You're arguing directly against some conservative assumptions, such as the religious ones. It's certainly easy to do so. I've done that, too, but it makes for an endless debate. The religious conservative will just insist that her scripture or creed is indeed true for everyone, even if others can't recognize it.
In my long series on conservatism, I've taken a more radical tack. I argue there's no such thing as conservative philosophy. The "philosophy" boils down, in practice, to social Darwinism, that is, to excuses for an anti-humanistic social arrangement, such as the one that prevailed for most of civilized history (patriarchy, feudalism, monarchy, theocracy, slavery). Those excuses are unspeakable in the modern period, so they amount to nothing, by default. (The fascism of WWII, and the current surge of populist revolts against democracy are exceptions that may or may not be proving the rule.)
The real question, for me, is why conservatism still exists at all in the modern period? Is the politically correct notion of a spectrum of fair political alternatives, including liberalism and consumerism, itself a ruse or a misunderstanding? How is the conservatism's implicit social Darwinism compatible with modernity? I explore this much further in that series, and you can find the links to all those articles in the one below (assuming you haven't read them):
