The Bible does say things about slavery, Gus Lamarch, just not the right thing.
What about mentioned discrimination, females, gay folk too? Just how much can be justified by a Bible reading should someone be intent on that?
The Bible does not define morals (many seem to pick-and-choose anyway).
You don't "follow" (to use your word), you develop autonomous moral agency (if you justifiably want to be/remain an autonomous actor at least).
But, hey, I certainly prefer this consequence over this/this. — jorndoe

I already made my statement. I don't know how should we continue this discussion.

See what I mean? Many atheist put a lot of emotional energy into their belief system drop f-bombs frequently. Emotions are good, but unfortunately, for many of them it seems to be manifested in a bad way. — 3017amen

We agree.

I always find it very rude when someone uses a response to me to actually be talking to someone else. — DingoJones

Sorry, I'll not quote you anymore in these cases. Thank you for clarifying.

It seems to me in my experience, more often than not, atheists are angry. Even Einstein recognized the phenomenon. He coined the term "fanatical atheist." — 3017amen

Should we call it "resentment" or should we feel pity for them? I'm an atheist and I can't help feeling sorry for us. If a God exists, humanity still has a purpose; if not, we need to construct a purpose - and humanity has great difficulty in creating purposes for itself -.

Are there any gods that you wouldn't be an atheist about? — DingoJones

I think a good question for him would be:

Are you resentful that you're not God?

@JerseyFlight

Your point? — 3017amen

:lol:

This is complete and utter nonsense, what no one on this thread can see is that this is mere formalism, the term existence does not refer to actual existence, but empty, abstract concepts. — JerseyFlight

True enough. The only part of the equation that you forgot to implement in your argument, is that concepts only have essence and weight, if we put our beliefs in those same ideas. The "human" item still weighs heavily. The consequence of this human interference is the fact that theism is still seen as something real, and atheism arises right after theism - whenever "1" comes into existence, all other possibilities gain potential to be conceived as well. - like "2", "-1" or even "∞" - -.

do the right thing in any case (even if not going by the Bible as the definition)? — jorndoe

This is my point of view about Christianity.

It has a lot of things that are bad, but it has much more things that are good, and in a time of complete subjectiveness and a nihilistic take on religion, it has the best principles to follow. -"But the Bible says nothing about slavery". So what? We'll assume now that every christian is a slavery apologist? Of course not.

By the way, if Christianity is the divine moral go-to, then why didn't the Bible say "slavery bad, don't"? — jorndoe

I'll ask the same question I asked Gregory before:

What is the best alternative to Christianity then? If you tell me something that better deals with the concept of individual freedom, values ​​and morals of what is good and bad; I convert- in the case of being a religion - or begin to follow - in the case, of being an ideology -.

What's with the "socialists and leftists" anyway? — jorndoe

Not for you, but for Jersey Flight.

'You mean a real, concrete absolute, verifiable just like the moon? Or do you mean that humans believed that God was absolute? — JerseyFlight

God - in my view - had been the totality of the absolute for society because it was a human interpretation what they could be in transcendence - allpowerful, omnipresent, and omniscient, in total, "being" - . Not something physical, real, intrinsically existing in the factory of the Universe. We are talking about concepts, which, in short, are already abstract.

[Nihilism] Preconditioned by what?' — JerseyFlight

I do not believe that Christianity, its symbolism, theology, values ​​and morals were the cause of nihilism. The christian religion - codified, already absolutely finalized - in the catholic view - - has been and continues to be used as a political and social tool, and nihilism is the consequence of our evil intentions - in most cases - when using it. The only way for a concept to be projected into the world is through the individual, and the individual uses it as he sees fit. The cause is not in the concept, but in the vehicle of its projection into the world.

I want to believe (in the sense of "belief"). I don't contradict truth — Gregory

And I am saying that this "tolerant" belief where everyone can believe what they want, does not endure, and only weakens. At some point - in the near or distant future - a new religion will be strong enough to turn itself hegemonic, and with it, new virtues and values ​​will be created - the most probable candidate is Islam, but who knows if the west will not create a peudo-christian marxist belief and eventually synthetize that as a religion. -.

Luther — Gregory

Luther had created the fragmentation that would eventually become the main symptom of the eventual secularization of Christianity - individual interpretation of the gospels -. And it is obvious that Christianity - as it was hegemonic until the end of the 15th century - would reach the Enlightenment anyway, with Protestant reform or without. Luther with his religious dogmas of "trying to return to a more "pure" and "faithful" church" was nothing more than individual resentment of someone who did not have what others achieved in the institution of the church. Contrary to what some say, where "the Catholic church was anti-Semitic during the Middle Ages", Luther was one of the first Christians - not to be confused with the term "Catholic", as Luther was already calling himself a Protestant - to advocate a real and conscious seek to problematize and criticize european jews. Quoting Luther:

"What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews":

"First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools … This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians ... Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb … Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside ... Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them … Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow … But if we are afraid that they might harm us or our wives, children, servants, cattle, etc., … then let us emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, Bohemia, etc., … then eject them forever from the country ..."

Luther was neither a Christian nor a scholar, but a simple resentful who had been given the power to communicate to the world - until then, Europe - through the mass printing of his writings. Thanks to him, we live in a period where a "pantheon of interpretations of God" exists. For these and other reasons, it is logical that the Pope - being a strong and charismatic leader - Leo X, would act fast against this heretic. Not only was the stability of the church at stake, but the entire structure that kept its values ​​and morals intact.

What about Leo X's decree against Luther? Are we to burn heretics to death like it suggests? — Gregory

Are you talking about the papal bull "Exsurge Domine" - Arise, O Lord -? If so, let's analyse it:

Leo X & Exsurge Domine.

"With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication...."

"...we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them. ... Indeed immediately after the publication of this letter these works, wherever they may be, shall be sought out carefully by the ordinaries and others [ecclesiastics and regulars], and under each and every one of the above penalties shall be burned publicly and solemnly in the presence of the clerics and people."

At no point do I see an ambiguity in favor of "burning the heretics" as you said. What Pope Leo X wanted to convey with this papal bull was the message that the interception of Luther's biblical scriptures - and his followers - was tainted by his personal views on the scriptures, and that this would harm the european institution as a whole - I agree that the burning of the books only gave more arguments in favor of Luther, and that the Pope Leo X could have been more pragmatic in this regard, however, he tried to act as quickly as possible -. Luther was not doing the church and its followers a favor, but unconsciously, doing it for his own self-realization to the detriment of all.

For my part your insistence on religion is just bizarre, it displays uncritical allegiance to shallow platitudes that circulate through apologetic domains. — JerseyFlight

I practically projected to you how the real "intelectuals" of this forum noticed how meager your way of thinking and arguing is, and how your pseudophilosophy is nothing more than an ideological doctrine, and yet, here you are, continuing to expel words without any depth. I think that expecting you to realize that is asking too much from someone so mediocre ...

You propose a Christianity which doesnt t retain belief that it can prove its own truth. — Gregory

And here you are, questioning this very belief you believe to not be truthful. So go then and convert to Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, it doesn't matter what religion you'll follow. This secularism will too happen to it sometime in the future. History proves it.

Antisemitism in Christianity (Wikipedia)
during Nazi times, some 94% of Germans were Christian, that's like 19 on a street with 20 people (Wikipedia), give that some thought
Centuries of Christian anti-Semitism led to Holocaust, landmark Church of England report concludes (Gabriella Swerling; The Telegraph; Nov 2019)
Victims of the Christian Faith (Kelsos via Church and State; Aug 2002)
Flesh Inferno: Atrocities of Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition (Simon Whitechapel; Apr 2003)
Racism in Watchtower publications (John Cedars; Aug 2019)
America’s Biggest Christian Charity Funnels Tens of Millions to Hate Groups (Alex Kotch; Sludge; Mar 2019)
Are All Men Created Equal? (Ronald Hanko; Protestant Reformed Churches in America), apparently not, and, with such reasons, discrimination, and worse, are justified
"femina est aliquid deficiens et occasionatum" (woman is defective and misbegotten)
— Summa Theologiae (1274), Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
Study Shows White Evangelicals Want Christian Supremacy, Not “Religious Freedom” (Hemant Mehta; Dec 2019)
Onward, Christian fascists (Chris Hedges; Jan 2020) — jorndoe

The old tactic of showing only the rotten - and rare - cases of degradation in Christianity. Classic!

Stauch, Marc; Wheat, Kay (2015). "12.1.2.1:The Sanctity of human life by H.Kuhse". Text, Cases & Materials on Medical Law.

"If we turn to the roots of our western tradition, we find that in Greek and Roman times not all human life was regarded as inviolable and worthy of protection. Slaves and 'barbarians' did not have a full right to life and human sacrifices and gladiatorial combat were acceptable... Spartan Law required that deformed infants be put to death; for Plato, infanticide is one of the regular institutions of the ideal State; Aristotle regards abortion as a desirable option; and the Stoic philosopher Seneca writes unapologetically: "Unnatural progeny we destroy; we drown even children who at birth are weakly and abnormal... And whilst there were deviations from these views..., it is probably correct to say that such practices...were less proscribed in ancient times. Most historians of western morals agree that the rise of ...Christianity contributed greatly to the general feeling that human life is valuable and worthy of respect."

Lecky, W.E.H. (1920). HIstory of European Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne. Gushee, David P. (2014). In the Fray: Contesting Christian Public Ethics, 1994–2013.

"Christianity formed a new standard, higher than any which then existed in the world...The justice teachings of Jesus are closely related to a commitment to life's sanctity..."

Duffy, Eamon (1997). Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes.

"The Industrial Revolution brought many concerns about the deteriorating working and living conditions of urban workers. Influenced by the German Bishop Wilhelm Emmanuel Freiherr von Ketteler, in 1891 Pope Leo XIII published the encyclical Rerum novarum, which set in context Catholic social teaching in terms that rejected socialism but advocated the regulation of working conditions. Rerum Novarum argued for the establishment of a living wage and the right of workers to form trade unions."

Just a few references in terms of the benefit that Christianity has brought to humanity. Feats as "the improvement of the working conditions of the proletariat during the industrial revolution", which the current socialists and leftists claim as the feats of their ideology, were also accomplished by the effort of Christianity. It must be really desperate to know that by deconstructing the Christian faith, you end up deconstructing yourself...

during Nazi times, some 94% of Germans were Christian, — jorndoe

And here you use the argument that the german masses that joined the Nazi party at the time, really knew and followed the true dogmas and morals that the party elite followed. This argument of yours is nothing more than historical revisionism that favors your tantrum against Christianity.

It is funny that all this discussion puted here is only possible thanks to christian values and development. You, with all your resentful arguments against Christianity, are living proof of what I affirm.

Did the I Ching predict this for you? — Gregory

History tells those who dare to study it that everything attached to it tends to repeat itself. From Thebes, to Rome, to the West. The world is born, grows, has its apex, and collapses. The collapse is always preceded by a time of extreme economic wealth, globalization, high-level of education, tolerance and extreme individual freedom.

It could have been another way. — Gregory

It could, but it wasn't. There is no changing the past.

slave is not condemned in the Bible, for example — Gregory

So far only I have been the one to declare my point in how to adapt to theism. And it was through an "conscious-unconscious" belief in it. So, what do you bring me as an alternative to Christianity?

Thank you for clarifying, I was wondering what infinite stupidity was responsible for the incompetence in which we live. — JerseyFlight

Today's stupidity and incompetence is the result of the secularization of Christianity, not of the christian faith. Christian faith with all its dogmas, laws, morals and values ​​still exists and is there to be studied, the point is that with secularization, decadence arises and with it, nihilism. Without a homogeneous faith, which dictates how life should be lived - according to God - Man gets lost in his own sea of subjectiviness. There is no more the absolute, because the only absolute thing that existed was God, and we have killed him.

Uh this theology is supposed to save the West? — Gregory

Whether you like the fact that christian theology is like this, does not change the fact that you only live the way you live, in the world you live in, thinking the way you think, thanks to those same dogmas. You may disagree with the doctrines, but they practically built what you live in today. If you prefer, there are two other Abrahamic religions in the world - Islam and Judaism - but I am pretty sure that a free and individual life like the one that Christianity provided you will not have. And if you decide to follow the path of questioning - like atheism - like myself - or agnosticism -: - The future is reserved for hegemony, and a theist one.

I dont know that it would factor in per say. — DingoJones

I believe that nihilism is one of the causes for the eventual demise of individualism. When we enter a moral, ethical and cultural state of relaxation, concepts - which, have since then, become banal - like freedom, are not as valued as before, because now everyone has it - everyone is free -. Nihilism will gradually erode the structure of society, and with that, bring the concept of collectivism - That if I must do something, we will do it, because it will be faster and easier. In short, less concern for individual well-being and a certain voluntary degradation of the self in exchange for the status quo that maintains the society which they live in -.

Kant is a Douchebag. — Wayfarer

Ok, I admit: - This is the first quote of the forum that really made me laugh...

in fact id go so far as to say that its only the conformity to society that weakens this natural instinct of individuality. — DingoJones

And where nihilism would apply here? Nihilism would cause the conformity to society or the other way around?

I think that’s a pretty good attitude - I feel the same way. I’m reading a current title, Tom Holland, Dominion, which is an account of the historical impact of Christianity - not from a Christian apologist but a cultural historian. — Wayfarer

It's like being conscious that it's all a lie, but still following it because it created the world you live in. It's like a "conscious-ignorance" if I can put it in that way. And thanks for the recommendation, I'm going to take a look.

It might interest you to know that the famous German philosopher, Juergen Habermas, came to a similar realisation in the early 2000’s and engaged in a series of dialogues with then-Cardinal Ratzinger (later the Pope) about the place of religious values in today’s secular culture. Habermas in no way converted to Christianity through that, but acknowledged something similar to what you’re saying. — Wayfarer

Interesting. I will look this in more depth.

You might like the book Action by Maurice Blondel. Friendly recommendation — Gregory

Thanks for all the recommendations, I will definitely give it a look - and if I'm interested - I will read them.

Am I misunderstanding? — DingoJones

No you're not.

It seems like you are essentially asking “if there was an environment with no individuality would there be any individuality?” — DingoJones

Yes, it was a better phrasing. "If the individual dies, and his concept becomes completely forgotten; can there still be human "individuality"?

But I'm Italian and Christianity has a Middle Eastern vibe I don't like. — Gregory

Even though you were apologetic to Islam before, but ok.

I just didn't know what your point was. — Gregory

I'll try to summarize my point in the best possible way:

- Christianity is the basis of all western civilization today, and every advance, progress, freedom achieved, is thanks to the weakening of the dogmas of this same religion - secularism -. However, this same secularism decays - thanks to nihilism - and eventually causes this same society to collapse. To avoid this collapse, a rational belief in Christianity would be necessary, however - as this is practically impossible to achieve -, I opt for conscious-unconscious belief on the christian faith - if it worked for a 1000 years for europe, it should - in theory - work for us -. If you don't believe in Christianity, at least pretend to do so to legitimize your values, morals, and purposes.

You haven't presented a logical alternative to my agnosticism so I can't be open to it — Gregory

Life is not just made of logic and reason, if it was, we wouldn't need to be humans!
And I am not here to convert you, I am here to discuss; but it seems to me that you took it somehow to being personal, so I will end my participation in this dialogue here. Good morning/Good night

If Jesus was God — Gregory

You forgot that I already mentioned that I believe that Jesus was a historical figure, but not that he was a divine figure.

You haven't made much sense at all so far — Gregory

Indeed, it is difficult to see meaning in opinions that go against what you take to be truth and you are not open to change.

You asked whether or not someone can be an individual in that specific society, not whether an individual can change that society. — DingoJones

Its that the concept of individuality doesn't make sense - to me - when applied to a completely hegemonic population, without religious, cultural or social differences. It seems to me that the individual "dies" when an absolute truth has been completely reached and everyone believes in it.

can the individual resist the environment? — DingoJones

The individual's existence is already an eternal battle against the external environment. I don't see a "truce" being made between the individual and the collective.

Did watch the youtube short "singularity"? :smirk: — 180 Proof

Yeah.

Here's an excerpt from an old post on an old thread Purpose of Humans is to create God on Earth:

My guess is (might as well keep pulling this out of my butt) the good news is also the bad news: the herd of homo insapiens will be thinned over, say, the next century or two by slowly rolling catastrophes like dozens of meters sea-level rise, mega-urban coastal collapses, fresh water protracted hot wars, blah blah blah ... as the barely surviving remnants are 'nudged' into algorithm constructed and managed 'human reservations' ... while THEY hyper-multitask nonstop transforming the Earth, then perhaps the inner solar system eventually, into their very own apex species niche.

But why zookeep us?

Wouldn't it be more efficient (or something) to exterminate us?

Sure machines, no matter how intelligent, wouldn't have sentimental attachment to or 'feel' nostagia for its maker-ancestors, right? Isn't this just pathetic wishful thinking on our (my) part that our AI-children would protect us from the hazards of our worst selves like providential gods rather than hunt us for sport like inhuman Terminators? — 180 Proof

Congratulations, you are more pessimistic - or realistic - than me. :down:

The obvious reading of this is that Jesus thought the Second coming would happen soon. Of course, it never happened. Christians will reinterpret this to say that the resurrection was the first stage of the Second Coming. But if Christians can reread and reinterpret Scripture, what right have they to attack the Koran? Modern Muslim apologists have all the arguments they need to defend any passage you choose to attack — Gregory

Any religion is based on the belief of its followers. Obviously, if the "end of times" did not happen when Jesus predicted, it was not because of God, but because of human error. This belief that he eventually will return to create the "Kingdom of God", as long as Christianity exists, will continue to be believed. The same thing with Islam. They believe that Allah - that if translated, becomes "God", but people don't get that - will return at the "end of times" to judge every person. When will the end of times be? Never, because it is a religion, and "religion" is a human construction for giving us purpose. While it makes sense to belive, we - humans - will believe - humanity is just like that -.

You don't seem to have a distinct point/argument then — Gregory

My position is that you only have the privilege to criticize the world around you, and the religion that founded your civilization, because it is weak - you live in a secular world -. We are the blatant symptoms of this weakness - An atheist - my case - and a questioner of the legitimacy of the Bible -.

I'm not saying you should or shouldn't criticize. — Gus Lamarch

Did you read my previous answer?

Of course, in so much as an environment is able to be opposed/ignored by each individual within it.
Im not sure where the conundrum lies here...if the individual subscribes to a social environment, they subscribe to the level of individuality permitted by that social environment, if any. If they do not subscribe then they have no restrictions on being an individual. If the person subscribes but doesnt always follow the rules, then they have individuality proportionate to the degree to which they go against or ignore the environment. Finally, if they subscribe to the social environment but privately (mentally or otherwise) exercise individuality then they are able to be individuals to whatever extent they are able to have privacy (of thought or otherwise). — DingoJones

It seems to me that when an absolute truth is created and strengthened by a belief - whether religious or not - the individual completely loses his ability to exercise himself in a given society. Ex: Majorian tried again to prescribe the possession of weapons to the roman population, however, since they were already accommodated with the situation in which they lived, they did not see the value that this feat would have on their lives, and so it was prohibited.

An individual - Majorian - with power to change society tried to bring back the importance of individual freedom, but people - as being now part of a large crowd, without the knowledge of individual freedom - impossibilitated this process.

Freedom of religion was late in Christianity. — Gregory

Just as it was with the roman religion, and with the greek, and it will be with Islam, and it will always be with any religion. Every religion is a method of life, a way of thinking and contemplating the world. When this dogma weakens, you have civilizing peaks - for example, the apex of the "Bronze Age" - 1300 BC to 1200 BC -, the roman "Principate" between the empires of Nerva and Marcus Aurelius - 96 AD to 180 AD -, and the contemporary West - 1945 to ? - which are subsequently followed by an economic, societal, religious and cultural collapse of that civilization - or as in the case of the Bronze Age, civilizations -.

It's almost as if, when you give freedom to people, they normally will throw it at the garbage.
Enjoy it while you can.

Only a singularity can save us. — 180 Proof

I'm really curious now: - If we eventually achieve it, what do you think will become of humanity?

This is true not only of Christianity, Woo-Woo, etc but of every human, all too human decadence and endeavor. — 180 Proof

That's why I think we - the west - will fall in this century or the next one.

Oh, I don't know. The secular inteliigentsia have been wishing religion dead since the 17th Century but it shows no sign of happening. Sure it's dead in some places but in the 'emerging world' religion show no signs of dying out. — Wayfarer

No, don't get me wrong. What I meant is that our way of life - secular - will not survive this century - while Christianity is slowly dying, Islam grows more and more -. I'm really pessimistic about the future of the West - we are going towards the second fall of Rome - or third of Thebes if you consider the "Fall of the Bronze Age" - -.

Completely agree. Far different story in the PRC. — Wayfarer

Let's enjoy it well, because it won't last until the 22nd century.

Christianity does't exist. That is, it was not an entity in the past. PEOPLE are who existed — Gregory

Christianity is a societal organism as complete as a multi-billion dollar company today. Christianity is a religion, religion is an institution through the church; Christianity is an entity made up of people. On the larger scale of history, individuals - apart from a few rare cases - make no difference, but large bodies - such as the State, Religion, companies, etc ... - do.

They held various views and often condemned each other. — Gregory

Fact. There is no arguing against this statement.

But we can criticize the crap that was mingled with it — Gregory

Again I repeat. I think you lost my point. We all are here right now, writing on the internet, on a philosophy forum, talking about christianity, just because christianity build this secular world where every opinion is respected and we can argue about it. Try doing this on a civilization where the religion is still strong. We both would be imprisioned, or even worse, dead. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't criticize.

:up: — 3017amen

:up:

So we have every right to look at it as a whole and criticize it for being wrong — Gregory

Thank the secular contemporary world that has all its basis and foundations in Christianity. — Gus Lamarch

My point is that you can only question and point out the errors of Christianity thanks to Christianity.

I am not versed enough in this material to speak with authority on the topic, that is why I left it open. — JerseyFlight

As opposed to leaving a bait for potential inquirers where you would know very well how to argue against - without any depth on the subject - transvested as "ambiguity", it might be recommended to go search further or if you don't want to, don't talk about the subject that you don't know about? Just a tip.

You should try asking me about it next time. — JerseyFlight

And now you use the tactic of victimism, along with the previously mentioned fact that the reader is obliged to know that you are open - which I am in doubt if it's true - to inquiries.

just like I do not care whether Muhammad existed. If you want to spend your time researching it you are free to do it, but I will admonish you that there are far more important things to study. — JerseyFlight

Now you completely change course by citing another historical figure that I didn't even mention, to simply deviate from my questioning.

Is contradicted by: — JerseyFlight

At no time was it said that Carrier supports his lines on the basis of nihilism, and yes that I argued on the basis of nihilism. Try to read more carefully and in less haste to respond. — Gus Lamarch

I had to quote myself, because I'm pretty sure you just ignored my answer to that affirmation of yours.

is more important to study than say, economics, it is likely I will give my time to Jesus. — JerseyFlight

Again dodging my questions. This is getting ridiculous already.

However, this is not an exchange of value because the topic is itself lacking in value. It would be advisable for you to try to focus on things that have more value. — JerseyFlight

And you should try to be more sincere in your discussions. This pseudophilosophy of yours is not working, I recommend the use of another tactic - if your objective is simply to try to indoctrinate others that your "revolutionary" - which is nothing revolutionary - "humanism" - which is more like a collectivist totalitarianism - works, through the use of controversy. Congratulations! You are managing to destroy your own vile ideology -.