I'm starting to feel that there was a reason I got skipped, particularly since it would have prevented this entire derailment toward discussing the specifics of Desp's new religion, which is exactly what he clearly wants most and which is also exactly the least important thing here.
Desp, if you are unable to admit that there are people for whom your philosophy would not be helpful, especially when talking directly to examples of such, then you are positioning yourself against everyone who disagrees with you. This removes the possibility of philosophical discussion, as true philosophical discussion requires a common ground to speak on. This requires both parties to admit that their position may not be 100% infallible, and grants respect to the opposing view.
I and others here have laid down our arms and stood up to the Common Ground, so to speak, by fully admitting that your philosophy may be helpful to some humans, as well as admitting that our own philosophies are not infallible as they, too, would only be beneficial to certain people, but never all. In short, we have stood on equal footing, presented our ideas, and opened them for discussion, cheerfully exposing them to perusal and debate with the healthy human attitude of "it's not the answer, but it's pretty close".
The opposite position is one of animosity, and one taken by all fervent religious adherents: "I have the answer." It implies that you see yourself as Correct already. This would mean you are not interested in discussion, as you have already decided that other ideas have no value to you. Steltek and his ilk entered the game in this manner, and were met with the scornfully derisive battle that ultimately drove them from this place.
You came in claiming to want philosophical discussion, and I pointed out that you were clearly much more interested in preaching. I then tried to force you to clarify your position, which you have done by showing you feel that your answer is the only correct one, which paints you not as A Philosopher but as An Opponent.
I would now give you a final chance to define our new relationship: can you imagine a being in the infinite possibility for whom Buddhism would not be helpful? If you can admit that you can, then you can admit that your religion is not The One True Answer, and we can speak as equals. If you are now incapable of this, then you have become Steltek, and we have become enemies, as you have decided my ideas are inherently inferior to yours and unworthy of respect.
All of this is fine, though. It is, after all, your own Saṃsāra and this life is yours to do with as you please. Just wanted to clarify.