All religions are dangerous?

[_Ren]

You need appreciate the big picture and why/reasons for doing things.

And I think you need to appreciate WHO was the one that turned things personal in the first place... (I'm talking between the two in question).

I'm not gonna do this here though... You wanna take this further, start a new thread.
Otherwise, move on.

[_marg]

Alright - I said I wasn't gonna get into 'looking back' on this thread.
I lied. (Although I still think we should be splitting this off, but anyway).

First off:

Only after he called me "disingenuous", questioned whether I am "truthful", and said I "insult my own intelligence"...

To see all that, go directly to this post:
http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 530#127530
It's all there - in black and white. That post is out of order. It wasn't deserved, and I'll go twelve rounds with anybody who disagrees.

Ok I've looked at the linked post, I'm sorry but I fail to see what the problem is.

RoP not you Moniker, please quote JAK and tell me what the problem is.

[_Ren]

RoP not you Moniker, please quote JAK and tell me what the problem is.

Marg,

If my reply to this was, "That request insults your own intelligence", would that be an overly personal response or not?
Read the post. Properly.

The question is an insult to your own intelligence.

And again - if you want to take this further, then start a new thread.
Otherwise, lets get back on topic.

[_marg]

RoP not you Moniker, please quote JAK and tell me what the problem is.

Marg,

If my reply to this was, "That request insults your own intelligence", would that be an overly personal response or not?
Read the post. Properly.

And again - if you want to take this further, then start a new thread.
Otherwise, lets get back on topic.

RoP you brought that link up not me, in this thread. If you don't think it is relevant to this thread then delete it. Don't put something in here as if is explains and then when asked what it is that it explains ...tell the person to start a new thread because you don't want to talk about it.

As far as your first comment, some replies by people are an insult to their intelligence. If someone says something derogatory to me and I don't think it applies I pretty much ignore it. When Kevin talks about all atheists, how they are bigots and have as much dogma as religion I don't take it personally. I might disagree with him, but I do not internalize it as an insult which should bother me or which I take seriously.

[_JAK]

Moniker,

There is a significant difference between the intent to communicate and seek to understand the ideas and explore them and intent in demagoguery.

In “Dangers of Religion,” I set forward that which appears to have been largely ignored in some of these discussions.

Central points which I don’t see repeated for challenge are:

“Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.” “Truth by assertion” is unreliable.

When I placed this on the screen, it did not seem to require much additional refinement.

“Dogma and claim absent evidence” is fertile field for “danger.” That is, it assumes a conclusion or a truth absent evidence. That’s a danger when the goal and interest is in the reliability of conclusion.

It seemed a straight forward observation hardly worthy of debate. Claims and assertions based on no evidence or flawed evidence or half-truths are, therefore, unreliable. They generally lead to erroneous conclusion(s). Erroneous conclusions are inherently dangerous.

Moniker stated:
I've never disputed that there are supernatural beliefs in Shintoism. You're attempting to muddy the waters. Does JAK really want to say that any belief ,that comes from anywhere, that is not necessarily validated is dangerous? Anything that is believed without evidence is dangerous??? JAK did not specify "supernatural" beliefs. He merely said "dogma" -- do we really want to go down this road?

Moniker,
Perhaps my above statement did need clarification which I failed to recognize.

There is inherent danger in perceptions, beliefs, and hard conclusions which are false. We could review a multitude of examples to demonstrate this and I cited several as I pointed to historic tragedy as a result of applied dogma to concrete situations.

(marg’s understanding and analysis is correct as is Jersey Girl's. They have extended the thinking and have elaborated on it for you.)

The answers to your questions appear transparent in my previous comments restated above. Dogma and doctrine were generally preceded by superstition which was less likely to have been constructed for specific doctrinal objectives. Danger lies in truth by assertion as assertions are piled on the top of previous assertions absent evidence. The danger, then, lies in unreliable conclusions which produce behavior or lack of behavior which places not only individuals but large groups at risk. Faith-based conclusions are often parallel to truth by assertion.

However your questions to not point to the characterizations which I have made.

Many were at risk in the examples I cited here (near the end of the post):

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 979#126979

“Dangers of Religion” listed historic examples of attempts to impose truth by assertion.

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 867#126867

“Danger” is relative not absolute. In generally, the more unreliable an alleged “truth,” the greater the danger. Absence of reliable evidence leads to unreliable conclusion. The greater the level of ignorance, the greater the danger. It may be danger to both the one ignorant and to those who are impacted by that ignorance. The latter can extend for many generations.

JAK

[_Moniker]

These are all the exchanges that began down that road:

See below for my original post
http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 275#127275

Then JAK replied to the above post with this (the statement about personal attacks is found in this post) http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 326#127326

I replied with this: http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 480#127480

JAK then replies with this and mentions me being "disingenuous" and I "insult my own intelligence" and mentions my being "truthful".
http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 530#127530

I reply with this: http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 573#127573

Later on JAK says I'm ignorant. Marg, seriously, you're upset that I say JAK plagiarizes -- that is a fact, and that you'd never do something like that on a bb. I suppose you'd call someone "ignorant" on a bb and not think twice about it?

Thank you Ren, for at least looking at the posts in question without bias and understanding who started with the personal insults. I did not create multiple straw men as I was accused (and Ren backed me up in that question earlier in the thread), I did not distort JAK's position as it came to "dangers" and I did not insult my own intelligence by asking a question that he snipped and took out of context.

This should be split off, most likely.

[_Ren]

marg,

Thread started.
http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=5240

Hey -don't thank me for making distinct efforts to not derail this thread.
No honestly. Don't thank me.

...you are too kind...

[_marg]

Moniker I'm not going to look at the exchanges right now. I have to go to sleep. Regarding plagiarism I can appreciate accusing JAK the first time, especially if you don't really understand the word. But after he said his source, explained the situation then no longer should you be referring to his use of that source word for word as plagiarism. He gave his reasoning why he didn't need to cite, it was common factual knowledge from an encyclopedia. But you aren't the only one I was talking to I was also talking to Kevin.

[_Moniker]

Moniker,

There is a significant difference between the intent to communicate and seek to understand the ideas and explore them and intent in demagoguery.

What do you mean by the above? Who is intent on demagoguery? I'm not following you. Religion? Someone on this thread? What are you referring to?

In “Dangers of Religion,” I set forward that which appears to have been largely ignored in some of these discussions.

Central points which I don’t see repeated for challenge are:

“Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.” “Truth by assertion” is unreliable.

JAK -- sigh -- I have said for the 5th + time now that I AGREE with the "truth by assertion" statement! It IS unreliable -- religion is "unreliable"! I agree! I AGREE! I AGREE!!!!!!!!! I AGREEEEEEEEE! :D Why should I refute that when I've stated REPEATEDLY THAT I AGREE WITH IT?

I challenge your notion of "dogma"!

When I placed this on the screen, it did not seem to require much additional refinement.

“Dogma and claim absent evidence” is fertile field for “danger.” That is, it assumes a conclusion or a truth absent evidence. That’s a danger when the goal and interest is in the reliability of conclusion.

It seemed a straight forward observation hardly worthy of debate. Claims and assertions based on no evidence or flawed evidence or half-truths are, therefore, unreliable. They generally lead to erroneous conclusion(s). Erroneous conclusions are inherently dangerous.

Well, I think where we went wrong is you made mention of physical dangers early on in the thread. A few times. You mentioned "practices" of religion, you also mentioned "healthcare", etc... -- so there is some question in my mind what precisely the "danger" is that we're speaking of. Earlier there was an attempt to get some clarity on this.

Moniker stated:
I've never disputed that there are supernatural beliefs in Shintoism. You're attempting to muddy the waters. Does JAK really want to say that any belief ,that comes from anywhere, that is not necessarily validated is dangerous? Anything that is believed without evidence is dangerous??? JAK did not specify "supernatural" beliefs. He merely said "dogma" -- do we really want to go down this road?

Moniker,
Perhaps my above statement did need clarification which I failed to recognize.

There is inherent danger in perceptions, beliefs, and hard conclusions which are false. We could review a multitude of examples to demonstrate this and I cited several as I pointed to historic tragedy as a result of applied dogma to concrete situations.

Yes, but there are plenty of beliefs, conclusions, perceptions that are false that are not dangerous -- dart went into these earlier in the thread. That we all make leaps of faith everyday and this doesn't necessarily correlate to danger.

(marg’s understanding and analysis is correct as is Jersey Girl's. They have extended the thinking and have elaborated on it for you.)

Please show me a post of Jersey Girl's on this thread where she extended anything that demonstrated what you state above. I replied to each of Marg's issues with the nation of Japan. She didn't come back to a few points I made where I asked her to consider the political nature of the nation.

The answers to your questions appear transparent in my previous comments restated above. Dogma and doctrine were generally preceded by superstition which was less likely to have been constructed for specific doctrinal objectives. Danger lies in truth by assertion as assertions are piled on the top of previous assertions absent evidence. The danger, then, lies in unreliable conclusions which produce behavior or lack of behavior which places not only individuals but large groups at risk. Faith-based conclusions are often parallel to truth by assertion.

JAK -- I don't disagree with much of what you say. I just want to understand what "dangers" we're talking about here specifically -- earlier it was physical dangers and now it just seems to be dangers that people are not good critical thinkers -- by the way, in my honest belief is a bigoted remark.

However your questions to not point to the characterizations which I have made.

Many were at risk in the examples I cited here (near the end of the post):

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 979#126979

“Dangers of Religion” listed historic examples of attempts to impose truth by assertion.

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 867#126867

“Danger” is relative not absolute. In generally, the more unreliable an alleged “truth,” the greater the danger. Absence of reliable evidence leads to unreliable conclusion. The greater the level of ignorance, the greater the danger. It may be danger to both the one ignorant and to those who are impacted by that ignorance. The latter can extend for many generations.

JAK

I understand history JAK, and have already read your and darts exchange as well I am familiar with political power interspersed with religious beliefs -- this is no doubt historically dangerous. I don't know why you keep bringing this up as I've already agreed with plenty of what you state above. I just don't like the blanket statements.

JAK -- are you advocating that all those with religious beliefs (supernatural beliefs) are dangerous? Why are they dangerous? Is it as marg proposes that they're not good "critical thinkers" or that they are actually a physical danger to themselves and others?

[Guest]

My CFR to Marg about plagiarism can be found in telestial.

Moved to telestial: http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=5240