Evolution a religion?

[Pyrotex]

No, I don't think I use it as a put down. I am simply pointing out where they spend the majority of their time. Would I be putting someone down for saying they worship God?

To worship also has taken on the meaning of to worship at or eat at the table of. You missed one point, and I know you know you missed it. Idolatry simply is the worship of something other than God, or at least that is how I've always understood it. To idolize, or hold in very high esteem, .

Do you hold your Mother in high esteem?

Do you hold your favorite high school teacher in high esteem?

Do you hold chocolate in high esteem?

Do you spend the majority of your time tending to sleep, eating and other necessary biological functions?

You keep trying to use dictionary meanings as if they were a legislated rule or law that I (and everyone else) have to salute. BOGUS!!

You keep trying to use words such as idolotry, worship and religion by shifting the accepted meanings from one context to the other and you call this "logic". BOGUS!!

 

And when I point these errors of fallacy to you, it appears that you learn nothing. THAT speaks far louder than all your attempts to joust with me.

[cwes99_03]

Ok, Pyro. I'm tired of your banter. Several times you have said that one cannot use definitions to justify one's logic. You know and I know that that is absolutely assinine. Definitions are the only justification for proof. Eventually all proofs have to come down to definitions. Some definitions are more concrete than others, such as the definition of a positive integer greater than 1 and less than 3.

If you have problems with a definition, then point out your problem and suggest a different definition.

Yes, anyone can say that they define God to be any number of things. Thus we go to a worldly accepted definition, such as one found via a google define:blank search. Often various definitions pop-up and we have to choose which one we are using in our post.

Do not try to fight me by copping out and saying that you have pointed out errors of fallacy in all my arguments and then accuse me of being unable to understand your "valid" viewpoints because of my "invalid" ones. You have not yet, validated or invalidated anything in regards to the discussions we have had here. Instead you keep trying to point out flaws or misunderstandings, and when you finally can't find one, or simply give up trying, you turn toward character assassination and other improper postings such as your previous attempt at flaming me in another thread.

Maybe you need to check the home page on invalid logic.

[Tarantism]

definitions are no such proof! rediculous!

 

you could say that a cat is a four-legged animal that is a common pet...but i could say that a cat is a four wheeled automobile that can go 0-60 in .25 seconds...who is to say that i am wrong. definitions for words flutuate so much and have so many different meanings that they can in no way considered fact. neither can math. both are man-made concepts to help explain things in terms...its nothing natural or all knowing.

 

its not that i dont like language and math, they are helpful to my everyday life, but the things that i say or the numbers that i count with are just terms and measurements.

 

there is no truth.

[Pyrotex]

Ok, Pyro. I'm tired of your banter. Several times you have said that one cannot use definitions to justify one's logic. You know and I know that that is absolutely assinine. Definitions are the only justification for proof. ...Do not try to fight me by copping out and saying that you have pointed out errors of fallacy ...you turn toward character assassination and other improper postings such as your previous attempt at flaming me in another thread. ....

banter? :)

I have never said one cannot use definitions to justify one's logic. In fact, the ONLY valid way of using a dictionary definition is to clarify one's own meaning; to make a statement about oneself. This is typically done by <narrowing> the definition of a word so that it becomes more specific and avoids ambiguity.

 

On the other hand, you broaden the definitions of common words until they mean anything you want them to mean--and then use this to make statements about other people's "moral" state. They worship money. They worship science. They are idolaters. These are moral, theological accusations you are making. As science or logic, they are invalid.

 

Perhaps you should post to Tormod again. Please be sure to mention that I still have an IQ of 180.

[cwes99_03]

definitions are no such proof! rediculous!

 

you could say that a cat is a four-legged animal that is a common pet...but i could say that a cat is a four wheeled automobile that can go 0-60 in .25 seconds...who is to say that i am wrong. definitions for words flutuate so much and have so many different meanings that they can in no way considered fact. neither can math. both are man-made concepts to help explain things in terms...its nothing natural or all knowing.

 

its not that i dont like language and math, they are helpful to my everyday life, but the things that i say or the numbers that i count with are just terms and measurements.

 

there is no truth.

 

I guess that means that I can never understand a word you say because I can not make any assumptions that you mean one thing because of the accepted definition of the word. I'm sorry, did you say that a cat was a four legged animal or a 4 wheeled vehicle. I guess since a definition can be anything a cat to me is an imaginary trip to the planet Mvelsnip. Your argument is absurd.

[cwes99_03]

banter? :)

I have never said one cannot use definitions to justify one's logic. In fact, the ONLY valid way of using a dictionary definition is to clarify one's own meaning; to make a statement about oneself. This is typically done by <narrowing> the definition of a word so that it becomes more specific and avoids ambiguity.

 

You keep trying to use dictionary meanings as if they were a legislated rule or law that I (and everyone else) have to salute. BOGUS!!

You keep trying to use words such as idolotry, worship and religion by shifting the accepted meanings from one context to the other and you call this "logic". BOGUS!!

 

First help me understand how i shifted context. Then show me some definitions for the following.

 

worship

devout

excessive

religion

religious

idolize

idol

idolatry

admire

objectify

esteem

[cwes99_03]

Sorry it sent me to a page cannot be displayed so i hit back and reposted and it double posted. I hate that.