This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Debate: Artificial religions
I propose an experiment that will allow people, no matter their religion, to participate in this conversation without prejudice against an individual or group of people.
The way that I believe this might be accomplished is as follows:
. No mention of actual existing religions
. Religions can instead be referred to as any particular colour on the rainbow
. No mention of actual real religious beliefs
. A particular religious belief can instead be referred to as a type of plant, tree or even any flora or fauna
. A particular colour's flora/fauna can be described as one of the many ways that flora/fauna can be changed when adding or subtracting a leaf, flower, seed, fruit or any part of the flora/fauna of the colour.
Colour = religion
Flora/fauna = belief
How the flora/fauna grows = description of belief
To get started, and participate, see the example at the very bottom of this page as the last comment.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Xavier Belvemont 30+
The logic of this loses me entirely.
You can substitute 'x' for 'y' all you want, but the end outcome is the same because
People will re-associate 'y' and 'x' inorder to understand what you're talking about .
(eg/ Blue believes daffodils can only survive in grass? what does' blue, daffodil and grass' that sentence represent exactly? etc etc)
Even if you form a dictionary of Euphemisms to get around the issue of no one knowing whats being said,
Such as Orange = Creationism, Mango = Homosexuality etc etc,
Everyone will then know exactly what religion is being talked about and what that person is arguing which leaves it open to ridicule, which is what you're trying to avoid, right?
Thats not removing predjudice, thats postponing it with paperwork.
I'm sorry, but its just nonsensical as far as I can see.