Stop taking things out of context. I stated laughing at the sillyness of religious practices (because people decide to thank something you believe to be imaginary) at a dinner table is not mocking. Under your logic, finding anything humorous is mockery.
The biggest problem with your argument is that there are things that are meant to be humorous. Laughing at a joke is a response to humor, and I'm not arguing against that.
Laughing at a lifestyle choice that people take very seriously is mocking it. Even if it's a legitimately humorous one (like Scientologists eating their wives placentas) laughing at it is still mockery. Your argument that it's okay to laugh at it because you find it funny is stupid given the social context.
Earth being round is something that's perception based.
No, it isn't. The Earth being round is an absolute, irrefutable fact of the universe. If you think the Earth is flat, it's still round. Your perception has no effect on the roundness of the Earth.
It is, you have yet to actually refute it.
On what hierarchy? You've yet to establish that. Under what criteria do you place mathematics higher? It doesn't make sense to claim that mathematics is innately higher than another scientific discipline with absolutely no ties to mathematics in general. Mathematics isn't even a discipline on it's own, it's a component of dozens of other scientific areas of study which again, very few ever cross paths with theology.
It states they aren't real, because there's nothing suggesting they are. There is no positive variable for a deity's existence.
What states? Like states of matter or sovereign states? What do you mean there's no "positive variable for a deity's existence?" Do you mean that there's no proof? Is that how you say "there's no proof of God" in autism-speak? No, there isn't any proof for God. There's evidence. If there was proof of God, he'd be proven.
Good thing you're here to tell us all what we already know.
Playing devil's advocate means to take the side of the opposition to ensure stability in an argument.
No it means taking the side of the less-popular opinion to hopefully learn something in the process. I have no idea what you mean by "stability of an argument," but I think if an argument was unstable there would be eventual police involvement.
The overall goal isn't to take sides, but the actual action does. If you have a hard time misunderstanding this, refer to the internet. It's a wonderful utility.
The goal is to learn something about a subject where personal bias makes it difficult to empathize with the other party.
You didn't refute the equation, I don't know what you're on about.
It makes no loving sense. It's like saying "chicken + cow = banana" assuming chicken and cow are both fruit.
You keep going on under the impression that you are correct even when you've yet to offer anything but speculative drivel.
Do you even read what you write? You need a full time copy-editor lmfao
On top of that, you're absolutely horible at arguing and are delusional as to your reception on this forum really is. It's almost sad to see that you think you're on the majority's good side.
How am I delusional as to what my reception is? I was received as a huge weeaboo flamer because that's what I joined as, and I don't really understand how my reception to the forum, which was years ago, is relevant to how much of an idiot you are.
ya im not very religious and i hate going to church but if we dont say grace it feels weird
Same like, I can't eat without saying some sort of quick little prayer lol
And sometimes if I'm like really starving or the food's really good, I'll say a bunch of little prayers as I eat.
