- Joined
- Dec 2, 2009
- Messages
- 18,927
- Reaction score
- 11,829
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.
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.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.
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?).
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?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.
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.