Your very first post outlines your agenda very clearly. Making appeals to emotion and trying to create a need for the superstition you're selling (neither of which is relevant to the truth of religious beliefs, which fits nicely with your astonishing pronouncement that you are unconcerned with truth in religion) is the trademark of the evangelist. I'm sure we've all seen these tactics before somewhere.Animae wrote: Funny isn’t it?
Or perhaps not, this is after all a serious matter. They claim to see when they blindfold themselves willingly. In wanting to have something to oppose they blind themselves of its greatness. Irony
Somehow they fail to understand a concept greater than anything they could ever conceive. God is something beyond their lives yet they fail to understand. They are the ones who are truly arrogant, not the ones they want to oppose.
They want to destroy what gives meaning to humanity and replace it with what? Nothingness? And then they claim their world devoid of value to be something superior. If that is not arrogance than I truly don’t know what is. I still would like to hear a single argument of reason to why there way would be superior but they know none.
In which we come to the very reason why I am here. I am curious of the opinions of those who claim to know something.
My definition of a good society is one where people are free to believe what they want, and where they voluntarily choose to stop believing in gods that are used to justify iron age atrocities and tyranny such stoning family members to death for heresy, old testament style. It is totally ridiculous for you to be accusing me of double standards when simply trying to persuade people their beliefs are wrong does not equate coercion, as you yourself implicitly attest to by trying to convince us your own ideas about the utility of religion are right while our beliefs that it is evil or unnecessary are wrong. Ironically, you try to claim to be right at the same time you say such a thing is impossible while attacking me for saying I'm right. Who's really setting a double standard here?Animae wrote: I believe that everybody has the right to make up their mind about their own lives, as much as I am against forcing people to believe, I think it is as wrong to persuade them that their believes are false. It is a double standard to say that people should have the right of choice but then say that religion is something they should stay away from as it is something harmful. I am definitely not an advocate of thought control (did I not make that clear in my previous post?). My view is far more radical, I believe that evolution should have its way (does it not always?) and that I should avoid to influence the system. Why? Simply because cannot accurately estimate the effects of any kind of interaction and as all motivation behind that interactions are based on human values (subjective), how can you ever claim to do what is “right”.
I would like to know your definition of a “good” society is, because you must have a very clear picture of it if you can objectively know what is right or wrong for this world.
If evolution always has its way no matter what we do, then why does it need you to try to stop us from interfering? Furthermore, don't you realize that we humans debating the concept of god and trying convince others of our beliefs is actually part of the memetic evolution, that natural selection of human ideas, that you say you want to protect？　Ａｒｅｎ’ｔ　ｙｏｕ　ｙｏｕｒｓｅｌｆ　＂ｉｎｆｌｕｅｎｃｉｎｇ＂　ｔｈｅ　ｓｙｓｔｅｍ　ｂｙ　ａｒｇｕｉｎｇ　ｆｏｒ　ｙｏｕｒ　ｏｗｎ　ｐｏｉｎｔ　ｏｆ　ｖｉｅｗ？
Ｉ　ｆｉｎｄ　ｉｔ　ｈａｒｄ　ｔｏ　ｔａｋｅ　ｓｅｒｉｏｕｓｌｙ　ｓｏｍｅｏｎｅ　ｓｏ　ｐｅｒｖａｓｉｖｅｌｙ　ｄｉｓｈｏｎｅｓｔ．