Yet you failed to intellectually prove your arguments, except that you have shot at various religious towers just to exalt your opinion.
Your so-called reasons why we need to reject religion are hard to respond to because they are fundamentally based on an implied failed analysis that God has been proven not to exist.
Your ideas are far from anything that would be formally called science, for they are combinations of Marxism and Freudian pop-psychology. You took the philosophical ideas borrowed from Jean Paul Sartre and would have the public believe that these theories are evidence to lay off religion.
Youíre so convinced that your pet theories are better Ďmind-virusesí in creating a moral society when you claim that humanism, education, intelligence and self-reflection would improve morality.
Youíre asking society to take a blind leap in believing that youíve provided the larger than life answer to all moral problems. You used Gregory S. Paulís dishonest conclusion to prove that religion advocates immorality and would have us believe that such a subjective grouping of information is universally true.
You wonít accept the term fundamentalists because in your opinion fundamentalists are those who hold onto religion. The truth is that the atheistic extremism of your article is not different from the religious extremism you attempt to criticize.
You mock at religion and rule it out as superstition. This is an idea you are forcing to be accepted without a clear convincing explanation. Moreover, itís intellectual dishonesty to lump all religions together. especially Christianity and Islam, but you do equate these two differing religions because of your deliberate blindness caused by your hatred of religion.
Iím proud to be a Christian and that doesnít make me intellectually inferior to any atheist. As for me, my faith is based on evidence. If you can disprove that evidence, Iíll change my faith.
Basilius M Kasera