Lord and Saviour ?

[Lohman446]

Maybe our disagreement is one of definition. What do you define religion as?

[Interceptor]

The problem with arguing with CP is that he keeps moving t he goal posts. You try to nail him doen to one thing and he starts with something else. Its fun to watch.

[cockerpunk]

I think you are wrong.

I can name religions that encouraged the use of logic, reason, and conscious (Unitarian Universalism, Unitarianism before that).

As universal salvation (a tenent of some religions) argued that salvation was already attained the "bribery" to do good was gone and doing good was done for its own sake.

Has religion been used for evil purposes? Sure it has. So have swords and guns. So has government. That does not make the instrument evil. Even if you could argue successfully that some religions were evil I do not think you could make the argument that it applied to all.

arguably you are correct, for instance you can be a Buddhist and atheist at the same time. Buddhism does not require one to believe in a deity.

while i think the eastern religions and paganism are silly if they include the super-natural, they are not inherently evil either as long as they do not force authority on man. they do not conflict with reason in there pursuit of truth.

in fact there it is. i believe any religion that conflicts with empiricism and rationalism in its pursuit of truth, is inherently evil. this means that any western religion, and some eastern religions, and the only ones that don't fall under that umbrella, its hard to make a serious case for them being 1. relevant to the discussion at hand and 2. religions at all. so with that we can then circle back around to "all religions* are evil"

and again, to the greater point: you still can't be free if you believe in an authority greater then man.

[Lohman446]

arguably you are correct, for instance you can be a Buddhist and atheist at the same time. Buddhism does not require one to believe in a deity.

while i think the eastern religions and paganism are silly if they include the super-natural, they are not inherently evil either as long as they do not force authority on man. they do not conflict with reason in there pursuit of truth.

in fact there it is. i believe any religion that conflicts with empiricism and rationalism in its pursuit of truth, is inherently evil. this means that any western religion, and some eastern religions, and the only ones that don't fall under that umbrella, its hard to make a serious case for them being 1. relevant to the discussion at hand and 2. religions at all. so with that we can then circle back around to "all religions* are evil"

and again, to the greater point: you still can't be free if you believe in an authority greater then man.

So anything that restricts freedom is evil? I thought we just got done with the discussion and concluded that it was not the authority that made it evil.

Universal salvation is a Christan doctrine dating back at least to the German Dunkers

[Flatliner333]

There are people in every "religion" and organization who try to manipulate others to benifit themselves in some way. There are also people involved who are not trying to help themeselves but are trying to help others and by doing so are pleasing their maker.
To Believe or not believe in a higher power is your choice and this is the basis of "Faith".
Some people will only know the truth in the very end. Many people are hyped up and scared about the end of days. Some people are preparing to survive the end of days. Some people have already prepared themselves for the end by the way they have lived up until that point.
I believe this is why some people are worried and some are not. As for me... I AINT Skeered.

[cockerpunk]

So anything that restricts freedom is evil? I thought we just got done with the discussion and concluded that it was not the authority that made it evil.

Universal salvation is a Christan doctrine dating back at least to the German Dunkers

no, again stop putting words in my mouth. i never said that.

[Lohman446]

no, again stop putting words in my mouth. i never said that.

Ok then. Why is all religion evil?

[cockerpunk]

Ok then. Why is all religion evil?

you can re-read my posts, i already defined it really quite well.

[Lohman446]

you can re-read my posts, i already defined it really quite well.

No you did not. From what I read you argued it was their authoritarianism that made them evil but you are denying that authoritarianism is evil. Thus your premise is flawed

[cockerpunk]

No you did not. From what I read you argued it was their authoritarianism that made them evil but you are denying that authoritarianism is evil. Thus your premise is flawed

nowhere have i argued that authority is necessarily evil.

[Lohman446]

nowhere have i argued that authority is necessarily evil.

But you stated religion was evil. When asked why you cited authoritarianism. Now you say authority is not evil. So why is religion evil if its not authority?

[cockerpunk]

But you stated religion was evil. When asked why you cited authoritarianism. Now you say authority is not evil. So why is religion evil if its not authority?

i explained why i think all religions* are evil.

i did not cite authority as the reason they are evil. i cited natural authority as the reason religion and freedom are antithetical.

[OPBN]

Atheists keep targeting christians for harrassment and law suits over crosses and the ten commandments, yet they ignore muslims and their crap. There is only one group that is actively blowing up things, and its not the christians, buddists, or hindus. Islam is evil to the core. Its all about control. But then athiests never seem to spread it around very well. They are only concerned with stopping christians.

The muslims are crying victim whenever someone says something bad about them but are actively working to get their laws passed and enforced over the rest of us. They are trying to get the UN to pass laws against antimuslim speech. Some of you need to stop with your stupid little coexist bumper stickers and wake up.

I think you would find that atheists would be equally offended at Islamic symbols being present at publicly funded facilities as well. I have yet to hear of a case where any such thing has occurred here in the U.S. , so it is sort of a moot argument. And atheists are not about stopping Christians, they are simply asking that they not be subjected to religous symbolism in publicly funded places such as courthouses, schools, etc. I dont see how this is an arguable issue? Now if an atheist were filing a lawsuit against a local church for say a 40foot statue of Jesus in front of their church, I would find that absurd as it is on church property. A statehouse or courthouse is not church property and should not be subject to having these types of biased religious artilcles present for a society that pays for it and may or may not be of that religion. How you would feel as a tax payer to have your tax dollars spent on a big statue of Buddha in the middle of your local courthouse is probably akin to how an atheist feels about the ten commandments being displayed in that same courthouse.

And while I do find the Coexist bumper stickers somewhat laughable since it is typically in a religions favor to try and convert other religions to their beliefs, it is directed at EVERYONE. It isnt directed at only Christians, It is directed at all religions to attempt to coexist with all other religions. Think about how much less fighting there would be in the world if we all just stopped killing our fellow man in the name of God. And before you argue it, Christians have killed just as many if not more Muslims throughout history than the other way around. Heck, in the last century, "Christians" killed 6+ million Jews. How tolerant is that?

[Lohman446]

i explained why i think all religions* are evil.

i did not cite authority as the reason they are evil. i cited natural authority as the reason religion and freedom are antithetical.

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

[Lohman446]

i do not disagree that religion has been and will always be distorted. this is why it is so dangerous, it can and has been used to justify anything you want to justify. but the core belief of all western religions is that we are subject to an authority, god. whether we want to be or not, because he created us, he has authority over us.

this is the exact opposite of the foundation of democracy, where we consent to be governed. locke's natural man, a man who was not created by god, and thus is TOTALLY free. subject to only the authorities he gives consent to.

these two ideas cannot co-exist.

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