Lord and Saviour ?

[onedude36]

So... John Locke is your god?

[cockerpunk]

Natural authority must occur naturally if it exists. Like gravity if it exists it exists as a natural state

so then if you believe in authority by our very nature exists, then you cannot be free.

why is this a hard concept to grasp?

Are you arguing that anything that interferes with John Lockes principles of natural rights (life, liberty and property) is evil?

nope

So... John Locke is your god?

nope

[Lohman446]

I am having a hard time grasping how your conclusion "all religion is evil at its core" is supported by your premises. When I asked you why you went off about authoratarianism. I asked you if authoratarianism was evil. You stated no and then went on to talk about Locke's natural man. So now I am asking if interferring with the natural rights was evil. You state no.

So I am lost. You have not presented one premise that supports your conclusion. Effectively you are saying the answer is 4 and then supplying the formula 3+5.

If you believe authoratarianism is not evil and you believe interference with Locke's natural rights is not evil you have presented zero explanation for your conclusion that all religion is evil.

[cockerpunk]

I am having a hard time grasping how your conclusion "all religion is evil at its core" is supported by your premises. When I asked you why you went off about authoratarianism. I asked you if authoratarianism was evil. You stated no and then went on to talk about Locke's natural man. So now I am asking if interferring with the natural rights was evil. You state no.

So I am lost. You have not presented one premise that supports your conclusion. Effectively you are saying the answer is 4 and then supplying the formula 3+5.

If you believe authoratarianism is not evil and you believe interference with Locke's natural rights is not evil you have presented zero explanation for your conclusion that all religion is evil.

I already spoke to the reason why all religion* is evil. the sticky wicket is you seem to think that my point about freedom, and my point about evil are related. they are not. i already presented my reasoning why religion is evil - it stops people from thinking about actual issues by issuing them a cheat sheet to morality that comes with the notion that the creator of the universe wrote it. and it allows them to reject information and instead make decisions based on bronze age mythology. and my second point: that if you believe that when we die our lives will be judged by a deity of some type, this is in direct opposition to freedom. these two points are not really related, at least at the depth we have so far gone in our conversation.

[Lohman446]

I already spoke to the reason why all religion* is evil. the sticky wicket is you seem to think that my point about freedom, and my point about evil are related. they are not. i already presented my reasoning why religion is evil - it stops people from thinking about actual issues by issuing them a cheat sheet to morality that comes with the notion that the creator of the universe wrote it. and it allows them to reject information and instead make decisions based on bronze age mythology. and my second point: that if you believe that when we die our lives will be judged by a deity of some type, this is in direct opposition to freedom. these two points are not really related, at least at the depth we have so far gone in our conversation.

Point 1: Unitarian Universalism specifically upholds free thought and reason as vital to the human experience. Universalism before that did. Because your argument involves "all" a single counterpoint renders it invalid. Besides I still don't see how that is evil. Is anything that does not promote the free and concious thought process evil? Is the method of teaching multiplication tables (which relies on memorization rather than learning the process) evil because it does not teach the logical process and as such simply supplied a mental cheat sheet? If your justification for the argument that religion is evil is that it supplies moral principles without the user concluding on those principles themselves I find it to be a poor argument. I think one would have to further show that those principles that it supplied were incorrect to continue that line of reasoning.

Point 2: I don't understand how judgement alone makes something evil. Are you saying the court systems are evil for judging people? Are you saying all opposition to freedom is evil?

As an interesting aside what is the source of morality then? Is it Mill's principle of autonomy, the harm thereom, utilitarianism, Locke's natural rights? Something else?

[cockerpunk]

Point 1: Unitarian Universalism specifically upholds free thought and reason as vital to the human experience. Universalism before that did. Because your argument involves "all" a single counterpoint renders it invalid. Besides I still don't see how that is evil. Is anything that does not promote the free and concious thought process evil? Is the method of teaching multiplication tables (which relies on memorization rather than learning the process) evil because it does not teach the logical process and as such simply supplied a mental cheat sheet? If your justification for the argument that religion is evil is that it supplies moral principles without the user concluding on those principles themselves I find it to be a poor argument. I think one would have to further show that those principles that it supplied were incorrect to continue that line of reasoning.

Point 2: I don't understand how judgement alone makes something evil. Are you saying the court systems are evil for judging people? Are you saying all opposition to freedom is evil?

As an interesting aside what is the source of morality then? Is it Mill's principle of autonomy, the harm thereom, utilitarianism, Locke's natural rights? Something else?

point 1: already dealt with this. this is why since that post i have been using the term "religion*"

point 2: no one is saying judgement alone makes something evil. just that if we are by our nature subject to an authority then we cannot be free. a court is not an example of this either, because we consent to be governed, and are free to leave if we wish. if we are judged by god when we die, we do not consent to this, its is in our nature, thus the difference.

[Lohman446]

Ok. So point two had nothing to do with the concept that religion was evil?

[cockerpunk]

Ok. So point two had nothing to do with the concept that religion was evil?

nope, just what i have been saying for 2 pages, that authoritative religion, and freedom are antithetical concepts. one cannot be free if one is naturally subject to an authority.

[Lohman446]

nope, just what i have been saying for 2 pages, that authoritative religion, and freedom are antithetical concepts. one cannot be free if one is naturally subject to an authority.

I assumed since you said it in response to the question as to why religion was evil in your mind it had to do with being an answer rather than some random off topic statement.

[Lohman446]

I think you are down to the argument that religion is evil because it stands to state morality rather than allowing individuals to come to conclusions on morality on their own through logic and reason. Is that true?

[cockerpunk]

I think you are down to the argument that religion is evil because it stands to state morality rather than allowing individuals to come to conclusions on morality on their own through logic and reason. Is that true?

its because people, when given good and accurate information, tend to make pretty decent decisions.

and it turns out, we have a lot more accurate and just simply a lot more information then bronze age shepherds had.

[Lohman446]

its because people, when given good and accurate information, tend to make pretty decent decisions.

and it turns out, we have a lot more accurate and just simply a lot more information then bronze age shepherds had.

What information do we have today that we did not have a thousand years ago on the morality of killing another person that are readily available and used by individuals (ie psychological measurements of the dangers to psychological health of killing another human on the murderer do not count)?

[cockerpunk]

What information do we have today that we did not have a thousand years ago on the morality of killing another person that are readily available and used by individuals (ie psychological measurements of the dangers to psychological health of killing another human on the murderer do not count)?

murder is a moral issue we wrestle with today? that one was settled a nice long time ago, and new information has not cropped up in that department for a nice long time. the closest i can come to an "issue" with murder would be Nuremberg trials or my lai, if following orders absolves from a moral imperative not to do something. if new information does crop up, i'd love to see it, and if it disagrees with something we think we "know" right now, i'll be the first to change my mind.

murder is a terrible example, its hard to think of an "issue" with murder. how about stem cell research? or even more basic, and to highlight another great moral issue (situationality): should you jump into a river to save someone drowning?

[Lohman446]

murder is a terrible example, its hard to think of an "issue" with murder. how about stem cell research? or even more basic, and to highlight another great moral issue (situationality): should you jump into a river to save someone drowning?

I did not know religion answered this question with its great moral authority. What moral authority that religion takes are you at issue with?

And it depends who that person is. As I have no moral bond requiring action for most people the answer is likely no. Nor am I told, by most religions, that I have such a moral requirement.

And I mean religion - not the institution of religion. I mean the religion

[cockerpunk]

I did not know religion answered this question with its great moral authority.

And it depends who that person is. As I have no moral bond requiring action for most people the answer is likely no. Nor am I told, by most religions, that I have such a moral requirement.

that situation merely highlights the situational nature of morality. the devil is in the details often times. this is another grip i have with religious mandates, they are always in rock solid generalities, when often, what is moral is time or situationally dependent.

should you jump into the river? idk, depends on a lot of things. how far out are they? how well do you swim? how rough is the water? is there any other way to help them? how old are they? how capable of a swimmer are they?

but if there was a religious mandate on the topic it would be something like: always save people in rivers

for example: abortion

should you get an abortion? idk, depends on a lot of things. this is a fun one because even the religious are split, based on situation of conception, danger of the pregnancy, etc etc etc. and even though the religious disagree, they still claim that there opinion is gods!

this is just another gripe about religious based morality. i have plenty if you want more