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

[ManTimeForgot]

Honestly, I never once used a thesaurus in this debate, I pulled it all out of the dictionary.

That is dodging the point. You are still misapplying the words by ignoring the connotations and the proper context for their usage.


Example: If you were to look up the definition of an Apple you would see that it includes the phrase: "Is a fruit." If you looked up the definition of an Orange you would also see that it includes the phrase: "Is a fruit." What you are doing is akin to equating apples and oranges because they "both fruit."

Yes, apples and oranges are fruit, but that doesn't make them the same thing dictionary definitions or not.


Holding an opinion is not the same as having a religion. The core content might be the same (are both fruit), but how they are used and what secondary characteristics they entail are not at all the same.

MTF

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Thinking about the word equivocal, thank you for teaching me that word. The Bible is very equivocal, that is why there are so many Christian religions in the world today!

 

[McBell]

It doesn't matter how many times you tell me I'm wrong, until you can prove it your words mean nothing.

It has been proven.
Several times in fact.
Your non-acceptance of it does not make it go away.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

That is dodging the point. You are still misapplying the words by ignoring the connotations and the proper context for their usage.


Example: If you were to look up the definition of an Apple you would see that it includes the phrase: "Is a fruit." If you looked up the definition of an Orange you would also see that it includes the phrase: "Is a fruit." What you are doing is akin to equating apples and oranges because they "both fruit."

Yes, apples and oranges are fruit, but that doesn't make them the same thing dictionary definitions or not.


Holding an opinion is not the same as having a religion. The core content might be the same (are both fruit), but how they are used and what secondary characteristics they entail are not at all the same.

MTF

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.

 

[McBell]

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.

are you really that desperate, that ignorant, or merely trolling?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

are you really that desperate, that ignorant, or merely trolling?

I'm not any of that, I am just stating things how they are.
If my argument had no power to it, then there would be no argument.
Who is really going to argue with someone when someone tells you that 1+1=5? There would be nothing to argue.
My argument on the other hand is clear and makes perfect sense.
How many more definitions do I need to look up for you to clarify this any further?

 

[McBell]

I'm not any of that, I am just stating things how they are.

Except that you aren't.

If my argument had no power to it, then there would be no argument.

Huh?

Who is really going to argue with someone when someone tells you that 1+1=5? There would be nothing to argue.

I can think of several reasons why I would argue with someone who would try to spread such nonsense...

My argument on the other hand is clear and makes perfect sense.

to who?
I mean, outside of you and your choir, who is it "clear and makes perfect sense" to?

How many more definitions do I need to look up for you to clarify this any further?

How about you merely present a definition that you do not have to go all Humpty Dumpty on in order for it to support your claim?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

I'm sorry, none of your claims to me being wrong have any evidence behind them.
If they do, tell me right now what evidence you have?
I feel like I am telling you 1+1=2 and you are trying to tell me I am wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

My argument on the other hand is clear and makes perfect sense.

Reading your posts, & using standard dictionary definitions, I can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say.

Argument = Independent variable of a function
Hand = Manual laborer
Clear = Transparent
Perfect = A verb tense where an action has been completed
Sense = A faculty (eg, sight, hearing)

It seems you have an independent variable on one of your laborers, & it has mistakenly appointed a verb tense to noun.
Well, that just can't be. Also, you've been misusing the word "Faith", which is actually the name of Buffy Summer's rival slayer.
Btw, by your reasoning, because I don't have Faith (who would never consort with an old married guy), I don't have religion.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Here, let me simplify my words so you do not misunderstand them.

Argument= a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point: This is a strong argument in favor of her theory.
Hand= I never said hand
Clear= understandable
Perfect= with out problems or errors
to make sense= to grasp the meaning of; understand.

 

[Sunstone]

People are religious agnostics whether they choose to admit it or not. Thus, they're agnostic about whether religion exists.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

go read what I said on your Everyone is agnostic thread.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Here, for all the other readers on this thread this is what I wrote

"Dictionary.com
Agnostic: a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.

I don't like peaches or plums.
One person is arguing with another person claiming peaches are better than plums and the other person is claiming that plums are better than peaches.
I don't like either of them, so I would be considered agnostic.
I am very certain that everyone is agnostic towards something or another, and so I agree with you. Everyone is agnostic about something."

 

[Paroxys]

In the fact that religion is a system of beliefs that one uses to guide one's life, every decision a person makes whether good or bad is based on religion.

according to Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online
Religion: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices


Oh okay, noting the word religious in the definition of religion is defining the word with the word. It is as you say circular reasoning to do so

according to dictionary.com the word religious means
"of, pertaining to, or concerned with religion: a religious holiday."
pretty much something or someone that has something to do with religion

okay, what is religion? Religion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

a system of beliefs

What is ardor? ardor means loyalty
What is faith? firm belief in something for which there is no proof
What is an opinion? belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
What is a thought? something (as an opinion or belief) in the mind <he spoke his thoughts freely>
Religion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Wow, so long as someone has an opinion on something they are religious.

There are several problems with your main thesis, that "so long as someone has an opinion on something they are religious."

Your argument is premised the notion that belief is identical to religion, that if someone holds some form or sort of belief then they are necessarily religious. However, you fail to definitively show this equality. According to what you brought up, a system of beliefs can be a religion, but does this necessarily imply that all systems of beliefs are necessarily religions? No.
To put this another way, all dogs are 4-legged animals, but are all 4-legged animals dogs? Again the answer is no. The burden of proof is on you to show that this equality is true as your thesis is premised on this idea.

Furthermore, your argument is premised on the definitive nature of dictionary definitions, which again is an assumption you have to prove. Dictionaries do not contain all the information that pertains to a certain word. For example, take "tenacious" and "obstinate". Both words essentially mean stubborn, however "tenacious" typically has a positive connotation, whereas "obstinate" typically has a negative one. Such usage forms are not included in the dictionary means that the authority that you draw your thesis on is incomplete.

Language is an inherently incomplete and ambiguous mode of communication. Given this, the fact that you cite different definitions that have competing interpretations (since they aren't identical) of the word "religion" raises several important questions:
1. Which definition should be used? the 1st, the 2nd, some combination of the two, an entirely different definition not mentioned?
2. Why is that particular definition used the proper one? What I mean by this inquiry is that if you were to say: "we will use definition 1," why is definition 1 "better" than any other definition? Which leads to...
3. What kind of criteria is to be used to determine "definitional quality"? And why is that criteria more or less legitimate than other criteria?

The important factor you're overlooking is that you are much too focused on the dictionary definition to realize that words only have meaning in CONTEXT. For example, if I ask for some coke do I mean:
1. I want some Coca-Cola
2. I want some cocaine
3. I want some form of soda (Coke in some areas is used as the generic term for soda, as in A: "what kind of Coke would you like?" B:"I would like Root Beer")
All three are legitimate interpretations of of the phrase "I want some Coke." However, it is context that determines which definition is used (you could argue that some other criteria is more important in determining meaning, but that would really be a futile debate, as most would agree that context is the most important factor in determining meaning). You have yet to show how your interpretation is contextually correct.

 

[Otherright]

No I don't. Why is this so hard to understand?

Because, as a human being, you are wired for belief. All of us are, and none of us are immune to it. It may not be religious in nature, but it is belief.

Step outside tonight and look up at the stars. Pick any one out randomly. How far away is it? Look it up if you like. You either made this observation yourself, or someone else did for you. Either way, in the end, you will have a belief on how far away that star is because you personally can not verify its position.

If you took someone else's answer, that is what we call faith.

How and why do SSRIs work? Think about it? When a person takes Lexapro or Paxil what happens to make it work? Its absorbed at some level into the synapses... then what? Who knows? Nobody, but it works. But you are going to have a belief on how it works, because you know it works.

You are going to assume an answer and incorporate that answer into your world view. That is both faith and belief. All humans do this at one level or another and they do it across the spectrum of knowledge. Why? Because there is simply too much information to know to genuinely understand how all things work.

It may not be religious, but you have faith, you have belief. Welcome to the human race.

 

[Revoltingest]

Here, let me simplify my words so you do not misunderstand them.

Argument= a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point: This is a strong argument in favor of her theory.
Hand= I never said hand
Clear= understandable
Perfect= with out problems or errors
to make sense= to grasp the meaning of; understand.

Interesting....do you mean that when a word has multiple definitions, that one should be selected based upon context?
I like it! Let's both try doing that.

From dictionary.reference.com, we have these definitions of "faith" (although they left out Buffy's rival slayer) which seem to comport with common usage.....faith
Faith - noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

Your posts suggest that you see no difference between them.
This is why you have such disagreement with others.

And yes, you did use the word "hand". Check your post & my direct quote from it.

 

[waitasec]

My belief in God is no different than your belief that your friend will be true to you.

well, why don't head on over to his cloud for a coffee? :sarcastic

I feel this debate has taken a wrong turn. We are now arguing about the definition of faith, this thread isn't on the definition of faith, it is on the definition of religion.
I state again that Religion is a system of beliefs that one uses to guide their lives. In the fact that everyone has an opinion or belief in something, everyone is religious.

unfortunately for you, religion requires religious faith. not everyone has religious faith...so not everyone is religious.

From my conversations with Yanni, I find it interesting that Yanni claims that the Jewish Religion is a religion that is not based on faith. He explained to me how if the Jewish Christ were to come today, no one would believe it was him until He fulfilled all of the prophecies that were given about him. There we go, religion does not necessarily have to include faith as in an uncertain belief in something as you are describing to me.

you've taken a step into a larger world...that is why faith presents itself with a conundrum...
the very notion of having someone fulfill prophecy in order to prove they are who they claim they are while claiming faith is what it takes to believe in who they are, is a walking contradiction.

Faith is not the key element in this debate, it is whether or not one needs faith in order to be considered religious.

wow.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yaddoe....tell me, are you in fact the famous Doctor Science?
I see a similarity in style.
[youtube]oRLstHNRsdU[/youtube]
Ask Dr Science - Praying Mantis & Religion - YouTube

 

[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.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It doesn't matter how many times you tell me I'm wrong, until you can prove it your words mean nothing.

You're wrong if you think anyone else is going to embrace your curious usage of 'religious' just because you've asserted it here.