And there is a world of difference between me saying that there is no evidence to support the existence of an afterlife and someone wishing eternal torture on me. Again, are you intentionally being dim with these lazy comparisons?
Who is being intentionally dim? Let's see ....
People who believe Hell exists don't necessarily WANT you to be tortured eternally in Hell. On the contrary, the religious ethics of such people generally require them to SAVE you. What they want for you is Heaven.
Granted, there are jerks who are religious and get this upside down, feeling glee at the prospect of their enemies suffering eternal damnation. But that's just petty vindictive human nature going
against the religion. What Christianity actually says is this: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you". Obviously that's incompatible with wishing someone to be tortured eternally. So your characterization is backwards.
Replace God with any other entity and people would consider him seriously mentally ill.
No they wouldn't. Just you.
You believe in science, supposedly. Yet within the DSM-V, which reflects the scientific consensus regarding mental illness, there is no diagnosis for religion as a psychological disorder. Of course, lack of evidence will never stop you from making preposterous generalizations. Whereas science is humble and self-critical, you're as dogmatic as a medieval pope.
You can treat poison in many different ways. It's you that seems to think the only solution is murder and torture - which probably says more about you than me.
Again, who is being intentionally dim here? I don't regard religion as poison. But you do. And I never advocated murder or torture. Instead of committing the straw-man fallacy, if you wish to be taken seriously, you should respond to what I actually said, which was this:
"If you believe Religion = Poison, then you have a moral obligation to exterminate that Poison, or contain that Poison behind lock and key, or to make use of that Poison illegal."
Yet your solution to a Poison that has caused terrible harm to the human race for thousands of years, to a pandemic of infectious mental illness that has already affected billions of people is ... to do nothing to contain the spread of that Pandemic, to do nothing to eliminate that Poison ... only to mock and jeer 1 guy on NamePros because of his religious beliefs?
To me that seems irresponsibly lazy. If I believed, as you say you do, that Religion is a terrible poison, a contagious mental illness, which causes untold repression and violence, and which has no redeeming qualities or necessary function in the world, then I would have the guts to follow the logic of my beliefs
As I have said numerous times, I personally treat the poison by calling out nonsensical and unevidenced views when I see them.
No, that is not what you have been doing. Instead of saying that X is incorrect, you have said that all Religion is Poison. Very very different.
You are the only one suggesting violence.
No. When did I ever suggest violence? The point I've made, which you seem unable or unwilling to grasp is this: Throughout human history, people who regard an idea or a social group as "Poison" generally end up advocating for repression or extermination of that idea / group. That is a rational and appropriate conclusion, based on their premise. Poison should be contained, banned, or eliminated. I disagree with their conclusion because I disagree with their premise. But you agree with the premise that an idea / group (religion / the religious) is Poison. So why don't you accept the logical conclusion that this Poison should be eliminated, contained, or banned?
Are you being intentionally simplistic?
Reductio ad absurdum. Yes, I have reduced your position to its simplest and most absurd conclusions. Much as you may squirm, you are cornered.
If you believe that Religion = Poison, then you must accept your moral responsibility to exterminate, contain, or ban that Poison, since the damage caused by that Poison – throughout human history and in the lives of the billions of religious people infected by that mental illness today – is far worse than the negative side effects of eliminating it from society.
If someone you knew had an infectious disease (which religion is) would you kill them or try and cure them?
If there were a global pandemic of contagious mental illness with catastrophic symptoms such as violence or war, which had already infected billions of people, then at some stage along the way responsible doctors and governments would have put the infected people under quarantine; and they would have forced them to undergo a cure.
You say Religion is a Poison or Pandemic of this magnitude. Yet you are too shy or unsure to advocate a systematic quarantine or cure. Why?
Is it because your talk about Religion being a Poison is all bluster and hyperbole, and you need to walk back your position because it's indefensible and you don't really believe it? Or is it because you're afraid that the consequences of your position will make you look like an intolerant monster?
...It's the only way they can get through....Makes them happier....Brings friends together....And you want to criticize that with a word like POISON?
