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

[waitasec]

No, I am saying there are multiple definitions out there for every word.
This is one definition that proves me right.

thats it!
that one proves you right...and you are happy with that...?:areyoucra
now i see how low your standards are...
so you find something that fits a preconceived notion and ignore everything else.
good job.

 

[Draka]

I am not stating that other definitions are wrong.

the word run has 396 definitions, just because I refer to one of those definitions when I make the sentence "Jack and Jill went running up the hill to fetch some water."doesn't mean that all of the other 395 definitions are wrong. They are correct definitions, but I am only referring to one of them.
There are many definitions of the word religion but I am only referring to one of them.

If you are not claiming that other definitions of "religious" are wrong, then you cannot honestly make the statement you did in the OP. Other definitions prove you wrong. If they are not wrong...you are. Don't you understand that?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Waitasec, you finally admit that I am right?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

If you are not claiming that other definitions of "religious" are wrong, then you cannot honestly make the statement you did in the OP. Other definitions prove you wrong. If they are not wrong...you are. Don't you understand that?

other definitions don't prove me wrong, they are different definitions.
Does the definition of the word run "to flow, as a liquid: Let the water run before you drink it."
prove the definition "to move with haste; act quickly: Run upstairs and get the iodine." wrong?
(does one definition of the word run prove another definition of the word run wrong?)
No, they are 2 different definitions.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

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"
In this case belief would be apple tree, and religion would be apple orchard.

The fact that you are attempting to resort to sophistry, word play, and misapplication of meaning is a huge warning sign that you don't actually believe any of the things you claim to believe. A person of true faith feels no need to defend their faith. It is as obvious to them as breathing. A person of true faith feels no need to force others who may not be ready or able to accept their faith because personal truths are just that personal.

No matter what way you spin it you cannot create an argument that generalizes statements of belief over billions of people and expect it to work.

And just so we are clear: You have an apple orchard; you noticed that an orange tree is also a fruit tree and are trying to convince other people that orange trees belong in apple orchards too.

MTF

 

[Draka]

other definitions don't prove me wrong, they are different definitions.
Does the definition of the word run "to flow, as a liquid: Let the water run before you drink it."
prove the definition "to move with haste; act quickly: Run upstairs and get the iodine." wrong?
(does one definition of the word run prove another definition of the word run wrong?)
No, they are 2 different definitions.

They are used in different contexts entirely. You are really stretching things now aren't you? Anything to maintain that bubble in your head that won't allow in anything that proves you wrong huh?

You are using religious to signify believing in something. If you look at the full definition of religious, in that context, it doesn't support what you are saying at all. It specifically refers to beliefs in an "ultimate reality" or deity. You are choosing to simply ignore that fact in order to keep your blinders on and pretend you are right.

 

[waitasec]

Waitasec, you finally admit that I am right?

if that is what you got from what i said...
this standards for being right is very very low...
so low it's not not even considered a standard, really but an excuse.
tell me why anyone should even consider an excuse as being right

 

[no-body]

I think pruning would be a more correct term to use than twisting.

you could describe a dog in a such a way that you can call it a cat and be correct, sure.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Is it wrong to want to convince people of the truth?
How and when did I ever say an apple tree is an orange tree?

I can create an argument that is about everyone, and did.
It is kind of like defining what makes something alive. In order to define something alive, one would have to make an argument that is about all living creatures.
The argument has been made and today we have a definition of the word alive.
Dictionary.com actually has 6 different definitions of the word alive.

 

[waitasec]

Is it wrong to want to convince people of the truth?

truth need not be convinced.
don't you know that?

 

[Draka]

you could describe a dog in a such a way that you can call it a cat and be correct, sure.

It's kind of like saying that one definition of a dog is "a four-legged mammal". He's happy to take that snippet of a definition, with no specifics, and apply it. Making horses, cows, cats, sheep, goats, ferrets, raccoons, possums, and rabbits all "dogs". That's essentially what he is doing here. He seems to find no need for specifics at all as long as ignoring them allows him to keep believing he's right about something.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

you say I'm doing it, but like I said before, how and when did I once call a orange tree an apple tree?

 

[Paroxys]

You know, you keep asking for us to prove you wrong, but that's not really where the burden of proof lies. It is your job to prove your thesis, since you were the original one that made the assertion that if "one holds beliefs, one is religious."

I'm not making religion rely on religious.
I'm making religious rely on religion.
There are many definitions of religion, all I need is one to prove me right, that one is at Dictionary.com.
Are you claiming that Dictionary.com is wrong? if so by what authority do you do so?

1stly. You concede that there are multiple definitions to a word. Yet you make the claim that you only need one to prove yourself right. This claim is completely absurd. You fail to justify why one particular definition should be used over another. Why is the particular definition that you use is the "proper" one?

I am not stating that other definitions are wrong.

the word run has 396 definitions, just because I refer to one of those definitions when I make the sentence "Jack and Jill went running up the hill to fetch some water."doesn't mean that all of the other 395 definitions are wrong. They are correct definitions, but I am only referring to one of them.
There are many definitions of the word religion but I am only referring to one of them.

You even concede that at the very least implicitly, context is an important factor, if not the only factor in determining which of many meanings should be used, yet you fail to provide any reason why your definition is contextually relevant. It is your job to substantiate your claim, not for us to prove you wrong. You're the one making the statement, declaring something as fact or truth, hence it is your job to PROVE YOUR POSITION, not for us to disprove it.

And even if we concede your ridiculous interpretations of definitions, you still need to show that ALL systems of beliefs are religions. From the definition you provided the most that can be said absolutely is that all religions are systems of beliefs, but not that all systems of beliefs are religions. Just like how all dogs are 4-legged animals, but not all 4-legged animals are dogs.

 

[waitasec]

It's kind of like saying that one definition of a dog is "a four-legged mammal". He's happy to take that snippet of a definition, with no specifics, and apply it. Making horses, cows, cats, sheep, goats, ferrets, raccoons, possums, and rabbits all "dogs". That's essentially what he is doing here. He seems to find no need for specifics at all as long as ignoring them allows him to keep believing he's right about something.

absolutely, that is why i don't really think what he is doing is anything more than spreading rhetoric... well maybe not even that because it isn't even persuasive...maybe it's a delusional argument in his own mind at best.

delusion
A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

1stly. You concede that there are multiple definitions to a word. Yet you make the claim that you only need one to prove yourself right. This claim is completely absurd. You fail to justify why one particular definition should be used over another. Why is the particular definition that you use is the "proper" one?"

I am the author of the statement. Does the power to decide which context he or she chooses to use not within the author?

the most that can be said absolutely is that all religions are systems of beliefs, but not that all systems of beliefs are religions. Just like how all dogs are 4-legged animals, but not all 4-legged animals are dogs.

A group of beliefs make up a system of beliefs, which make up religions and religions make someone religious.

The proposed questions is, do all systems of beliefs make up religions?

My answer is, are all systems of beliefs used to guide a persons life? YES, tell me one that doesn't.

 

[Desert Snake]

you say I'm doing it, but like I said before, how and when did I once call a orange tree an apple tree?

I agree.

 

[Desert Snake]

I'd have to say to define a community. I'm solitary. I have no community of Wiccans around me. No coven. I'm an individual. Do I not have a religion? Or do I have a religion because I have a set of beliefs? If I have a set of beliefs that some others happen to share, though they are not with me, does that constitute a religion then? If so, then no one is an individual unto themselves for great chances are, there are others in the world who happen to share the same stances and beliefs as they do. So it hinges on your definition of community then doesn't it? For one way I have a religion and another way I don't. So which is it?

"religious" is not "religion"...

 

[waitasec]

I am the author of the statement. Does the power to decide which context he or she chooses to use not within the author?

only if you are talking to yourself...:biglaugh:

do all systems of beliefs make up religions?

My answer is, are all systems of beliefs used to guide a persons life?

your question is misleading.
if your initial question was:
are all systems of beliefs used to guide a persons life religious?
then we have something to work with...

but you yourself asked the question 2 times 2 different ways, why?
i call that back pedaling

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

I call it going back because
1 you may of missed something the first time I said it.
2 it is good to restate main points frequently otherwise it is easy to get off topic.

 

[waitasec]

you seem to be changing the rules of engagement.
how do you converse with people...do you talk about the definition of a subject or is that subject not defined?

for instance you can say
all animals with 4 legs and a tail are cats...
the subject is ALL animals, not cats....