Crime Man in Iowa arrested for destroying the Satanic Christmas display.

[CubicleGangster]

You ain't stopping shit.
And I ain't lying.

Go ahead, state the difference between a 'religion without a deity' and a strict philosophical beliefs.

No, you are lying. You haven't addressed a single point from my initial post. I even highlighted them again for you in my follow up post. You didn't comment on my definition, the source, the other religions I listed, or that fact that you were wrong about Jainism. You skipped over those to talk about a throwaway line in the source I provided about Hockey. Once again, this is a deflection. There isn't one part of any of your posts that address the above. So when you say that you did address, you are lying. Don't like being called out on it? Don't lie then and try to approach this with some honesty.

None of my points require any sources.
And yes, the hockey question completely destroys your argument because it proves you have no baseline definition of a religion, and therefore you cannot deny any claim of anything either being a religion or not being a religion.

And, once again, you're proving you cannot define why hockey isn't a religion.

Yes, actually your definition that you used for the basis of your opinion needs a source. It was what I disagreed with in my post and it was what I addressed with my post. Notice how with my definition I provided a source so you could follow up on it? You should be doing the same.

The hockey question, btw, doesn't even address what I brought up with my post. It doesn't change the fact that Jainism is considered a religion and that there are other nontheistic religions out there. You haven't mention any of these in your preceding posts, only the hockey line. Its a deflection, 100%. I'll gladly answer it once I get a response for you that addresses why you think my definition is wrong (you haven't stated any reason for this), why Jainism isn't a religion (you have not given any reasons or justification for this), and a mention about the other non-deity religions I brought up (Why do you keep ignoring this part?).

And we're now at the part of the discussion its revealed you have no argument so your last resort is to accuse your opposition of dishonesty.

Yet you cannot answer why "Hockey is a religion in Canada" is or isn't a ridiculous statement.

And by not answering, its an answer.

I accept your concession.

Why are you spiking the football when I have given zero concessions? Is this how discussions work for you? Ignore the arguments made, deflect, then declare yourself the winner?
This is a really childish and stupid response, honestly. Makes it feel like a waste of time engaging you. Probably should have known better but work is slow during this period of year and this made for a good waste of time.

 

[DoctorTaco]

As they publicly state, they don't actually believe in Satan/'TheDevil' and do not worship him.
The most basic criteria of a religion's is a diety being worshiped, and Satanism does not even exceed that.

So Buddhism isn’t a religion bc they don’t believe prince sidartha (sp) was a god? Right. Cool. All those philosophy temples around the world they pray and meditate at.

Let’s be honest - the idea of demons, Satan, and spiritual warfare is easily one of the craziest parts of Christian doctrine (which is saying something).

The devil prowls around like a lion but lacks the power to affect the material world. But he can affect my thoughts? Like, if I want to look at some big tiddy goth porn it’s because the devil is in my head telling me too? So, devils/demons can affect the hearts and minds of 8 billion people on the planet but can’t move a pencil across the desk? Cant fill my head with a constant barrage of evil thoughts and images? His power is literally to make things that go against Christianity seem like a good idea? Back in Jesus’ day demons could take control over and possess people, but not anymore? What happened? The devil is a lion who makes me want to sin, but if I resist him he flees? Not very scary/strong/evil of him. Man up Satan.

All those demons can do stuff to me if I go to hell, but until then the best these “lions” can do is… make me want to get drunk on a Friday night? And if I resist then they run away??? This is the boogeyman of the religion?? The same Satan who didn’t take a crack at Jesus when he had been fasting for 40 days in the desert? When he was fully man and probably easy to kick the crap out of.

My favorite is Paul telling the Ephesians they better stay fuckin otherwise the devil will tempt them. Hell, Satan had to get permission from god to mess with Jobs life. The devil schemes! To do what? He schemes to make me not want to forgive someone for being a prick. The son of chaos aiming big on that one!

 

[koquerelle]

So to sum up your stance because no one is reading all that bullshit is anyone can destroy whatever they want as long as I disagree with it.

Stop acting like it's a serious issue. Trolls looked for a reaction and they got it.

 

[Mr Holmes]

Stop acting like it's a serious issue. Trolls looked for a reaction and they got it.

This. Its also comical to watch leftists ITT all of a sudden care about civil disobedience.

 

[BIKES!]

He shouldn’t have destroyed it, the policy is still at issue as devil worshipping isn’t necessarily an acknowledged religion.

My issue is with selective enforcement that targets everyone that isn’t a masked up leftist parasite. Apparently you can burn other people’s flags after ripping it from their arms and destroy property when you are on the left. I’d you are the literal devil (Christian’s, Jews) in the eyes of the leftist you are held to a different standard. Hence the wrath Jan 6th protestors received while actual violent terrorists in BLM, ANTIFA and Hamas were rarely arrested and released if they were brought in for the harsher crimes they couldn’t ignore.

 

[Poon Goon]

He shouldn’t have destroyed it, the policy is still at issue as devil worshipping isn’t necessarily an acknowledged religion.

My issue is with selective enforcement that targets everyone that isn’t a masked up leftist parasite. Apparently you can burn other people’s flags after ripping it from their arms and destroy property when you are on the left. I’d you are the literal devil (Christian’s, Jews) in the eyes of the leftist you are held to a different standard. Hence the wrath Jan 6th protestors received while actual violent terrorists in BLM, ANTIFA and Hamas were rarely arrested and released if they were brought in for the harsher crimes they couldn’t ignore.

Would you go as far as to say that the Democrat Reich is behind all of this?

 

[jk7707]

He shouldn’t have destroyed it, the policy is still at issue as devil worshipping isn’t necessarily an acknowledged religion.

My issue is with selective enforcement that targets everyone that isn’t a masked up leftist parasite. Apparently you can burn other people’s flags after ripping it from their arms and destroy property when you are on the left. I’d you are the literal devil (Christian’s, Jews) in the eyes of the leftist you are held to a different standard. Hence the wrath Jan 6th protestors received while actual violent terrorists in BLM, ANTIFA and Hamas were rarely arrested and released if they were brought in for the harsher crimes they couldn’t ignore.

Well, it is an acknowledged religion as far as the government is concerned. So you're wrong on that. And I would bet you that if a "masked up leftist parasite" as you put it, destroyed the nativity scene on the State Capitol grounds near this one they'd be prosecuted too. Now resume your hand wringing.

 

[BFoe]

Nor should they. Take away the church of Satan's tax exempt status and remove their displays and their presence from any and all public spaces. Let them keep their temples, their parishioners can pay the taxes if they care so much.

Spoiler

And do the same for all other religions, use the taxes to pay down the deficit

*Satanic Temple.

The Church of Satan (different org) doesn’t believe in tax exempt status for religions. They pay their taxes and challenge other religions to do so as well.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

No, you are lying. You haven't addressed a single point from my initial post. I even highlighted them again for you in my follow up post. You didn't comment on my definition, the source, the other religions I listed, or that fact that you were wrong about Jainism. You skipped over those to talk about a throwaway line in the source I provided about Hockey. Once again, this is a deflection. There isn't one part of any of your posts that address the above. So when you say that you did address, you are lying. Don't like being called out on it? Don't lie then and try to approach this with some honesty.

Lol, your repeated accusations of dishonesty is humorous.

I stated that religions without deities are oxymorons and are not religions, and you think naming many not-religions is a counter-argument?

You haven't even bothered to ask why religions must have a deity, you just rambled on and on.

Yes, actually your definition that you used for the basis of your opinion needs a source. It was what I disagreed with in my post and it was what I addressed with my post. Notice how with my definition I provided a source so you could follow up on it? You should be doing the same.

'Whats your source?'
You are. You cannot define religion or how they're different than typical 'philosophical beliefs.'

Hence, why you're avoiding answering if you consider 'Hockey is a religion in Canada' to be a ridiculous statement and why it is ridiculous statement.

The hockey question, btw, doesn't even address what I brought up with my post. It doesn't change the fact that Jainism is considered a religion and that there are other nontheistic religions out there. You haven't mention any of these in your preceding posts, only the hockey line. Its a deflection, 100%. I'll gladly answer it once I get a response for you that addresses why you think my definition is wrong (you haven't stated any reason for this), why Jainism isn't a religion (you have not given any reasons or justification for this), and a mention about the other non-deity religions I brought up (Why do you keep ignoring this part?).

You haven't mention any of these in your preceding posts, only the hockey line. Its a deflection, 100%. I'll gladly answer it once I get a response for you that addresses why you think my definition is wrong (you haven't stated any reason for this),

Challenge accepted.

This debate is about the word 'religion' and how it is defined, and its definition over the centuries and millenia has become less defined over time.

For example, a few years ago the word 'literally' made headlines for a change of definition so it effectively means 'figuratively.' Essentially because many has used the word incorrectly repeatedly to the point those that altered its definition have felt the word has lost all meaning.

https://www.rd.com/article/what-does-literally-mean/

I could give more examples, like how the word 'woman' has been changed by some dictionaries... because some people have been using the word incorrectly repeatedly to the point the word 'woman' has lost all meaning... for some.

That's basically what's being done to the word 'religion' just over the course of a much longer period of time. Because the singular definition used to be -
"the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods:
And that includes the worshiping of the sun, or even the worshiping of Satan, or UFOs.

But now, over the millenias, others have watered down the definition of religion so that what they consider a 'religion' to not even include *worship or a *God.

So essentially a 'religion' can be anything now, any line of philosophical belief, which 'religions without *God/s' essentially are, must be respected with all of the legal benefits & tax exemption status, apparently.

 

[BFoe]

Lol, your repeated accusations of dishonesty is humorous.

I stated that religions without deities are oxymorons and are not religions, and you think naming many not-religions is a counter-argument?

You haven't even bothered to ask why religions must have a deity, you just rambled on and on.



'Whats your source?'
You are. You cannot define religion or how they're different than typical 'philosophical beliefs.'

Hence, why you're avoiding answering if you consider 'Hockey is a religion in Canada' to be a ridiculous statement and why it is ridiculous statement.





Challenge accepted.

This debate is about the word 'religion' and how it is defined, and its definition over the centuries and millenia has become less defined over time.

For example, a few years ago the word 'literally' made headlines for a change of definition so it effectively means 'figuratively.' Essentially because many has used the word incorrectly repeatedly to the point those that altered its definition have felt the word has lost all meaning.

https://www.rd.com/article/what-does-literally-mean/

I could give more examples, like how the word 'woman' has been changed by some dictionaries... because some people have been using the word incorrectly repeatedly to the point the word 'woman' has lost all meaning... for some.

That's basically what's being done to the word 'religion' just over the course of a much longer period of time. Because the singular definition used to be -
"the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods:
And that includes the worshiping of the sun, or even the worshiping of Satan, or UFOs.

But now, over the millenias, others have watered down the definition of religion so that what they consider a 'religion' to not even include *worship or a *God.

So essentially a 'religion' can be anything now, any line of philosophical belief, which 'religions without *God/s' essentially are, must be respected with all of the legal benefits & tax exemption status, apparently.

This is all just wrong.

Many of the world’s first religions had no deity, just about any animistic religion had no deity. Plenty of religions today have no deity:

Buddhism
Confucianism
Taoism
Jainism

You’ve been prattling on for pages ITT about a topic you pretty clearly don’t know very much about.

 

[CubicleGangster]

Lol, your repeated accusations of dishonesty is humorous.

I stated that religions without deities are oxymorons and are not religions, and you think naming many not-religions is a counter-argument?

You haven't even bothered to ask why religions must have a deity, you just rambled on and on.

Humorous or not, they are true. You can state that 'religions without deities are oxymorons and are not religions' but until you back that up with something its nothing more than your feelings on the subject, not objective truth. Why would I ask why religions must have a deity? It's not a belief I hold nor does it undo my point. I would just be asking a pointless question at that point instead of focusing on what this discusion is about.

'Whats your source?'
You are. You cannot define religion or how they're different than typical 'philosophical beliefs.'

Hence, why you're avoiding answering if you consider 'Hockey is a religion in Canada' to be a ridiculous statement and why it is ridiculous statement.

No, I am not my source. The Merriam-Webster dictionary is my source. You are basically showing me you do no understand this concept of sourcing your information and why it is important for discussions. This just confirms I have wasted my time engaging with you.

Challenge accepted.

This debate is about the word 'religion' and how it is defined, and its definition over the centuries and millenia has become less defined over time.

For example, a few years ago the word 'literally' made headlines for a change of definition so it effectively means 'figuratively.' Essentially because many has used the word incorrectly repeatedly to the point those that altered its definition have felt the word has lost all meaning.

https://www.rd.com/article/what-does-literally-mean/

I could give more examples, like how the word 'woman' has been changed by some dictionaries... because some people have been using the word incorrectly repeatedly to the point the word 'woman' has lost all meaning... for some.

That's basically what's being done to the word 'religion' just over the course of a much longer period of time. Because the singular definition used to be -
"the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods:
And that includes the worshiping of the sun, or even the worshiping of Satan, or UFOs.

But now, over the millenias, others have watered down the definition of religion so that what they consider a 'religion' to not even include *worship or a *God.

So essentially a 'religion' can be anything now, any line of philosophical belief, which 'religions without *God/s' essentially are, must be respected with all of the legal benefits & tax exemption status, apparently.

Ok so your argument is now "Word change over time"
What does that do to my argument? Nowhere in this post do you show that the original meaning of the word is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods" You do not have one thing proving this to be true. If this is the original meaning of the word, prove it with a source. Then explain why this original meaning supersedes what we define religion as today. The onus is on you to prove this. You have not even come close to doing that. You took up my challenged and you failed at.

 

[Larzon]

Satan is a far better bloke than God according to the bible

 

[CubicleGangster]

This is all just wrong.

Many of the world’s first religions had no deity, just about any animistic religion had no deity. Plenty of religions today have no deity:

Buddhism
Confucianism
Taoism
Jainism

You’ve been prattling on for pages ITT about a topic you pretty clearly don’t know very much about.

He's too pigheaded to admit when he is wrong. It is what it is.

 

[CubicleGangster]

Double post. Well played, Sherdog.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

This is all just wrong.

Many of the world’s first religions had no deity, just about any animistic religion had no deity. Plenty of religions today have no deity:

Buddhism
Confucianism
Taoism
Jainism

You’ve been prattling on for pages ITT about a topic you pretty clearly don’t know very much about.

Naming philosophies claiming to be religions that are very old isn't a counter-argument, no matter how much you'd it to be.

Does it take only a person of authority over a large amount of people to declare their philosophy to be a religion?

Why can't the subject of philosophy be considered a religion?

And you're free to answer why "Hockey is a religion in Canada" isn't a ridiculous statement.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Humorous or not, they are true.

No, they aren't true. I believe everything I post in this thread, you believe I am not without anything to back up that opinion, but repeating a lie that I am a liar.... when you've clearly the liar.

First you posted -

I'll gladly answer it once I get a response for you that addresses why you think my definition is wrong (you haven't stated any reason for this), why Jainism isn't a religion (you have not given any reasons or justification for this), and a mention about the other non-deity religions I brought up (Why do you keep ignoring this part?).

And now you posted -

You took up my challenged and you failed at.

<Lmaoo>
What a surprise. Avoiding the question, again.

The reason why you're avoiding answering
"Hockey is a religion in Canada" isn't a ridiculous statement, is because given the definition you accept if 'All religions that call themselves religions are religions' then hockey, yoga, or pumpkin spice lattes can all also be legitimate religions.

 

[CubicleGangster]

No, they aren't true. I believe everything I post in this thread, you believe I am not without anything to back up that opinion, but repeating a lie that I am a liar.... when you've clearly the liar.

First you posted -



And now you posted -


<Lmaoo>
What a surprise. Avoiding the question, again.

The reason why you're avoiding answering
"Hockey is a religion in Canada" isn't a ridiculous statement, is because given the definition you accept if 'All religions that call themselves religions are religions' then hockey, yoga, or pumpkin spice lattes can all also be legitimate religions.

You really care more about feelings over facts, don't you? And I stayed true to what I said initially. I'd give you a response if you actually addressed my points. You still haven't. Anyways, you have proven to me that this level of discourse is above your current abilities. You don't understand the difference between facts, opinions, and feelings. You do no understand how to source information or how to back up your own statements.

You know what the best part of all of this is? That sentence you keep harping on wasn't part of the definition in the source I provided. It was nothing more than an example of how to use the word in a sentence. It wasn't a statement of fact. Unfortunately, you are just far too dumb to understand this so you decided to hang your whole argument on a throwaway line that was nothing more than an example of how to use a word in a sentence.
Here look over it again:



None of these are definitions or statements of fact. They are simply just examples of how someone might use the word in a sentence. This is what you were harping on. This was your big gotcha argument that you thought was so damn genius. Instead, it just highlights how lacking in reading comprehension you are. Holy fuck is this embarrassing. I'd bow out of this conversation if I was you.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

None of these are definitions or statements of fact. They are simply just examples of how someone might use the word in a sentence. This is what you were harping on. This was your big gotcha argument that you thought was so damn genius. Instead, it just highlights how lacking in reading comprehension you are. Holy fuck is this embarrassing. I'd bow out of this conversation if I was you

You've already bowed out of the conversation a while ago and now you're simply shitposting.

Did I ask if 'Hockey is a religion in Canada' was a factual statement?
No, I did not.

My original post -
"Hockey is a religion in Canada."

Because everyone instinctively knows that's incorrect. But for those who believe that every group who claims to be a religion to be a religion... can't adequately articulate why hockey cannot be considered a religion.

Go ahead, prove me wrong : Explain why someone claiming, in all seriousness, Hockey is a religion, is incorrect.

And this is a challenge you've consistently avoided, but don't bother attempting to answer it, because your concession has already been accepted.

 

[CubicleGangster]

You've already bowed out of the conversation a while ago and now you're simply shitposting.

Did I ask if 'Hockey is a religion in Canada' was a factual statement?
No, I did not.

My original post -
"Hockey is a religion in Canada."

Because everyone instinctively knows that's incorrect. But for those who believe that every group who claims to be a religion to be a religion... can't adequately articulate why hockey cannot be considered a religion.

Go ahead, prove me wrong : Explain why someone claiming, in all seriousness, Hockey is a religion, is incorrect.

And this is a challenge you've consistently avoided, but don't bother attempting to answer it, because your concession has already been accepted.

No one is claiming that though. That is the issue here. It is a random example of how to use that word in a sentence. It is not an actual claim being made. You are not even arguing against a made up argument. You are arguing against a made up sentence. There is no correct or incorrect here because it is not a statement being made as fact. Not one person has claimed, in all seriousness, that Hockey is a religion. You are fighting ghosts right now.

 

[CubicleGangster]

Its so fitting your link contains this sentence -

Hockey is a religion in Canada.

Because everyone instinctively knows that's incorrect. But for those who believe that every group who claims to be a religion to be a religion... can't adequately articulate why hockey cannot be considered a religion.

Go ahead, prove me wrong : Explain why someone claiming, in all seriousness, Hockey is a religion, is incorrect.

Just to go over this again. You grabbed a random sentence that was nothing more than an example of how to use the word. For some stupid reason you have decided to treat it like an actual claim when it is not a claim at all. It is nothing more than random example of how you may use that word in a sentence. You're original premise is based on a lie. Bow out.