![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
More religion
Banned Ilthuian since his inability to read is matched only by his inability to provide a valid arguement to what I said and his ability to revise history.
I was quite honest up front that I'd ban anyone making the claim that I was intolerant simply because I refused to capitulate to their point of view without any proof. It's simply a waste of time to argue with a child about their imaginary friend. (This statement is metaphorical, of course)
Besides. Had my friend read more carefully, he might have been as astute as to notice that I never debated whether or not God exists. God's existance is totally superfluous to the validity of religion. My point in fact was that if God does exist, either religion serves no purpose because God is utterly beyond any human understanding, and we're so small as to be completely insignificant to him OR God is so small that he is unworthy of worship and nothing more than a parasite to humanity.
God does not matter to religion and all religions are specifically designed to operate without the presence of God at all. What is the point to something that exists to serve a purpose which can never be met?
It's probably also worth noting that I did not target the value of ritual, spiritualism, or even mysticism. Believe in Santa Claus if you like. Just don't let it rule your life.
You can take my banning him as a sign of 'intolerance' if you like, but consider carefully. Do you shake your head sadly at the people in line at the super market that gossip about the headlines in the Enquirer? The people convinced that the communists are tainting our precious bodily fluids with floride? The people who think that George Bush Jr is the greatest president ever. Am I 'intolerant' or do I simply disagree with someone that you can provide no proof for?'
Ilthuian made some 20+ posts on the thread and provided not one spec of proof for the validity of worshipping God. I gave him more than ample time to make a worthwhile case, so if he protests this now, he has only himself to blame.
Good eve.
I was quite honest up front that I'd ban anyone making the claim that I was intolerant simply because I refused to capitulate to their point of view without any proof. It's simply a waste of time to argue with a child about their imaginary friend. (This statement is metaphorical, of course)
Besides. Had my friend read more carefully, he might have been as astute as to notice that I never debated whether or not God exists. God's existance is totally superfluous to the validity of religion. My point in fact was that if God does exist, either religion serves no purpose because God is utterly beyond any human understanding, and we're so small as to be completely insignificant to him OR God is so small that he is unworthy of worship and nothing more than a parasite to humanity.
God does not matter to religion and all religions are specifically designed to operate without the presence of God at all. What is the point to something that exists to serve a purpose which can never be met?
It's probably also worth noting that I did not target the value of ritual, spiritualism, or even mysticism. Believe in Santa Claus if you like. Just don't let it rule your life.
You can take my banning him as a sign of 'intolerance' if you like, but consider carefully. Do you shake your head sadly at the people in line at the super market that gossip about the headlines in the Enquirer? The people convinced that the communists are tainting our precious bodily fluids with floride? The people who think that George Bush Jr is the greatest president ever. Am I 'intolerant' or do I simply disagree with someone that you can provide no proof for?'
Ilthuian made some 20+ posts on the thread and provided not one spec of proof for the validity of worshipping God. I gave him more than ample time to make a worthwhile case, so if he protests this now, he has only himself to blame.
Good eve.