I'm not sure what you mean at all. If you have interpreted my words right, I do not agree with Pinky.
This comment is not constructive. Either refute his statement with a valid argument or don't say anything, do not say he is wrong with no argument to back it up.
Why do I have to absolutely refute his statement? Also, where do I say he's wrong? It's rather hard to explain to someone who didn't notice his logical failure. But alas, I shall.
Because there can be morality with and without religion, morality is completely independent of religion. This is what Pinky is trying to say. But when morality is a concept that encompasses too much, one can never be too sure. There can be morality that are indigenous to religion.
Although, it's not too hard to find wrongs in this kind of thought- because most religion promotes morality. You cannot say there is no connection between the two when one promotes something. It's not that he's wrong because I have not refuted, but because he assumed too much. It's a good way to be wrong. Just like how you're randomly interpreting my words to your likings.
First I am not sure what you mean by a set of logic. There are different logics but I do not think that is what you intend here. I think a better wording is that sometimes we do not have all the required information and we must reevaluate our position from time to time and therefore we can be wrong at times.
No, what I meant was exact and accurate. We don't carry out a single logic at one time. We always use more than one logic in combination. Most easily exemplified, 'Because A is B, and because B is C, A is C, and I can back it up by a1, a2, a3, a4....' and so on. That was just a singular example out of many combination of logic.
Second, the direction the world has taken is less and less freedom, not more. At the beginning we could do what ever we wanted, there were no laws, no government, no structure. We have slowly over the past few thousand years implemented more and more structure in our lives limiting what is and is not acceptable to our communities and even trying to enforce our structure on others. Religion actually played a large role in this.
This is controversial. If you want to talk about the social contract theory, it is not on topic. But according to the theory, we have gained more freedom because there are laws, government, and structure.
Finally, let us say that currently the world works. That does not mean that it could not be better, we could improve the lives of many people in the world. Should we not strive to make our world a better place?
Such random words from a random idealist. Those who say things like these always lead the world into a worse place. Like Marx, and Hitler. Watch when you say 'better', because perspective decides whats better or whats worse. It's all made up, by us.
None.