All religions are dangerous?

[_Moniker]

Shinto was the state religion of Japan prior to the end of WWII.

This is incorrect, by the way. Shintoism was only the state religion of Japan when it was enforced by the state. Buddhism was also practiced (often times Japanese interspersed these two) before it was made the national religion.

Don't have long to spend on this thread. Just a few things. John wrote that it was the "state religion" -- that is false. A state religion is one instituted by the government -- in this case the Emperor -- that is incorrect.

Moniker,

Of course John is correct.

No, he's not. :)

Shinto is the oldest surviving religion of Japan. The word Shinto means the way of the gods. Shintoists worship many gods, which are called kami. According to Shinto, kami (plural) are the basic forces in mountains, rivers, rocks, trees, and other parts of nature. Shinto also considers kami the basic force in such processes as creativity, disease, growth and healing.

Shinto emphasized rituals and moral standards. It does not have an elaborate philosophy and does not stress life after death as do some other religions.

The Kami are more like spirits than Gods. Shinto does not emphasize moral standards. Buddhism was interspersed (and is still) to deal with an afterlife in Japan. The Japanese live NOW with Shintoism and rely on Buddhism for their deaths -- pretty cool, I think. :)

How is today Shintoism (separate from the state) a dangerous religion? It has no dogma -- there are rituals, there are supernatural beliefs -- the Japanese are highly educated, are incredibly healthy and live a fairly marvelous life. This religion (without state control) must be shown to be dangerous for your primary thesis to stand. How the religion was co-opted in the past does not offer proof that this religion, practiced today (and is actually just THE culture of Japan) is a danger.

I find it interesting that we have to reach back in time (to a more barbaric age for most societies) to show that religions are dangerous. Does anyone else find that interesting? Just me???

[_Moniker]

JAK -- tsk! tsk!

http://www.studyworld.com/newsite/Repor ... -38643.htm
Cite your sources:

Shinto is the oldest surviving religion of Japan. The word
Shinto means the way of the gods. Shintoists worship many
gods, which are called kami. According to Shinto, kami are
the basic force in mountains, rivers, rocks, trees, and
other parts of nature. Shinto also considers kami the basic
force in such processes as creativity, disease, growth and
healing.

Shinto emphasizes rituals and moral standards. It does not
have an elaborate philosophy, and, unlike many religions,
it does not stress life after death.

Shinto is the oldest surviving religion of Japan. The word Shinto means the way of the gods. Shintoists worship many gods, which are called kami. According to Shinto, kami (plural) are the basic forces in mountains, rivers, rocks, trees, and other parts of nature. Shinto also considers kami the basic force in such processes as creativity, disease, growth and healing.

Shinto emphasized rituals and moral standards. It does not have an elaborate philosophy and does not stress life after death as do some other religions.

[_JAK]

JAK -- tsk! tsk!

http://www.studyworld.com/newsite/Repor ... -38643.htm
Cite your sources:

Shinto is the oldest surviving religion of Japan. The word
Shinto means the way of the gods. Shintoists worship many
gods, which are called kami. According to Shinto, kami are
the basic force in mountains, rivers, rocks, trees, and
other parts of nature. Shinto also considers kami the basic
force in such processes as creativity, disease, growth and
healing.

Shinto emphasizes rituals and moral standards. It does not
have an elaborate philosophy, and, unlike many religions,
it does not stress life after death.

Shinto is the oldest surviving religion of Japan. The word Shinto means the way of the gods. Shintoists worship many gods, which are called kami. According to Shinto, kami (plural) are the basic forces in mountains, rivers, rocks, trees, and other parts of nature. Shinto also considers kami the basic force in such processes as creativity, disease, growth and healing.

Shinto emphasized rituals and moral standards. It does not have an elaborate philosophy and does not stress life after death as do some other religions.

Hi Moniker,

Quick responses generally don’t allow us to state every source. That is particularly the case in which some observations are regarded as general information.

My particular source on Shintoism was primarily The World Book Encyclopedia.

Similar descriptions can be found in the in library editions of Encyclopedia Britannica.

JAK

[_Moniker]

Moniker,

(Since the post to which I respond was long, I’ll not repost it in its entirety. It was posted Feb. 18, 2008 8:26 pm if you wish to refer to it.)

Addressing some of your comments:

Moniker stated:
I have explained that they (the Amish) are not a danger to the community -- they contribute to the community, they live peaceful lives, much healthier than their counterparts (don't see obesity or unhealthy addictions), do seek medical care, and I don't believe they're dangerous. Don't you have to prove their dangerous? I'm not saying they are. You are.

This is a straw man argument (an argument against a position never taken).

No, you said they are dangerous. You wrote this:

The Amish believe (faith, religion) that they should be not of this world. Their beliefs (religion) and practices are a danger to them. The danger on the road is the least of the dangers to themselves.

Am I confused? Isn't your statement that they are dangerous a position taken? I countered some of your points (they are healthy -- tthey are a part of the wider community, and they do seek medical care) and went on to state that you must prove that their religious beliefs make them dangerous. Where did we go wrong?

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

In that position, it was not argued that the Amish are “a danger to the community.” The position address the “Dangers of Religion” in that religion tends to oppose reason and evidence in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence.

You said they are a danger to the community by saying this:

The conclusion of your post demonstrates that the practices of the Amish present a danger not only to themselves on the highways (or roads) but present a danger to you as well.

GoodK observed:
“The Amish may not be as dangerous to us as the Islamic fundamentalists, but the Amish certainly are a danger to their children (they won't educate them past 8th grade).”

That reality demonstrates the Amish disregard education in a time when university education level is required for virtually all fields of honest intellectual inquiry. Hence, Amish children are placed in danger and at risk as they are deprived of even a high school education as they face a world with many who are more informed than they are.

Why is lack of education correlated to a danger? I agree that education is incredibly important in our culture. Yet, in other cultures where it is not deemed necessary for a successful, happy life why do our dictates supersede their own? If you are making a positive correlation between Amish lack of education and danger then you must prove how this actually is a danger. Don't you?

The danger is primarily to the Amish people (or youth) rather than to others. However, you provided us with an example in which the Amish placed themselves and you at risk as a result of a practice (horse and buggy on modern highways designed for cars and truck moving at 55 MPH). That practice is rooted in their religion. I addressed it only because you provided the example.

I was thinking that my vehicle and those that speed beside me are MORE dangerous than the Amish in their buggies. Aren't they, JAK? I mean, really -- which is more dangerous? My vehicle speeding by at 55 mph and guzzling gas, ruining the environment is less dangerous than a man in a buggy? Please explain that to me.

Again, the danger which religion poses is largely to those who substitute doctrine for discovery. They may not actually choose to be ignorant. They are following the religious beliefs and practices of their parents and grandparents. They are guided into avoidance of information and education in favor of religious dogma and doctrine. It is that which places them in danger and at risk.

I agree that it is passed down from generation to generation -- yet, the assertion was that they are dangerous. Many things are passed down that are not dangerous. Just because you say that religious dogma is dangerous doesn't make it so -- you must show how the Amish actually are dangerous, don't you?

[violet]Moniker stated:
So, why did you bring up benefits of the American life. I have shucked off those benefits and actually prefer different cultures to this one. [/color]

As this is not a direct quote nor is there time to search all the posts for it. Since it follows my restatement of “the focus point,” the context in your post is unclear.

Here's one of your few quotes on this thread that speak of the "culture of our time":

They are at risk as they tend to reject that which is accepted in the culture of this time

So, what is that, JAK?

Although you stated that you would prefer to “live in a simpler place…” obviously you do not as you participate on a forum such as this. And while it is a leap to conclusion on my part, I would suspect you have and use electricity, automobiles (you have already stated you use), and other modern conveniences which are provided for you by the information based, education based, scientifically tested dimensions of reason and evidence.

I related that I have lived outside of societal dictates. How was I dangerous? My religious beliefs did not do that. I also mentioned Japanese culture (men on the streets peeing) and you said that is not the culture of our time. If I choose to live without modern conveniences for a secular reason is it dangerous? Or is it only dangerous if I rely on religion to leave this "culture of our time"?

The [I]lifestyle you prefer is irrelevant to the principle under discussion (as is mine).
That we do not know one another (beyond words on the screen) is also irrelevant to the issue which we discuss here.

I was not replying to you about the Amish. You were the one that replied to my post about the Amish and assumed that you knew how I've lived my life, what cultures I've lived in and what I've gone without. You were wrong. If you had not stated it I would not have refuted it. :)

No comment will be made regarding personal attacks.

Did I make a personal attack?? Did I? I don't think I did???!!!

Moniker stated:
WHAT? This is the CULTURE OF OUR TIME! In Japan! Are the Japanese in the pre-historic age? I think NOT!

This was clarified in another post (but I can fully understand if you didn’t see it as finding things from previous posts is not easy).

That phrase was used in connection with the access which the Western world has to information and knowledge. Our homes, our cars, our businesses globally in the Western world (and increasingly in more primitive countries) operate on information and applied science. That is the culture of our time to which I referred. It is not developed by nor harnessed by a single country. Certainly, Japan, despite its great suffering from American bombs and slow recovery is joining the information based culture.

No comment was made by me about Japan. The introduction of it by you is irrelevant to the principles regarding reliable information and the “Dangers of Religion.”

I talked about no heat or AC -- wood heat, men peeing in the streets, sparse homes, etc... and you said this was dangerous and not the culture of our time. Yes, it is. And I dare anyone to say the Japanese are behind the times. ;P

We wouldn't have gone down this path if you hadn't replied to my lil buggy story and assign what cultures you thought I'd be comfortable with. I'm pretty sure most people on this board know I have loads of stories -- don't want to hear them -- don't assume you know me or my life. ;)

To the persons speaking about the rite of passage for the teens -- I live fairly close to an Amish community and that documentary was hype and of course done to amp up the oddities. Isn't it interesting that when the teens enter SECULAR society they encounter drugs and alcohol?? So, how does this further the goal of arguing that the Amish are dangerous? In this instance the wider culture would be dangerous, no??

[_JAK]

Moniker,

It is what you fail to address:

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

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

As several of us have observed, “danger” is relative.

Your misrepresentation appears to be deliberate. While I have given you the benefit of the doubt, your posts demonstrate deliberate distortion.

Moniker concludes:
I talked about no heat or AC -- wood heat, men peeing in the streets, sparse homes, etc... and you said this was dangerous and not the culture of our time. Yes, it is. And I dare anyone to say the Japanese are behind the times. ;P

We wouldn't have gone down this path if you hadn't replied to my lil buggy story and assign what cultures you thought I'd be comfortable with. I'm pretty sure most people on this board know I have loads of stories -- don't want to hear them -- don't assume you know me or my life. ;)

To the persons speaking about the rite of passage for the teens -- I live fairly close to an Amish community and that documentary was hype and of course done to amp up the oddities. There is no drug and alcohol problem in the Amish community here. That was asserted -- prove it. Someone said just ask anyone -- well you can ask me and I say you're wrong. Prove that there are drug and alcohol problems in Amish communities.

Your attempt to paraphrase is faulty. In addressing your comments, I addressed the words on the screen in the context of your statement. (See original posts)

Previously, in response to your question, I clarified meaning with regard to culture of our time which is global in nature. The Western world lives in an information based culture. That was my reference and intent. No one suggested “the Japanese are behind the times.” On the contrary, you mentioned Japan. I included their current world presence as part of culture of our time.

My response was only to what you placed on the screen regarding Japan. I do not know to what “documentary” you make reference. Some time ago PBS had a documentary on the Amish. I did not suggest there were “drug and alcohol problems in the Amish community here (where you are).” Nor did I make reference to any documentary in this thread.

Your reference is a straw man attack (an attack of nothing which I stated). Your charge that “That was asserted – prove it” is bogus. It was not asserted by me.

These above are misrepresentations.

I assumed nothing about your “life” which your statements didn’t reveal.

Moniker stated Feb 18, 2008 11:28 am:
I find that I'd like it if America was relegated to the back of the cultural brigade and someone else would take over with culturally educating the world!

Moniker stated Feb 18, 2008 11:28 am:
If I could live in their world, I would! I'm pretty sure they wouldn't let me, however. Yet, doesn't mean I don't yearn to go off into some hillside somewhere and rough it for a few years. I have lived in a different culture where there was no heat or AC and the plumbing was QUITE different. Men peed on the streets (right next to me) and the homes were very sparse -- even wood heat was used. I've hung about in cabins with no electricity and no heat besides a fireplace and quite enjoyed it!

Is it fair to assume you’re being truthful here? If so, you, yourself are making statement about your “life.” No assumption required except that you are being truthful.

Are your straw man attacks attempts to change the topic?

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

You have offered nothing in refutation. Many examples which demonstrate the validity of this position have been articulated.

In addition, you have not addressed:
Truth by assertion is unreliable. Religions rely on truth by assertion.

Following is your story which I addressed:

Moniker writes:
HA! Just yesterday one brave (foolish) Amish man veered straight into my path! I had to quickly apply my brakes and swerve, and those behind me followed suit! I was going about 55 (the speed limit) and his horse and buggy darted right in front of me to go to the other side of the road. On my way home I wanted to pass a large semi on a hill and turned on my blinker to give notice that I was going to enter the right lane. Woops! There was a buggy right in front of me in that lane. SWERVED back in to the left lane.

In this story you admitted danger:

And in an effort to evade issue which you raised:

Moniker writes:
Uh, so if they present a danger then we need to get rid of all automobiles? WHAT? So what if one man in a buggy is dangerous? Anything that is dangerous needs to be outlawed and done away with? WHAT???? (bold emphasis to show your position)

No one constructed an argument that: “Anything that is dangerous needs to be outlawed and done away with…” And it was you who told a story which illustrated danger.

You’re constructing straw man arguments.

You have agreed that there is danger in the situation which you described. I merely pointed out that you supported my position that there are “dangers” in religious practices. You confirmed it.

My statement:
“The degree of ‘danger’ in your specific example is relative. Had you been unable to stop and hit the Amish buggy killing those inside, the potential danger would have been realized in quite a different way than your story ended.”

Now you argue no danger because:

Moniker writes:
(they (Amish) are healthy -- tthey are a part of the wider community, and they do seek medical care) and went on to state that you must prove that their religious beliefs make them dangerous. Where did we go wrong?

It’s irrelevant to your own story of danger which you recognized. The practice of using horses and buggies on roads built for 55 MPH for cars and trucks is dangerous. You have admitted that.

And you are “confused” or disingenuous. I understand that you do not want to address the topic.

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

Virtually all your responses have become non sequitur to analysis of your words.

You have offered no refutation of principle.

Moniker writes:
Why is lack of education correlated to a danger?

The question is an insult to your own intelligence.

We have previously established dangers of ignorance.

You continue to evade the topic at issue.

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

JAK

[_Moniker]

JAK! I'm about to go into full tizzy mode. It'll be a whopper of a post! :) A page, a page and a half maybe? All your quotes and then your quotes saying you never said what I quoted you saying. YOU were the one that replied to my Amish post! YOU were the one that said the Amish were dangerous because of buggies -- how? You say Amish don't seek medical care -- they do! Etc... You are saying religion is dangerous -- I mentioned a religion (on this thread!) and you said they were dangerous. Okay -- how?

Then you told me I wouldn't go live with them or give up modern conveniences. YOU brought that up! Not me! Not I! Not moi! ALL YOU!! So, I reply that you're incorrect. I also state other cultures (Japan) where there is a religion that is a part of their very CULTURE and ask how it is dangerous currently. I say that this culture is quite different (men peeing in the streets, sparse homes, etc...) and then you say that is dangerous because it's not the culture of our time.

~~ Oh, don't worry -- when I have a moment I'm going to cut and paste all your various quotes and explain how this went down ~~

THEN, you backtracked and said I shifted the debate. Nope! You said the Amish were dangerous. I asked you to prove it. You said the Japanese culture (I talked about some aspects of their culture) were dangerous (You did -- and I'll quote you later), you then went off and copy and pasted a POORLY written article about Shintoism that was off on some points.

I think that's where we are, JAK. I was happy to just let you and dart rattle off. But, yanno what? You sort of started telling me stuff about myself and assigning what you THOUGHT I would be like to me and I was happy to correct you and STILL ask within that framework how DOGMA makes religion dangerous. ESPECIALLY Shintoism that lacks dogma.

Back later with massive copy and paste. Whew. I'm in the middle of a chapter or I'd do it now. ;)

Later......

[_dartagnan]

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.

Self-congratulatory? Excuse me, but JAK has restated the victory call over and over on two different threads now, insisting nobody has been able to "refute" his "thesis." I responded to his nonsense in a very detailed post which he still hasn't figured out how to respond to. I've addressed his thesis on both corresponding threads.

Clearly, they do in your own head, and that's fine for you.

Oh? Take a look around, as it seems there are others who disagree with JAK's "thesis" just the same. I can't read them through because the rainbow colors give me a headache.

But don't mistake people's not responding to you as a concession that you've somehow won the argument

It isn't a mistake. I know when people cannot respond and why. JAK hasn't demonstrated any ability to research issues beyond clicking infidels.org. He is out of his league here. He doesn't read books. He doesn't understand logic. He doesn't understand the concept of plagiarism. He doesn't respect the truth. He is only interested in attacking 90% of the planet. The fact that you are here supporting him is of little consequence. Aren't you one of those Zeitgeist supporters? I guess you're going to say the Zeitgeist supporters went silent for reasons other than that they couldn't defend it any longer.

I notice you rarely respond to me.

No offense, but I pay little attention to you. You don't generally engage in many discussions beyond the casual quip. From what I can tell, you kinda leech onto your favorite posters and support them. And that's fine. But nothing changes the fact that JAK cannot handle a one on one debate. He needs people like you to serve as diversions. He's pulling everything he can; even relying on colors.

Should I take that as a sign you agree with or can't dispute the things I've written?

No, I just don't think too many people take you seriously. JAK acts like a man on a mission, with all the zeal of any preacher I've known. He is constantly waging his little battles against religion, and he is constantly pretending he has logic and reason on his side. That's the sad thing. Of ocurse, its easy to think that way when you refuse to address refutations. He's been schooled too many times on this forum to have gained any sense of credibility.

It's quite obvious you're set in your opinion

What, my opinion that I'm not a dangerous person because I believe a God exists? That the vast majority of the world is more dangerous than atheists, simply because they believe in God? That's a hell of a "thesis" that requires strong evidence. JAK cannot produce and those who know how to discern between rational arguments and rhetorical fluff, can tell the difference. All he does is what coggins likes to do. He runs to his favorite one-sided website and starts shoveling citations our way pretending he is coming up with this stuff on his own. I happen to know something about infidels.org and its owner. It is no more credible that the Zeitgeist clan.

as far as I can tell, you guys aren't even arguing the same point.

He's arguing that all religions are dangerous and I'm arguing that theyre not. He keeps diverting onto weird tangents though, like George Bush, the war in Iraq, the Crusades, and now Hitler and the Pope. All of which do nothing to reinforce his "thesis."

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

No you don't. Not if you think it is simply because they disagree with me. I disagree with people here all the time, but not everyone is an idiot. EAllusion isn't an idiot. Marg isn't an idiot. Hell most people here aren't. But people who consistently produce uninformed commentary while plagiarizing from other sources, deserve to be called idiots. It shows they are unwilling to be educated. It shows that they are the ones set in their opinion. Their minds might be small, but at least they're made up.

I've found that it doesn't inspire much conversation, if that's what you want from people.

People don't generally have problems conversing with me. Only idiots do.

I trust you have little regard for me and this post

Actually, I haven't even thought about it. Aside from your support for the Zeitgeist crowd, I can't recall much coming from you in the past. I know you participate in many discussions, but they're usually quip related.

[_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)

[_dartagnan]

EAllusion you posted an excerpt from Clifford with no commentary of your own. I wanted to go through his analogy and comment on it.

A shipowner was about to send to sea an emigrant-ship. He knew that she was old, and not overwell built at the first; that she had seen many seas and climes, and often had needed repairs. Doubts had been suggested to him that possibly she was not seaworthy. These doubts preyed upon his mind, and made him unhappy; he thought that perhaps he ought to have her thoroughly overhauled and and refitted, even though this should put him at great expense. Before the ship sailed, however, he succeeded in overcoming these melancholy reflections. He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms that it was idle to suppose she would not come safely home from this trip also. He would put his trust in Providence, which could hardly fail to protect all these unhappy families that were leaving their fatherland to seek for better times elsewhere. He would dismiss from his mind all ungenerous suspicions about the honesty of builders and contractors. In such ways he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy; he watched her departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance-money when she went down in mid-ocean and told no tales.

What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him. He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts. And although in the end he may have felt so sure about it that he could not think otherwise, yet inasmuch as he had knowingly and willingly worked himself into that frame of mind, he must be held responsible for it.

First of all I agree with everything Clifford has said up to this point. However, it quickly becomes clear what he is getting at. Since relying on unreliable belief in this instance proves dangerous, this must also apply to all nonscientific beliefs, and as an atheist, he takes it for granted that all theists operate on unreliable or unjustified beliefs. The illicit leaps he is making should be obvious, but I can see why his rant resonates with people like JAK.

The problem with this philosophy that one must operate on absolute knowledge of things proved and justified, before making every "safe" decision in one's life, is that it amounts to an OCD planet. One would have to become obsessive compulsive about anything one did in life to be perfectly safe from danger. Think about it for a moment. The shipowner is to be considered "dangerous" because he went against evidence that the ship needed work, and chose to rely on a gut feeling or whatever, that his ship would make it another trip. What about the passengers who had faith in the shipowner? They're all guilty.

How often do we do this in every day life? We do it all the time, and, this is important to note, in most cases it has nothing to do with religion. Consider some parallel analogies:

A - In San Francisco two tigers escape, killing two boys. There are several scientific truths we can accept here, but the point here is that people go to the zoo operating on the assumption that zoos are safe. So who is to blame here? The zoo for sure, but also the victims who should have accepted the scientific fact that tigers kill humans. Why would they put their faith in a zoo run by people they don't know? The zoo's safety track record should count for nothing since the ship's safety record counted for nothing.

B - People going outside of their homes have faith that everyone they associate with in society, is not going to kill them. And this is not a faith supported by scientific evidence. The evidence says killers are everywhere. This is reliable evidence. To think you could be killed is a justified belief. So in order to stay away from this "danger," you don't leave your home. Ever. If you do, then you are guilty of ignoring proven facts and relying on faith. Here is another example.

C -Mike plays with his dog in the park and unknowingly gets some ecoli bacteria under his nails. On his way home he bites his nails and then makes sandwiches for Sandra, his neice. Within a month he and his neice are dead. So who is to blame here? Well, Todd is for not accepting the scientific facts that ecoli exists, that it kills, and that washing one's hands with soap kills bacteria. But the blame doesn't stop there. The parents of Sandra are also to blame for having faith in her Uncle to have taken better care of her. They were also ignoring the same scientific facts.

So is avoiding religion making anyone "safer"? No. The only way one can completely avoid danger in society, is to become an anti-social hermit.

The fact that Clifford couldn't come up with an analogy better than this just goes to show how menaingless and irrelevant it truly is to religious belief.

Let's play with this and see if we can invert it:

D - Joseph Smith tells his friend to stop smoking. There is no current scientific reasoning for not smoking, but Joseph Smith claims it is something God doesn't want us to do. He says God wants us to take care of our bodies, and that smoking is killing us. Like any good rational thinker, his friend relies on nothing that cannot be proved by science, so he continues to smoke. Five years later his friend dies of lung cancer.

Who is to blame in this instance? Apparently, the man relying on faith had it right. So who was acting more "dangerously"? The man relying on scientific fact or the man relying on faith? Let's continue with Clifford's analogy:

Let us alter the case a little, and suppose that the ship was not unsound after all; that she made her voyage safely, and many others after it. Will that diminish the guilt of her owner? Not one jot. When an action is once done, it is right or wrong for ever; no accidental failure of its good or evil fruits can possibly alter that.

Clifford reveals his bias here by refusing to allow the opposite result to be evidence that the man's faith was justified. He wants it both ways. If a man relying on faith is wrong, he is guilty. If a man relying on faith is right, then he is still guilty, presumably because he was only right by dumb luck. He has rigged the game from the start and then starts speaking on the reasons why humans do what they do, because they are following their beliefs in some way. To what extent are my actions determined by my religion? Maybe you can give me an example, because I can hardly come up with one at all that would serve yoru argument. I can think of many, however, that completely undermine it.

For example, because I am a Christian, I frequently engage in charitable activities in m community. I cannot think of any example, even hypothetcially speaking, where my religion would influence my actions in a dangerous way.

Maybe you could help with that. Can you think of an example?

[Guest]

This is one of those times when I wish I wasn’t silly! It’s come to nip me this time.

Moniker,

It is what you fail to address:

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

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

As several of us have observed, “danger” is relative.

JAK – I agree that religions are unreliable. This was not in dispute, was it? Your original premise was this:

All religions are dangerous. They seek to destroy the intellect replacing it with dogma not derived from reason and evidence.

I point out that this statement is false. There is a religion (maybe others that I’m not aware of) that does not rely on dogma. You haven’t spoken to that – have you? I then went further to ask how these religions are specifically dangerous. I want to know how Shintoism as practiced by the culture of Japan is dangerous. I asserted that the Japanese are highly educated and healthy – to continue in that vein I’ll add that they are well-nourished, technologically advanced, and a valuable member of the world wide community. This is relevant to your original assertion – as I am advancing a religion that 1. does not have a dogma 2. is not apparently dangerous

Your misrepresentation appears to be deliberate. While I have given you the benefit of the doubt, your posts demonstrate deliberate distortion.

How? I seriously am baffled by this. I don’t think I’ve been distorting anything? Please show me how I’ve done this – if I did it was entirely intentional. (EDITING TO ADD -- THAT WAS A JOKE;) I wouldn't have done it intentionally. :D Wasn't sure if you'd get that...

Moniker concludes:
I talked about no heat or AC -- wood heat, men peeing in the streets, sparse homes, etc... and you said this was dangerous and not the culture of our time. Yes, it is. And I dare anyone to say the Japanese are behind the times. ;P

We wouldn't have gone down this path if you hadn't replied to my lil buggy story and assign what cultures you thought I'd be comfortable with. I'm pretty sure most people on this board know I have loads of stories -- don't want to hear them -- don't assume you know me or my life. ;)

To the persons speaking about the rite of passage for the teens -- I live fairly close to an Amish community and that documentary was hype and of course done to amp up the oddities. There is no drug and alcohol problem in the Amish community here. That was asserted -- prove it. Someone said just ask anyone -- well you can ask me and I say you're wrong. Prove that there are drug and alcohol problems in Amish communities.

Your attempt to paraphrase is faulty. In addressing your comments, I addressed the words on the screen in the context of your statement. (See original posts)

Yes, let’s see the original posts:

You wrote this in response to what I enjoy about Amish communities (within my post about enjoyments I refuted your statement that they did not seek medical care and a few other points):

That you identify other dangers does not mitigate the dangers of religion. While you may enjoy just what you state, you appear unlikely to give up all the benefits which you enjoy to embrace the level of Amish life, trade automatic climate control for a coal/wood stove, and relinquish all the benefits you derive from electricity. You don’t “love their culture” to the extent that you would relinquish your own for theirs and accept their religious doctrines.

YOU were the first to say what I would or would not do. Please recall this.

I reply with this:

I have lived in a different culture where there was no heat or AC and the plumbing was QUITE different. Men peed on the streets (right next to me) and the homes were very sparse -- even wood heat was used. I've hung about in cabins with no electricity and no heat besides a fireplace and quite enjoyed it! Where is the danger there??? I'm not following you!

You then replied with this:

They are at risk as they tend to reject that which is accepted in the culture of this time.

JAK – I’m not twisting this around. This is precisely how it went down in the thread. I was being silly and flippant at first, yet, you made statements about me living without certain modern conveniences.

JAK WROTE:

I’m skeptical. What’s preventing you from having all your power turned off, cars removed, the purchase of horses and buggies and clothing which matches that of the Amish you know?

I then made all further statements to inform you that your skepticism is not warranted. ;) I have lived without these things. You were the one to assert that – everything else I mentioned was to counter that. I never mentioned going off and living in other cultures until you said that I would not do so.

Previously, in response to your question, I clarified meaning with regard to culture of our time which is global in nature. The Western world lives in an information based culture. That was my reference and intent. No one suggested “the Japanese are behind the times.” On the contrary, you mentioned Japan. I included their current world presence as part of culture of our time.

I did mention Japan as a rebuttal to your original post. There is no dogma to Shintoism (you can not separate Japan’s culture from Shintoism) and it was VERY relevant to this discussion. You then mentioned me NOT living in different cultures and I related the culture that lacks basic amenities that you apparently thought I would live without.

You actually did say they were behind the times if men were peeing on the streets, no ac/heat and wood heat – see above quote that was in direct reply to me relating aspects of their culture.

I’m glad we agree that Japan is in the culture of our time – even if the men pee on the streets, there are simple homes, odd plumbing, and other things that you may not enjoy. ;)

Now, is the religion of Japan dangerous? There’s no dogma.

My response was only to what you placed on the screen regarding Japan. I do not know to what “documentary” you make reference. Some time ago PBS had a documentary on the Amish. I did not suggest there were “drug and alcohol problems in the Amish community here (where you are).” Nor did I make reference to any documentary in this thread.

The mention of the documentary was to others on this thread (didn’t take the time to see if you stated anything about it) that mentioned the rite of passage for teens in the Amish community. I didn’t address that to you.

Your reference is a straw man attack (an attack of nothing which I stated). Your charge that “That was asserted – prove it” is bogus. It was not asserted by me.

These above are misrepresentations.

What is a straw man attack? YOU said that there were dogmas prescribed to religion (welp Shintoism lacks that) and you said they were dangerous. I asked you to backup what you said.

YOU said I would not live in a certain environment (I DID NOT BRING THAT UP – YOU DID!) and I refuted that and STILL attempted to mention the religious aspect of the cultures.

JAK WROTE:

I assumed nothing about your “life” which your statements didn’t reveal.

You didn’t?

JAK WROTE:

You have not suggested that you would seriously consider abandonment of your cultural world for that of the Amish. It’s a study for you. It’s an interesting exploration and entertainment. That’s likely a good thing for you. It does not necessarily elevate the plights of the Amish world. However, there are splits and divisions even as we speak among that group as well as many others.?


While you may enjoy just what you state, you appear unlikely to give up all the benefits which you enjoy to embrace the level of Amish life, trade automatic climate control for a coal/wood stove, and relinquish all the benefits you derive from electricity.

You were assuming that I’ve never lived without electricity or that I would give up this culture for one that lacked climate control, and rely on coal/wood stove. I replied I’ve done such a thing (actually less than that in one instance). If you had not made those statements I would have never refuted them.

Moniker stated Feb 18, 2008 11:28 am:
I find that I'd like it if America was relegated to the back of the cultural brigade and someone else would take over with culturally educating the world!

Moniker stated Feb 18, 2008 11:28 am:
If I could live in their world, I would! I'm pretty sure they wouldn't let me, however. Yet, doesn't mean I don't yearn to go off into some hillside somewhere and rough it for a few years. I have lived in a different culture where there was no heat or AC and the plumbing was QUITE different. Men peed on the streets (right next to me) and the homes were very sparse -- even wood heat was used. I've hung about in cabins with no electricity and no heat besides a fireplace and quite enjoyed it!

JAK wrote:Is it fair to assume you’re being truthful here? If so, you, yourself are making statement about your “life.” No assumption required except that you are being truthful.

I made ALL my statements as a refutation of what YOU said! WHY AGAIN would you have to assume if I am being truthful or not? WHAT? I am TELLING YOU I WOULD! Why do you assume I am being untruthful? Is it REALLY that difficult to imagine roughing it? Why? I am telling you when I was a young woman I lived as a squatter with a bunch of punks (one of whom was my first husband) and lived in an abandoned house with no heat, no electricity, no running water. Before that I lived as a child in Japan – we had no A/C and no heat. The plumbing was nuts and men peed next to me when I stood on the streets – I dressed in traditional garb often (since you stated that I would likely not change my clothing habits to go into a different culture) and participated in ALL of the festivals as I lived RIGHT NEXT TO A SHINTO SHRINE on a beach! Why would you ASSUME I am being dishonest with you? I have not called YOU a liar, JAK! This would not have even come up if you couldn’t accept that not everyone thinks A/C, a minivan, and the “American Dream” is their cup of tea. I ALSO live fairly close to one of the biggest original hippie communes EVER in America – I’ve gotten around. Take my word for it. K?

JAK WROTE:

Are your straw man attacks attempts to change the topic?

YOU were the one that ORIGINALLY said I would NOT give up modern conveniences. NOT ME! YOU DID THAT. Can I now ask you if that was a straw man? Was it, JAK?

JAK WROTE:

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

Right – so where’s the dogma in Shintoism? I think since your ORIGINAL premise isn’t factual (you’ve changed the one above from your original statement) this entire debate shut down a few pages back. Dontcha think?

Yet, you still must prove there is a danger.

JAK WROTE:

In addition, you have not addressed:
Truth by assertion is unreliable. Religions rely on truth by assertion.

Well, I WOULD have if that had been the original topic of this thread – but guess what? It was not! You said all religions rely on dogma and are dangerous, recall?

JAK:

Following is your story which I addressed:

Moniker writes:
HA! Just yesterday one brave (foolish) Amish man veered straight into my path! I had to quickly apply my brakes and swerve, and those behind me followed suit! I was going about 55 (the speed limit) and his horse and buggy darted right in front of me to go to the other side of the road. On my way home I wanted to pass a large semi on a hill and turned on my blinker to give notice that I was going to enter the right lane. Woops! There was a buggy right in front of me in that lane. SWERVED back in to the left lane.

In this story you admitted danger:

And in an effort to evade issue which you raised:

Moniker writes:
Uh, so if they present a danger then we need to get rid of all automobiles? WHAT? So what if one man in a buggy is dangerous? Anything that is dangerous needs to be outlawed and done away with? WHAT???? (bold emphasis to show your position)

You’re right – I was being silly. Wish I hadn’t done that now. When my silly willies went away I came back in later and refuted with the statement that which is really the danger on the roads – a vehicle moving at 55 mph, guzzling gas, or a buggy pulled by horses? Also since we’re discussing this – which tenet of the Amish tell them to pull out in front of traffic. Is there a tenet that teaches them to drive carelessly? You’re saying one individuals recklessness can be traced back to religious dogma? I don’t see it – and I’m not trying to be a smart ass – seriously, I don’t understand how one individual on the road can then be traced back to his religion UNLESS his religion requires him to do that.

JAK WROTE:

No one constructed an argument that: “Anything that is dangerous needs to be outlawed and done away with…” And it was you who told a story which illustrated danger.

You’re constructing straw man arguments.

Yep, I did! In that instance.

JAK WROTE:

You have agreed that there is danger in the situation which you described. I merely pointed out that you supported my position that there are “dangers” in religious practices. You confirmed it.

Where did I confirm it? What religious practice are you going to cite from the Amish where they are told to dart out in front of traffic?

JAK WROTE:

My statement:
“The degree of ‘danger’ in your specific example is relative. Had you been unable to stop and hit the Amish buggy killing those inside, the potential danger would have been realized in quite a different way than your story ended.”

Yet, how is ONE individuals actions then relegated to an entire religion that does not indoctrinate the faithful to drive recklessly? So what that one idiot is on the road – does that really correlate to saying the ENTIRE religion is dangerous? Seriously?

JAK WROTE:

Now you argue no danger because:

Moniker writes:
(they (Amish) are healthy -- tthey are a part of the wider community, and they do seek medical care) and went on to state that you must prove that their religious beliefs make them dangerous. Where did we go wrong?

INCORRECT! I WAS REPLYING TO THIS OF YOURS:

The Amish believe (faith, religion) that they should be not of this world. Their beliefs (religion) and practices are a danger to them. The danger on the road is the least of the dangers to themselves.

I then state in response to that:

I have explained that they (the Amish) are not a danger to the community -- they contribute to the community, they live peaceful lives, much healthier than their counterparts (don't see obesity or unhealthy addictions), do seek medical care, and I don't believe they're dangerous. Don't you have to prove their dangerous? I'm not saying they are. You are.

You then stated this in reply:

JAK REPLIED:

This is a straw man argument (an argument against a position never taken).

INCORRECT! YOU DID STATE THAT POSITION and I showed it on the post in question. Here is your ‘position” taken:
JAK WROTE:

The Amish believe (faith, religion) that they should be not of this world. Their beliefs (religion) and practices are a danger to them. The danger on the road is the least of the dangers to themselves.

YOU SAY THEY ARE DANGEROUS! That is NOT a strawman position. You say it – you PROVE IT! I refute your points and then you say you never took the position? I am the one distorting??

JAK WROTE:

It’s irrelevant to your own story of danger which you recognized. The practice of using horses and buggies on roads built for 55 MPH for cars and trucks is dangerous. You have admitted that.

Where? Quote for me where I admitted that it. Please?

JAK WROTE:

And you are “confused” or disingenuous. I understand that you do not want to address the topic.

I’m confused because I can’t keep up with you saying you didn’t say whatever I KNOW you said!

JAK WROTE:

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

Right – so admit that Shintoism has no dogma and go back to square one and create a new topic – ‘cause that’s false.

Moniker writes:
Why is lack of education correlated to a danger?

The question is an insult to your own intelligence.

You quoting me out of context would be an insult to my intelligence too, I assume?

Let’s try my quote again with full context, shall we? Yes!

MONIKER WROTE:

Why is lack of education correlated to a danger? I agree that education is incredibly important in our culture. Yet, in other cultures where it is not deemed necessary for a successful, happy life why do our dictates supersede their own? If you are making a positive correlation between Amish lack of education and danger then you must prove how this actually is a danger. Don't you?

In different cultures there are different norms. Some require a minimum of education to carry forward and others have absolutely no formal education. I agreed that education is important to our culture. I am concerned how this conversation is not limited to our (American) culture and that we would impress our mores onto other cultural norms.

JAK WROTE:

You continue to evade the topic at issue.

Naw, I showed how your original premise was flawed a few pages back. You must have missed it.