All religions are dangerous?

[_John Larsen]

The Amish and other individuals and/or religious groups which reject evidence, information, and reason are at risk. Your example on the road was a demonstration of risk and danger. While no one apparently was harmed in your case, the danger was described by you. You were traveling at 55 MPH, the Amish buggy was not. you described the danger.

The Amish were in that buggy as a result of religious belief(s). Thus, yes to your question: “Really?”

Yes. It demonstrates that religion, religious practice and beliefs are dangerous.

I drive to my parents house 'religiously' every week on Sunday.
I swear - almost every single week - there is either a horse drawn cart, or a really slow steam-engine, or a really slow old car, or something 'wacky' like that I meet along the way. Just seems to be a regular thing - there are quite a few 'old transportation' nuts around the area, and they like going out and about on Sundays.

...I don't believe there is any religious motivation behind doing this.

Are these people 'dangerous'?

Sure they are dangerous, just not on a grand scale.

If religion causes us to behave in a dangerous activity, and you can show that people engage in the same behavior for non-religious reasons, that does not excuse religion. Religion would still be the route cause of the behavior and thus religion has no culpability.

No one is suggesting that all behavior encourage by religion is dangerous, just that all religions promote some dangerous activity. Nor is any suggesting that all all dangerous behavior is sourced in religion.

[_Ren]

Sure they are dangerous, just not on a grand scale.

What do you mean 'on a grand scale'?
Do you mean - if everybody was driving around in horse-drawn buggies, that would be 'dangerous'?

If religion causes us to behave in a dangerous activity...

I'm not yet convinced that driving a horse-drawn buggy is 'dangerous'.
...what I do believe is dangerous is driving a horse-drawn buggy (or an old steam-engine, or an old motor car, or ANY vehicle) 'badly'.

...and you can show that people engage in the same behavior for non-religious reasons, that does not excuse religion.

I'm pretty sure I agree. But - like you mentioned earlier - I guess we are going to have to tie down what is actually 'dangerous' first...

...just that all religions promote some dangerous activity.

I accept the basic point - but I'd also say that any idea is 'dangerous' if taken to extremes in a fanatical manner...
Most religious people here in Britain do not mix their religious life with their 'secular' life. They believe in God, but otherwise do not act any differently to me or anybody else in any real respect.
I am not defending any 'fanatical' part of any religion. (And that does include some of the aspects of the Amish faith, although I would perhaps question some of the specifics... I would also include concepts like going overboard about 'hell'. Very few religious people I know over here try and shove the concept of 'hell' down their kids throats)
I am, however, defending the private religious life that many people here (and elsewhere) get involved in. It doesn't affect the running of our government. It doesn't affect public life. (As far as I'm concerned) it doesn't affect ME in any way.

...what do I have to fear from 'these kind of people'? (Note: I'm not talking about what most of us might call 'extremes' - like the Amish. I agree that there could be concerns about the Amish way of life, but I also see very little correlation between the Amish way of life and the life of the average religious person over here...)

Nor is any suggesting that all all dangerous behavior is sourced in religion.

I haven't taken that to be an argument being put forward.

[_JAK]

What evidence can you offer for your claim of “atheistic fundamentalists”?

I would point towards your own distinction between 'soft' and 'hard' atheism as an example.
I would call 'hard' atheism leaning towards a fundamentalist view.

Note that I didn't state that atheistic fundamentalism represented a 'large' proportion of atheists. I just said that (in my opinion) it exists.


And yes, I know that a youtube link isn't evidence. (Certainly not the one I posted)
It was an attempt at something called 'humour'. (And note the emphasis on the word attempt...!)

It is supported here in the example that those who rely on religion or faith or prayer when confronted with the medical diagnosis of life-threatening disease are endangered by their religion.

Most religious people I've ever interacted with don't say 'prayer OR science'. They say 'Do both'.
How is doing all that modern science says - but then adding a 'prayer' somewhere in there - 'dangerous'?

NOTE: I'm not saying there aren't examples of dangerous religious ideas and practices. Your claim is that all religious faith is dangerous in some way. One point you raise is relying on faith or prayer. But I actually haven't met a religious person who only relied on faith or prayer.
Most of them believe that God was ultimately responsible for the invention of science. That God is responsible for the doctor, and what the doctor does. And therefore you aren't 'denying Gods power' if you make use of science. In fact, you are harnessing it.

...it may be untrue (I certainly believe it's untrue), but why is such a belief dangerous?

The conclusion of your post demonstrates that the practices of the Amish present a danger not only to themselves on the highways (or roads) but present a danger to you as well.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Amish are dangerous because they drive horse-drawn buggies?!

The term fundamentalism is associated primarily with religious groups. Those who do not subscribe to any theistic doctrine are not religious nor are they affiliated with a religious group.

ROP stated:
Most religious people I've ever interacted with don't say 'prayer OR science'. They say 'Do both'.
How is doing all that modern science says - but then adding a 'prayer' somewhere in there - 'dangerous'?

No characterization was made such as yours here. The danger is as I previously described:
“Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”

In your example, information, evidence, and medical science are embraced and used.

ROP stated:
NOTE: I'm not saying there aren't examples of dangerous religious ideas and practices. Your claim is that all religious faith is dangerous in some way. One point you raise is relying on faith or prayer.

Yes. If faith or prayer were effective and reliable, there would be no need for information, evidence and the application of medical science. Hence, religion is irrelevant. Medical science is relevant. One can make a case for the placebo effect which religion may have.

ROP stated:
Most of them believe that God was ultimately responsible for the invention of science.

That’s a relatively recent doctrinal shift. Prior to science and now specific sciences such as medical science, the notion which you expressed was both unexpressed and unknown. As religious doctrine yields to information, discovery, and invention, that doctrine is diminished in stature. The evolution of doctrinal shifts is over time and with the pressure of information, discovery, and invention.

ROP stated:
Most of them believe that God was ultimately responsible for the invention of science.
That God is responsible for the doctor, and what the doctor does. And therefore you aren't 'denying Gods power' if you make use of science. In fact, you are harnessing it.

No evidence has established any God myths. That some believe them is irrelevant. It’s an attempt to make compatible previous God myths with irrefutable information and knowledge. God myths preceded science (as we use/understand it). Hence, revision of God myths are made to accommodate discovery which has reliability and general consensus. Religions lack consensus. Science in large measure has consensus. (There are those who wish to point to a discussion/debate among scientists and claim science is without reliability. It’s an incorrect perception or wishful thinking.) Science does not compromise to accommodate religious myths.

ROP stated:
...it may be untrue (I certainly believe it's untrue), but why is such a belief dangerous?

Belief in anything which is inherently unreliable or untrue is dangerous as it paves the way to false conclusions. Truth by assertion builds upon unestablished conclusion. Such beliefs which are built on false or unreliable stated certainties place people at risk.

A principle of modern science is Scientific Method. It rejects truth by assertion as it recognizes that faith-based conclusions are unreliable. Unreliable or false conclusions are inherently dangerous. Science makes no direct comment on religious myths. Indirectly, scientific discovery refutes with evidence religious myths.

Surely, examples are not required.

ROP stated:
Are you seriously suggesting that the Amish are dangerous because they drive horse-drawn buggies?!

Please re-read comment to Moniker as it addressed an example which she detailed.

JAK

[_Ren]

Those who do not subscribe to any theistic doctrine are not religious nor are they affiliated with a religious group.

Agreed.

The term fundamentalism is associated primarily with religious groups.

Again, Agreed. But...

The term "fundamentalist" has since been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity, but has by and large retained religious connotations...

The term 'fundementalist' has religious connotations, but is not invalid in its use outside religion.

No characterization was made such as yours here. The danger is as I previously described:
“Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”

In your example, information, evidence, and medical science are embraced and used.

Well then, perhaps we don't disagree on anything that big.
Are you saying that as long as religious belief is kept within 'reasonable' bounds, that religious belief is not - in fact - dangerous?

Science does not compromise to accommodate religious myths.

Totally agree. I've never stated otherwise.
I was talking about what other people believe. Not what I believe.

Belief in anything which is inherently unreliable or untrue is dangerous as it paves the way to false conclusions. Truth by assertion builds upon unestablished conclusion. Such beliefs which are built on false or unreliable stated certainties place people at risk.

Do you mean potential danger, or actual danger?
How is the belief that God is (somehow) responsible for scientific knowledge (no matter how incorrect that view is) 'dangerous'?

Unreliable or false conclusions are inherently dangerous.

Can you show how the above belief (that God is responsible for scientific knowledge) is - in fact - dangerous?

Surely, examples are not required.

You don't need to show me how extreme religious beliefs are dangerous. I already accept that.
I'd like to see how what I view as a 'tame' religious belief. (That God is somehow responsible for scientific knowledge) is 'dangerous' - in and of itself.

Please re-read comment to Moniker as it addressed an example which she detailed

In my estimation, what Moniker detailed was somebody driving a horse-drawn buggy badly.

[_Moniker]

Moniker stated:
I was thinking that I was thankful that my children and I can go to their community, go to their farmhouses and see their beautiful furniture, watch them pump for water, sweep their hardwood floors, and be transported to a simpler time and world -- I love their culture! I actually am more fretful of 16 year old boys in those huge trucks (with massive tires) than a man in a buggy!

That you identify other dangers does not mitigate the dangers of religion. While you may enjoy just what you state, you appear unlikely to give up all the benefits which you enjoy to embrace the level of Amish life, trade automatic climate control for a coal/wood stove, and relinquish all the benefits you derive from electricity. You don’t “love their culture” to the extent that you would relinquish your own for theirs and accept their religious doctrines.

What does my not embracing their lifestyle have to do with dangers? I was relating that I find a great deal of enjoyment from DIFFERENT cultures and it broadens my perspectives. I did actually squat for a time when I was a young woman. I lived with people that shucked off ALL sorts of middle class American dictates and reveled in it -- guess what??? THEY WERE ALL ATHEISTS!!!! I don't think you know me too well. :)

If I could live in their world, I would! I'm pretty sure they wouldn't let me, however. Yet, doesn't mean I don't yearn to go off into some hillside somewhere and rough it for a few years. I have lived in a different culture where there was no heat or AC and the plumbing was QUITE different. Men peed on the streets (right next to me) and the homes were very sparse -- even wood heat was used. I've hung about in cabins with no electricity and no heat besides a fireplace and quite enjoyed it! Where is the danger there??? I'm not following you!

JAK previously:
The Amish believe (faith, religion) that they should be not of this world. Their beliefs (religion) and practices are a danger to them. The danger on the road is the least of the dangers to themselves.

Moniker stated:
Well, I go into their world fairly often. There is one lady that redid my chairs a while back (recaned them) and I buy produce, furniture, and various products from them. They also come into the larger community and I see them at the hospital (they do go!), at the DMV (not sure why they're there?? -- IDs??), and all over the place. They are a part of this larger community and live in harmony with us that speed by them on a daily basis. I see no threat from them. The best part about purchasing from them is that instead of calling you they SEND YOU A LETTER! I LOVE IT! It just makes my day! I'm so easy to please!

That I need to be reminded that I need to watch out for obstacles on the road is a good thing!

While a nice sentiment, it’s no refutation regarding the dangers posed by choosing religion over reason. You have not suggested that you would seriously consider abandonment of your cultural world for that of the Amish. It’s a study for you. It’s an interesting exploration and entertainment. That’s likely a good thing for you. It does not necessarily elevate the plights of the Amish world. However, there are splits and divisions even as we speak among that group as well as many others.

No -- YOU must prove that they are dangerous! YOU made the assertion, it is up to you to prove your case. I relate that I enjoy their culture, their community, and what they offer the wider community -- you tell me how they are dangerous! I work with a teen that doesn't read past a 3rd grade level -- is he DANGEROUS, JAK? Why? 'Cause he's not as intellectually equipped as others? What should we do with him? There are other cultures where there is NO formal education -- should we swoop in and save them from their culture???

JAK previously:
They are at risk as they tend to reject that which is accepted in the culture of this time.

Moniker stated:
Why is that a risk? Other cultures reject our culture and I don't see this as a bad thing? So what if someone doesn't like our current culture? Are you talking about America, specifically?

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

Yes, but you've not proved your thesis, have you? Have you?? Did I miss it???

JAK previously:
“Their children are at risk (in danger) as a result of being denied the education for the culture of this time. Their increasing isolation makes close relatives reproducing a medical danger and threat to the Amish themselves.”

JAK:
That which deprives a group or individual of information and education currently available places them at risk (responding to your question). Part of culture of this time is access to medical science and the care and treatment of illness or disease. Close intermarriage (as a result of increasingly limited choices) places people (the Amish) at risk for inherited disease and deficiency.

The reference was not to “America specifically.” For example: embryonic stem-cell research is taking place outside the US due to the faith-based restrictions on it by an American president. In order to gain more information, those who seek it locate where there is a favorable climate for pursuit of information and education.

JAK, well if it's not America which culture is the PREFERRED one that we should shove down everyones throats? Have you ever traveled abroad, JAK? I find that I'd like it if America was relegated to the back of the cultural brigade and someone else would take over with culturally educating the world! You first stated the it was the "culture of this time" -- WHAT precisely is THAT? Now, you've gone off into medical advancements?

What is the "culture of this time", JAK?

Moniker stated:
I see Amish all the time at our hospital. Their little babies look so cute in black with their lil black bonnets!

Some Amish seek medical care with all the benefits medical science can offer while generally rejecting the principles on which it is founded as a result of religion. Not all Amish, however, seek medical attention through medical science. The degree to which you regard as “so cute in black with … black bonnets" is irrelevant to the thesis regarding rejection of reason and evidence, and how that places people at risk.

Those who fail to take full advantage of the reason and evidence essential to present-day medical care are at risk.

Yet, I told you that these Amish DO go to the hospital! These people do not eat the processed foods that we gobble down, don't sit in front of tvs and zone out, don't spend hours on the internet wasting hours, they spend their lives with their families -- with their community -- toiling their fields -- tending to each other -- enjoying their life! This is a bad thing????

The Amish and other individuals and/or religious groups which reject evidence, information, and reason are at risk. Your example on the road was a demonstration of risk and danger. While no one apparently was harmed in your case, the danger was described by you. You were traveling at 55 MPH, the Amish buggy was not. you described the danger.

The Amish were in that buggy as a result of religious belief(s). Thus, yes to your question: “Really?”

Uh, so if they present a danger then we need to get rid of all automobiles? WHAT? So what if one man in a buggy is dangerous? Anything that is dangerous needs to be outlawed and done away with? WHAT????

Yes. It demonstrates that religion, religious practice and beliefs are dangerous.

'Cause you say so?

The degree of “danger” in your specific example is relative. Had you been unable to stop and hit the Amish buggy killing those inside, the potential danger would have been realized in quite a different way than your story ended.

JAK

My ex-husband was an atheist and he hit a cow one night and totaled my jeep!! Atheists -- BAD!

[_dartagnan]

If faith or prayer were effective and reliable, there would be no need for information, evidence and the application of medical science. Hence, religion is irrelevant. Medical science is relevant. One can make a case for the placebo effect which religion may have.

That is precisely the case which you refuse to address. The fact is happiness and joy adds to the quality and health of human life and religion frequently provides hapiness and joy. Even when there are no medical explanations for faith-based healings, and chiropractic manipulations or acupuncture procedures, the placebo effect can easily account for all of these. This proves all three are effective for serving good and it flies in the face of your claim that without reason and evidence, it must be considered dangerous.

That’s a relatively recent doctrinal shift.

You don't know what you're talking about. The irony is that you proclaim to detest "truth by assertion" yet you have done nothing but assert and pretend your assertions stand as truth on their own.

Prior to science and now specific sciences such as medical science, the notion which you expressed was both unexpressed and unknown.

Actually, medical science is what it is because of Christian and Muslim scientists. You want to insist religion must be the source for any culture of violence, but when it comes to scientific advances, you change yoru standard and insist religion must have been something altogether divorced from these. This is why it is impossible to discuss the matter intelligtenly with someone like you. You refuse to address specific points that undermine your pathetic "thesis."

Belief in anything which is inherently unreliable or untrue is dangerous

Something not verified by the "scientific method" does not make it "untrue" or "unreliable." And then you make the illicit leap to "danger" without the slightest hint of evidence. This is your premise which is fallacious. Repeating it over and over in bold or italics, as if you're some kind of genius philosopher stating an "unrefuted" truism, is nothing short of inventing truth by assertion.Your statement is based in ignorance and bigotry.

Now go ahead and keep ignoring my posts, which contain those refutations you pretend don't exist.

[_Moniker]

No one is suggesting that all behavior encourage by religion is dangerous, just that all religions promote some dangerous activity.

Yes! That is the suggestion. Now, where's the proof?

[_EAllusion]

A shipowner was about to send to sea an emigrant-ship. He knew that she was old, and not overwell built at the first; that she had seen many seas and climes, and often had needed repairs. Doubts had been suggested to him that possibly she was not seaworthy. These doubts preyed upon his mind, and made him unhappy; he thought that perhaps he ought to have her thoroughly overhauled and and refitted, even though this should put him at great expense. Before the ship sailed, however, he succeeded in overcoming these melancholy reflections. He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms that it was idle to suppose she would not come safely home from this trip also. He would put his trust in Providence, which could hardly fail to protect all these unhappy families that were leaving their fatherland to seek for better times elsewhere. He would dismiss from his mind all ungenerous suspicions about the honesty of builders and contractors. In such ways he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy; he watched her departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance-money when she went down in mid-ocean and told no tales.

What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him. He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts. And although in the end he may have felt so sure about it that he could not think otherwise, yet inasmuch as he had knowingly and willingly worked himself into that frame of mind, he must be held responsible for it.

Let us alter the case a little, and suppose that the ship was not unsound after all; that she made her voyage safely, and many others after it. Will that diminish the guilt of her owner? Not one jot. When an action is once done, it is right or wrong for ever; no accidental failure of its good or evil fruits can possibly alter that. The man would not have been innocent, he would only have been not found out. The question of right or wrong has to do with the origin of his belief, not the matter of it; not what it was, but how he got it; not whether it turned out to be true or false, but whether he had a right to believe on such evidence as was before him.

...

Nor is it that truly a belief at all which has not some influence upon the actions of him who holds it. He who truly believes that which prompts him to an action has looked upon the action to lust after it, he has committed it already in his heart. If a belief is not realized immediately in open deeds, it is stored up for the guidance of the future. It goes to make a part of that aggregate of beliefs which is the link between sensation and action at every moment of all our lives, and which is so organized and compacted together that no part of it can be isolated from the rest, but every new addition modifies the structure of the whole. No real belief, however trifling and fragmentary it may seem, is ever truly insignificant; it prepares us to receive more of its like, confirms those which resembled it before, and weakens others; and so gradually it lays a stealthy train in our inmost thoughts, which may someday explode into overt action, and leave its stamp upon our character for ever.

And no one man's belief is in any case a private matter which concerns himself alone. Our lives our guided by that general conception of the course of things which has been created by society for social purposes. Our words, our phrases, our forms and processes and modes of thought, are common property, fashioned and perfected from age to age; an heirloom which every succeeding generation inherits as a precious deposit and a sacred trust to be handled on to the next one, not unchanged but enlarged and purified, with some clear marks of its proper handiwork. Into this, for good or ill, is woven every belief of every man who has speech of his fellows. A awful privilege, and an awful responsibility, that we should help to create the world in which posterity will live.

In the two supposed cases which have been considered, it has been judged wrong to believe on insufficient evidence, or to nourish belief by suppressing doubts and avoiding investigation. The reason of this judgment is not far to seek: it is that in both these cases the belief held by one man was of great importance to other men. But forasmuch as no belief held by one man, however seemingly trivial the belief, and however obscure the believer, is ever actually insignificant or without its effect on the fate of mankind, we have no choice but to extend our judgment to all cases of belief whatever. Belief, that sacred faculty which prompts the decisions of our will, and knits into harmonious working all the compacted energies of our being, is ours not for ourselves but for humanity. It is rightly used on truths which have been established by long experience and waiting toil, and which have stood in the fierce light of free and fearless questioning. Then it helps to bind men together, and to strengthen and direct their common action. It is desecrated when given to unproved and unquestioned statements, for the solace and private pleasure of the believer; to add a tinsel splendour to the plain straight road of our life and display a bright mirage beyond it; or even to drown the common sorrows of our kind by a self-deception which allows them not only to cast down, but also to degrade us. Whoso would deserve well of his fellows in this matter will guard the purity of his beliefs with a very fanaticism of jealous care, lest at any time it should rest on an unworthy object, and catch a stain which can never be wiped away.

It is not only the leader of men, statesmen, philosopher, or poet, that owes this bounden duty to mankind. Every rustic who delivers in the village alehouse his slow, infrequent sentences, may help to kill or keep alive the fatal superstitions which clog his race. Every hard-worked wife of an artisan may transmit to her children beliefs which shall knit society together, or rend it in pieces. No simplicity of mind, no obscurity of station, can escape the universal duty of questioning all that we believe.

It is true that this duty is a hard one, and the doubt which comes out of it is often a very bitter thing. It leaves us bare and powerless where we thought that we were safe and strong. To know all about anything is to know how to deal with it under all circumstances. We feel much happier and more secure when we think we know precisely what to do, no matter what happens, then when we have lost our way and do not know where to turn. And if we have supposed ourselves to know all about anything, and to be capable of doing what is fit in regard to it, we naturally do not like to find that we are really ignorant and powerless, that we have to begin again at the beginning, and try to learn what the thing is and how it is to be dealt with--if indeed anything can be learnt about it. It is the sense of power attached to a sense of knowledge that makes men desirous of believing, and afraid of doubting.

This sense of power is the highest and best of pleasures when the belief on which it is founded is a true belief, and has been fairly earned by investigation. For then we may justly feel that it is common property, and hold good for others as well as for ourselves. Then we may be glad, not that I have learned secrets by which I am safer and stronger, but that we men have got mastery over more of the world; and we shall be strong, not for ourselves but in the name of Man and his strength. But if the belief has been accepted on insufficient evidence, the pleasure is a stolen one. Not only does it deceive ourselves by giving us a sense of power which we do not really possess, but it is sinful, because it is stolen in defiance of our duty to mankind. That duty is to guard ourselves from such beliefs as from pestilence, which may shortly master our own body and then spread to the rest of the town. What would be thought of one who, for the sake of a sweet fruit, should deliberately run the risk of delivering a plague upon his family and his neighbours?

And, as in other such cases, it is not the risk only which has to be considered; for a bad action is always bad at the time when it is done, no matter what happens afterwards. Every time we let ourselves believe for unworthy reasons, we weaken our powers of self-control, of doubting, of judicially and fairly weighing evidence. We all suffer severely enough from the maintenance and support of false beliefs and the fatally wrong actions which they lead to, and the evil born when one such belief is entertained is great and wide. But a greater and wider evil arises when the credulous character is maintained and supported, when a habit of believing for unworthy reasons is fostered and made permanent. If I steal money from any person, there may be no harm done from the mere transfer of possession; he may not feel the loss, or it may prevent him from using the money badly. But I cannot help doing this great wrong towards Man, that I make myself dishonest. What hurts society is not that it should lose its property, but that it should become a den of thieves, for then it must cease to be society. This is why we ought not to do evil, that good may come; for at any rate this great evil has come, that we have done evil and are made wicked thereby. In like manner, if I let myself believe anything on insufficient evidence, there may be no great harm done by the mere belief; it may be true after all, or I may never have occasion to exhibit it in outward acts. But I cannot help doing this great wrong towards Man, that I make myself credulous. The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things, though that is great enough; but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them; for then it must sink back into savagery.

- William K. Clifford, The Ethics of Belief (1877)

[_JAK]

No one is suggesting that all behavior encourage by religion is dangerous, just that all religions promote some dangerous activity.

Yes! That is the suggestion. Now, where's the proof?

Hi Moniker,

Since this is the last on the screen at present and is short, let’s look.

John is simply clarifying (I think) that not “all behavior encourage by religion is dangerous…”

Moniker stated:
Yes! That is the suggestion. Now, where's the proof?

The burden of proof in the issue would be an affirmative position: All behavior encouraged by religion is dangerous.

No one has argued that affirmative position. You appear to ask John to prove a negative. He has no obligation to even attempt that in the absence of an affirmative presentation.

JAK

[_Moniker]

No one is suggesting that all behavior encourage by religion is dangerous, just that all religions promote some dangerous activity.

Yes! That is the suggestion. Now, where's the proof?

Hi Moniker,

Since this is the last on the screen at present and is short, let’s look.

John is simply clarifying (I think) that not “all behavior encourage by religion is dangerous…”

Moniker stated:
Yes! That is the suggestion. Now, where's the proof?

The burden of proof in the issue would be an affirmative position: All behavior encouraged by religion is dangerous.

No one has argued that affirmative position. You appear to ask John to prove a negative. He has no obligation to even attempt that in the absence of an affirmative presentation.

JAK

This is what I was replying to:

all religions promote some dangerous activity.

I don't have to refute that! That must be proven, no? If I did want to refute it then I can say that I'm a shintoist (I was added on the roles as a child) and I learned to embrace, worship, and honor nature -- now tell me how I'm dangerous by participating in those festivals, ceremonies, and learned that life after death is not a reality and to revere nature. Go for it.