Always Thinking wrote:I think that there is a certain percentage of the population that will always gravitate toward a fundamentalist mentality. Whether it is atheism or Christianity, they just can't help but embrace the extreme.
Is it safe to say that any world view can be dangerous if taken to an extreme?
It may not be the actual world view (be it god based or athiest) that is the problem. Rather, the human tendency to become fundamentalist is the problem.
AT,
Looking at the JAK quote supplied by dart, the danger JAK refers to is the destruction of one's intellect and not necessarily embracing extreme views.
Well there is the Greatful Dead, they only have catmas.
It would seem natural for religions to have some sort of statements of what they believe and think are important. They might be loose or rigid, relative more or less thoughtful. It just is not likely for people to gather and have no subject matter at hand. Perhaps a game of cards? What game are we playing?
It would be embarressing to go to a Baptist prayer meeting and proclaim god is great death to america. Ops wrong crowd.
However it seems clear to me that some people see dogmas as ideas to think about and to use as thinking tools. These people question dogmas to understand them and ask if they are usefully true. Do they fit other information? Do they make sense?
On the other hand there are people for whom dogmas are blunt stones unexplored unquestioned and used more for throwing than thinking.
Always Thinking wrote:I think that there is a certain percentage of the population that will always gravitate toward a fundamentalist mentality. Whether it is atheism or Christianity, they just can't help but embrace the extreme.
Is it safe to say that any world view can be dangerous if taken to an extreme?
It may not be the actual world view (be it god based or athiest) that is the problem. Rather, the human tendency to become fundamentalist is the problem.
Please define fundamentalist mentality. Is BB Warfield an example of it?
All religions are dangerous. They seek to destroy the intellect replacing it with dogma not derived from reason and evidence.
There is no evidence that all religions are dangerous, and the irony with this comment is that it is itself dogmatic and without reason or evidence.
I agree not all religions are dangerous. Just the ones that teach untrue things are.
Are the Amish dangerous? I don't think so in 2008 America. However, if they became a majority they would be because their pacifism woul be unable to cope with Islamic terrorism (as Orwell pointed out about Gandhi and the Nazis).
I don't think religions are necessarily dangerous. It depends what they teach. I think the strict, male-only heirarchy of Mormon leadership is archaic (and Mormon women are baffled why they're depressed). I also think that believing real truth is challeneled through a small group of old men in Salt Lake City, UT is naïve, even unhealthy. But that's just me. I know TBMs think it is normal, even inspired.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
All religions are dangerous. They seek to destroy the intellect replacing it with dogma not derived from reason and evidence.
There is no evidence that all religions are dangerous, and the irony with this comment is that it is itself dogmatic and without reason or evidence.
I agree not all religions are dangerous. Just the ones that teach untrue things are.
Are the Amish dangerous? I don't think so in 2008 America. However, if they became a majority they would be because their pacifism woul be unable to cope with Islamic terrorism (as Orwell pointed out about Gandhi and the Nazis).
The also drive buggies on highways, which could be considered dangerous. Pacism on their part could represent a danger to our society in other scenarios than just if they were the minority.
It could also be argued that the Amish religion is not healthy for the individual, psychologically.
I guess we really need to define what "dangerous" means.
I think the question might be are all human's dangerous - I was going crazy on friday - my attorney was'New Testament calling me back and I was coming unglued. I came to the conclusion that after 46 years on planet earth, I now view all people as evil - but some periodically pump out goodness. If someone continuely pumps out good thoughts and deeds you should hang around with that person, but don't suprised when people stiff you or lie as it's just normal - we are all broken.
The only one you should expect goodness from is yourself - and then don't be suprised when you don't perform perfectly.
Always Thinking wrote:Sigh, this is why I like to read and not post. My own idiocy has been proven rather quickly...
Never stopped me from posting! ;)
I thought you had a good point and I agree with it! Anyone that can't stop and consider their own beliefs, hold their own beliefs as superior in an overly zealous manner, and can not turn that critical gaze inward can be a dangerous person. Doesn't make them all dangerous, yet it certainly can spell trouble. This is not confined to religion -- it can be seen in states, politics, and any dogma where there is a slavish devotion.
All religions are dangerous. They seek to destroy the intellect replacing it with dogma not derived from reason and evidence.
There is no evidence that all religions are dangerous, and the irony with this comment is that it is itself dogmatic and without reason or evidence.
I agree not all religions are dangerous. Just the ones that teach untrue things are.
Are the Amish dangerous? I don't think so in 2008 America. However, if they became a majority they would be because their pacifism woul be unable to cope with Islamic terrorism (as Orwell pointed out about Gandhi and the Nazis).
The also drive buggies on highways, which could be considered dangerous.
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.