@farmerman,
Look fm--it's about time we stopped buggering about. 7 or 8 years, and my my doesn't time fly whatever old Omar said about the rest, is quite sufficient for each side here to have run its routines past the opposition. Especially when they are boring and repetitive as your lot is determined to make them. You couldn't date your claques posts. They are the same now that they were at the beginning and probably before the beginning.
You can't say that of mine. I have used Able to Know to enable myself to know things I hadn't known previously. And it has been fruitful. My image of the US has been altered. I'm getting a glimpse of "knickers down" America. There's hardly a post of mine that is the same as another. Look at that one of yours--the "everybody's stupid" procedure. Okay--you have dotted the wrong "i" and crossed the wrong "t" to make it look original but it's as crusty as a cow pat that's been in the sun a few weeks. I've never seen a cow footprint in a cow pat. They are dainty creatures. They leave entropy to deal with their pats.
So I thought we might get down to brass tacks for a change.
President William Jennings Bryan once said that "It's a poor head that cannot find plausible reasons for doing what the heart wants to do". Now I know very well that Mr Bryan said a lot of idiotic things but that makes no difference to that statement in case you try that simple trick again. It stands as a statement. I think it is generally true and especially so on this thread.
If I use "convictions" instead of "heart" it's because I haven't got a heart. And we have spent all these years, very profitable to me, parading plausible reasons for our respective convictions.
I have the conviction that you cant answer the question "do you wish to see society with no religion? with an enthusistic, open armed, joy.
If you can't you're fucked. You're Half-Baked City.
I have another conviction. You daren't do that because you know I'll make mincemeat out of you if you do. I don't think you can imagine a society without religion. I can. Up to a point. The firesale of Christianity, never mind Islam, is the easy bit.
And I think your convictions are based upon the excitement that comes from the rejection of one's environment. In Professor Hofstadter's words--"The revolt of the youth against parental authority, of the village agnostic against the faith of his tribe, of the artist against the stereotypes (Giotto say--my joke) of philistine life, of the socialist against the whole bourgeois community......"
Matthew Arnold mentions the thrill of a student going against his teacher. Greek philosophy is built on that intellectual thrill. Bringing low the mighty as a first step to being mighty. Freud thought it was about killing the father to not have Mom's love shared although I don't think he studied those who were not bothered about Mom's love. The less attention my mother paid to me the better I liked it. Except when I was hungry of course. Or cold.
And then there's getting a young lady to go against her mother and father's advice. That's a double thrill.
Obviously the Father is in the frame too.
All in all, I think your convictions are subjective and mine are objective. When the Soviet experiment was started there was no TV.
Now there is. That's an enormously important change in the conditions of a religion free society.
Your "normative" despoilers of your posts are of no interest to anybody significant in this debate.