[quote=Xakk;1069057]I believe this is at an end as it can go no further. You'll believe whatever you want to instead of bringing something to the table.
Quote:
|
You find definitions that agree with what you believe. The definitions from Princeton are from and .edu site, those ones that have credibility beyond wikipedia? You advocate over and over that Wikipedia shouldn't be used to learn and then direct me to "watch animal planet for 15 minutes" and piss away credible sites like Princeton.
|
Wikipedia? My definitions came from Merriam-Webster.com. Of course just for fun i looked at every other major dictionary and they also agree with me but thats pretty irrelevant. I only requested you watch 15 minutes of animal planet because thats all that would be required for you to figure out how stupid your claims to Great Ape behavior are.
Quote:
|
But it doesn't really matter, since the "all-encompassing" definition of religion is so half-assed it makes me wonder. What do you think when you hear the word religion? If you don't think of a multitude of people, events, locations, buildings, ideologies and philosophies you've really looked into religion.
|
No its more the point you have to attempt to equate any remote belief to a religion for your argument to make any kind of sense. Its evident by your usage of the word you understand what it means. And also it wasnt just "animism" which describes all manner of belief systems. Its "sympathetic magic and animism" of prehistoric cultures. By your attempted definition me picking up a lucky penny is an act of religion. A belief in a monster under my bed is a religious belief. That if i step on a crack i break my mothers back is now a religious topic.
Quote:
|
You said you didn't believe animism was a religion because there was no worship, yet there is a site that says they worshiped the spirits as lesser deities. Now it's not a religion because Merriam-Websters dictionary's definition doesn't include it. Words change with time and today's definition of religion wouldn't match with what religion was when it first occurred, which is why Taylor stated it in the first place
|
.
Animism can be a religion... But its not in its very essence a religion. There are animistic religions that have evolved from prehistoric roots to become a system of beliefs and practices codified through oral tradition and cultural heritage. But thats not the subject. The subject is "animism and sympathetic magic" inherently religious. And the answer is NO. Yes words change all the time thats no excuse for you to hide behind semantic retardation to support your failing arguement...sorry
Quote:
|
Finally, you have resorted back to insults, a true mark of your character and intelligence. Although the way you have wormed your way throughout positions is telling enough. There isn't any reason to continue on. It doesn't seem like we will come to any middle ground and you certainly aren't trying to. Anything short of what you believe is "wrong".
|
Of course we wont find a middle ground. You have devolved into semantic juggling to substantiate your erroneous position. Ignoring the manner in which yourself has used words whose definitions you are arguing against. You search for a single dictonary that gives the vaguest definition to support yourself. Its not my belief that you are wrong. You just simply are. You could spend 10 minutes of research about the social habits of primates and educate yourself but you refuse to do so.