Lord and Saviour ?

[cockerpunk]

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?

read the thread. i did not say it in response to religion being evil.

talk about intellectually lazy, circles and circles and circles from you.

[Lohman446]

read the thread. i did not say it in response to religion being evil.

talk about intellectually lazy, circles and circles and circles from you.

Circles. I did not offer the conclusion that "all religions are evil" you did. I called you on it, disagreed, and asked you to explain why.

You went off about authoratarianism. When questioned you said this was not evil.

You went off about interfering with Locke's natural man. When asked if this was evil you said no.

So you offered the conclusion and then offered no support to it. When you did offer any discussion the discussion you offered would not make something evil according to you.

Then you attacked the intellect of anyone who was religion because you could not actually defend your first premise.

Lets take a little poll: Does anyone, besides CP himself, have any clue on why he thinks religion is evil based on the content of this thread?

[cockerpunk]

Circles. I did not offer the conclusion that "all religions are evil" you did. I called you on it, disagreed, and asked you to explain why.

You went off about authoratarianism. When questioned you said this was not evil.

You went off about interfering with Locke's natural man. When asked if this was evil you said no.

So you offered the conclusion and then offered no support to it. When you did offer any discussion the discussion you offered would not make something evil according to you.

Then you attacked the intellect of anyone who was religion because you could not actually defend your first premise.

Lets take a little poll: Does anyone, besides CP himself, have any clue on why he thinks religion is evil based on the content of this thread?

if you read the thread, it all becomes clear. you keep trying to make me defend something i never claimed. and then you say since i wont defend it i made a claim without support, but i never made the claim you think i did in the first place. religion is evil, for the reasons i cited, and if you believe in an authority that will judge us when we die, then you arn't free. i started with those claims, and have defended and support them. you have spent the entire thread trying to find a tiny hole either position to stick your finger in.

i also did not attack the intellect of the religious, i called them intellectually lazy. i would also call them intellectual cowards, none of which are akin to calling them stupid.

[Lohman446]

I'm not certain if you really are that full of yourself or if you are simply attempting to troll at this point. If you think you effectively communicated why you believe all religion is evil (and it had nothing to do with John Locke's natural man or authoratirianism) you are mistaken.

[cockerpunk]

I'm not certain if you really are that full of yourself or if you are simply attempting to troll at this point. If you think you effectively communicated why you believe all religion is evil (and it had nothing to do with John Locke's natural man or authoratirianism) you are mistaken.

i do think i have conveyed more then a few different ways that religion is evil. and i have not talked about authoritarianism at all. i have talked about how if you believe that we are all subject to an authority by our very nature of existing, then we can't be free. because, you know, logic and the definition of words.

if you are confused, then you need ask more probing questions, because its all well explained in the thread so far. you keep trying to make me defend something i never claimed, despite that for 3 pages i have been clarifying that exact point to you over and over again.

[Lohman446]

you keep trying to make me defend something i never claimed, despite that for 3 pages i have been clarifying that exact point to you over and over again.

You stated all religion was evil. You have yet to explain why. When you go into explanations and are asked does ____________ make it evil you say no.

So. Let me help

According to you all religion is evil because _________________________

Fill in the second blank.

[cockerpunk]

You stated all religion was evil. You have yet to explain why. When you go into explanations and are asked does ____________ make it evil you say no.

So. Let me help

According to you all religion is evil because _________________________

Fill in the second blank.

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.

well that's fine if we are all forgiven our sins, and saved by the "grace of god" or whatever. that is just further license to do anything you wan to. if you are forgiven, then there are no consequences to breaking gods moral code. not the only "short circuit" through christian dogma mind you, just like the classic, hilter was baptized, the jews he murdered by the millions were not. which ones went to heaven? example question to illustrate the point. if we are all forgiven no matter what, then the entire discussion is rendered moot. lets not forget also that the bible explicitly states there is an unforgivable sin - blasphemy. does this mean that i will go to hell (frequent blasphemer) while hilter (not a blasphemer) will be forgiven?

i think ease at which religion can get people to stop thinking and feeling, is what makes religion evil.

morality is tough subject, and it takes a lot of time, thought and effort to try and do the right thing. religion short circuits this - here is a list! don't have to justify it, god said this is what is right, so do it. and that list ... changes ALL THE TIME. so its an arbitrary and easily manipulated list of right and wrong. and it has the backing of the creator of the universe.

this can be summed up by, the religious are afraid of what will happen when people think for themselves, the atheist is afraid when the don't think for themselves.

I believe, that when given the right information, people try to make the best decisions they can. this is why instead of short circuiting this ability to think and reason and feel, morality should be based on that.

second point:

if you seriously believe, that you are listening to, and talking to, and doing god's will - nothing should stop you. your family, your friends, the laws .... if you sincerely believe that you are doing the express will of the creator of the universe - that is an inherently dangerous idea.

so your argument could be "well, what if that idea is to justify and drive people to help each other"

well great, except helping each other does not need supernatural justification. you can see the results directly.

this can accuracy be summed up by the idea that good people will do good with or without religious justification, but for good people to do evil: it takes religion.

all religion at its core is evil, because it stops people from thinking. it short circuits there ability to reason and solve problems, and do good for the sake of good.

the non-religious do commit crimes and atrocities, but they also don't justify there crimes and atrocities with there non-religion. they make no qualms with the pure selfishness of those terrible acts. religion gives those crimes and acts a veneer of legitimacy.

my first point applies to a much larger group then just the institution of religion.

religion and faith itself makes a virtue out of not thinking. this is inherently evil in and of itself.

I already spoke to the reason why all religion* is evil. 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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

there are half a dozen reasons listed here, with multiple examples of each, and rebuttal to any counter claims.

[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.

Dangerous is not evil. Anything can be distorted by those willing to do so

[quote= cockerpunk
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. [/quote]

So anything that can be distorted in a way to justify whatever the distorter wants is evil?

well that's fine if we are all forgiven our sins, and saved by the "grace of god" or whatever. that is just further license to do anything you wan to. if you are forgiven, then there are no consequences to breaking gods moral code. not the only "short circuit" through christian dogma mind you, just like the classic, hilter was baptized, the jews he murdered by the millions were not. which ones went to heaven? example question to illustrate the point. if we are all forgiven no matter what, then the entire discussion is rendered moot. lets not forget also that the bible explicitly states there is an unforgivable sin - blasphemy. does this mean that i will go to hell (frequent blasphemer) while hilter (not a blasphemer) will be forgiven?

If I was to concede the entire argument on this example (I don't) it would only be indicative of a single religion and surely not all

i think ease at which religion can get people to stop thinking and feeling, is what makes religion evil.

So anything that gives people a conclusion rather than making them think about it is evil?

second point:

if you seriously believe, that you are listening to, and talking to, and doing god's will - nothing should stop you. your family, your friends, the laws .... if you sincerely believe that you are doing the express will of the creator of the universe - that is an inherently dangerous idea.

so your argument could be "well, what if that idea is to justify and drive people to help each other"

well great, except helping each other does not need supernatural justification. you can see the results directly.

this can accuracy be summed up by the idea that good people will do good with or without religious justification, but for good people to do evil: it takes religion.

There are multiple points here. One that argues that a moral action is only just depending on intent. I can make a reasonable argument based on psychological theory that this line of reasoning presents its own problems. Brain scans indicate that when helping others pleasure portions of the brain are lit up - same thing happens when someone smiles at you or thanks you. Thus I can make an argument that it is psychological impossible to help someone without gaining something yourself.

As to the point of the constraints of society... it does not take religion to believe that what you are doing is right regardless of the laws of society.

all religion at its core is evil, because it stops people from thinking. it short circuits there ability to reason and solve problems, and do good for the sake of good.

the non-religious do commit crimes and atrocities, but they also don't justify there crimes and atrocities with there non-religion. they make no qualms with the pure selfishness of those terrible acts. religion gives those crimes and acts a veneer of legitimacy.

my first point applies to a much larger group then just the institution of religion.

religion and faith itself makes a virtue out of not thinking. this is inherently evil in and of itself.

So providing answers without forcing "valid" reasoning to achieve the conclusions is evil?

There are plenty of people who have justified their crimes and attrocities with something other than religion. Is whatever they use to justify those evil?




My point is this. You want to say evil is religion because of ______________. However you do not want to allow me to apply ___________ to making other things evil so argue those things are not evil.

[cockerpunk]

Dangerous is not evil. Anything can be distorted by those willing to do so

it is inherently dangerous, and thus evil

So anything that can be distorted in a way to justify whatever the distorter wants is evil?

no, and that counter point is already dealt with

If I was to concede the entire argument on this example (I don't) it would only be indicative of a single religion and surely not all

nope, all religions contain this logical assumption

So anything that gives people a conclusion rather than making them think about it is evil?

no, it gives them a conclusion based on what bronze age shepherds thought.

There are multiple points here. One that argues that a moral action is only just depending on intent. I can make a reasonable argument based on psychological theory that this line of reasoning presents its own problems. Brain scans indicate that when helping others pleasure portions of the brain are lit up - same thing happens when someone smiles at you or thanks you. Thus I can make an argument that it is psychological impossible to help someone without gaining something yourself.

cool, not a counter point. you are going to line that nice feeling you get when someone smiles at you to the promise of eternal paradise? that's just a few leaps and bounds different.

As to the point of the constraints of society... it does not take religion to believe that what you are doing is right regardless of the laws of society.

nope but it sure is an easy way to!

So providing answers without forcing "valid" reasoning to achieve the conclusions is evil?

yes, conclusions based on bronze age shepherds taken on faith are not valid.

There are plenty of people who have justified their crimes and attrocities with something other than religion. Is whatever they use to justify those evil?

yup, and that point is already dealt with in the post you quoted

My point is this. You want to say evil is religion because of ______________. However you do not want to allow me to apply ___________ to making other things evil so argue those things are not evil.

i can't help it that you want to apply what you think i say to something that i don't mean to say. that's not my problem.

^^^^^^

[Lohman446]

What logical assumption do all religions contain?

Are you now taking the position that dangerous is biconditionally equivilant to evil?

As to your "what bronze aged shepherds thought" comment. Antiquated is not the same as wrong. Many things in religion cannot be empirically tested. They are taken or rejected as a matter of faith. Many have held that logic and reason must be used in regards to that faith but in the end at least some tenents are accepted or rejected on faith.

[cockerpunk]

What logical assumption do all religions contain?

Are you now taking the position that dangerous is biconditionally equivilant to evil?

As to your "what bronze aged shepherds thought" comment. Antiquated is not the same as wrong. Many things in religion cannot be empirically tested. They are taken or rejected as a matter of faith. Many have held that logic and reason must be used in regards to that faith but in the end at least some tenents are accepted or rejected on faith.

all religions* contain the same factor of natural authority taken on faith alone.

no, i think people who think they are talking to god on a daily basis, who have control over the power to literally destroy the world, is not a pleasant state of affairs. do you trust folks that care so little about making sense they claim to speak to god, in control of nuclear weapons?

isnt that the exact reason why we so scared of dirty bomb threats and the like? irrational people in control of powerful weapons of destruction? isn't that the STATED reason someone in this very thread called islam evil? now who isn't applying there definitions broadly enough?

i already dealt with how much more and much more accurate our understanding of the world is from the bronze age.

are you even reading this stuff?

[Lohman446]

all religions* contain the same factor of natural authority taken on faith alone.

no, i think people who think they are talking to god on a daily basis, who have control over the power to literally destroy the world, is not a pleasant state of affairs. do you trust folks that care so little about making sense they claim to speak to god, in control of nuclear weapons?

isnt that the exact reason why we so scared of dirty bomb threats and the like? irrational people in control of powerful weapons of destruction? isn't that the STATED reason someone in this very thread called islam evil? now who isn't applying there definitions broadly enough?

i already dealt with how much more and much more accurate our understanding of the world is from the bronze age.

are you even reading this stuff?

I didn't think Islam was evil. I think people have used Islam for evil (and Christianity, and Zen Buddhism) but I do not think the faith is evil.

Take the Christmas truce of 1914. Peace literally broke out in the middle of the war - granted far more sporadicaly and less splendidly then some of the tales tell but still at least in places people stopped shooting at each other and greeted each other in the middle of the trenches (they would later resume shooting at each other). This is one of the times that religion is used positively. The Spanish inquisition - not so much.

I disagree on the inherent evil of religion. Its a tool. It can be used for positive or negative. How people have used it does not make it evil. The fact that it can be used for negatives does not make it evil. You may argue those uses are evil but the tool is not evil.

[OPBN]

Lohmans is bigger.

/thread.

[cockerpunk]

I didn't think Islam was evil. I think people have used Islam for evil (and Christianity, and Zen Buddhism) but I do not think the faith is evil.

Take the Christmas truce of 1914. Peace literally broke out in the middle of the war - granted far more sporadicaly and less splendidly then some of the tales tell but still at least in places people stopped shooting at each other and greeted each other in the middle of the trenches (they would later resume shooting at each other). This is one of the times that religion is used positively. The Spanish inquisition - not so much.

I disagree on the inherent evil of religion. Its a tool. It can be used for positive or negative. How people have used it does not make it evil. The fact that it can be used for negatives does not make it evil. You may argue those uses are evil but the tool is not evil.

i didn't say you did, i said others here did.

the issue with the truce of 1914, is that peace should break out in the middle of the war, and we have great reasons to declare peace in the middle of a war. religion is unnecessary to declaring a truce, or peace at all. meanwhile, religion is REQUIRED if you want to use religion to murder women and intellectuals.

thus, in declaring peace, religion is unnecessary, but to do horrible evils like the inquisition - its required. so why not skip a step - just do good for the sake of good! religion is all but unnecessary.

all religion* teaches that we should have faith in something unprovable. this is evil, dangerous, and a bad way to live. it is a tool to bring us back to the dark ages, it is a tool that will bring us from where we are today, to where islam is today. it is anti-progress. if you do not place a moral judgement on that, and call that evil, then we cannot agree.

[Lohman446]

meanwhile, religion is REQUIRED if you want to use religion .

And you accused me of circular logic? No doubt. If someone wants to use a gun to kill someone a gun is required as well.