Should religion be eliminated

[ding]

There's quite a bit of opposition to religion here. I am just wondering how many of you people believe religion should be eliminated. It's been tried before and failed, but don't let that deter you in your quest.

Learn from their mistakes and give it another try.

Why the Soviet attempt to stamp out religion failed | Giles Fraser: Loose canon

I hate religion.

I hate how people use it as a power tool. I hate how people use it to avoid thinking about things properly. I hate how people have canned views on things that other people told them. I hate the violence, the hatred, the arrogance of it all.

However I've also met people who have benefited from religion. At the lowest level religion is fine. People often need a way of avoiding reality.

Some people do drugs, others do alcohol, other people follow sports, others have pets, others watch TV programs, others have hobbies, other do partisan politics..... there's not much difference between religion and these other ones. Drugs and alcohol are much worse than religion at the lower levels.

People are going to avoid reality. They can do it with their make belief friend in the sky or in another way.

It's not for me to tell them what to do.

If they come on here and start saying their make belief stories, I will challenge them on it. If they're trying to avoid reality, then don't come on here and try and force it on others. I will show you reality, so, avoid that if you want to avoid reality.

I know you hate religion. With all your heart. Which way did you vote?

 

[ding]

No, that's wrong. You are making an argument like this:

A. If religion is bad then it ought to be eliminated
B. People who claim religion is bad are not trying to eliminate it
C. Therefore the people who claim religion is bad must not really think so.

But this is invalid. A is a non-sequitur and it is logical to hold that religion is bad but also that attempts to eliminate it would be worse. Since A is false your argument fails.

Yes, that is exactly my argument.

A is not a non-sequitur. If there is something which is truly evil, the moral thing to do is to eliminate it. So A is not false.

 

[well named]

I've already explained why it's false. You're welcome to disagree but you've made no attempt to respond.

Anyway, most of the responses you're getting just reflect the fact that most people reject A as a premise.

 

[keepitreal]

Kid, you've totally lost it

You mean you don't think you are better than them?

Surely you jest.

It's ok, you can be honest.

Different yes, better? Who knows?

I do. If you think you are better you aren't.

I do. If you think you are better you aren't.

See...see what I mean!

The poster stated 'better?...who knows'

You state...I do...he doesn't know but, you do

Then, after he already stated, 'who knows',
you continue on with...'if you think...'

You don't know shit...you are not all that, darling

In the precious name of Jesus,
unclean spirit be still!

I don't think you read it properly.

If anyone thinks they are better than another they are not.

This I do know, so when I said I do, that's what I was talking about. Not that I know I am better.

You are so certain about me that you let your bias get the better of you.

I don't think you read it properly.

If anyone thinks they are better than another they are not.

This I do know, so when I said I do, that's what I was talking about. Not that I know I am better.

You are so certain about me that you let your bias get the better of you

NO, my comprehensive skills are just fine!

YOU, are so certain about YOURSELF...
back peddling and excuses, under the guise of explanations,
doesn't do anything but prove me right!

You are too wise in your own eyes!

 

[ding]

I've already explained why it's false. You're welcome to disagree but you've made no attempt to respond.

Anyway, most of the responses you're getting just reflect the fact that most people reject A as a premise.

I did respond. I explained why it isn't false in post #122. So I don't know why you would say I made no attempt to respond.

But I feel exactly the same way. I've explained why it is true. You are welcome to disagree, but I stand by it for the aforementioned reason.

 

[ding]

You mean you don't think you are better than them?

Surely you jest.

It's ok, you can be honest.

Different yes, better? Who knows?

I do. If you think you are better you aren't.

I do. If you think you are better you aren't.

See...see what I mean!

The poster stated 'better?...who knows'

You state...I do...he doesn't know but, you do

Then, after he already stated, 'who knows',
you continue on with...'if you think...'

You don't know shit...you are not all that, darling

In the precious name of Jesus,
unclean spirit be still!

I don't think you read it properly.

If anyone thinks they are better than another they are not.

This I do know, so when I said I do, that's what I was talking about. Not that I know I am better.

You are so certain about me that you let your bias get the better of you.

I don't think you read it properly.

If anyone thinks they are better than another they are not.

This I do know, so when I said I do, that's what I was talking about. Not that I know I am better.

You are so certain about me that you let your bias get the better of you

NO, my comprehensive skills are just fine!

YOU, are so certain about YOURSELF...
back peddling and excuses, under the guise of explanations,
doesn't do anything but prove me right!

You are too wise in your own eyes!

No. I am certain that ANYBODY who says they are better than another person, isn't.

Do you think you are better than me?

 

[ding]

You are too wise in your own eyes!

There's nothing special about me.

 

[keepitreal]

Really Ding, this is what irks people,
and what they equate to religion.

Why are you using religion to argue with posters?

I'm not arguing for religion. I am agreeing with them and discussing the logical conclusion to their beliefs.

I'm not arguing for religion. I am agreeing with them and discussing the logical conclusion to their beliefs.

You are using religion divisively

No. I am using their beliefs divisively. I am not arguing for or defending religion. I am agreeing with them that religion is evil and trying to walk them to their logical conclusion.

Not surprisingly, they back off of the statements they make in other threads.

No. I am using their beliefs divisively. I am not arguing for or defending religion. I am agreeing with them that religion is evil and trying to walk them to their logical conclusion.

Not surprisingly, they back off of the statements they make in other thread

I DID NOT SAY YOU WERE ARGUING FOR
OR DEFENDING RELIGION!

YOU ARE USING A RIDICULOUS TOPIC,
BASED ON RELIGION, DIVISIVELY

You are using their beliefs divisively,
by your OWN admission...
Do you not realize how nuts that is?

You are using their beliefs divisively,
for satan, against God and Jesus!

YOU are more lost then they are!

Unclean spirit, Jesus rebuke you, be still!

No, but if that's how you want to see it, please be my guest. I have no desire to convince you otherwise.

No, but if that's how you want to see it, please be my guest.
I have no desire to convince you otherwise.

You can't convince me otherwise...
I have no desire to deal with
you trying to convince me otherwise,
so, I'm glad you have no desire to try to!

That is how I see it but, I don't matter.
How does God see it Ding, what does His Word say?

 

[ding]

YOU, are so certain about YOURSELF...

Moi? I'm no saint. I worry for my soul every single day.

I bet you know that you're going to heaven though, amirite?

 

[well named]

I did respond. I explained why it isn't false in post #122. So I don't know why you would say I made no attempt to respond.

But I feel exactly the same way. I've explained why it is true. You are welcome to disagree, but I stand by it for the aforementioned reason.

No, I mean you didn't address the points made in #60. When I say you didn't respond I don't mean just that you literally never acknowledged the post, I mean that you haven't tried to address the arguments made. #122 is just bare assertion, it's merely restating the premise.

 

[ding]

I'm not arguing for religion. I am agreeing with them and discussing the logical conclusion to their beliefs.

I'm not arguing for religion. I am agreeing with them and discussing the logical conclusion to their beliefs.

You are using religion divisively

No. I am using their beliefs divisively. I am not arguing for or defending religion. I am agreeing with them that religion is evil and trying to walk them to their logical conclusion.

Not surprisingly, they back off of the statements they make in other threads.

No. I am using their beliefs divisively. I am not arguing for or defending religion. I am agreeing with them that religion is evil and trying to walk them to their logical conclusion.

Not surprisingly, they back off of the statements they make in other thread

I DID NOT SAY YOU WERE ARGUING FOR
OR DEFENDING RELIGION!

YOU ARE USING A RIDICULOUS TOPIC,
BASED ON RELIGION, DIVISIVELY

You are using their beliefs divisively,
by your OWN admission...
Do you not realize how nuts that is?

You are using their beliefs divisively,
for satan, against God and Jesus!

YOU are more lost then they are!

Unclean spirit, Jesus rebuke you, be still!

No, but if that's how you want to see it, please be my guest. I have no desire to convince you otherwise.

No, but if that's how you want to see it, please be my guest.
I have no desire to convince you otherwise.

You can't convince me otherwise...
I have no desire to deal with
you trying to convince me otherwise,
so, I'm glad you have no desire to try to!

That is how I see it but, I don't matter.
How does God see it Ding, what does His Word say?

I'm not trying to convince you.

See me anyway that makes you happy.

I don't condescend to know God's mind. I know better.

 

[ding]

I did respond. I explained why it isn't false in post #122. So I don't know why you would say I made no attempt to respond.

But I feel exactly the same way. I've explained why it is true. You are welcome to disagree, but I stand by it for the aforementioned reason.

No, I mean you didn't address the points made in #60. When I say you didn't respond I don't mean just that you literally never acknowledged the post, I mean that you haven't tried to address the arguments made. #122 is just bare assertion, it's merely restating the premise.

It wasn't that complicated. If there is something which is truly evil, the moral thing to do is to eliminate it. That was said by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. Look it up.

 

[well named]

It wasn't that complicated. If there is something which is truly evil, the moral thing to do is to eliminate it. That was said by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. Look it up.

You're welcome to claim that it's self-evident if you like -- in which case there's no where for this conversation to go -- but I already suggested some analogies that should cast doubt on that claim. Otherwise, this post doesn't really help your position in my view:

- I enjoy much of C.S. Lewis' work, but just because he said something doesn't make it true

- Just because something is simple also doesn't mean that it's true.

- I think you're engaged now in a bit of equivocation, i.e. with the phrase "truly evil". That is, hypothetically we could posit something so evil ("truly evil") that any cost could be justified to prevent that evil. But then by this measure most people really don't believe that most religious institutions are "truly evil" to such an extent, and you're not really making much of a point in noticing that, nor is someone being logically inconsistent to hold that religion is bad but not so bad as to justify any and all means to eliminate it.

 

[ding]

It wasn't that complicated. If there is something which is truly evil, the moral thing to do is to eliminate it. That was said by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. Look it up.

You're welcome to claim that it's self-evident if you like -- in which case there's no where for this conversation to go -- but I already suggested some analogies that should cast doubt on that claim. Otherwise, this post doesn't really help your position in my view:

- I enjoy much of C.S. Lewis' work, but just because he said something doesn't make it true

- Just because something is simple also doesn't mean that it's true.

- I think you're engaged now in a bit of equivocation, i.e. with the phrase "truly evil". That is, hypothetically we could posit something so evil ("truly evil") that any cost could be justified to prevent that evil. But then by this measure most people really don't believe that most religious institutions are "truly evil" to such an extent, and you're not really making much of a point in noticing that, nor is someone being logically inconsistent to hold that religion is bad but not so bad as to justify any and all means to eliminate it.

Let me ask you this question, were you in the conversations I was in when I was being told that religion had never done anything good and was responsible for everything which was bad?

Because I don't believe you have complete knowledge in judging me.

But if that is what you want to do, please carry on.

 

[Crepitus]

Gullible self-righteous whack-jobs.

But they aren't "evil" if that's what you are asking.

That have no right to breath the same air as someone like you who is their superior.

Kid, you've totally lost it

You mean you don't think you are better than them?

Surely you jest.

It's ok, you can be honest.

Different yes, better? Who knows?

I do. If you think you are better you aren't.

There's a fundamental difference right there. I don't assume I'm.netter than other people.

 

[Crepitus]

Kid, you've totally lost it

You mean you don't think you are better than them?

Surely you jest.

It's ok, you can be honest.

Different yes, better? Who knows?

I do. If you think you are better you aren't.

I do. If you think you are better you aren't.

See...see what I mean!

The poster stated 'better?...who knows'

You state...I do...he doesn't know but, you do

Then, after he already stated, 'who knows',
you continue on with...'if you think...'

You don't know shit...you are not all that, darling

In the precious name of Jesus,
unclean spirit be still!

I don't think you read it properly.

If anyone thinks they are better than another they are not.

This I do know, so when I said I do, that's what I was talking about. Not that I know I am better.

You are so certain about me that you let your bias get the better of you.

Keep backing up kid.

 

[ding]

That have no right to breath the same air as someone like you who is their superior.

Kid, you've totally lost it

You mean you don't think you are better than them?

Surely you jest.

It's ok, you can be honest.

Different yes, better? Who knows?

I do. If you think you are better you aren't.

There's a fundamental difference right there. I don't assume I'm.netter than other people.

You misunderstood what I wrote too.

I do know that anyone who believes they are better than another person isn't.

That's what I know.

Let me ask you this, you used the word assume. Does that mean that you may come to a point where you think you are better than someone else?

 

[ding]

You mean you don't think you are better than them?

Surely you jest.

It's ok, you can be honest.

Different yes, better? Who knows?

I do. If you think you are better you aren't.

I do. If you think you are better you aren't.

See...see what I mean!

The poster stated 'better?...who knows'

You state...I do...he doesn't know but, you do

Then, after he already stated, 'who knows',
you continue on with...'if you think...'

You don't know shit...you are not all that, darling

In the precious name of Jesus,
unclean spirit be still!

I don't think you read it properly.

If anyone thinks they are better than another they are not.

This I do know, so when I said I do, that's what I was talking about. Not that I know I am better.

You are so certain about me that you let your bias get the better of you.

Keep backing up kid.

Feel free to believe what you want. I am not better than anyone. There's nothing special about me. I wonder if you can say the same without using the word assume.

 

[ding]

Kid? I'm 57.

 

[Crepitus]

Kid, you've totally lost it

You mean you don't think you are better than them?

Surely you jest.

It's ok, you can be honest.

Different yes, better? Who knows?

I do. If you think you are better you aren't.

There's a fundamental difference right there. I don't assume I'm.netter than other people.

You misunderstood what I wrote too.

I do know that anyone who believes they are better than another person isn't.

That's what I know.

Let me ask you this, you used the word assume. Does that mean that you may come to a point where you think you are better than someone else?

Keep backing up.