I’ve discussed many times the topic of Religion being evil. Many have disagreed because they fail to comprehend what exactly it is I mean. Nonetheless they have made many faulty attempts to disprove me. I am not an atheist, I am not a theist, I am not a crazy weed smoking hinduist or w/e they do. I am simply a person who could care less about what I am, but I am more concerned with the truth that religion is evil. One of my favorite authors, Richard Dawkins talks about this in one of his programs. Richard Dawkins explains many things about how religion is evil because people are evil. But some things are more evil than others. What I mean is, Good doesn’t exist. Things are in our way, and that’s a bad thing. I dont’ care what religion it is. Our like this dr. satantical guy who worships Satan, as if Satan exists. It’s pretty obvious that no supernatural things exist, because if so they would have been seen out of thousands of years, but they have not, thus I really don’t give a rats ass at what you stupid religionist have to say.
I will give kudos to Dr. Satan though because he did agree with my point, he understood what I was saying. And I’ll show it again.
Religion is produced by People.
People are always evil.
Therefore Religion is evil as well.
I studied logic in my math class last year and this is a perfectly logical argument. Consequently, the apparatus of a thing like Religion, is just a big block of concrete in our road to life, and because of this it is EVIL. This world is being run by stupid presidents, stupid leaders, and stupid popes who think there crap smells better than everyone elses.
I would like to put a stop to this who religion thing, there shouldn’t even be a topic on religion if even a few people don’t believe in it. If Religion was true everyone would believe in it. Please, we need to make scientific advancements as the great intelligent journalist Dawkins talks about in his series. If you guys really want to live in a better world, we must stop these ideas in our way, we must go further in are intellect.
Ahem. I certainly did not agree with that.
I pointed out that the second premise was specious.
You then went on with a further post to state that people are evil because religion makes them evil, turning your entire argument into an absurd petitio principii.
Richard Dawkins is not as evil as Religion though, and thats what Im saying damnit. I don’t think you’ve ever listend to dawkins if you believe he is more evil than religion. My argument is not invalid, it’s totally valid. I even made the argument when asked to a few days ago in my math class and it was a perfectly logical argument. So unless my teacher lied, you are wrong, and an idiot as well. I did not create evil, evil has always existed as I’ve already produced to you, if you could comprehend what Im saying, I feel you too have been blocked by certain things like religion that block your path of intelligence.
Your perspective based upon predicating factors that no one but you can know?
There is nothing logical in anything you have stated thus far. You have simply dictated personal preference based on an as of yet unnamed absurdity of perspective.
“Evil” is a moral judgement, juxtaposed against “Righteous”, another moral judgement. Neither exist independent of the other, and must therefore be equally justified if either is to exist.
It doesnt’ matter. Have you ever heard about AND OR logic??? I can be right and wrong at the same time, and I can be realative. If I see religion as more evil than Dawkins, then I am right in that perception. I am telign you that if you can understand my level of thinking and my concepts instead of ebing so arrogant as if you understand me, you would see my perspective as well.
1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning
(2) : a branch or variety of logic
(3) : a branch of semiotic; especially : SYNTACTICS
(4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge
b(1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty
(2) : RELEVANCE, PROPRIETY c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable
I see nothing in those definitions that annunciate perspective as having anything to do with logic. Not even the mention of perspective or relativism. Logically, you would appear to be in error.
Strange, where does arrogance enter into the discourse, I was unaware of its presence?
You’re speaking of the documentary he did called The Root of All Evil?, are you not? Dawkins said himself that the title was the invention of the producers of Channel 4 (which broadcasted the doc in the UK back in January) and that he felt anything being the “root of all evil” is ridiculous; which is why he had the concession of adding a question mark to the title. In that program, by the way, Dawkins does not talk about religion being evil at any point in the documentary, but posits that evil people use religion as a tool for evil.
While I understand your ideology; being that religion must be evil as it influences people to do evil things, I would appreciate a more detailed outline of how you’ve come to the conclusion that religion in its entirety is evil besides through the use of deductive reasoning. Surely with only deductive reasoning to prove my case, I could show that religion is good. Observe:
Religion teaches people to do good things.
People do good things because they are taught to by religion.
Religion is therefore good.
Now, please keep in mind that my response is in no way meant to be condescending or antagonistic; I simply wish to understand more about your ideas and how you’ve come to their conclusions. By the way, there are correct and incorrect methods of performing deductive reasoning… and I don’t think you’re performing the former, but please do continue and elaborate your position.
So, I ask you… Is your argument about religion in general or about a specific religion that you are convinced is evil??
Two questions. First, if you are right in your perspective just by it being your perspective, then I must be right in mine as well, yes? If that’s true, then why would I want to see yours? It’s not going to help me find any truth I don’t already have.
Second, if people are evil, and religion is evil, then it seems like religion is well suited for the people, and it’s precisely what we ought to have. So religion is ok for us?
The soundness of your argument aside, the argument is invalid. Given that people are evil and people produce religion, it does not follow that religion is evil. It lacks the additional premiss that any production of an evil thing is also evil, which is not clear. All attributes of a thing are not passed on to all productions of that thing.
Here is a similarly logic-ed argument:
I am a human
I produced a shit
Therefor, my shit is a human.
Clearly, something is missing. I know you teacher signed off on it and all, but you can’t accept what your teachers say without a little critical thinking of your own. Nor can you accept what Richard Dawkins said without considering the validity of the arguments.
