| 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.
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.
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.
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.
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". |