All religions are dangerous?

[_dartagnan]

Let's see if JAK and EAllusion can cut to the chase.

Please, just provide one hypothetical situation where the following could be considered "dangerous."

Joe Blow believes God exists. That's it. That's all you know about Joe Blow.

In what hypothetical situation could he present a danger to himself or anyone around him?

[_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

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.

Moniker,

I didn’t see anyone’s post which stated what you say you were “replying to.”

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.

Moniker,

I didn’t see anyone’s post which stated what you say you were “replying to.”

JAK

Don't know if I can help you out there, JAK!

[_Moniker]

Hi Moniker,
Let’s look at some of your points.

]Moniker stated:
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.

Of course it may broaden your perspectives. However, you appeared to use your favorable impression as a defense for the Amish religious practice and belief as it benefited you and your children to watch them. That didn’t ameliorate their level of information regarding their own religious myths.

I have explained that they are not a danger to the community -- they contribute to the community, they live peaceful lives, much healthier than their counterparts (don't see obesity or unhealthy addictions), do seek medical care, and I don't believe they're dangerous. Don't you have to prove their dangerous? I'm not saying they are. You are.

Moniker stated:
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. :)

In what way is this relevant to the issue?

'Cause you said this:

. 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 changed the focus to what I may or may not do. You were uninformed. I was informing you. :)

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

So, why did you bring up benefits of the American life. I have shucked off those benefits and actually prefer different cultures to this one.

Moniker stated:
If I could live in their world, I would!

I’m skeptical. What’s preventing you from having all your power turned off, cars removed, the purchase of horses and buggies and clothing which matches that of the Amish you know?

I'm a skeptic too, JAK! Yet, I'm pretty familiar with myself -- are we shifting this debate to my desires and comforts?? How does this deal with the thesis? If I could live in a simpler place I would in a heartbeat. I don't turn my electricity off 'cause I'm not equipped to deal with it. If I was in a community that was set up for that I would. I have gone without a vehicle, I walked, and I lived a pretty meager life. I have a VERY comfy life now -- there may be a day that I shuck it all off. I wouldn't mind, actually going back to live in Japan and totally embracing their culture (didn't have heat or AC) and riding a bicycle everyday. Are they dangerous??? I lived next to a Shinto shrine -- were those Japanese dangerous, JAK? And I did embrace their culture -- we lived along side them. I was in all the festivals in the traditional garb, I played with the Japanese kids, ate squid on a stick... etc... etc... Don't assume that just because you relish Americana of perfection we all do. I find it rather bland.

A county over there is a commune called "The Farm" that was started by a bunch of hippies (http://www.thefarm.org/) and I used to hang out there A LOT (:D) when I was in my early 20's -- I seriously considered moving there (they by the way have a birthing center with midwives -- the Amish are WAY ahead of these secular hippies!) yet, got married instead!! :) I have no problem stepping outside my comfort zone.

Anyway, what's this have to do with anything???

Moniker stated:
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.

It’s not relevant to the issue of “Dangers of Religion.” You would not be doing it for religious reasons. You have modern convenience presently and I assume access to quality medical care. What is the relevance to the issue?

You stated something about me -- made an assumption and I countered it. You don't assume to know me, my life, what I have lived with or without during my mere 32 years on this planet. Would it be different if I did it just 'cause I WANTED TO??? :) So what if someone does it for religious purposes or for secular intents? Does it change for you the reasoning??? Why?

Moniker stated:
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!

Obviously, you’re not following. The issue is “Dangers of Religion.” Religious mythology relies on truth by assertion. The danger in that is that that conclusions are unreliable or false. It has nothing to do with a choice you make personally about where to spend time or observe people in other religious/cultural environments.

I suggest you don't attempt to assign what you think I would be comfortable with from here on out if you don't want me to set you straight. :) I didn't just OBSERVE in these environments -- I LIVED THEM.

Moniker stated:
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???

There is much irrelevant material in your statement and emotional as well, Moniker.

Faith-based conclusions are unreliable. That makes them inherently dangerous. Religion relies on faith-based conclusion and on truth by assertion. Those are dangerous as they lead to flawed, false, and unreliable conclusions blindly accepted to be truth. This is in support of the principle previously stated. Education is valued because it seeks to replace ignorance with information. Today, we have a propensity to favor reliable information.

If you don't want to hear about the culture and community that I would be willing to live in then don't make statements about things you THINK you know which you do NOT. by the way, I didn't feel emotional??

Here are some examples of faith-based conclusions which the religious right (today) would like to impose by law on all American citizens.

Okay. So? I don't think I've stated that religious beliefs do not affect policy. Yet, how does that bode for those that vote Democrat that are religious?

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

WHAT? This is the CULTURE OF OUR TIME! In Japan! Are the Japanese in the pre-historic age? I think NOT!


I'm exhausted. :)

[_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

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.

Moniker,

I didn’t see anyone’s post which stated what you say you were “replying to.”

JAK

Don't know if I can help you out there, JAK!

Moniker,

As I mentioned, I had not see the post. Could you give me the page number or the date of John’s post?

Thanks

JAK

[_Ren]

JAK,

I can accept that saying they don't pose 'any' danger was an inaccurate description. Of course all danger is 'relative' to some degree.
I just think we are getting to a pretty 'pedantic' stage of the discussion if we are trying to discuss the dangers that 'old car enthusiasts' pose to me!

I suppose the point of view I'd really want to get across is that the 'end point' for religion isn't bound to be fundamentalism. Again, I'm talking about what I see all around me in this part of the world. Religion is NOT dead here. But the more extreme aspects of it are pretty much dead, or well on the way towards being so. Things are only moving one way over here. It may be different in other parts of the world. But I'd say there are constructive approaches, and nonconstructive approaches.

I would actually argue that too broadly generalising the religious (Just as you correctly pulled me up on generalising danger) is, in fact, dangerous. If people are unwilling to differentiate between fundamentalism and other types of religious belief, then - to me - that means that boundaries and divisions are being 'drawn'. The sense of us vs. them is being created. And I think THAT is dangerous.

I personally think that attitude makes the world a less safe place for me and my loved ones. Not the Amish riding around in environmentally-friendly horse-drawn buggies...

[_JAK]

Moniker,

(Since the post to which I respond was long, I’ll not repost it in its entirety. It was posted Feb. 18, 2008 8:26 pm if you wish to refer to it.)

Addressing some of your comments:

Moniker stated:
I have explained that they (the Amish) are not a danger to the community -- they contribute to the community, they live peaceful lives, much healthier than their counterparts (don't see obesity or unhealthy addictions), do seek medical care, and I don't believe they're dangerous. Don't you have to prove their dangerous? I'm not saying they are. You are.

This is a straw man argument (an argument against a position never taken).

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

In that position, it was not argued that the Amish are “a danger to the community.” The position address the “Dangers of Religion” in that religion tends to oppose reason and evidence in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence.

GoodK observed:
“The Amish may not be as dangerous to us as the Islamic fundamentalists, but the Amish certainly are a danger to their children (they won't educate them past 8th grade).”

That reality demonstrates the Amish disregard education in a time when university education level is required for virtually all fields of honest intellectual inquiry. Hence, Amish children are placed in danger and at risk as they are deprived of even a high school education as they face a world with many who are more informed than they are.

The danger is primarily to the Amish people (or youth) rather than to others. However, you provided us with an example in which the Amish placed themselves and you at risk as a result of a practice (horse and buggy on modern highways designed for cars and truck moving at 55 MPH). That practice is rooted in their religion. I addressed it only because you provided the example.

Again, the danger which religion poses is largely to those who substitute doctrine for discovery. They may not actually choose to be ignorant. They are following the religious beliefs and practices of their parents and grandparents. They are guided into avoidance of information and education in favor of religious dogma and doctrine. It is that which places them in danger and at risk.

The thesis which you do not address is restated in bold above to keep us on the issue of address.

Moniker stated:
So, why did you bring up benefits of the American life. I have shucked off those benefits and actually prefer different cultures to this one.

As this is not a direct quote nor is there time to search all the posts for it. Since it follows my restatement of “the focus point,” the context in your post is unclear.

What you prefer is a choice you can make, however, the advancement of at least these tools (the computer and Internet) are certainly of present culture in applied science. We have these tools not as a result of truth by assertion (religion), but we have them as a result of reason and evidence applied in very specific ways.

Although you stated that you would prefer to “live in a simpler place…” obviously you do not as you participate on a forum such as this. And while it is a leap to conclusion on my part, I would suspect you have and use electricity, automobiles (you have already stated you use), and other modern conveniences which are provided for you by the information based, education based, scientifically tested dimensions of reason and evidence.

The lifestyle you prefer is irrelevant to the principle under discussion (as is mine).
That we do not know one another (beyond words on the screen) is also irrelevant to the issue which we discuss here.

No comment will be made regarding personal attacks.

Moniker stated:
WHAT? This is the CULTURE OF OUR TIME! In Japan! Are the Japanese in the pre-historic age? I think NOT!

This was clarified in another post (but I can fully understand if you didn’t see it as finding things from previous posts is not easy).

That phrase was used in connection with the access which the Western world has to information and knowledge. Our homes, our cars, our businesses globally in the Western world (and increasingly in more primitive countries) operate on information and applied science. That is the culture of our time to which I referred. It is not developed by nor harnessed by a single country. Certainly, Japan, despite its great suffering from American bombs and slow recovery is joining the information based culture.

No comment was made by me about Japan. The introduction of it by you is irrelevant to the principles regarding reliable information and the “Dangers of Religion.”

JAK

[_Some Schmo]

Would you rather walk down a dark alley at night among Jewish rabbis or atheists?

LOL

There are many highlights to this thread, but this is the line that makes me laugh the most. The answer to your question, dart, is that I'd rather walk with whomever I'm going to the most safe.

For someone who has shouted the word 'bigot' in this thread more times than I care to count, your question pretty clearly demonstrates your own bigotry toward atheists.

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed how much angrier dart seems to be these days? Sounds like his stages of Mormon recovery are coming along nicely.

[Guest]

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

That was your assertion.

My rebuttal. Shintoism has no dogma.

Shinto was the state religion of Japan prior to the end of WWII. Its tenants contributed directly to the rise of Japanese imperialism and the atrocities committed by the Japanese state prior and during the war.

You will have to find a better example.

No, I don't. The assertion was that DOGMA replaced reason and evidence. There is no formal dogma to Shintoism! The STATE (Emperor ) used Shintoism to unify the nation. When those on this thread are mixing together politics and religion they seem to ignore the politics. Why?

I am making no such destination. I am taking religion as a whole. Shinto had a role therefore it is cuplable. What Shinto says it does and doesn't do is irrelevant. What it does and doesn't do is key.

Hi John,

Of course you are correct.

Shinto is the oldest surviving religion of Japan. The word Shinto means the way of the gods. Shintoists worship many gods, which are called kami. According to Shinto, kami (plural) are the basic forces in mountains, rivers, rocks, trees, and other parts of nature. Shinto also considers kami the basic force in such processes as creativity, disease, growth and healing.

Shinto emphasized rituals and moral standards. It does not have an elaborate philosophy and does not stress life after death as do some other religions.

There is not a specific date for the evolution of Shinto. Beginning about the 500s A.D., the Chinese philosophies of Buddhism and Confucianism influenced Shinto. Shintoists identified Buddhists gods as kami, and shrines adopted Buddhist images to represent the kami.

During the 1800s, as religions evolve, many Shintoists began to reject the Buddhist influence. In the mid-1800s, a movement called State Shinto stressed patriotism and divine origins of the Japanese emperor.

Later movements of Shinto attracted many followers in Japan during the 1800s and 1900s. Some of them encouraged group worship.

JAK

[Guest]

Shinto was the state religion of Japan prior to the end of WWII.

This is incorrect, by the way. Shintoism was only the state religion of Japan when it was enforced by the state. Buddhism was also practiced (often times Japanese interspersed these two) before it was made the national religion.

Moniker,

Of course John is correct.

Shinto is the oldest surviving religion of Japan. The word Shinto means the way of the gods. Shintoists worship many gods, which are called kami. According to Shinto, kami (plural) are the basic forces in mountains, rivers, rocks, trees, and other parts of nature. Shinto also considers kami the basic force in such processes as creativity, disease, growth and healing.

Shinto emphasized rituals and moral standards. It does not have an elaborate philosophy and does not stress life after death as do some other religions.

There is not a specific date for the evolution of Shinto. Beginning about the 500s A.D., the Chinese philosophies of Buddhism and Confucianism influenced Shinto. Shintoists identified Buddhists gods as kami, and shrines adopted Buddhist images to represent the kami.

During the 1800s, as religions evolve, many Shintoists began to reject the Buddhist influence. In the mid-1800s, a movement called State Shinto stressed patriotism and divine origins of the Japanese emperor.

Later movements of Shinto attracted many followers in Japan during the 1800s and 1900s. Some of them encouraged group worship.

JAK