Kevin atheism is not the opposite of theism. Atheism is a default position to theism.
Why are you quibbling over an irrelevancy like this? JAK went out of his way to describe theists as negatively as possible. By logical inference, he was speaking favorably of atheism which represents the only other group left on the planet (you either believe a God exists or you don't). You can call yourselves peanutchuckles for all I care, you still get the point.
While a theist believes in a God's existence, an atheist does not disbelieve
Then your argument isn't with me, its with the dictionary. Good luck with that.
Atheism:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
While it may be your "belief" that atheism really doesn't mean that, do you expect me to ignore the dictionary which was written by professional English professors and grammarians? The irony is killing me here, but I'm not going to say you're a danger to society because you have faith in your personal concept of the term.
For this reason the positions are not opposite to one another as you have assumed in your argument.
Because I am following the dictionary version of what English words really mean, the two positions are opposite one another.
It's very time consuming Kevin discussing with you because you misrepresent and/or misunderstand what is actually said. JAK is fully aware of and has acknowledged that religious doctrines change to accomodate science
He has? When and where? I've provided you with specific citations from JAK, can you do the same? Certainly he has not said this in response to anything I said. And if he has said something similar to this in one of his rainbow bright posts to Moniker, how do you account for this contradiction in what he said on other occasions? He initially made it perfectly clear that religions substitute reason and facts for unreliable faith claims. They "seek" to do these things. That's what makes them dangerous. He has said this on numerous occassions in various formats.
Could Jesus ever be non divine and Christianity still exist?
Has science proved Jesus wasn't divine?
Do you think that Mormonism could ever change its claim that the Book of Mormon is an historically true text and still exist?
Absolutely. That is what happened with the RLDS Church, so why not?
There is a huge difference Kevin between a non worship worthy, non interfering deity/ ultimate knowledge and an interfering deity with humanlike qualities as presented by various religions.
Mormonism is unique in its view that God is a man.
Science does address indirectly the latter but not the former. For example, science does address the God of Mormonism indirectly by the evidence indicating with extreme high probability the Book of Mormon is nothing more than a 20th century work of fiction and hence that God not supported by evidence in fact evidence counters that God.
Yes, and apologists are trying to work their views in with science, not trying to make science conform with the religion. Have you read anything from James E. Faulconer? He is an LDS scholar who recently wrote a paper arguing that maybe God really isn't permanently anthropomorphic as Mormons often think: http://www.smpt.org/member_resource/ele ... nt1-1.html
Kevin as long as you question, are not gullible, not easily manipulated without questioning by religious authority or any authority for that matter, do not let religious authority dictate and supercede good critical thinking then that danger that JAK is referring to is not presented, at least by you.
But JAK didn't offer all of that baggage qualifying his original statements, so why are you? Is this something he told you in a PM? What JAK told this forum is unambiguous: all religions are dangerous. That's "all." That includes mine too.
What you just said above, I don't disagree with. I believe religions are just like any other social group that involves peer pressure to do and believe things.
That you support religious groups which may yield powerful influences politically
This is what I don't get. Groups of all social stripes can consolidate their numbers and influence politics. In a democracy, naturally the higher numbers the better for the group. Most people in America are theists. A good portion of them are Evangelicals. So how can religion be faulted in a democracy for influencing politics when that is their right?
This is why I think people complaining about this stuff are far more dangerous. What would you have religionists do, forfeit their right to vote just so people like JAK don't consider them dangerous? Are their votes dangerous? If you think that then your issue is political, not religious.
I would still like JAK to answer the question you chose to answer for him. You claimed I misrepresented his position, but I know I haven't, at least as he has presented it on this forum. For JAK, all religion is dangerous. This is what he said. He didn't qualify it. You can't go around making claims like this and then forfeit your obligation to explain yourself and provide examples. So he needs to provide me a hypothetical scenario where JAK and I would be in the same exact situation, and I would make a dangerous decision due to my religious belief, whereas he would make a safe decision.
Kevin you are again misunderstanding JAK's position, he is not claiming every theist is dangerous.
He said all religions are dangerous marg. I don't know why you're trying to save him from himself. This is what he said, and he should be held accountable. Let him back it up or denounce it. There is nothing unreasonable in this request.
It is the principals in thinking encouraged by religions which are dangerous. Indirectly all religious groups can be dangerous by their political power.
If that is truly what he believes, then his argument is weaker than I thought, since the same can be said of virtually any social group, many of which are dangerous (i.e. white supremacists, Gameboy fan club, etc). This makes his gripe against religion seem extremely petty since the danger would only be there in certain situationa and under specific circumstances. JAK didn't say all of that. Instead, he stated very bluntly that all religions were dangerous, period.