Everyone, whether they choose to admit it or not is religious.

[blackout]

Everyone in this thread, whether they choose to admit it or not, would have a more productive discussion if they started an argument about politics with a four year old.

Every newborn is apolitical you know. :cover:

I'm pretty sure most four year olds know the politics of cookies though.
(and it may just be enough)

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

I am surprised you are still here then.

Your words still lack evidence.

 

[Me Myself]

We are all as religious as we are agnostic.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

We are all as religious as we are agnostic.

I already stated that this is true in the sense that Agnostic means
a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.

 

[Me Myself]

Nice! Then we are all as religious to our own beleives as Christians are agnostic about God

 

[Revoltingest]

We are all as religious as we are agnostic.

Speak for yerself, bub.
I ain't got no religion.
But I have atheism with a pinch of agnosticism & a dash of ignorance.

 

[Me Myself]

Speak for yerself, bub.
I ain't got no religion.
But I have atheism with a pinch of agnosticism & a dash of ignorance.

Your religion clearly says revoltifarian

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

I already stated that this is true in the sense that Agnostic means
a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.

 

[Draka]

I am surprised you are still here then.

Your words still lack evidence.

No, we provide you with the same kind of evidence as you provide us: definitions. The only difference is you are twisting yours so that it agrees with you. You are ignoring the points that don't agree with you. As if the qualifiers to the definitions don't exist so that you can maintain your faulty assertion. You have brought nothing to the table that proves that your interpretation of only portions of certain definitions actually is the final say so. You made an assertion that you cannot back up without complete disregard of the same kind of evidence that you provide in the first place.

Basically, you're pretty much arguing like this:

you: A brunette is a brown-haired man or woman. So all women are brunettes.
us: no, brown-haired is the qualifier for both the word man and the word woman, not all women are brunettes
you: but that's not what the definition says. it says a brown-haired man OR a woman, so all women are brunettes because the dictionary says so
us: no, you're interpreting the statement the wrong way just to back yourself up when you are wrong
you: I'm not wrong and you can't prove I am :ignore:

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

My argument is nothing like that. That argument is dependant on hair hair color.
my argument is dependent on the fact that everyone believes in something.
Not everyone has the same hair color.
Everyone does believe in something.


Your evidence has been proven wrong. If you have any further evidence please share it now. Without it just stating that I am wrong would mean nothing.

 

[Draka]

My argument is nothing like that. That argument is dependant on hair hair color.
my argument is dependent on the fact that everyone believes in something.
Not everyone has the same hair color.
Everyone does believe in something.


Your evidence has been proven wrong. If you have any further evidence please share it now. Without it just stating that I am wrong would mean nothing.

Duh, no this isn't about hair color. This is about being religious. The word and the definition of which you seem to want to ignore on a thread in which you ascertain that everyone is religious. YOU are ignoring definitions in favor of cherry picking certain phrases from other definitions just to back yourself up. You haven't proven anyone else wrong about anything here yet you have been proven wrong time and time again. You just won't admit it. :areyoucra

Oh, and by the way, my example is EXACTLY like an argument of yours on this thread in which it was pointed out that "religious" was the qualifier for "attitudes, belief and practices".

 

[Thief]

Speak for yerself, bub.
I ain't got no religion.
But I have atheism with a pinch of agnosticism & a dash of ignorance.

I like your attitude....may I share it?

I ain't got no dogma.
I ain't got no ritual.
I ain't got no congregation.
I ain't got no followers.

Rogue theologians are religious?...I do believe in God....but...
I cannot confess a religion.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Duh, no this isn't about hair color. This is about being religious. The word and the definition of which you seem to want to ignore on a thread in which you ascertain that everyone is religious. YOU are ignoring definitions in favor of cherry picking certain phrases from other definitions just to back yourself up. You haven't proven anyone else wrong about anything here yet you have been proven wrong time and time again. You just won't admit it. :areyoucra

Oh, and by the way, my example is EXACTLY like an argument of yours on this thread in which it was pointed out that "religious" was the qualifier for "attitudes, belief and practices".

umm... that sounds like another "your wrong" statement that lacks any evidence. could you please tell me how I am doing that here.

"Religious: Of or pertaining to religion

Religion: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:*
Dictionary.com
*note the word generally doesn't mean always, meaning a religion doesn't have to be agreed upon by other people.*

Belief: something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
Dictionary.com"

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

not true. You don't need to know how to speak in order to believe that if man touches fire, man gets burned.

So a belief in the danger of fire is a 'system of beliefs'?

Really?

 

[blackout]

My argument is nothing like that. That argument is dependant on hair hair color.
my argument is dependent on the fact that everyone believes in something.
Not everyone has the same hair color.
Everyone does believe in something.


Your evidence has been proven wrong. If you have any further evidence please share it now. Without it just stating that I am wrong would mean nothing.

Why do you feel it is necessary that everyone believe in some'thing?

Why is it not enough that we have observations and intuitions and preferences
and experiences and hunches and opinions and desires and likes and dislikes........

 

[Draka]

Are you saying the dictionary is wrong? Because it says it very clearly.
"a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices"

You seem to be trying to separate the definition at the wrong place. You stop after "a personal set". However, if you read the sentence properly it makes two statements.

It reads this way as well: A personal set of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices OR an institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.

This definition actually hinges on the word "religious". Religious and religion are not the same words even though you were trying to say they were earlier if I recall. So then what is "religious"?

Merriam-Webster defines religious as: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity

Therefore, to complete the whole description one can state:

"A religion is a personal set or an institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices relating to or manifesting personal devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity."

Now, if one does not acknowledge some form of "ultimate reality" (inferring something beyond just "reality") or deity then they are not, by strict definition, religious.

The definition is stated as a set of religious attitudes, beliefs and practices. Religious. It applies to every term in that statement. It's religious attitudes, religious beliefs and religious practices. Not attitudes, beliefs and practices.

So if my beliefs, attitudes and practices are not religious I am not a religious person. Well, my beliefs, attitudes and practices are not religious therefore I am not a religious person.

That simple logical conclusion was reached using the exact definition from that website.

Just because of all the confusion i and circular reasoning in the definition of religion containing the word religious, I'll share another definition of religion that does not contain the word religious.
I have stated this earlier, but I will state it again
Religion: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
Religion | Define Religion at Dictionary.com

therefore we no longer hinge on the definitions of religious.

So let's get this straight now. You used a definition as evidence of your position. It was pointed out that you were interpreting it wrongly. Instead of admitting you were wrong you changed definitions. Also, instead of concentrating on definitions of the word "religious", which is what your argument should revolve around, you are trying to define "religion" and make your argument hinge on that. This, indeed, is twisting things to suit your needs while ignoring that which doesn't or proves you wrong.

So, I stand by my example. You did EXACTLY that.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

i suspect the title of this thread was a statement of faith, therefore religiously rendered un-refutable ....

Yep.

Jesus is perfect.

But what about the time he....?

That's not imperfect. Jesus is perfect.

But it would be imperfect if a regular person did it. How come it's not imperfect when Jesus did it?

Because Jesus is perfect. So he could not do an imperfect thing.

That kind of stuff used to cross my eyes, waitasec, but nowadays I just sigh and move on.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It does apply to everyone because everyone has "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices" Therefore, if everyone has a religion, everyone is religious.

No one is religious.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

So a belief in the danger of fire is a 'system of beliefs'?

Really?

I would think that a system of beliefs would be a compilation of many beliefs, although I'm sure if I were to look at it some more I could find more than one belief.

a belief in the danger of fire would mean
first a belief that fire exists.
second a belief that pain exists.
third a belief that fire can cause pain.
fourth a belief that fire can kill or destroy someone or something.
fifth fire can leave someone scared for life.

So I suppose that a belief in the danger of fire can very well be a system of beliefs.

 

[Revoltingest]

I like your attitude....may I share it?

Ya, you betcha.
I'm sure I didn't originate it.