Since whob keeps demanding that evolution is theistic, let's define the word 'theistic'.
the·ism n.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
theist n.
the·istic or the·isti·cal adj.
the·isti·cal·ly adv.
theistic
adj : of or relating to theism [syn: theist, theistical]
Sorry, but evolution does not in anyway fit under that definition.
Originally posted by Lana
Since whob keeps demanding that evolution is theistic, let's define the word 'theistic'.the·ism n.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
theist n.
the·istic or the·isti·cal adj.
the·isti·cal·ly adv.theistic
adj : of or relating to theism [syn: theist, theistical]
Sorry, but evolution does not in anyway fit under that definition.
WOW!...neither does Buddism. Whodathunkit?
Originally posted by Lana
Since whob keeps demanding that evolution is theistic, let's define the word 'theistic'.the·ism n.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
theist n.
the·istic or the·isti·cal adj.
the·isti·cal·ly adv.theistic
adj : of or relating to theism [syn: theist, theistical]
Sorry, but evolution does not in anyway fit under that definition.
Taken from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=God
God:
Definition:
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
A very handsome man.
A powerful ruler or despot
Maco Evolutionary theory and the Dhali Lami/Buddha are clearly your Gods..you follow/believe/idealize their principles...
Good nite everybody..lol
People do not worship, idealize, or follow Buddha himself, but instead they follow his teachings. Therefore, you have just disproven Buddhism being a religion, because Buddha is NOT a god nor is refered to as one.
I also don't see how that proves evolution to be theistic, as I've just proven that it isn't, by defining theism....if anything, you've only harmed your argument.
Originally posted by Lana
[B]People do not worship, idealize, or follow Buddha himself, but instead they follow his teachings. Therefore, you have just disproven Buddhism being a religion, because Buddha is NOT a god nor is refered to as one.
Buddhists don't idealize/worship/follow the Buddha..uhh..so that explains why they have those damb little bronze statues all over the temple, bow down and meditate in front of the damb little statues, vigourously practice all of his principles, believe the funny little man with a red robe and hat is the "Buddha incarnate", and named the whole gosh darn religion after him..lol...my bad..your right sweety..I was wrong...my bad...🙄 😆 😆
Originally posted by Lana
I also don't see how that proves evolution to be theistic, as I've just proven that it isn't, by defining theism....if anything, you've only harmed your argument.
Darwinian principles are "idealized"..meaning none of its followers listen or are willing to except anything other than their ideas as the truth...
They are vigourously "followed" by their believers...who idealize and practice in the application and teaching of their belief....
And they are "worshiped" in the sense that these scientifically unproven theories are revered, respected, and followed by their believers...
you seriously need to jumpkick into logic thinking 😑
his principles are not idealized, evolution and the ideas attached to it have changed. But you, due to serious lack of research, did not gasp that yet. The focus in the studies these days is on genes; so how can his principles be so "idealized" if they are not longer followed?
They are also not worshiped, we don't pray to them, nor shake and shiver in their presence. The entire meaning behind a theory (and oh, do look this up 😐) is that up till now it isn't proven wrong yet but hasn't made it in a law... things change, evolution-ideas change, that's why they will always be more accurate than your idea: they adapt to new proof... you just don't have any
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Buddhists don't idealize/worship/follow the Buddha..uhh..so that explains why they have those damb little bronze statues all over the temple, bow down and meditate in front of the damb little statues, vigourously practice all of his principles, believe the funny little man with a red robe and hat is the "Buddha incarnate", and named the whole gosh darn religion after him..lol...my bad..your right sweety..I was wrong...my bad...🙄 😆 😆
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Yes..but its wise to exclude their opinions from science class..even though they are both based on loosley proven theistic principles.. 🙄
Which is, of course, your opinion - the minority opinion, both in this thread and in regaurds to scientists, who have more credibility then you.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Where are the missing links? Cutting and pasting "opinions" that you've received from the internet doesn't strike me as being valid proof..lol..perhaps consulting the Dali Lama on the topic might help you out a bit..
Originally posted by BackFire
Careful, it isn't wise to condemn someone for doing the exact same thing you have been doing.
Once again, congratulations on revealing your hypocricy for all to see. 🙄
Originally posted by whobdamandog
And you have provided no other definitions to support your concept of what "Buddhism" is, other than the ones coming from the mind of Adam Poe. That's of course if we forget to mention that your opinion is supported by a deified little man...who wears a robe and a funny little hat...
I have not provided a definition of “Buddhism” because it was never my intention to define what Buddhism is but to distinguish what it is not.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Seriously I don't know why you keep on bringing up this point..you've already been proven wrong about it..and its fairly obvious that your lying at this point..but you have given much more credo to my argument now..seeing as how you continue to reference a website you initially stated as not being "the authority" on Buddhism. What your doing is being "hypocritical"..look it up..But please don't ask the Dali Lama about the definition of this one..lol...Okay your a liar then..you clearly have excluded the fact that both the definitions on the top of the page and the bottom of the page are guess what..duh duh..duh..duh..
EXACTLY THE SAME..LOL
Seriously buddy..this is looking pretty bad..you might as well hang up the towell on this argument..
I am not arguing that dictionaries are authoritarian. You however, are. I am simply holding you to your own argument:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Buddhism3 entries found for Buddhism
Bud·dhism n.
[list=1][*]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.
[*]The religion represented by the many groups, especially numerous in Asia, that profess varying forms of this doctrine and that venerate Buddha.[/list]
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 [syn: Buddhism]
* This is the definition you posted.
Clearly, it appears at the bottom of the page. And while “a religion represented by the many groups (especially in Asia) that profess various forms of the Buddhist doctrine and that venerate Buddha,” and “the religion represented by the many groups, especially numerous in Asia, that profess varying forms of this doctrine and that venerate Buddha” are very similar, they are not exactly the same as you claim.
Even if I concede that the definitions in question are so similar that they are essentially the same, it is still not the primary definition of “Buddhism” that appears on this page.
*This is the primary definition that appears on the page.
You deliberately chose to ignore the primary definition because it does not support your argument; that is Fallacy by Exclusion.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Buddhists don't idealize/worship/follow the Buddha..uhh..so that explains why they have those damb little bronze statues all over the temple, bow down and meditate in front of the damb little statues, vigourously practice all of his principles, believe the funny little man with a red robe and hat is the "Buddha incarnate", and named the whole gosh darn religion after him..lol...my bad..your right sweety..I was wrong...my bad...🙄 😆 😆
“Buddha” means “enlightened one”. One who achieves enlightenment is called a Buddha. In this sense, Buddhism is named for its practitioners, not for its founder, Siddhartha Gotama.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Darwinian principles are "idealized"..meaning none of its followers listen or are willing to except anything other than their ideas as the truth...They are vigourously "followed" by their believers...who idealize and practice in the application and teaching of their belief....
And they are "worshiped" in the sense that these scientifically unproven theories are revered, respected, and followed by their believers...
You are truly ignorant of the scientific method. Scientific theories are never proven; they can only be disproven. Scientific theories change as new information is discovered. 🙄
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I have not provided a definition of “Buddhism” because...
You can't find one that supports your arguments...🙄
I am not arguing that dictionaries are authoritarian. You however, are. I am simply holding you to your own argument:
No your just asserting that yourself and the Dalai Lama's opinions are authoritarian..lol..case in point..the following sentences...
Originally posted by Adam_Poe
No, you are ignorant. Buddhism is a philosophy of ethical behavior, I would know considering that I am a practicing Buddhist
Originally posted by Adam_Poe
Ask the Dalai Lama, and he will tell you that Buddhism is not a religion but a philosophy.
You have not proven anything by continuously debating this moot topic..other than your inablitity to apply common sense to what you read/interpret, and that your arguments have very little "scientific credability."
By consistantly accepting illogical/imaginary fallacies based on your own opinions and those of the Dhali Lama, you have demonstrated just how close minded and theistic the "scientific" mind can be...😆 😆
Even if I concede that the definitions in question are so similar that they are essentially the same, it is still not the primary definition of “Buddhism” that appears on this page.
Quit lying Mr. Poe..this is what I posted...
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 [syn: Buddhism]
This is what your referring..to as the "primary" definition...
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.The religion represented by the many groups, especially numerous in Asia, that profess varying forms of this doctrine and that venerate Buddha
Other than their order..the definitions posted in each quote are exactly the same.
And why we are on the "primary definition topic" take a look below each definition. I didn't notice this before, but one is taken from the American Heritage Dictionary, and the other is taken from Princeton University..which would lead one to the conclusion that duh duh duh duh..NEITHER WOULD BE THE PRIMARY definition of the word...
But wait there's more..by stating that the first definition listed on the page is the "primary definition" your essentially defeating your own argument about the dictionary not displaying "authoritative definitions" of words...lol..
The Definition also mentions that Buddhist teachings/religion are taught mostly in Asia..where the Dalai Lama resides...who is the Dalai Lama you ask?
Dalai Lamadef:
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.
Waits for Adam Poe to reply with a nonsensical reply such as.."But the Dalai Lama is not a priest..he's a philosopher"..lol...
So let's see we have 3 sources that list Buddhism as a religion..
3 sources that profess various sects of Buddhist religion which is practiced predominantly in Asia...
And a source that lists the Dalai Lama as the highest priest of Buddhism and as the "Buddha Incarnate"...
So what does that tell us about the teachings of Buddha and those who follow his principles..what are they following? Seriously bud...if you can't logically answer those questions..your more foolish than I thought...
As Einstein would say..
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."
You are quite the intelligent fool Mister Poe..who masks his foolishness with contradictory/illogical/complex wordplay, that essentially amounts to nothing more than meaningless drivel.
Fin.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
PS. And Both Evolution and Creationism should be allowed in to be taught in science class..Fin..(for real this time)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
That's the same amendment the Supreme Court pointed to when they had to deal with forcing creationism into school...
So, teach it in a private school then, don't bug others with it
Originally posted by whobdamandog
You can't find one that supports your arguments...🙄
In other words, you cannot reference a single post in which my intention is to define what Buddhism is, as opposed to distinguishing what it is not?
Originally posted by whobdamandog
No your just asserting that yourself and the Dalai Lama's opinions are authoritarian..lol..case in point..the following sentences...
The Dalai Lama is an authority on Buddhism, you twit. 🙄
Originally posted by whobdamandog
You have not proven anything by continuously debating this moot topic..other than your inablitity to apply common sense to what you read/interpret, and that your arguments have very little "scientific credability."By consistantly accepting illogical/imaginary fallacies based on your own opinions and those of the Dhali Lama, you have demonstrated just how close minded and theistic the "scientific" mind can be...😆 😆
Here is a quick English lesson for you; “illogical fallacy” is redundant as is “close-minded mind.” Not to mention that having “little scientific credibility,” and a “scientific mind” is a contradiction.
The only thing you have proven through your continued participation in this thread is:
[list=1][*]You have no evidence for Creationism.
[*]You believe that disproving Evolution somehow makes Creationism true by default.
[*]When your arguments are challenged, you cannot defend them with logic so you resort to ad hominem attacks.[/list]
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Quit lying Mr. Poe..this is what I posted…
Here is the post in question:
Originally posted by whobdamandog
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]
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Buddhism3 entries found for Buddhism
Bud·dhism n.
[list=1][*]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.
[*]The religion represented by the many groups, especially numerous in Asia, that profess varying forms of this doctrine and that venerate Buddha.[/list]
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 [syn: Buddhism]
Who is lying?
Originally posted by whobdamandog
This is what your referring..to as the "primary" definition...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Buddhism3 entries found for Buddhism
Bud·dhism n.
[list=1][*]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.[/list]
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Other than their order..the definitions posted in each quote are exactly the same.
“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,” and “a religion represented by the many groups (especially in Asia) that profess various forms of the Buddhist doctrine and that venerate Buddha,” are not exactly the same.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
And why we are on the "primary definition topic" take a look below each definition. I didn't notice this before, but one is taken from the American Heritage Dictionary, and the other is taken from Princeton University..which would lead one to the conclusion that duh duh duh duh..NEITHER WOULD BE THE PRIMARY definition of the word...
So now neither definition is authoritarian? Congratulations on defeating your own argument. 😆
Originally posted by whobdamandog
But wait there's more..by stating that the first definition listed on the page is the "primary definition" your essentially defeating your own argument about the dictionary not displaying "authoritative definitions" of words...lol..
Note that the definition in question is the first definition to appear on the page and is numbered one:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Buddhism3 entries found for Buddhism
Bud·dhism n.
[list=1][*]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.
[*]The religion represented by the many groups, especially numerous in Asia, that profess varying forms of this doctrine and that venerate Buddha.[/list]
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 [syn: Buddhism]
Clearly, it is the primary definition that appears on the page.
Moreover, identifying the primary definition of Buddhism does not affect my argument in any way:
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I am not arguing that dictionaries are authoritarian. You however, are. I am simply holding you to your own argument.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
The Definition also mentions that Buddhist teachings/religion are taught mostly in Asia..where the Dalai Lama resides...who is the Dalai Lama you ask?Waits for Adam Poe to reply with a nonsensical reply such as.."But the Dalai Lama is not a priest..he's a philosopher"..lol...
So let's see we have 3 sources that list Buddhism as a religion..
3 sources that profess various sects of Buddhist religion which is practiced predominantly in Asia...
And a source that lists the Dalai Lama as the [b]highest priest
of Buddhism and as the "Buddha Incarnate"...So what does that tell us about the teachings of Buddha and those who follow his principles..what are they following? Seriously bud...if you can't logically answer those questions..your more foolish than I thought...[/b]
Your argument commits the logic fallacy of Argument by Authority. None of your sources are a greater authority on Buddhism than the Dalai Lama. Therefore, none of your sources are qualified to offer an expert opinion on the subject of Buddhism.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
As Einstein would say..You are quite the [b]intelligent fool
Mister Poe..who masks his foolishness with contradictory/illogical/complex wordplay, that essentially amounts to nothing more than meaningless drivel.[/B]
You should be more careful of who you quote. Albert Einstein, whom you regard so highly, did not believe in the existence of God. And the existence of God is logically necessary for Creationism to be a viable theory. 🙄
I know I stated that I was done with the previous post(and many others)...but I just couldn't resist...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In other words, you cannot reference a single post in which my intention is to define what Buddhism is, as opposed to distinguishing what it is not?
You are contradicting yourself once again Mr. Poe. By distinguishing what a word is not...you are essentially giving some sort of a definition of the word...🙄
The Dalai Lama is an authority on Buddhism, you twit. 🙄
According to who..you?!! How does your opinion of him make him an authority? The Dalai Lama is only an authority in your eyes my friend...and all the "intelligent fools" who devout themselves to believing he is the Buddha incarnate...
Anyway..your theistic views of a "funny little man in a red robe and hat" only help to support the fact that you have no substantive evidence supporting your claim.
Here is a quick English lesson for you; “illogical fallacy” is redundant as
is “close-minded mind.” Not to mention that having “little scientific credibility,” and a “scientific mind” is a contradiction.
Again Mr. Poe..please brush up on your knowledge of the words you use. Illogical is an adjective. Fallacy is a noun. In order to be redundant, I would have had to use 2 words of the same meaning/type..🙄
As far as the two other wordplays go, I don't even need to respond. None of what you stated, represented the true meaning of what was actually posted. But for the sake of proceeding with the argument at hand, I'll go ahead and let you believe that you were correct...🙄
The only thing you have proven through your continued participation in this thread is:[*]You have no evidence for Creationism.
[*]You believe that disproving Evolution somehow makes Creationism true by default.
[*]When your arguments are challenged, you cannot defend them with logic so you resort to ad hominem attacks.[/list]
Plenty of information has been given to you supporting Creationism, however, you refuse to have "faith" in it. Your "faith" resides in the pragmatic argument of "my opinion is fact", which is a very circular debating style, and that type of logic can easily be applied to any argument. As far as attacking you goes. I don't believe I've ever done that, I merely stated the truth, however, as a wise man once said.."the truth hurts."
Who is lying?
You are. Just go back to page 14 of the thread. It's fairly obvious at this point. But again, you are welcome to have "faith" in and "teach" what you want...
So now neither definition is authoritarian? Congratulations on defeating your own argument. 😆
No..the only ones that are authoritarian are the ones you selectively interperet to support your arguments...🙄...
You initially stated the definition of Buddhism listed in "Dictionary.com" as not being the authority of the word..
then you validate the same definition of the word from "Dictionary.com", which you had originally discredited as an "authority" on said word..
...then you state that the definition of said word is not "authoritarian"...
..and then you go on to state that one of the definitions of said word from that same source... is "authoritarian"...lol..
You sound so foolish. It's like your cutting your nose off to spite your face...I can't believe you can't see the contradictions in your own arguments....😆 😆 😆
Your argument commits the logic fallacy of Argument by Authority. None of your sources are a greater authority on Buddhism than the Dalai Lama. Therefore, none of your sources are qualified to offer an expert opinion on the subject of Buddhism.
Please explain to me as to why I'm obligated to to accept the Dalai Lama's "authority"...and who validates this "authority" that he has..
*note..This validation can not include the opinions of Adam Poe..or any other fool who worships the Dalai Lama...
You should be more careful of who you quote. Albert Einstein, whom you regard so highly, did not believe in the existence of God. And the existence of God is logically necessary for Creationism to be a viable theory. 🙄
Annnyway...believing that only one theory should be taught about the "Origins of human life" in science class, is a very pragmatic opinion..and demonstrates just how "theistic" Darwinian supporters can be....
a definition (according to your favorite site: dictionary.com)
1.
a. A statement conveying fundamental character.
b. A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry.
2. The act or process of stating a precise meaning or significance; formulation of a meaning.
3.
a. The act of making clear and distinct: a definition of one's intentions.
b. The state of being closely outlined or determined: “With the drizzle, the trees in the little clearing had lost definition” (Anthony Hyde).
c. A determination of outline, extent, or limits: the definition of a President's authority.
4.
a. The clarity of detail in an optically produced image, such as a photograph, effected by a combination of resolution and contrast.
b. The degree of clarity with which a televised image or broadcast signal is received.
nowhere is it said that a definition, or somesort of one, is a run-down of what it is not.
The Dalai Lama is the authority cause he's the leader of the philosophy. By the same analogy (notice I write analogy cause it's not the exact same) the pope, "that funny little man in a white robe and a big hat" is only the leader of the catholic christians while having no substantive evidence supporting his claim.
Furthermore: skip the faith part and just write where EXACTLY you posted the proof for your creationism. Lets just agree for the sake of it, cause otherwise we'll never get anywhere, that you did post about it please remember that pointing to a 2000 year old book doesn't count as proof.
Those that support evolutionism have merely stated the truth as it stand at this point (opposed to a point that's been teh same the last 2000+ years), you just don't believe it cause, like some old wise man said: "truth hurts..."
Originally posted by yerssot
nowhere is it said that a definition, or somesort of one, is a run-down of what it is not.
Riiiiiiight.......🙄 defining what a word is not..is giving a definition of the word....key word in the sentence above is defining...lol....you guys are killing me with your keen rationale..😆 😆 😆
The Dalai Lama is the authority cause he's the leader of the philosophy. By the same analogy (notice I write analogy cause it's not the exact same) the pope, "that funny little man in a white robe and a big hat" is only the leader of the catholic christians while having no substantive evidence supporting his claim.
And the difference being..that funny little man in a white robe and big hat...didn't make the foolish statement...
"Christianity isn't a religion..it's a philosopy.." 🙄 😆 😆
nor did I make the statement..
Furthermore: skip the faith part and just write where EXACTLY you posted the proof for your creationism.
I don't have to ..you can read. Start from the beginning of the thread..and read up until the end. Plenty of information and weblinks have been posted on both topics. Research all the information presented before you, and then decide which religion you want to put your FAITH in...😄
Keep the faith 😇