In response to my suggestion that religion is a bad thing
>> for you when you make decisions that are
>> based on a faulty reality. It is for us when your spirituality convinces you
>> that we are blasphemers. It is for you again if another religionist decides
>> that your God is competing with hers.
Paul Hughes told me to
> Speak for yourself.
that's all any of us here speak for
> Only I decide what is "bad" for me.
fine by me
>Blashemphy? Who is speaking of blasphemy?
Every single religion of which i am aware.
> You are confusing 'experimental' mental states with
> religious dogma.
> More importantly, short of this post, my own experiences are mine
> to cherish in the privacy of my own mind.
did i suggest otherwise?
> As I stated quite clearly, I do not run around and
> proselytize those beliefs to others. In the spirit of transhumanist
> self-responsibility, it is my own risk to take.
Absolutely. I would never suggest otherwise. And did not.
> Whether I can hold
> any particular and transitory belief consistent with my other knowledge is my
> decision to make and no one else's.
> Who are you to decide my own internal states are
> good or bad?
I am giving my opinion. Nothing more, but nothing less.
> Doesn't that put in you the category of thought police?
Disagreeing with someone is not being thought police. Arguing is not force. I am not going to come and arrest you if don't change your mind or anything remotely of the sort. Can you see the difference?
PS: sorry if my choice of words sounds like I am telling you to change. I am merely strongly disagreeing with you. And, while I have a desire to live in world where fewer people believe that omniscient forces control their lives or that there is a life force or a life after death, I have a stronger desire for there to no "thought police". Vigorous debate yes. PC censorship no.