Lord and Saviour ?

[Lohman446]

And your opinion is more valid than theirs because?

Remember that the religious restraint on abortion is based on the premise that life begins at conception. You may disagree with this premise but I don't think that said disagreement makes you, or religion, evil.

[cockerpunk]

And your opinion is more valid than theirs because?

Remember that the religious restraint on abortion is based on the premise that life begins at conception. You may disagree with this premise but I don't think that said disagreement makes you, or religion, evil.

who's opinion is more valid then whom's on what topic?

and to the second point: i think it does. if you just say "life begins at conception" without reason or justification, then you are committing that evil which i have spoke about many times here in this thread. also, still doesn't absolve you of the issue of other folks, who even claim to worship the same god, are ok with abortions in some cases. and if you equate abortion to murder, that is like saying you are ok with murder, in some cases. it merely gets more nonsensical the farther down that subject line you go. that phase also is not defined well. what is "life?"

here is another moral issue with religion, i like to call it calvin and hobbs christmas issue

calvin always deals with wanting to do good, because he wants to get what he wants for christmas. so calvin wants to do good things, for all the wrong reasons. he wants to do good, for a reward.

this is why the notion of heaven and hell destroy morality. if you are merely doing what you do because you will go to heaven, that is a terrible reason to do "good," you are just acting selfishly, not properly. and if you are avoiding doing "bad" things to avoid going to hell, that means you are just acting under threat.

this is why in so many arguments, theists will threaten you with hell.

the truly moral person does good for the sake of good, and avoids evil because of the consequences of it. not because he/she is being rewarded or punished for there actions.

[Lohman446]

I am ok with murder in some cases. The law references it as justifiable homicide. You demand to know someones motivation to judge action. Why? Is a good action less good based on motivation?

[Lohman446]

Here is an interesting thought. If one defines Christianity as the following of Christ's example Christ questioned those who would use religion to demand moral authority. At this level I do not see how the religion based on his example can be evil by your definition

[cockerpunk]

I am ok with murder in some cases. The law references it as justifiable homicide. You demand to know someones motivation to judge action. Why? Is a good action less good based on motivation?

motive is important sometimes, other times it is not. such are the details of morality.

Here is an interesting thought. If one defines Christianity as the following of Christ's example Christ questioned those who would use religion to demand moral authority. At this level I do not see how the religion based on his example can be evil by your definition

that would be be great, if that was how Christians dealt with morality. i would argue however, using Jesus as your justification to question is in an of itself, another authority argument. this is like the classic line i find so very very annoying "cockerpunk says this ..."

it should be irreverent who says what, only why it is important or accurate matters.

also, spending merely a minute int he bible, Jesus breaks that rule many many many many times. such is the reality of a document written by men 50-200 years after said events were supposed to take place by men who never even knew each other, and then voted on 900 years later as to what was important enough to make the cut.

[Ando]

if you are merely doing what you do because you will go to heaven, that is a terrible reason to do "good," you are just acting selfishly, not properly. and if you are avoiding doing "bad" things to avoid going to hell, that means you are just acting under threat.

I brought this point up in another forum...and got kicked out

The site owner didn't like my point of view nor my alter universe of how the world would be if those (what I like to call) "safe guards" weren't put in place for a select few people in this world.

[Lohman446]

also, spending merely a minute int he bible, Jesus breaks that rule many many many many times. such is the reality of a document written by men 50-200 years after said events were supposed to take place by men who never even knew each other, and then voted on 900 years later as to what was important enough to make the cut.

But at this point it is less about the religion and about how people use the religion. The council of Nicea was a council ON religion but it was a political council - a council intended to use religion to unite an empire (it failed). The religion in this case was not evil. We can argue if the use of the religion was or was not.

Religion is a tool. If it is used to justify good actions (feeding the poor because it is commanded by Allah) then it is being used positively. As long as the action is done does motivation really matter? If it is used to justify negative actions (burning at the stake or the Calvinistic argument "I am here because God wants me here") then it is negative.

Religion is not inherently good or evil. For every point you may argue is evil I can argue a positive one. I can make the same discussions about the ethical principles of utilitarianism. While I personally see utilitarianism as extremely dangerous there are incidents where it is used for good.

[cockerpunk]

But at this point it is less about the religion and about how people use the religion. The council of Nicea was a council ON religion but it was a political council - a council intended to use religion to unite an empire (it failed). The religion in this case was not evil. We can argue if the use of the religion was or was not.

Religion is a tool. If it is used to justify good actions (feeding the poor because it is commanded by Allah) then it is being used positively. As long as the action is done does motivation really matter? If it is used to justify negative actions (burning at the stake or the Calvinistic argument "I am here because God wants me here") then it is negative.

Religion is not inherently good or evil. For every point you may argue is evil I can argue a positive one. I can make the same discussions about the ethical principles of utilitarianism. While I personally see utilitarianism as extremely dangerous there are incidents where it is used for good.

yes, religion is a tool, a tool for manipulation.

it is not a tool for finding truth, or making accurate predictions.

your entire last paragraph is merely assertion. you have proven no such "good" case that one cannot just skip a step (religion) and get to the same conclusion for actual reasons.

[Lohman446]

yes, religion is a tool, a tool for manipulation.

it is not a tool for finding truth, or making accurate predictions.

your entire last paragraph is merely assertion. you have proven no such "good" case that one cannot just skip a step (religion) and get to the same conclusion for actual reasons.

Can I not say the same for every philosophical theory or anything that builds on previous knowledge?

So is anything that can be used to manipulate someone evil?

[cockerpunk]

Can I not say the same for every philosophical theory or anything that builds on previous knowledge?

So is anything that can be used to manipulate someone evil?

the point is that anytime you try to justify good with religion, the real case for it being good is purely naturalistic. meanwhile, every time religion teaching people to do do bad, there are real costs to civilization, again, which can be determined naturalistically.

so why not skip a step? if we can already determine right and wrong using naturalism, why involve the supernatural and thus the temptation and ease by which it can manipulate otherwise reasonable and good people to do evil?

because people are intellectually lazy. the religious are intellectually lazy. if they weren't, they wouldn't be religious.

[Lohman446]

the point is that anytime you try to justify good with religion, the real case for it being good is purely naturalistic. meanwhile, every time religion teaching people to do do bad, there are real costs to civilization, again, which can be determined naturalistically.

so why not skip a step? if we can already determine right and wrong using naturalism, why involve the supernatural and thus the temptation and ease by which it can manipulate otherwise reasonable and good people to do evil?

because people are intellectually lazy. the religious are intellectually lazy. if they weren't, they wouldn't be religious.

Really. I would classify myself as religious. I would not classify myself as intellectually lazy. I would not classify the Jesuit's as either not religious or intellectually lazy either. I find the argument on your part offensive and extremely egotistical.

I'm not even certain naturalism can be used to argue morality. Regardless its not a philosophy you invented (unless we want to discuss reincarnation which I'm a fan of). As such you are using someone elses thoughts in an attempt to manipulate others concepts of morality - which I think would be evil by your definition.

If naturalism somehow becomes a moral argument are you back to arguing that interfering with Locke's natural man is evil? Because I thought we were passed this and you stated it wasn't the argument you were making

[cockerpunk]

Really. I would classify myself as religious. I would not classify myself as intellectually lazy. I find the argument on your part offensive and extremely egotistical.

I'm not even certain naturalism can be used to argue morality. Regardless its not a philosophy you invented (unless we want to discuss reincarnation which I'm a fan of). As such you are using someone elses thoughts in an attempt to manipulate others concepts of morality - which I think would be evil by your definition.

If naturalism somehow becomes a moral argument are you back to arguing that interfering with Locke's natural man is evil? Because I thought we were passed this and you stated it wasn't the argument you were making

nope, because i am not using authority to justify naturalism, i am using results. and of course all morality is derived from naturalism, because morality deals with real life actions, and there real world effects. all of this is simple naturalism.

locke's natural man is capable of both good and evil, he is free, he is by definition capable of both.

[Lohman446]

nope, because i am not using authority to justify naturalism, i am using results. and of course all morality is derived from naturalism, because morality deals with real life actions, and there real world effects. all of this is simple naturalism.

locke's natural man is capable of both good and evil, he is free, he is by definition capable of both.

Ok. But is interferring with Locke's natural man - ie manipulaiton - evil? Your major complaint with religion seems to be that it interferes with Locke's natural man through manipulation. My question is if this is what makes you conclude it is evil.

Edit: On another question: Did you honestly make the argument that Jesuit's by nature of being religious are intellectually lazy?

[cockerpunk]

Ok. But is interferring with Locke's natural man - ie manipulaiton - evil? Your major complaint with religion seems to be that it interferes with Locke's natural man through manipulation. My question is if this is what makes you conclude it is evil.

Edit: On another question: Did you honestly make the argument that Jesuit's by nature of being religious are intellectually lazy?

i never said anything about interfering with the natural man being evil. at any point. in this entire thread. i said only that if you believe in an authority that by our very nature, we are subject to, then you cannot compromise that with the natural man, and thus cannot be free.

and, yes.

[Lohman446]

i never said anything about interfering with the natural man being evil. at any point. in this entire thread. i said only that if you believe in an authority that by our very nature, we are subject to, then you cannot compromise that with the natural man, and thus cannot be free.

and, yes.

You said it in response to questions about why religion is evil. So that entire discussion had nothing to do with why relgiion was evil.

So why again is religion evil?