by this method is the age of the source material. Furthermore, this factor requires unusual conditions and usually produces scatter in the isochron plot.
[*]Metamorphism. This produces apparent ages younger than the age of the source material.[/list]
4. False isochrons can be avoided by choosing appropriate samples. The samples must come from an initially homogeneous source and avoiding obvious signs of weathering and metamorphism.
Refer to previous response..this debate is obviously dragging on..and your arguments have cleary been rebutted in this and many other posts. Nice debating with you. Good day.
Ok,
First of all,
what the Hell does buddhism have to do with ANYTHING??
Secondly, There are two sects of Buddhism...
One does venerate Buddha, (for the sake of clarity, I'm using vernerate in place of worship as a god, because apparently you are being anal about diction...) and one doesn't
I believe the Dali Lama is part of the sect that does not...
(Hope that settles that.)
Moving on.
Macro-Evolution does not exist in a literal sence. It is simply the way bioligists and other scientists refer to thelarger changes become apparent after a long period of micro-evolution. To put it simply, Macro-evolution is just what happens when a bunch of micro-evolutionary changes are stacked up.
Micro-evolution HAS been proven, in labrotories with fruit-flys and such. It happens through crossing over, and other events, punctured equilibrium, ect.
Therefore, since Micro-evolution has been proven, macro-evolution has been proven as they are dependant on each other, and this means evolution has been proven.
Why still a theroy, you ask?
Simple, There are no facts in science. What you may call a fact, is accualy a theory, because science is an evolutionary (by this I mean, change over time. Evolution means change over time.) Gravity is a theroy, (Theroy of Relativity) Germs are a theroy (Germ theroy), Atoms are a theroy, ect...
Originally posted by Tptmanno1
Ok,
First of all,
what the Hell does buddhism have to do with ANYTHING??
Buddhism came up when I brought up the point that Darwinism could be labeled as a theistic religion. I believe someone brought up the point that a religion could only be defined by the supernatural events and a creator..which is an untrue statement. My argument was that since Buddhism has no "Creator" and is classified as a religion, Darwinism could be as well based on the fact that both were..
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Adam_Poe attempted to word-play around "lexically" with the definitions of Buddhism and religion, however, he did little to discredit the actual definitions of both. Particularly Buddhism which was defined "lexically" as a religion in the dictionary.
Therefore, since Micro-evolution has been proven, macro-evolution has been proven as they are dependant on each other, and this means evolution has been proven.
So I could call a chair a type of dog..based on the fact they both have four legs right? Or I could call an Elephant a Tree..based on the fact that it has a trunk..
It's very silly and nonsensical to relate two greatly different principles, even though they have homonymic names...
Adaptation(or as evolutionists like to call it micro-evolution) and Evolution(Macro) are two highly different principles. To state that one supports the other is an opinion, and there is nothing factual to substantiate that claim.
Simple, There are no facts in science. What you may call a fact, is accualy a theory, because science is an evolutionary (by this I mean, change over time. Evolution means change over time.) Gravity is a theroy, (Theroy of Relativity) Germs are a theroy (Germ theroy), Atoms are a theroy, ect...
Good. I'm glad someone has finally admitted to this. Which is why I believe that Creationism should be given as much credo as other theories in science class. There are many scientific principles/theories that support creationism..(ie Theory of relativity, Second Law of Thermodynamics, earth/natural sciences and plenty of others..)
Originally posted by Tptmanno1
Who's is factual....
Hmm lets think about this for a second.
MY research came out of years of study, experiments and observations...
Which sad to say, has as of yet to be proven by valid evidence. I think what steams many evolutionists the most, is the fact that all of their "years" of study" have produced nothing substantive to support their claims. In essence, they've wasted most of their lives studying lies, and trying to justify them with scientific principles.
YOUR's came from a 2000 year old BOOK!
hmm....
One doesn't have to reference a specific theistic religion in order to look at the universe and its complexity and understand the simple concept of intelligence in its design. As one of the most respected Scientests of the Century, Albert Einstein understood this theistic principle. I'll close my argument with some quotes from him.
Taken from http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Albert_Einstein/
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
""Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
"Great spirits have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly."
"At any rate, I am convinced that He [God] does not play dice."
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science."
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions."
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Okay..I've given all of my two cents. I suggest all the pro-evolutionists in this thread do some more research on both theories to get a more clear, concise view of which evidence is factual, and which is not. Good Nite Everybody.
Originally posted by Tptmanno1
Fine, prove it to me.
I wan't you to prove to me whatever the hell you are trying to prove.
Take a breath..and ask yourself the question, which one of these theological concepts below seems more logical..
Concept 1By random chance, a few stray atomic particles with origins unknown bonded together forming protoplasmic cells.
And somehow by random chance..these few protoplasmic globs of cells
developed some form of sentience.And somehow by random chance these protoplasmic globs..developed the ability to adapt to water and form aquatic life.
And somehow by random chance...they developed the ability to adapt to air and land.
And somehow by random chance..they developed the ability to walk upright.
And somehow by random chance...they developed some form of complex intelligence.
Concept 2Life was designed by an intelligent being, to perform a specific function.
To me the second theory sounds much more scientific/logical..I'll put my FAITH in it.
All I've seen you do is say, "There is evidence that your wrong!"
You give me proof that your right. Hard substancial proof. go. [/B]
Look out the window and examine the world around you. The proof is in the pudding so to speak. Now give me hard substantial proof that your theory is correct. Oh forget it..you don't have anything to base it on other than assumption...
Peace out Hommees..been a great debate.
Whobdamandog....you make a good point about the remote chance of intelligent life developing randomly. A good point until you consider the time frame involved and the staggering number of possible worlds involved. What I mean is that, yes, it does seem unlikely that all the coincidences that lead to intelligent life could happen, but remember we are talking about a time frame of BILLIONS of years! Also, remember that for every world that lucks out and creates life there are literally millions, if not billions of worlds in the universe that have NO life.
Yes, intelligent life forming on its own is an incredible long shot, but luckily the universe had virtually unlimited time, and a virtually unlimited number of worlds to make it happen.
Side note...gonna go on a rant here: Whenever the creationism v. evolution argument comes up it always amazes me how the anti-science people are so livid. These same anti-science people have no trouble sitting on the couch using their remote to change the channels so they can view over 400 channels of satellite TV, then get into their cars to drive to the airport to fly across the country on a supersonic jet airplane.
They would have you believe that science is nonsense, but don't take away all the toys and comforts they have that science has provided for them, please. Always strikes me as ironic.
I guess because the theory of evolution hasn't been used to engineer a video game system, or a way of heating a house, the anti-science folk have no qualms bashing it.
Just getting warmed up on this topic, but this post is too long already....
More later...
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Take a breath..and ask yourself the question, which one of these theological concepts below seems more logical..To me the second theory sounds much more scientific/logical..I'll put my FAITH in it.
Look out the window and examine the world around you. The proof is in the pudding so to speak. Now give me hard substantial proof that your theory is correct. Oh forget it..you don't have anything to base it on other than assumption...
Peace out Hommees..been a great debate.
and please brush up on evolution, it's not a game of luck as you put it. It's first of all, survival of the fittest, those that adapt the best to their new situation survive. If that includes living on the land and the water, so be it, the fittest succeed in that... pretty logic, no?
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Very moot point. The definition of the word was taken from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, which is a very respected/accredited authority in defining English vocabulary.
Oh, so now The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language is a greater authority on Buddhism than the Dalai Lama? Pardon me while I continue to laugh at your absurdity. 😆 😆 😆
Originally posted by whobdamandog
While I have to commend your extensive vocabulary, I often wonder if you truly understand the meanings of the words that you have written.lexically] is the adverbial form of the adjective lexical.
and its definition is..representing by means of words/vocabulary
Of course the English language is primarily defined by words..lol..how else would should we define it..by using pictures?
While I congratulate you on your knowledge of words, your understanding of words in relationship to one another, i.e. sentences, could use improvement:
“…dictionaries define words lexically, or by the relationship of the word to the vocabulary, words, or morphemes of a language.”
Clearly, the meaning of the above statement is not “words are defined by words” but “words are defined by their relationship to the vocabulary, words, or morphemes of a language.”
This means that definitions from a dictionary do not necessarily denote the actual meaning of a word, but its common usage in the language. 🙄
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Anyway..What you have written is an elaborate, untruthful, illogical, contradictory word - play so to speak, (You even mentioned that I didn't include the complete primary definition of the word Buddhism, which if you read the definition I provided above, you would realize that your statement is very innacurrate/untrue...pick your poison.)
You provided a link to the Dictionary.com definition of “Buddhism”. The definition you posted however, is not the primary definition of Buddhism that appears on that page but one that appears at the bottom of the page; You selectively ignored the primary definition that does not define Buddhism as a religion in favor of a peripheral definition that does.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
You've also contradicted yourself in many other ways, however, for the sake of staying on the topic...I'll put a final nail in the coffin of this argument by only addressing the most pertinent inconsistancy in your previous post.FYI To [b]venerate
something is to highly respect it...I'll even give you some words and phrases that can be used synonymously in place of venerate, so you don't feel like anything has been left out, or like I am being misleading(hint: when a word is synonymous with another..it essentially carries the same meaning.)Synonyms for venerate: highly respect, revere, honor, heartfelt deference, highly regard, highly recognize,
So essentially what your saying in the line above is...
or we could try this one...
or how about this one...
I think you get the point..[/b]
ven·er·ate tr.v. To regard with respect, reverence, or heartfelt deference a deity, an idol, or a sacred object; worship.
While Buddhists regard Buddha with “respect, reverence, and heartfelt deference,” they do not worship Buddha or consider him a deity.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
So in summary..your logic behind Buddhism not qualifying as a religion is..1. The English language is defined primarly by words..
2. Buddhists do not highly respect Buddha.
3. Even though the Dictionary/Religious Scholars classify it as a religion, Dhali Lahma said it wasn't one.
4. Even though Buddhists practice Buddhist Doctrine..practicing a doctrine has nothing to do with practicing a religion?!!!Your right buddy..it all makes sense to me now..🙄
Seriously, I can't believe how silly you sound. The funniest part about it is the fact that you try to conceal your obviosly misleading/contridictory/illogical information, with fanciful word-play. I'm not going to even continue debating this particular argument, because I believe the point is quite clear. That point being......Buddhism is a religion..Fin.
Congratulations on successfully misrepresenting an argument so that you can defeat it. You have just committed the logic fallacy of Straw Man. Allow me to present my actual argument:
[list=1][*]A dictionary is not a greater authority on Buddhism than the Dalai Lama. Your assertion that it is commits the logic fallacy of Argument by Authority.
[*]A dictionary does not necessarily define a word by its actual meaning but how it is commonly used or understood within a language. Your assertion that definitions as they appear in a dictionary are authoritarian commits the logic fallacy of Argument by Popularity.
[*]You purposely chose to ignore the primary definition of Buddhism that does not define it as a religion in favor of one that suites your argument. This is the logic fallacy called Fallacy by Exclusion.[/list]
So far, you have proved nothing… accept the fact that you are wrong and your arguments are both fallacious and illogical. Sorry, try again. 🙄
Originally posted by whobdamandog
The concept of science in itself is theoretical..and can not be proven by physical means. To believe that everything in this universe can be explained by complex mathematical equations or theoretical paradigm is an outlandish illogical view of the universe, one that requires an incredible amount of faith and assumptions, rather than scientific law/principal/theory.
So science is theoretical and cannot be proven by physical means but trying to explain the universe in terms of physicality contradicts scientific laws, principles, and theories... Are you even sure what you mean? 😕
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Other than your word that these 22 examples are valid, what proof do you have that they are? Anyway..Rather than engage in *** for tat, and recap what has previously been stated, I'll just say refer to previous posts, your public library, the internet, bookstores, or any resource containing knowledge on the subject. You have the right to believe whatever it is you want to believe in, and it's obvious that I can't convince you otherwise. If you really want to know the truth, however, there is much material out there.
So in other words, you cannot prove that the examples are not valid.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Refer to previous response..this debate is obviously dragging on..and your arguments have cleary been rebutted in this and many other posts. Nice debating with you. Good day.
And you are clearly running out of arguments. If my arguments have been "rebutted in this and many other posts," by all means, post them so all can see.