All religions are dangerous?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Re: False and Misrepresentation

Post by _Some Schmo »

Bond...James Bond wrote: He wouldn't know sarcasm if the official mascot of sarcasm, Sarcasm E. Sarcastic, ran him over driving the official "Sarcasm-mobile" while making a delivery of "Sarcasm for Dummies" books to a Sarcasmless Anonymous meeting at the Sarcasm Center, at the Corner of Sarcasm and Sarcastica Streets in the great town of Sarcasmville located in an outer province of the Union of Social Sarcastic Republics.


Was this supposed to be sarcastic?

In reviewing this thread, I just think that all parties can be accused to one degree or another of talking past each other. It's hard to play a game of baseball when the other team is dressed for ice hockey.

Just because someone doesn't answer your questions to your satisfaction, or the way you anticipated they should, doesn't mean they're stupid. You just can't control them (which can be very frustrating and prompt you to call them idiots - because they just don't argue like you think they should).
Last edited by Alf'Omega on Fri Feb 22, 2008 5:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Re: Shintoism & Dangers, Moniker

Post by _Moniker »

Oh! My! Goodness! Gracious!

JAK wrote:You had a response on Shintoism from me. Rather than address that, you attacked me for using a source which I did not use. The fact that my 1985 World Book Encyclopedia paralleled your on-line source should be no surprise since little new if anything has been added in the past 20+ years to the fundamental information about Shintoism.


NO! I did NOT attack your source! I posted (A FEW TIMES) why the article you used was incorrect on a FEW POINTS! Is anyone else following this?

Did I take a crazy pill?

Moniker stated:
Shintoism is MY rebuttal to your central thesis! I have said these NUMEROUS TIMES! You are ignoring it!


It’s not a rebuttal. Here is why. I’ll use your source since you don’t like the World Book Encyclopedia vintage 1985.

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.


UHHHH.. JAK -- that is YOUR source -- NOT MINE! I used NO source at first. I just KNEW that "god" should be replaced by "spirit". I ALSO knew that there are no moral dictates from Shintoism! That refuted your copy and pasted post! HOW DOES THAT ATTACK YOU OR YOUR SOURCE? IT ATTACKS THE INFORMATION IN YOUR SOURCE.

JUST TO BE CLEAR -- the above is NOT my source -- you just copy and pasted your original copy and paste into this post.

*looks in mirror to make sure pupils aren't enormously dilated*


Belief that “gods” are responsible for “mountains, rivers, rocks, trees and other parts if nature” is not “reason” or “evidence” for what in fact we know about all the things mentioned. The danger lies in wrong conclusions.



Go read up on Shintoism -- or read the MANY posts in this thread I made about Shintoism, JAK. They are spirits that reside in almost everything. You can be a Shintoist and not have beliefs in these spirits as it is the rituals that make one essentially a practitioner of Shintoism. There is no belief that you MUST believe!

What is YOUR definition of "dogma", JAK?

There is no evidence for “gods” being responsible via Shintoism. Shinto by the definition on this link “is a type of polytheism and involves worship of kimi. You can read the link. Under cultural effects, find this:
“A more explicit link to Shinto is seen in sumo wrestling, where, even in the modern version of the sport, many Shinto-inspired ceremonies must be performed before a bout, such as purifying the wrestling arena by sprinkling it with salt.”

Of course nothing was purified by the practice. It was/is a belief which is incorrect. Wrong conclusions are inherently dangerous to those who have them and rely on them. I don’t know all the Shinto believe. But what is stated in various sources demonstrates that Shintos believe things which are not supported by information and evidence.


Oh............. oh............. oh................... oh............... Uhhh........ YOU WERE THE ONE THAT ASSERTED THAT GODS WERE IMPORTANT TO SHINTOISM!! NOT ME!!!!!!!!!!!

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhoooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhoooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh



ladddiiiiiiiiiiiiiidaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidddddddddddiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

The above is a straw bunny. :)
So how do they address health care for example? If they rely on “the gods” they rely on that which is unreliable. That’s a danger to the believers in the gods.

In the source, we find that they build “shrines” to the “gods.” Doing that took and takes time, energy, wealth which might have addressed disease, cultural problems, social problems, etc.


Ah, so you are saying that the Japanese rely on Kami for health care, JAK? haaa haaa haaaaaaaaaaaa hhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaa

They go to the hospital for health care. :)

What disease, cultural, and social problems should they be combating that are not being done 'cause they build Shrines?

I'd love for you to explain how this entire country is not ESSENTIALLY Shintoism itself and is behind the more Western secular societies!

There is danger in relying on myth for answers. Myths do not produce reliable answers.


Umhum. Sure -- so you show me what myths they rely on that is a danger to them.

How great the dangers of that religion are may be difficult to assess. Certainly they do not appear to be as great as the dangers of Christianity over 2,000 years. If you read my websites on a few pages back, you know many deaths from wars fought in The Battle for God took place (book title).

My thesis does not suggest (as some have tried to attack) that all “dangers” are equal. Of course they are not. But misinformation or false conclusions are dangerous and Shintoism has demonstrable false conclusions.

JAK


I don't have to read your links -- I've read a few books on History (especially since my father shoved history down my throat for 18 years!) and am quite fascinated with history in general. I do NOT dispute that religion can be dangerous, or has been dangerous -- I dispute your original premise!

You've made a few false conclusions! Are YOU dangerous?


lalalaaalllaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllldddddddiiiiiiiiiiiiiidddddddddiiiiiiiiiii

strawbunny hopping down the bunny trail now..........................
Last edited by Guest on Fri Feb 22, 2008 5:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
_Bond...James Bond
_Emeritus
Posts: 4627
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:49 am

Re: False and Misrepresentation

Post by _Bond...James Bond »

Some Schmo wrote:
Bond...James Bond wrote: He wouldn't know sarcasm if the official mascot of sarcasm, Sarcasm E. Sarcastic, ran him over driving the official "Sarcasm-mobile" while making a delivery of "Sarcasm for Dummies" books to a Sarcasmless Anonymous meeting at the Sarcasm Center, at the Corner of Sarcasm and Sarcastica Streets in the great town of Sarcasmville located in an outer province of the Union of Social Sarcastic Republics.


Was this supposed to be sarcastic?


Nope. Everything I wrote is true except for the fact that I didn't mention that "Sarcasm for Dummies" is currently out of print due to lack of interest, so instead Sarcasm E. Sarcastic delivers "Taco History for Dummies" in the Sarcasm-Mobile to Sarcasmless Anonymous meetings. Why nobody really knows.

Yeah....it's not as good a rant with that tidbit of information is it?


EDit: Sorry. Last post on this thread unless I decide to make a substantial post. Sorry for the derailment everyone. Sorry for putting words into JAK's mouth and not being super duper clear on what I meant. Alright...return to the serious debate!
Last edited by Anonymous on Fri Feb 22, 2008 5:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: False and Misrepresentation

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Some Schmo wrote:
Bond...James Bond wrote: He wouldn't know sarcasm if the official mascot of sarcasm, Sarcasm E. Sarcastic, ran him over driving the official "Sarcasm-mobile" while making a delivery of "Sarcasm for Dummies" books to a Sarcasmless Anonymous meeting at the Sarcasm Center, at the Corner of Sarcasm and Sarcastica Streets in the great town of Sarcasmville located in an outer province of the Union of Social Sarcastic Republics.


Was this supposed to be sarcastic?

In reviewing this thread, I just think that all parties can be accused to one degree or another of talking past each other. It's hard to play a game of baseball when the other team is dressed for ice hockey.

Just because someone doesn't answer your questions to your satisfaction, or the way you anticipated they should, they're stupid. You just can't control them (which can be very frustrating and prompt you to call them idiots - because they just don't argue like you think they should).


I will say this once more so you read it , Schmo. I'm entirely impressed with your contribution to this thread. I know that boards like this are a form of entertainment for you but I, for one, appreciated your posts on this thread. I agree with what you've stated above. So true!

Jersey Girl
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Re: False and Misrepresentation

Post by _Moniker »

Some Schmo wrote:
In reviewing this thread, I just think that all parties can be accused to one degree or another of talking past each other. It's hard to play a game of baseball when the other team is dressed for ice hockey.

Just because someone doesn't answer your questions to your satisfaction, or the way you anticipated they should, doesn't mean they're stupid. You just can't control them (which can be very frustrating and prompt you to call them idiots - because they just don't argue like you think they should).


Well, Ren has CONSISTENTLY attempted to get clarification as to what "danger" is as well as "dogma". That some choose not to participate, in making a definition we can all work from, is not the fault of those that wish to have a conversation about JAK's original comment.

I have called no one names and have been called names numerous times. And I'm STILL doing this ----> ;P

But now my pupils are widely dilated and I'm giddily anticipating JAK's next response!!!!!!! Weeeeeeeeeeee.............
Last edited by Guest on Fri Feb 22, 2008 5:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Re: False and Misrepresentation

Post by _Some Schmo »

Jersey Girl wrote: I will say this once more so you read it , Schmo. I'm entirely impressed with your contribution to this thread. I know that boards like this are a form of entertainment for you but I, for one, appreciated your posts on this thread. I agree with what you've stated above. So true!

Jersey Girl


Thanks very much, Jersey Girl!

I've read all your posts in this thread. I've agreed with pretty much everything you've said too.

I noticed the moon was pretty full tonight. :)
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Moniker
Oh! My! Goodness! Gracious!


JAK wrote:
You had a response on Shintoism from me. Rather than address that, you attacked me for using a source which I did not use. The fact that my 1985 World Book Encyclopedia paralleled your on-line source should be no surprise since little new if anything has been added in the past 20+ years to the fundamental information about Shintoism.



NO! I did NOT attack your source! I posted (A FEW TIMES) why the article you used was incorrect on a FEW POINTS! Is anyone else following this?


I'm following most of it, yes. Let me show you something....

JAK wrote, in part: "Rather than address that, you attacked me for using a source which I did not use."

And you reply, in part: "NO! I did NOT attack your source!"

Do you see it, Moniker?

I'm trying to help, been down this road more than a few times....

Jersey Girl
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Re: False and Misrepresentation

Post by _Moniker »

Bond...James Bond wrote:

EDit: Sorry. Last post on this thread unless I decide to make a substantial post. Sorry for the derailment everyone. Sorry for putting words into JAK's mouth and not being super duper clear on what I meant. Alright...return to the serious debate!


I think "serious debate" ended a while back!

Oh man -- I have the giggles so frickin bad!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry dart! I'm so sooooorry!
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: False and Misrepresentation

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Some Schmo wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote: I will say this once more so you read it , Schmo. I'm entirely impressed with your contribution to this thread. I know that boards like this are a form of entertainment for you but I, for one, appreciated your posts on this thread. I agree with what you've stated above. So true!

Jersey Girl


Thanks very much, Jersey Girl!

I've read all your posts in this thread. I've agreed with pretty much everything you've said too.

I noticed the moon was pretty full tonight. :)


For the most part, I've tried to stay out of it. I do see disconnect in communication and that's what I've tried to point out.
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

Jersey Girl wrote:Moniker
Oh! My! Goodness! Gracious!


JAK wrote:
You had a response on Shintoism from me. Rather than address that, you attacked me for using a source which I did not use. The fact that my 1985 World Book Encyclopedia paralleled your on-line source should be no surprise since little new if anything has been added in the past 20+ years to the fundamental information about Shintoism.



NO! I did NOT attack your source! I posted (A FEW TIMES) why the article you used was incorrect on a FEW POINTS! Is anyone else following this?


I'm following most of it, yes. Let me show you something....

JAK wrote, in part: "Rather than address that, you attacked me for using a source which I did not use."

And you reply, in part: "NO! I did NOT attack your source!"

Do you see it, Moniker?

I'm trying to help, been down this road more than a few times....

Jersey Girl


He has ALREADY ACCUSED ME OF ATTACKING HIS SOURCE! He ALSO is wrong about the "fundamental information about Shintoism" that I addressed many, many, many pages ago and have done so REPEATEDLY SINCE THEN - and he STILL repeats this same thing!

Have I gone nuts?

If you've been down this road a few times then you would know that EARLIER JAK said something and I said I didn't do it AND SHOWED I DID NOT DO IT - and he just again said I did do it. I'm bolding the part I want you to look at!
Jersey Girl have you followed the thread? Let me point your attention to THIS:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 102#128102

JAK wrote:Moniker,

Old though it may be, we have in our library a 1985 edition of the World Book Encyclopedia from which I collected information regarding Shintoism.

While you may believe your comment, it’s wrong, and it’s inaccurate. I never saw the website which you found.

But you do not dispute the information.

If you can’t attack the information, you attack the source.

If you can’t attack the source, you attack the source or the information, you attack the one who provided the information.

But you do not attack the information with any countervailing source.

You give example of personal attack. You denied making personal attack. That was false.

You attempted to shift the topic to attack a person with information.

That multiple sources for Shintoism would have essentially the same information is not surprising.


If you can find a 1985 edition of the World book Encyclopedia, you can confirm the same information there as was on the website which you found and which I did not see.

The fact is that the information is established. That is the critical point. Your contradiction of two sources does not give you credibility. The fact that essentially the same information came from at least two different encyclopedia sources is in no way refuted by your rejection of that information. Wishful thinking is self-deception.

So just continue on your ignorant merry way, Moniker.


ALL OF THE COMMENTS I BOLDED WERE INCORRECT!

Jersey Girl -- what about JAK plagiarizing -- what about JAK copy and pasting his plagiarized post into a new post and saying it is MY source? What about JAK saying I'm "ignorant", etc.... I suggest if you really have been down this road a few times (without bias) that maybe you can let JAK in on some of the stuff in this thread that HE has done!
Post Reply