All religions are dangerous?

[_marg]

Jak, it seems according to some the thesis you presented turns on the definition of "dogma."

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

So if one can find a religion with no dogma then one can not say "all religions are applicable in your thesis. In what sense did you mean dogma? Could you please elaborate and if possible connect it to Shintoism for which Moniker claims has no dogma, or perhaps more accurately no written formal dogma.

[_Mercury]

Jersey Girl, since you're concerned with me saying JAK says I attacked him let me focus your direction to this post of his:

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

The things he stated are incorrect. I did refute the information in his source. I never attacked the "source", I never attacked the "the person with information".

Please notice this:

You denied making personal attack. That was false.

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

Please show me where I made a personal attack on this oh so esteemed professor of logic that calls me "ignorant" in that post. Please?

No, not yet. This thread is already a trainwreck to hell and I'm not going to hop around issues. I'll deal with this when you think you understand the remark where you thought JAK stated that you attacked him. I'm willing to try to help resolve one thing at a time, Moniker.

No personal attacks were made Jersey. Stop with this nazi s*** and pull your jackboots out of the mud you have been slinging at Moniker.

[_Jersey Girl]

Jersey Girl, since you're concerned with me saying JAK says I attacked him let me focus your direction to this post of his:

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

The things he stated are incorrect. I did refute the information in his source. I never attacked the "source", I never attacked the "the person with information".

Please notice this:

You denied making personal attack. That was false.

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

Please show me where I made a personal attack on this oh so esteemed professor of logic that calls me "ignorant" in that post. Please?

No, not yet. This thread is already a trainwreck to hell and I'm not going to hop around issues. I'll deal with this when you think you understand the remark where you thought JAK stated that you attacked him. I'm willing to try to help resolve one thing at a time, Moniker.

No personal attacks were made Jersey. Stop with this nazi s*** and pull your jackboots out of the mud you have been slinging at Moniker.

Where did I state that personal attacks were made, Mercury? Moniker stated that JAK claimed she made a personal attack on him. That was the focal point of these exchanges.

Show me the mud, Mercury, and before you do...try scrolling back a few pages to note that my responses to Moniker here were a response to her asking for help.

nazi crap, indeed. Try reading the exchanges before you rush to post in defense of something that didn't happen.

[_GoodK]

But we can't say an 'atheist' has done this, or an 'atheist' has done that. Right?
...cos that's 'against the rules'?

Sure, religious people have been doing it for decades. I have actually never observed or participated in a debate between a believer and non-believer where Stalin, Pol Pot, or Hitler wasn't brought up as a case against atheism. It's obviously not against the rules, but it is nonsensical and beside the point anyways. There is nothing about a lack of belief in God that should compel someone to behave unethically.

I try and stay away from blanket statements, but saying all religion is dangerous isn't too outlandish

I wouldn't use the word outlandish. it obviously seems to be a fairly popular view in this 'Dawkins' era we live in.
I would say - however - that it is a STRONG claim, that requires a robust defense. The fact that:

a. Religions cover a HUGE area of ground
b. No attempt is made to inspect any kind of 'subset'

...makes it a very strong claim.

Dawkins era? Ha. I would call this the Pat Robertson era before I called it that.

Don't you think the world would be a better or safer place to live in if there was no literal belief in any of our currently established religions? (I'm not suggesting we go without the literature, artwork, or architecture inspired or done in the name of religion)

I'm trying to understand your point here.
Are you trying to suggest that the word 'atheist' literally doesn't make sense to use at all?

I didn't say it didn't make sense, it makes sense in that most people understand what the word atheism means. But to echoe Sam Harris, I don't think we need the word atheist.

[quote= "Sam Harris"]
We simply do not call people “non-astrologers.” All we need are words like “reason” and “evidence” and “common sense” and “BS” to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with religion. [/quote]

...in what context is it 'correct' to use the word - in your mind? Otherwise - shall we just take it out of the dictionary?

Yes, let's get rid of it. I don't think we should use it at all, I do not feel compelled to label myself anything. (some people do, perhaps you are one of them http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007 ... ew_ath.php)

(I'm sure many people feel the N word can be used in the correct context too, doesn't mean it should or needs to be used, especially when we have better words to use)

...in terms of my question "Do you disagree?" - I was really refering to this specific question:

"it normally wouldn't make sense to say that a religious person could be [a nihilist]"

My question is - if a religious person were to declare themselves a 'nihilist', would you see that as a combination that actually works?

I think it is possible :

 This position has been attributed to philosophers such as Parmenides, Buddha, Advaita Vedantins, and Immanuel Kant (according to some interpretations of his transcendental idealism).

Are you seriously suggesting that an atheist - in fact - CANNOT be a nihilist?!

...there must be some misunderstanding here - surely. Do you really mean that?

I think the misunderstanding may be in your reading of my words. Of course I would not make a blanket statement like CANNOT, and I didn't. Even a broken clock....

But, lest there be any more misunderstandings, atheism does not lead to nihilism, nor does nihilism lead to atheism. I see how you are forcing this connection between the two, and I think I understand why, but it just doesn't work.

You will need to help me by demonstrating: how a simple lack of belief in any mythical Gods that are currently on offer now leads to any sort of nihilism

Well, being an atheist is relavent because it clearly points towards fulfilling one of the basic requirements to BE a nihilist (The one I have highlighted)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

    * there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator,
    * a "true morality" does not exist, and
    * objective secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has, in a sense, no truth, and no action is objectively preferable to any other.

As much as I love wikipedia, I don't find any basis for the statement you highlighted above. I don't see any reason to infer that believing that there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator is a nihilistic requirement.  Here is what the first citation says - because you are only referencing an annonymous writer who posted their opinion on wikipedia without citing a reference or source:

 
1.        ^ Bazarov, the protagonist in the classic work Fathers and Sons written in the early 1860s by Ivan Turgenev, is quoted as saying nihilism is "just cursing", cited in Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Macmillan, 1967) Vol. 5, "Nihilism", 514 ff. This source states as follows: "On the one hand, the term is widely used to denote the doctrine that moral norms or standards cannot be justified by rational argument. On the other hand, it is widely used to denote a mood of despair over the emptiness or triviality of human existence. This double meaning appears to derive from the fact that the term was often employed in the nineteenth century by the religiously oriented as a club against atheists, atheists being regarded as ipso facto nihilists in both senses. The atheist, it was held [by the religiously oriented], would not feel bound by moral norms; consequently, he would tend to be callous or selfish, even criminal." (at p515)

"Atheism" does not have a single thing to say about morality.

Agreed. Why do you beleive I'm claiming this?

I don't, I am trying to show you why atheism is completely different from nihilism and thus your claim that it is a logical jump to make from atheism to nihilism is false.

Being an "atheist" does not diminish a sense of purpose in life at all

It doesn't have to. It certainly don't feel it does for me. But it also fulfills a basic requirement of 'nihilism'.

I disagree that it fulfills a basic requirement of nihilism. Like I said, you will need a better source than a citation-less passage from wikipedia.

I know I don't need to tell you this, but,
Not believing in God, or a religion, does not mean you also believe that there must be no creator, no afterlife, in fact it doesn't mean anything except, "I've listened to your pitch Mr. Christian, or Mr. Jew, or Mr. Buddhist, and I find it ridiculous. I don't know if there is such a thing as reincarnation, astral planes, or ESP, or if we were created as some sort of experiment on an alien supercomputer, but what I do know is I don't believe your fairy tale."

 And an atheist could hold a 'nihilistic' view if they wanted to. I'm not saying an atheist WILL be a nihilist. I'm saying that they COULD be.

I know that's what you are saying, but either you are implying that an atheist is more inclined to be a nihilist, or you are just making a meaningless observation like "An atheist could have B positive blood."
 
An atheist COULD become an nihilist, and a Christian COULD become a nihilist, so COULD a non-racist, a non-astrologer, blah blah blah...

A lot of people strongly believe that there are people that can accurately be catagorized as anti-mormons. The term may work, but technically it's a silly word to use.

I personally can't see why it's so hard to catagorise an 'atheist'. I really don't see why it should be as contentious as the 'anti-Mormon' nonsense.

I don't see why it should be as contentious either, but labels tend to do that.
Here are some reasons why I think it's hard to go with the label : http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text ... -atheism1/

That must mean your definition of atheism is much more detailed than just a rejection of the claim that there is a God.

No - it isn't.

Example: "I believe in the principle of 'Love your neighbour' as a divine commandment"
As an atheist, that belief is outside my 'range of belief'. How can I be an atheist and beleive that? I can believe in 'loving my neighbour', but I can't beleive it as a 'divine commandment'.

Umm.. I'm confused. What does "range of belief" even mean?

Loving your neighbor - you are really talking about empathy and compassion for others, and this is not a uniquely human phenomenon, nor is it a belief we have to adopt.

When did you start believing incest was wrong? I imagine it was hardwired into your brain, as it is in the rest of us (except Arkansas).

An atheist rejects being religious

...didn't you just add something to the defintion of 'atheism' here? Where in the definition of atheism is 'religion' mentioned?

Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

And here:

Atheism is that system of thought which is formally opposed to theism.

But it doesn't matter which word you use, feel free to substitute God or Gods with religion.

[_Moniker]

JAK -- there are no set beliefs or dogma to Shintoism. Have you retracted the original assertion that started this thread?

To further the talk of Shintoism: JAK the Japanese do have excellent medical care, are healthier than their Western counterparts, are technologically advanced, are highly educated, are a vital part of the world wide community, and are in the culture of our time. Please explain the danger of Shintoism.

I wrote a post on this page in this thread, Moniker. Here is one part:

In this thread it’s been discussed whether or not Shintoism has dogma. At this link http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch27/default.htm it says: “Around 1700 Shinto experienced a revival when the study of archaic Japanese texts was reinstituted. One of the most learned Shinto scholars of the period was Hirata, who wrote:

The two fundamental doctrines are: that Japan is the country of the Gods, and her inhabitants are the descendants of the Gods.”

Without this fundamental belief in personal Gods over Japan, Shintu could never have been used and turned into a state religion which claimed an emperor descended from a God. "

Hi marg.

That was 300 years ago. :)

There are no beliefs that one must have to be a Shintoist. Those doctrines are not doctrines. I found this earlier and it more adequately explains what I've attempted to say to you:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... tual.shtml

In Shinto, the importance of the ritual is simply the ritual itself. It's wrong to think that Shinto ritual is important because of the beliefs that lie behind the ceremonies.

Taking part in a series of actions or behaviours is a religious act that 'does' religion, provides a holistic religious experience, and strengthens the participants' relationships with the kami and with other members of the community.

This is very different from ritual in Christianity, for example, and in the past people have criticised Shinto (and other 'actional' religions) for this.

Critics of Shinto ritual make some of the following points:

* it lacks any intellectual content
* it seems like a performance rather than a personal act of devotion to God
* some Shinto rituals are relaxed and almost irreverent
* it's childish to make food offerings to spirit beings
* it's childish to think that water or salt or anything physical could make one morally and spiritually pure
* the rituals last a very long time.

These criticisms betray a lack of understanding of how a religion like Shinto works:

* The important element of the ritual is taking part in it correctly - doing it in the right way is what counts, not believing the right thing
* Since one is taking part in a religious act, the longer it lasts, the greater and the better is the religious experience
* Taking part in rituals together binds the community together just as, or more, effectively than do shared beliefs
* Taking part includes participation as a spectator: the aesthetics (sights and sounds) of the ritual can have a powerful emotional and spiritual effect
* Watching or taking part in ancient ceremonies brings a sense of being joined to the past traditions of the religious culture

It's the rituals that are important -- not the beliefs. The rituals are THE religion essentially.

With regards to dogma Jak wrote: "All religions are dangerous. They seek to destroy the intellect replacing it with dogma not derived from reason and evidence."

That the emperor after WW2, was forced to retract the claim of divine descendancy does not take away from the fact that when Shintoism was in the hands of authority, those using it sought to replace reason and evidence with dogma. I.e. the emperor a divine descendant. The Japanese descendants of Gods.

You're absolutely correct. When Shintoism was nationalized it was done for political justifications -- patriotism. Yet, is what happened in the past really correlate to the present? I understand that religion can be dangerous, I understand religion has been dangerous -- the assertion was that ALL religion replaces intellect with dogma. Where is the dogma NOW in Shintoism that replaces the intellect? If tomorrow the Emperor of Japan said, "I am a descendant of Kami and we need to start attacking N. Korea" that would leave him in an odd spot since he has no political power -- much like the Royal Family in the UK.

The Japanese are not isolated and are active in the world wide community. That there is a myth of divinity to the Emperor (who today has NO political power) needs to be shown how this can be dangerous. Japan has a type of Democracy (not a true one) where political power is in the hands of the people. That many years ago the religion was used to further the goals of the nation under a central figure (who no longer has any political power -- and is in and of himself NOT viewed as a God) does not show how the religion today is dangerous.

As far as Shintoism, it is and was a contributing factor to the cultural Japanese phenomenon of extreme unquestioning obedience to authority, to one's country, one's group.

You're so correct about that! There is a lack of concern with "individual" and more a community focus in Japan -- yet there is religious tolerance in Shintoism. The Japanese are not isolated and interact with the rest of the world community -- and are eager to do so.

This is what I think about states and religion -- Within a structure where the state uses the religion to further the goals it seems to suggest that more often than not it is not the religion itself that is responsible for the actions -- rather the political structure. Look to the world today. Where are the countries that are a concern to safety? Are these democracies? Are they republics? What is the political structure of these states that are viewed as a threat? Did the religion make one unquestioning merely because of the religion or is it the state that squelches dissent?

If it IS the religion that creates this authority figure in states then why did Christianity flourish under Kings and then still flourish in Democratic Republics? It existed in both of these political structures. That a political structure can co-opt the religion for its own purposes does not show how the RELIGIONS are dangerous -- it shows how political power isolated by a few individuals is dangerous, imho.

Now, you could say that these religions make one more susceptible and gullible. Then what of states where there is centralized power and religion is NOT used? Why are they still a threat to us? It's the political structure!

Back to Japan: Now, the religion created the culture -- or the culture created the religion. Both? So the myths are that the Emperor descended from Kami - that is not disputed. Yet, when this isolated culture that mimicked most others (one ruler descended from the Gods -- or God) around the world doesn't show that religion brought this to be. No, it was the evolution of political structures that started with rulers. Was it the religion responsible for this? Or was it the political structure (just like most others about the world that started with kings and serfs)? When the religion was taken away from state control is there danger?

I do understand your point that unquestioning allegiance to a central authority is dangerous! You will get no dispute from me on that. I understand that to replace reason with fanciful notions that can be harmful happens. I just am seriously having a great deal of difficulty understanding how Shintoism (that does not stress beliefs) that is no longer in part of a political rule of one man can be considered dangerous today.

[_Moniker]

Jersey Girl, next time I need, or want, your help I'll ask for it. K? :)

by the way, Jersey Girl -- do you have any comments that are relevant to the discussion? What say you of "dogma" and "dangers"? ;P

I actually posted on the first page, Moniker, a post that was never responded to. You did ask for help, you did so repeatedly, Moniker. Here you make an off hand remark when you infact did ask for help on this thread. Next time JAK refers to you as disingenuous, look at these exchanges between youself and I.

Uh, quote me asking you for help! I was replying to JAK and you popped in and made a comment to me! Since you inserted yourself in the discussion I replied to you. After that I made all statements to you because you kept replying to me -- all of my statements were an attempt to get you to UNDERSTAND that I never attacked JAK and he said I did.

[_Jersey Girl]

Sure, Moniker, here you are:

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

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!

And you're welcome for the time investment.

[_JAK]

Moniker stated:
“I understand religion has been dangerous -- the assertion was that ALL religion replaces intellect with dogma.

That appears to be a distortion of a comment from me. I did not state this.

Typical in attack is to misquote then attack the misquote as if it were stated.

Here is what I stated:

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

Let’s see the evidence for your claim that anyone stated what you have posted here.

JAK

[_JAK]

Jak, it seems according to some the thesis you presented turns on the definition of "dogma."

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

So if one can find a religion with no dogma then one can not say "all religions are applicable in your thesis. In what sense did you mean dogma? Could you please elaborate and if possible connect it to Shintoism for which Moniker claims has no dogma, or perhaps more accurately no written formal dogma.

Marg stated:
Jak, it seems according to some the thesis you presented turns on the definition of "dogma."

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

So if one can find a religion with no dogma then one can not say "all religions are applicable in your thesis. In what sense did you mean dogma? Could you please elaborate and if possible connect it to Shintoism for which Moniker claims has no dogma, or perhaps more accurately no written formal dogma.

Your source demonstrated dogma. You explained (I think) why it relied on belief (asbsent genuine evidence)

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/aread ... efault.htm

Is this the statement to which you refer?

“Religions seek to destroy the intellect replacing it with dogma not derived from reason and evidence.”

I'll just leave this as a question to see what is in the discussion.

JAK

[_JAK]

Jak, it seems according to some the thesis you presented turns on the definition of "dogma."

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

So if one can find a religion with no dogma then one can not say "all religions are applicable in your thesis. In what sense did you mean dogma? Could you please elaborate and if possible connect it to Shintoism for which Moniker claims has no dogma, or perhaps more accurately no written formal dogma.

In your website, was this:

Meaning of Shinto

The word Shinto comes from the Chinese word Shen-tao, which means "the way of the gods." This term was not applied to the religion until the sixth century A.D., when it became necessary in order to distinguish it from Buddhism. A major feature of Shinto is the notion of kami. Kami is a difficult term to define precisely but it refers basically to the concept of sacred power in both animate and inanimate objects.

Consider these definitions:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dogma

JAK