Sadly, in your desparate desire to reduce my argument, you've lost all sense of nuance.
... says the guy who declares that all Religion = Poison / Mental Illness / Infectious Disease, that it has been without benefit to mankind throughout thousands of years. What a nuanced view!
As it seemingly dawned on you during your last post, a starting point would be to contain the poison
No. I have been criticizing your Religion = Poison opinion consistently for roughly a week. And you have been evading questions the whole time. Now you pretend that I only just now asked you why Poison shouldn't be contained? But you have seen and ignored that question from me in every post by me, beginning on Wednesday, if not earlier:
"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."
https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-62#post-7246913
I've been very clear that I consider religion to be the poison, not the people that hold religious views.
No, you have NOT been clear about that. Rather, you have said and reaffirmed that you believe Religion is an infectious disease with fatal consequences. So a person who is contaminated with Religion would therefore be poisonous, since contact with them can result in a fatal infection.
Equally, there's no point extracting religion if the process will cause more damage than religion is already causing... Do I really have to explain this?
Absolutely you do. If you take the extremist position that Religion = Poison / Mental Illness / Infectious Disease, that it has absolutely no benefits or use for mankind, and that it leads inexorably to violence, repression and war, then you absolutely ought to explain why you are doing next to nothing at all to contain, cure, inoculate against, quarantine, regulate, restrict, or ban that Poison.
Like cancer, I want to get the tumours out, but I need to keep the patient alive.
If Religion = Cancer, then shouldn't the Doctor be willing to use surgery and chemotherapy? Yet all you are willing to do for the patient (Society) is say, "Eat fruits and vegetbles"? Your suggestion to deal with a global pandemic that has infected billions of people and results in repression and death is remarkably weak:
Next, for example, we could slowly start the withdrawal of support for state funded religious schools (I'm in the UK, so I don't know the situation in the US) which promote segregation and distrust. You see... No talk of murder here, but slow changes to the way we structure society and educate our kids.
Your recommendation is a mild one, which I would agree with. But it's an absurd cop out for someone who insists that Religion = Poison / Cancer / Mental Illness / Plague to go no farther in containing that Disease than to remove state funding for religious schools. You would go no farther than that? To stop something that widespread and that harmful?
Let me emphasize that the action you recommend would NOT contain the Poison you claim urgently needs to be contained. In the USA, there is no state funding for religious schools. And yet there is plenty of religion in the USA. So you cannot seriously believe that your "Eat fruits and veg" approach would contain the spread of the religious Cancer. You must reckon with the failure of your action to solve the problem, and you must propose a more effective cure for Society.
Again and again, you pretend that the only farther step you could take would be murdering religious people. But that's ridiculous. Society could implement many much milder repressions, which would curtail religion. For example: Why should society permit people who are mentally ill, who are suffering from a dangerous infectious disease, to be teachers or professors? The risk of contamination in the classroom is unacceptable.
Society could use a questionnaire to exclude religious people from teaching biology or history. Why not? We already exclude people who are mentally ill or infectious from the classroom, if they pose a danger. And you do believe that religion poses a danger to society, do you not? In that case, why not apply the normal standard for dealing with dangerous disease, mental illness, etc.?
Simplistic in the extreme and logically unsound. As I said, your style of debate appears to be to inject your own ideas into my argument and fight against those.
No. Once again you are running away from direct questions. See here:
https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-63#post-7248900
In that post, I challenged you to find 1 example of a logical fallacy on my part:
โCite one example, if you can. Otherwise, we will all assume you canโt.โ
You didnโt because you couldnโt. As usual, you ran away from a direct question.
But itโs easy to explain why your position is unsound. Here is the outline of a reductio ad absurdum proof:
(a) Assume X
(b) X implies Y
(c) Y is untrue
(d) Therefore X is untrue
And here is how you fit that pattern:
(a) You say that Religion = Poison / Cancer / Mental Illness / Plague
(b) Because Poison / Cancer / Mental Illness / Plague are harmful and potentially fatal, they must be regulated, restricted, banned, quarantined, extracted, eliminated, inoculated against, prevented. And this applies to Religion too, due to (a).
(c) However, you are unwilling to propose any policy or action that would regulate, restrict, ban, quarantine, extract, eliminate, inoculate against, or prevent the Poison / Cancer / Mental Illness / Plague of Religion. Indeed, you say that a conclusion that doing so is necessary is False.
(d) Therefore, you don't really believe (a).
This is no surprise. Really, you're not an extremist. You just like beating your chest and saying things an extremist would say, such as "all Religion is Poison" or "Religion is a Mental Illness" in order to sound tough and insult the people around you. But, of course, like most chubby schoolyard bullies, you run away from the consequences of your own position. And that's fine. You will never admit that you're a soft-hearted moderate who accepts that religion isn't all that bad. But that's the truth.
Humpty Dumpty woke up one morning, looking for a soft target to beat up. Humpty Dumpty hates religion and enjoys attacking the beliefs of religious people. Humpty Dumpty found a thread on NamePros about Rob Monster (who happens to be religious), in which the public sympathy was already mostly against that 1 religious person. Humpty Dumpty figured he could use this 1 individual as a pretext for denigrating billions of religious people and that nobody would call him out on it. Humpty Dumpty was wrong.
...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?
