a God, Gods, or Super Natural Beings does not have to be present for there to be a "Religion".. Just a test of beliefs.. Of which Buddhism is under.. As well as Aethiesm, for that is a fundamantal set of beliefs, practices agreed by a number of people (Who call themselves Aethiests).. Then again, that depends what kind of Aethiest you are..
So I guess this all started with someone NOT being specific about what they are.. To claim you are an Aethiest and be so passionate about being one, yet not educated enough to know there are more than one type of Aethiest and not saying which type you are.. So this entire debate was set on a misunderstanding. -.-'
But Buddhism is definately a religion.. Not only does it have the points of a "Strong Aethiest", but it adds that there is someone, a being, to worship.
Do you think it is so critical that i have to specify all the time when i already specified once? You can infer from my statement and i dont need to repeat all the time. You said that religion is just a test of beliefs. hm..interesting...i guess your definition of religion is too simplistic.
Before going any further, You used the word 'aethiests' on many ocassion so i feel the need to correct you, it is atheism.
According to the The Encyclopedia of Philosophy in its article on religion in its article on religion. There is a list of some characteristics of religions which can actually be found in most dictionaries. They are:
# belief in supernatural beings (gods).
# A distinction between sacred and profane objects.
# Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.
# A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods.
# Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods.
# Prayer and other forms of communication with gods.
# A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.
# A more or less total organization of one's life based on the world view.
# A social group bound together by the above.
With the above standard, it is obvious that atheism does not qualify as a religion. MOreover, i found something rather interesting from my research that theism (belief in God) isn't a religion by itself. Mere belief in God does not automatically render the belief a religion, in order to have a religion, you need quite a bit more than either simple belief or disbelief. (article taken from about.com)
Again, i am extremely saddened with your statement on Buddhism. You made some grave mistakes. You said " Buddha is the supreme-being/supernatural-leader of the Buddhism Religion. He IS the god of the religion "Buddhism".
Pls Orothe, stop making hasty remarks like that. I find that extremely disturbing. I am not sure whether you are a buddhist or not but your words are painful to some possible buddhists here. Venerable Shravasti Dhammika who is a disthinguished lecturer and Buddhist monk said that Buddha is not a God, He did not claim that he was a god, the child of a god or even the messenger from a god. He was a man who perfected himself and taught that if we follow his example, we could perfect ourselves also. He is not God of Buddhism. Buddha was the leader of Buddhism but he IS not the God of Buddhism. Buddhism has no God. Buddha, the founder of the buddhism expounded that the way to enlightenment and redemption was through self effort. That however does not make him a God. On top of that, since Buddha shows the way to Nirvana, he is said to be the teacher of the gods and humans as stated in the Ten Epithets.
For the sake of Buddhism, i hope you retract your statement that Buddha is a God. It's ok if you lack knowledge in this area, you should not spread false information.
On another matter, WEbster wasnt the first dictionary. the first dictionary was by Robert Cawdrey entitled Table Alphabeticall in 1604. Pls get your facts right. Webster is an American dictionary. Since English originates from England..i guess i'd rather stick to Oxford.
relied on Oxford Dictionary which state that religion is associated with God.
Seraph wrote:
Again, you said that religion is not based on God. You are wrong
Those are just the two most recent setences you have said that state "To be a religion, God must exist".. That's like math, if 2 + 2 = 4, then 2 + 2 cannot equal 5.. If god must exist for there to be a religion, then if there were more than one god, it cannot be a religion, for it doesnt' fit your description.. The Greek's believed in many gods, Odin, Ifrit, Shiva.. Are you saying They had a religion for every specific god? And that there really can't be a religion that believs in all of them? Because religion is associated with God (In a singular sense)?
Seraph wrote:
...i guess your definition of religion is too simplistic
Uh, my definition came from the link I posted earlier.. So please don't guess when I give you a link towards proof. >.>
Yes, you must be specific.. IF you're a lawyer, ONE wrong word can determine you winning or losing the case.. The same as in a debate.. If you word something wrong, you leave your opponnent open to criticize and evaluate that one word/sentence. If you don't want it to be quoted, then careful how you word things.
Seraph wrote:
You used the word 'aethiests' on many ocassion so i feel the need to correct you, it is atheism.
Atheism is the belief, while Athiests are those that believe it... Are you saying those that follow Atheism are, atheismists? I believe this entire debate started with someone calling themselves Athiest, are you saying he's wrong for saying Athiest? I can say Athiests to talk about all the people that believe in Athiesm. Believe it or not, those two ARE directly connected. >.> Or if you're just pointing out my spelling mistakes, I'm too lazy to look up the correct way to spell it and/or memorize it. I've seen on multiple websites spelled "aet" and "at" at the beginning. You know what word I'm trying to say, so I apologize if I don't spell it correctly or the way that you do, but I refuse to change my spelling ways, sorry.
Seraph wrote:
There is a list of some characteristics of religions which can actually be found in most dictionaries
Yes, there are many characteristics that can describe a religion, and many definitions of ways that a religion is possible/made.. However only ONE of those ways has to be true for a religion to be made, not all of them. And I already gave a link telling you the definition of the charteristic that makes Athiesm a religion (Yet again, depending on which Athiest you are)
Seraph wrote:
With the above standard, it is obvious that atheism does not qualify as a religion. MOreover, i found something rather interesting from my research that theism (belief in God) isn't a religion by itself. Mere belief in God does not automatically render the belief a religion, in order to have a religion, you need quite a bit more than either simple belief or disbelief. (article taken from about.com)
First off "Standards" do not have to be met for one to exist... Everyone showers, that's a standard to be kept clean, however some don't.. That doesnt' make them not human because they don't meet that one standard.. You only have to meet ONE standard to become human. Having human DNA. Much like Religion, the last characteristic, World-view, just itself proves Buddhism and Athiesm to be a religion. And I know Thiesm isn't a religion by itself.. We aren't talking about "Thiesm".. we are talking about "Athiesm". And you need quite a bit mroe than either simmple belief or disbelief? There are plenty of Christians who believe in god yet do not go to church or say Grace before meals or even pray.. Their "Simple belief" is that God exists.. That is all they do to exercise being Christian.. does that not make them christian because they only rely on one simple belief?
And on Buddhism, you are assuming my word on "God" means the power to create life, good and evil, ect.. I guess God was a wrong word, I apologize.. But much like God is the leader of Christianity, Buddha is the leader of Buddhism.. God teachs those (Through the bible) of how to better ones' self and the way to heaven.. Buddha teachs those (Through scriptures and knowledge handed down from person to person) of how to better ones' self and the way to nirvana.. Budhism has no god? Yet again, I told you, Buddhism and Christianity are two different worlds. Buddha is the leader of Budhism.. He is the highest of the highest of the high in that religion. Christianity has God.. HE is the higihest of the highest of the high in that religion... Budhism doesn't have a god, so it's not a religion? Well, God didn't have a Budha, so does God not know the way to Nirvana?
Beauty can only be defined as the essence you hold, and not by the appearence you give...
Orothe wrote:
A rare gem such as yourself should never be given freely to those that would otherwise tarnish such beauty...
Orothe wrote:
Promise's are just words that people cling to in hopes that they are set in stone, when in reality, are as flexible as the air itself that carried those very words...
Buddha shows the way to Nirvana, he is said to be the teacher of the gods and humans as stated in the Ten Epithets
So Buddha taught gods.. Doesn't that mean gods ARE IN that religion, even if not prayed to? Doesnt' that make Buddha a supreme being if he teachs gods, who are supreme themselves?
And ok, so he wasnt' the first, but Webster has perfected the dictionary.. Though English came from England so you're going to stick to Oxford? I'm missing the connection... French Fries have "French" in the name so i'm going to eat Burger King? That makes just about as much sense with the information you provided in that sentence. o.0 Are you saying you're prejudice against English/England and Oxford isn't english so that's why you're sticking with Oxford and not Webster?
And a side note, terms like "I find that extremely disturbing" should be left out of the convo.. This is merely a debate that was originally aimed at if Aethiesm can be classified as "Religion" or not.. Then moved to include Buddhism being a religion or not (Of which I sent a link of proof on what it takes to be a religion, pointed out that only one characteristic is needed to form a religion, and that Buddhism was used as an example of religions), and now, for whatever reason, added Dictionaries and which one is more reliable, of which case will end up comming down to opinion. The most popular dictionary doesnt' mean it's right, and a non-popular dictionary doesn't mean it's wrong. So I make the motion of taking out Dictionaries... Agreed?
Beauty can only be defined as the essence you hold, and not by the appearence you give...
Orothe wrote:
A rare gem such as yourself should never be given freely to those that would otherwise tarnish such beauty...
Orothe wrote:
Promise's are just words that people cling to in hopes that they are set in stone, when in reality, are as flexible as the air itself that carried those very words...
You are really a funny one. Not only your spelling is wrong and yet you're so afraid to admit you're wrong. On top of that, you said you will not change but actually you did. You also said that you're lazy to look up the correct way to spell. Haha, it goes without saying,
In my last statement, i came to a conclusion that in order for a religion to exist, a belief must satisfy most standards or characteristics of a religion as laid down in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy. So how can you restrict my statement and equate it to a maths equation? You are obviously trying to twist what i am saying. As for the Greek Gods you mentioned, you may compare them to the characteristics which were formulated by the same Encyclopedia. So whether they can be a religion is rather clear so i guess it can be used as a guideline to answer your question.
As the link which you posted earlier, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
clearly make reference to God or Gods. Since you said that Religion isn't based on God, you are hopelessly confused and your citation appear to contradict yourself. In anyway, the link you cited earlier is a clear indication that Religion is directly or indirectly related to God, Gods or some sort of supernatural divine power.
Also, everything you said so far are all made up by you. They are not supported by any research or scholarly opinion. I am so sorry to say this, being a reasonable person, I rather rely on something more concrete than some baseless statement.
You raised some rather interesting points which ought to be corrected. You said that "ONE wrong word can determine you winning or losing the case". Really? How so? Is there any case that is lost merely because of one word? If yes, i sincerely hope that you can find me that authority because it will definitely be interesting. There is actually a case decided by the Supreme Court of India in Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India where Justice Bhagwati opined that the court should look beyond the words used by both parties to get to the core of the matter. In other words, the Court will not allow itself to be tied down by sheer technicalities of words and language used, the court will look beyond the word to ascertain the true intention of the parties. From that case, it is clear that one wrong word will not determine a case. It is justice. Court will always seek to dispense justice and not look for wrong words and decide against it.
Btw standards are important. In the case of Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee, the English House of Lords held that a doctor is negligent because he reaches the standard of care expected in a reasonableman in his profession. Hence, although the doctor exercise most of his action in conformity with the standards of care expected in a reasonableman in his profession, he is still liable under the tort of negligence when he failed to satisfy one standard expected of him. Hence In the example that you gave. Shower everyday is a standard to be clean. If one doesnt shower, he breaches the standard, in so doing, he will be deemed as not clean. Although it may not be overly strict and rigiid, Atheism clearly does not fall under most or any of the standards as given by the Encyclopedia. In that way, Atheism is not a religion. Interestingly, u mentioned about christians that don't go to church. That is irrelevant. Christianity believes in God and the nature of the religion satisfies most of thee characteristics of a religion. That is why it is a religion. Even if a person doesnt say Grace before meal, this will not mean that Christianity is not a religion. If you seek your Pastor, i am sure he'll tell you something about people who claim their christian but they are not living a christian life. So what we are concerned here is the bigger picture.
(continue)
As on buddhism, I am not assuming any word. You said Buddha is a God something which he clearly not. If only you do the least reading on Buddhism, you'll know that Buddha is not God even if he was once the leader of Buddhism. No matter what you are trying to imply, you should NOT say that Buddha is God. That is misleading and should be condemned. If you wish to know more in depth, i suggest you to read up on Buddhism. There is a lot to discover.
On the debate on whether Buddhism is a religion or not, there are books which took conflicting views. Although Buddhism is recognised widely as a religion, but there are also School of thoughts which took an opposite view. You can read more on that.
Lastly, of course I am going to stick to Oxford. That is my preference. You can stick to webster and i can stick to Oxford, you don't need any connection in this.
And a side note, it is true that some statement should be left out. This is not merely a debate because what you wrote will be read by others. It is bad to pass bad information to others, especially something concerning Buddhism. Please bear in mind that there are reasons why Buddhism is regarded as religion. They are not the same with atheism. Also, no matter which line of reasoning you take, the truth is that atheism is not religion.
[quote="Seraph"]You are really a funny one. Not only your spelling is wrong and yet you're so afraid to admit you're wrong. On top of that, you said you will not change but actually you did. You also said that you're lazy to look up the correct way to spell. Haha, it goes without saying,[quote] Besides the fact you have not once posted without a spelling error or a grammer error, as shown by this quote where you ended the last esntence with a comma instead of a setence, and the correct way to say your second sentence would be "Not only IS your spelling wrong" however you wrote "Not only your spelling is wrong" which is innccorect, you also accuse me/assume my fear, and also put words into my mouth while I do nothing but quote what you say and counter the points one by one where you just quote my entire saying, or not quoting at all, and just fire off random attempts at points and ignore half of mine. The putting words in my mouth is aimed at the "On top of that, you said you will not change but actually you did." when did I say I'd change? And change what? And yes, I am too lazy to look up the correct spelling, which even if I did, I would not know if it was right or not depending on which dicitionary you'd look it up, and I despise your last-resort insult..
If you don't want to take this debate seriously, I refuse to debate. Yet agian you show your age. I remove myself from this descussion, for it seems to have turned into a one-sided fight. I say that brought on by your insults, and one-sided as in I refuse to act like a child when I debate.. I debate to understand and gain knowledge through another's point of view. But since you are more interested in insults instead of knowledge, it is obvious the debate is over.. Good day, Seraph.
Beauty can only be defined as the essence you hold, and not by the appearence you give...
Orothe wrote:
A rare gem such as yourself should never be given freely to those that would otherwise tarnish such beauty...
Orothe wrote:
Promise's are just words that people cling to in hopes that they are set in stone, when in reality, are as flexible as the air itself that carried those very words...
Well, previously orothe was spelling the word aetheism all the time and im just being nice and correct him. He said he wouldn't change his way of spellings (well that's fine with me) but yet he is using the correct spelling now. That is why i say he's funny. Besides, he himself said he's lazy to search the word. Obviously ain't it? if he googled it, he would've known the correct spelling. So i don't see how im insulting him. If and only if I may sound like it, it is obviously not my intention to.
Well flarestar, this is not the debate like in the earlier post where we express our point of view. Someone is giving information which is not accurate and which ought to be corrected. That shouldn't be encouraged.
Perhaps the decision to removal himself is the best solution.
...if someone is giving inaccurate information, then it serves as a benefit to you as you can easily argue against it and come up with counterpoints...
...if someone is giving inaccurate information, then it serves as a benefit to you as you can easily argue against it and come up with counterpoints...
LOL yeah, but not when one is remarkably stubborn and hates to admit own mistakes. In doing so, one will cover up his wrong statements with another confusing and incorrect statement which eventually lead to another confusion
...can't...they both left...so I have nobody to discuss with...
haha hi flarestar. im back, sry been busy with real life..btw, this topic has come to an end..i'll think of another new interesting topic k? leave it to me
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
