3 ms·

> I wonder if some people need something to believe I totally understand your point (and agree with the stated goal of a non-religious society with the "good b

> I wonder if some people need something to believe I totally understand your point (and agree with the stated goal of a non-religious society with the "good bits" of religion baked in), but, the "some" in your sentence above ... there be really scary dragons. Here's what I mean: would you say that "some" people deserve the right to vote while others don't? The argument that "some" people need religion has the implication that they're too dumb to figure out a path for themselves without the help of a guiding book. And that because of their limitations, the only way for them to "stick to the book" is to shrink-wrap the message into a fairy tale. In other words, that'd be a world where one part of the population (those who don't "need" religion) brainwashes and manipulates the other part into "doing the right thing" (whatever "right" actually is). You can see why this line of reasoning is a very slippery slope.

Gustomaximus 6y ago
I dont see the slippery slope. You're way over reading into 'some'. Some simply means, some people need to believe in something, and others dont. You cant thing this is an all or nothing position? And the leap to conclusion with: "implication that they're too dumb to figure out a path for themselves". I've not said or implied that anywhere, nor do I see that is a obvious implication. Taking this step is creating offence where there was none. And then concluding this could mean these people need to be brainwashed to believe the preferred format. That's a leap on a leap that had nothing to do with what I said, and pulling a worst case scenario into some semblance of the conclusion to focus on. And not trying to have a go at you, but I do this you've over read on a work and made fallacious leaps in logic flow to a worse case. We can do that with any scenario. I cant see why it has any significant reason to be the focus point based on the previous comment, so I dont see why this is slippery slope as maybe it could happen but there is no direction from previous to align those events. But that's me, and some people will agree, and some wont :)

Gustomaximus 6y ago

I dont see the slippery slope. You're way over reading into 'some'. Some simply means, some people need to believe in something, and others dont. You cant thing this is an all or nothing position? And the leap to conclusion with: "implication that they're too dumb to figure out a path for themselves". I've not said or implied that anywhere, nor do I see that is a obvious implication. Taking this step is creating offence where there was none. And then concluding this could mean these people need to be brainwashed to believe the preferred format. That's a leap on a leap that had nothing to do with what I said, and pulling a worst case scenario into some semblance of the conclusion to focus on. And not trying to have a go at you, but I do this you've over read on a work and made fallacious leaps in logic flow to a worse case. We can do that with any scenario. I cant see why it has any significant reason to be the focus point based on the previous comment, so I dont see why this is slippery slope as maybe it could happen but there is no direction from previous to align those events. But that's me, and some people will agree, and some wont :)