All religions are dangerous?

[_JAK]

The Amish may not be as dangerous to us as the Islamic fundamentalists

Indeed! Heh! I would call that a bit of a stretch!!
It would be especially 'whack' if it were to be bought up just days after yet another fatal shooting incident on one of your college campuses.

...but the Amish certainly are a danger to their children (they won't educate them past 8th grade).

I have no doubt that I could be 'concerned' about some aspects of Amish life. (Although I'm not sure I'm convinced that 'dangerous' is the right word in a few of the cases being mentioned).
But what I asked was a very specific question. I was asking specifically whether the Amish tendency to ride around in horse-drawn buggies was a 'dangerous' aspect of their lifestyle.
I ask this specific question because this seemed to be JAK's conclusion to Monikers comments. (At least I can't see how else you could interpret the response, given the content of Monikers post). So I just wanted to clarify...

ROP,

The position was:
“Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”

That is, truth by assertion fails. It was the issue as Moniker introduced an example of her own. While there have been various attempts to part from the issue, this remains the issue.

GoodK implied that depriving anyone of education on the invoking of religious dogma is harmful, hence dangerous.

Substitution of religious dogma in lieu of information, gathering of evidence, and reason poses danger. Faith-based conclusions are unreliable.

These were central to “Dangers of Religion.”

JAK

[_dartagnan]

His posts are filled with excessive ad hominem.

Which seemed to be fine so long as it was aimed at LDS. The only difference is that I have expanded my interests here and have decided to defend the common attacks on religion in general.

He seems to write to an audience/reader rather than any individuals he is in discussion with.

Pay attention marg. JAK and I were discussing this until he decided he could no longer debate his point intelligently. This is my thread and he completely hijacked it.

He painted himself in a corner immediately, so he felt the best way to divert attention from his fumbling was to start writing up sinus-torturing rainbow posts to anyone else who would disagree with him. And this is fine if he were not constantly saying NOBODY has refuted his points. I've addressed all of his silliness and he can't respond.

And what's worse is that he keeps lying, taking occassional jabs at theists by merely cutting and pasting whatever he reads from anti-religion websites, while at the same time pretending he has a clue about modern scholarship and the proper method for determining truth. That is the great irony here. He is preaching like any religionist would about his belief, and he doesn't practice what he preaches. Meaning, he asserts that truth shouldn't be declared by assertion.

This makes him no more respectable than charity or coggins, who frequently run to MADB to find out what they're supposed to say next.

And he apparently thinks the audience doesn't notice the ad hominems in lieu of substance. It's not impressive Kevin.

Sorry, but idiots frequently need to be beaten down with reason. Calling in the heavy hitters like EAllusion and yourself to defend him isn't going to change the fact that JAK and others have acted particularly idiotic lately. Ever since the recent defense of the Zeitgeist film, the level of intelligent conversation has dropped substantially.

And when you do that you indicate to the persons in discussion you are more into game-playing than honest discussion and in general game playing is not worth one's time to respond to.

Isn't it funny how the anti-religion crowd starts acting like LDS apologists when their silly anti-religion arguments are up against the ropes? I know there are quite a few anti-religion posters on this forum, and I know you guys like to support one another, but you'd be better off defending the arguments instead of bickering over tone. This is the terrestrial forum, after all.

[Guest]

Let's see if JAK and EAllusion can cut to the chase.

Please, just provide one hypothetical situation where the following could be considered "dangerous."

Joe Blow believes God exists. That's it. That's all you know about Joe Blow.

In what hypothetical situation could he present a danger to himself or anyone around him?

I realize you weren't asking me and I probably disagree to some extent with JAK and EAllusion, but...

In this case I would agree Monsieur Blow is not dangerous based on this belief. But I want to make a distinction between personal belief and religion. When a set of beliefs becomes collective and starts to define and shape the actions of a group of people it becomes a religion. Organizations, such as religion, tend to require the submission of the individual to some extent, to the will of the greater collective. These rules are codified as morals or commandments and sometimes they have side effects which can be detrimental to those outside of the organization. So finding dangerous behavior is not that hard--just look for rules, traditions or practices that can cause harm. This harm could be to an individual member, the greater society, another minority group or an outside individual.

If we look back at our examples, I think we can illustrate. The Amish have a practice called rumspringa. You cannot join the Church until you are an adult and it is very common for teenagers to go out and try to sew their wild oats before they join. This is tolerated among the Amish. Ask anyone in Amish country and they will tell you there is a big problem with teenage alcohol and drug abuse. There is a great documentary on this called Devil's Playground that I would recommend. Someone might counter and say that the teenagers are not living by Amish principles, however I think it is clear that the Amish religious tradition is the cause of rumspringa.

Shinto was used as an avenue for the extreme nationalism that spurred Japan on during WWII. Whether this is part of the core doctrine or "dogma" of Shinto or is evident today is irrelevant. This example illustrates how religion can be a danger and a threat to society, it was a useful tool for those in power at the time ergo it was dangerous.

So, since all religions that I know of require submission of individual morality to the morality of the group, they can all be used to produce anti-social behavior in its members that can be a treat or danger to outsider.

Since I claimed this is universal to all religions--the burden of proof is on me. However, if I wrote a post that went through systematically and demonstrated how every single religion is dangerous, it would be too long and no one would read it. So I will be happy to play the game with anyone. Offer up a religion that you think is not dangerous, and I will attempt to show, in some respect, how it can be an outside threat.

John,

Beware the Hypothetical.

It’s unlikely that we can find individuals who fit a hypothetical that takes a position of such simplicity as: I believe God exists but can articulate nothing more.

To that individual (should we be able to find one), questions are in order.

What is God like?
What are the attributes of this God that exists only?

This hypothetical likely does not exist.

An individual will provide more. Further, the issue was not about an individual.

The issue was:
“Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”

Truth by assertion is unreliable. Religions rely on truth by assertion.

John stated:
But I want to make a distinction between personal belief and religion. When a set of beliefs becomes collective and starts to define and shape the actions of a group of people it becomes a religion.

Indeed an important distinction.

John stated:
Organizations, such as religion, tend to require the submission of the individual to some extent, to the will of the greater collective. These rules are codified as morals or commandments and sometimes they have side effects which can be detrimental to those outside of the organization. So finding dangerous behavior is not that hard--just look for rules, traditions or practices that can cause harm. This harm could be to an individual member, the greater society, another minority group or an outside individual.

Eloquently stated!

John stated:
So, since all religions that I know of require submission of individual morality to the morality of the group, they can all be used to produce anti-social behavior in its members that can be a treat or danger to outsider.

Yes, of course.

Perhaps you have read The Battle for God by Karen Armstrong. The Book in Review The Book

Armstrong has been a prolific writer and contributor to education about religions. She was recently interviewed on Bill Moyer’s Journal aired on PBS.

(Apologies for the link which did not work from this bb) the edit.

JAK

[_dartagnan]

Let's see if JAK can cut to the chase.

Please, just provide one hypothetical situation where the following could be considered "dangerous."

Joe Blow believes God exists. That's it. That's all you know about Joe Blow.

In what hypothetical situation could he present a danger to himself or anyone around him?

(If you can't back it up, just admit it and stop the charade)

[_Some Schmo]

Isn't it funny how the anti-religion crowd starts acting like LDS apologists when their silly anti-religion arguments are up against the ropes? I know there are quite a few anti-religion posters on this forum, and I know you guys like to support one another, but you'd be better off defending the arguments instead of bickering over tone. This is the terrestrial forum, after all.

LOL... dude, you're cracking me up today. Good stuff.

I hate to tell you this, but I've seen little come from you in this thread that threatens "anti-religion arguments" no matter how much self-congratulatory language you spew. Clearly, they do in your own head, and that's fine for you.

But don't mistake people's not responding to you as a concession that you've somehow won the argument. I notice you rarely respond to me. Should I take that as a sign you agree with or can't dispute the things I've written? It's quite obvious you're set in your opinion, and it's not worth fighting you about it. And as far as I can tell, you guys aren't even arguing the same point.

Besides, if I decided to actually engage your arguments (with the assumption you might actually respond to me) it's only a matter of time before you call me an idiot for disagreeing with you. Don't get me wrong; I understand why you call people idiots, but I've found that it doesn't inspire much conversation, if that's what you want from people.

*shrug*

I trust you have little regard for me and this post (after all, I'm just another idiotic atheist who parrots other people's arguments, right?) That's ok by me. The last thing I'd like to dissuade you from acting the way you are in this thread. It makes for entertaining reading.

[_marg]

and I know you guys like to support one another, but you'd be better off defending the arguments instead of bickering over tone. This is the terrestrial forum, after all.

I agree Kevin my post was about tone/process. And that isn't contributing any substance to the discussion. I'm not interested in dog piling onto you to support EA or JAK. I simply would prefer you leave out your ad hominems, mainly because I find most of them have little to no justification and you insult the reader's intelligence by making them.

[_dartagnan]

Armstrong has been a prolific writer and contributor to education about religions. She was recently interviewed on Bill Moyer’s Journal aired on PBS.

Armstrong is an idiot with no credentials to speak authoritatively on religious history, so the fact that you would consider her such is only indicative about your standard of scholarship. She isn't a scholar. She is an ex-Nun for crying out loud, with an axe to grind against Catholicism. She has been refuted on so many occassions it is hard to know where to begin. Try Daniel Pipes, who thinks her run down of Islamic history as well as her recreation of the crusades, is a joke.

http://www.meforum.org/article/1439

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpag ... ec_id=7158

[_dartagnan]

I find most of them have little to no justification

Why do you think that?

Is it ever justified to call someone a liar? Even if they're lying?

Is it ever justified to call someone uninformed? Even if they're pushing pseudo-scholarship while rejecting what real historians have said?

Is it ever justified calling someone a bigot? Even when they declare every other human who believes differently from them, "dangerous"?

Is it ever justified to call someone an idiot? Even if he acts like one?

[_Some Schmo]

*clicks on thread to see how dart responds to his latest post, sees that he hasn't, and declares himself winner!*

[_JAK]

The Amish and other individuals and/or religious groups which reject evidence, information, and reason are at risk. Your example on the road was a demonstration of risk and danger. While no one apparently was harmed in your case, the danger was described by you. You were traveling at 55 MPH, the Amish buggy was not. you described the danger.

The Amish were in that buggy as a result of religious belief(s). Thus, yes to your question: “Really?”

Yes. It demonstrates that religion, religious practice and beliefs are dangerous.

I drive to my parents house 'religiously' every week on Sunday.
I swear - almost every single week - there is either a horse drawn cart, or a really slow steam-engine, or a really slow old car, or something 'wacky' like that I meet along the way. Just seems to be a regular thing - there are quite a few 'old transportation' nuts around the area, and they like going out and about on Sundays.

...I don't believe there is any religious motivation behind doing this.

Are these people 'dangerous'?

Sure they are dangerous, just not on a grand scale.

If religion causes us to behave in a dangerous activity, and you can show that people engage in the same behavior for non-religious reasons, that does not excuse religion. Religion would still be the route cause of the behavior and thus religion has no culpability.

No one is suggesting that all behavior encourage by religion is dangerous, just that all religions promote some dangerous activity. Nor is any suggesting that all all dangerous behavior is sourced in religion.

John,

We agree generally (I think). My original statement did not characterize “on a grand scale.” Some dangers are on a large scale. Some dangers are not.

To the question: Are these people “dangerous?”, John responded: “Sure they are dangerous, just not on a grand scale.”

Detailed analysis is correct.

John stated:
If religion causes us to behave in a dangerous activity, and you can show that people engage in the same behavior for non-religious reasons, that does not excuse religion.

That is correct analysis.

John stated:
No one is suggesting that all behavior encourage by religion is dangerous, just that all religions promote some dangerous activity. Nor is any suggesting that all all dangerous behavior is sourced in religion.

That is also correct analysis. As you rightly recognize, the particulars are important. In addition you recognize that “dangers” are relative. That is, not all dangers are equal (with regard to religion).

JAK