All religions are dangerous?

[_marg]

Let's see if JAK 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?

(If you can't back it up, just admit it and stop the charade)

I'm not speaking on behalf of JAK, this is my opinion. The problem is not with a belief in a God, the problem is belief in an interfering God/(Gods) in the present life and/or the afterlife who favors particular humans, groups, countries. That God/Gods is then capable of being used by believers or the authority of the believers to justify behavours/actions which may benefit oneself or one's group, one's leader/leaders, oneself, but at the expense of others. If a god is believed to be the ultimate authority then texts considered divinely inspired become authoritative and leaders, individuals can use this God belief to control, manipulate & override/supercede the believer's own reasoning independent of the authority. Once an individual or groups of people relinquish responsibility for their own reasoning to some authority and rely upon faith in lieu of reasoning, he/she/they are at greater risk of making poor, wrong, or unethical decisions with the potential of causing harm to themselves or others, because their conclusions or decision are not reliably justified.

Generally when one is informed with accurate information they are more likely to reach reliable conclusions than if one has no or little information and relies upon faith. EA gave an analogy previously which I don't remember exactly but I believe it's similar to the idea that if one wants to get to a particular destination they are more likely to reach it with information/map than without and instead reliance upon faith or gut feelings. If one has a choice between using information, evidence or not , one is generally going to make a better decision with information/evidence. Sure someone could reach an intended destination by chance but the chances are much more unlikely than with directions or map.

As long as one is able to maintain responsibility for one's own reasoning and God is not used as a device to take advantage of and/or supercede the reasoning of the individual/individuals then God belief per se isn't the main issue. God belief potentially becomes an issue when it is used to control and manipulate others and the authority dictates supercede the reasoning of the believers.

[_marg]

Let's play with this and see if we can invert it:

D - Joseph Smith tells his friend to stop smoking. There is no current scientific reasoning for not smoking, but Joseph Smith claims it is something God doesn't want us to do. He says God wants us to take care of our bodies, and that smoking is killing us. Like any good rational thinker, his friend relies on nothing that cannot be proved by science, so he continues to smoke. Five years later his friend dies of lung cancer.

Who is to blame in this instance? Apparently, the man relying on faith had it right. So who was acting more "dangerously"? The man relying on scientific fact or the man relying on faith? Let's continue with Clifford's analogy:

The smoker did not rely upon scientific fact. That there was no scientific studies showing the harm caused by cigarettes is Not science, Kevin. Science is an evolving process by the way. It's not absolute in knowledge but it leads to a greater chance of a reliable conclusion/theory than willy nilly guesses.

So the smoker was relying upon "faith" that smoking wasn't harmful. He didn't have evidence it wasn't harmful. The believer relied upon "faith" in the authority of J. Smith. The believer lucked out with his faith based decision, the smoker didn't with his faith based decision.

[_Ren]

Hey JAK.

In your second paragraph, I also agree than not all religions are committed to “fundamentalism.” The most vocal and the loudest seem to be. Consider the great impact on the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections by Christian fundamentalists. They are still there at the ready to push for an agenda to severely limit freedoms by law. They want to dominate the Supreme Court as well as the White House and the Congress.

Well if I lived in the USA, maybe I would see this a little differently. Maybe I'd be a little bit more 'revved up for the fight' so to speak.
I would still suggest though, that fundamentalism is your 'target' in this case - not religion as a whole. There are plenty of religious people who are just as peeved with the attitude and the politics of the kind of group you mention.

I would suggest that the 'fundamentalists' would love to think that THEY are the ones that 'really' speak for religion. And they'd really like you to believe that too. They'll try and make that clear by - as you observe - 'shouting loudly'.

Well - I for one don't buy it. I'm not gonna let them speak for the perfectly reasonable, respectful and rational religious people that I know.
I've often seen the more 'fundy' Mormons tell other Mormons who disagree with them politically "You can't hold that view, and be a 'good' LDS".
The response I usually see? "You don't get to define what my religious belief means to me!"

We don’t see that from some other Christian groups.

Exactly.

“Religion is NOT dead” anywhere.

It's not dead over here (i.e. Britain) either, and I don't want it to 'die'. I just don't want it affecting how our government is run. I don't want any leaders of our government using religious justifications for policy.

...and happily enough, that is what happens. The archbishop here - just recently - tried to make comments on British law. (Specifically, in relation to some aspects of Sharia law...) Regardless of whether his comments were mis-interpreted or not, our politicians had no problem telling him where to go with those opinions. (I don't know of any politician that actually agreed with him)
He's free to start a conversation (just as pop and sports stars are), but he determines NOTHING about the running of Britain.

This kind of clear separation is perfectly possible. If you feel that you're having to fight for it a little, I have absolutely no problem with the fight itself. It's actually a very important fight, and one worth fighting in my opinion. All I would suggest is targeting those who are 'really' responsible for that situation.

It seeks to impose its agendas on the country. While publically defending democratic principle, it privately undermines freedom of choice.

We probably have the same kinds of concerns about the same people in most respects.

I question your view that: “But the more extreme aspects of it are pretty much dead, or well on the way towards being so.” I hope that’s the case, but doubt it.

Religious fundamentalism - over in this country - is as good as dead. The only reason it really exists in any significant way - in certain areas of the country - is because it is 'imported in' from abroad, as immigrants enter. But even then, a lot of those immigrants come here to ESCAPE the regimes of their countries, and are more than happy to join in our secular culture. The more fundamentalist attitudes fade away over time.

I have little worry for the future in that regard, and I see little reason to be continually trying to whack religion round the head. Any problems that exists here - in my opinion - won't be tackled effectively by labeling religion 'dangerous'.
I think that kind of attitude would make the situation worse in actual fact.

Rather, I think those extremists are just waiting for another opportunity to dominate in government, the schools, and private lives.

Fundamentalists might. But I feel confident in saying that religious people - in general - don't. Most want to live alongside you, rather than 'over' you. That is why I believe it would be more productive to target those who really are the problem, rather than making a whole bunch of enemies out of people who really weren't your enemies, and never needed to be.

As you mentioned earlier, the 'fundamentalists' like to shout loudly. They make themselves look 'bigger in numbers' than they really are as a result.

I also agree that “too broadly generalising (generalizing)” the religious is incorrect. However, there are hard-core divisions in Christianity today which require exposure.

First of all, don't go 'correcting' my British spelling! There is nothing to be corrected!! LOL.
Why you dastardly colonials! *shakes fist*! :D

Secondly, I have no problem exposing the 'hard-core' divisions of Christianity, or any other religion (Or world-view!). I believe they should be exposed, just as you do.
I just wouldn't start accusing the 'moderate' religious for things that they haven't actually done, and then blame what they haven't done on the fact that they are religious!

I know Dawkins likes to go for moderate religious. I know one reason he gives is that moderate religion 'shelters' or 'assists' extremism.
Let me be clear, I completely disagree. Most moderate religious dislike fundamentalists as much as anybody else... They are as interested as anybody else in seeing their decline. They are as interested as anybody else in seeing their influence die away.
I suppose the implication then is that the moderates still help the fundamentalists 'unwittingly'. Well, I think the moderates deserve a little more credit than that personally...

Fear, intimidation, indoctrination, suppression of information and knowledge are tools and techniques of religion which make it dangerous.

But not all religious people believe in using "fear, intimidation, indoctrination, suppression of information and knowledge" to further their aims.

[_dartagnan]

The smoker did not rely upon scientific fact. That there was no scientific studies showing the harm caused by cigarettes is Not science, Kevin.

Fair enough, but this logic still pertains to the argument set forth by JAK who insists it is dangerous to rely on information that is unreliable. By his standard a man telling you not to do something because God said so, is unreliable. It is dangerous. To listen to him is dangerous. It is like eating moon dust because he told you so, even though no scientific analysis has determined moon dust is poisonous.

Science is an evolving process by the way. It's not absolute in knowledge but it leads to a greater chance of a reliable conclusion/theory than willy nilly guesses.

I understand that. And this only goes to further my point. Many people rely on faith based decisions where science has not provided absolute answers. And just as was the case here, faith based decisions are not necessarily wrong or dangerous. In fact, the LDS WoW went to further science in this regard when it was observed that LDS were living healthier lives. So this faith based "dogma" not only didn't contradict science, it helped the science progress.

Relying on faith and relying on "reason" are not mutually exclusive as JAK likes to pretend. It doesn't have to be one or the other. There are elements involved in the psychological processes of religious devotion as it relates to our daily actions, that we have yet to understand. JAK is leaping to illicit conclusions when he surmises that it must be either fact based or faith based, and that all faith based decisions are inherently dangerous. The evidence proves otherwise.

At this point he decided to change what he meant by "dangerous," without elaboration and while abandoning the discussion. Even though all of the examples used to further his and EAllusion's point were refering to physical harm, now it must be argued that the danger is something else entirely. They're shifting their ground and moving the goal posts in order to keep their "thesis" viable.

So the smoker was relying upon "faith" that smoking wasn't harmful. He didn't have evidence it wasn't harmful.

Likewise, there is no evidence belief in God is harmful. JAK is having faith in his pet theory with no scientific analysis to back it up, so he is just as religious about this belief as the guy who thinks the ship will survive another voyage.

The believer relied upon "faith" in the authority of J. Smith

And the believer was right. So in this case believing in the "unreliable" and "unjustified" was the only safe route, not a dangerous one. But by Clifford and JAK's logic, the decision will always be wrong and the culprit will always be morally responsible, even though the outcome ended up saving lives where science at that time failed.

The believer lucked out with his faith based decision

You see, here is where you guys rig the game. If the believer is wrong, he is dangerous. If the believer is right, he is dangerous, and the only reason he was right was due to "luck."

Come on.

Why set up a test if you're not really interested in the results? It shows that your mind was made up from the start and you're not really interested in being proved wrong.

[_Some Schmo]

I hate to tell you this, but I've seen little come from you in this thread that threatens "anti-religion arguments" no matter how much self-congratulatory language you spew.

Self-congratulatory? Excuse me, but JAK has restated the victory call over and over on two different threads now, insisting nobody has been able to "refute" his "thesis." I responded to his nonsense in a very detailed post which he still hasn't figured out how to respond to. I've addressed his thesis on both corresponding threads.

Well, all I can say is that in the absence of evidence, you can only assume he's not responding to you because he "hasn't figured out how to." Maybe you're right; maybe not. I don't really know much about JAK, so I don't know either. However, your arguments aren't that convincing to me, but I don't really care enough about the subject or convincing you otherwise to refute them. If you don't see it, you don't see it. That's ok by me.

Clearly, they do in your own head, and that's fine for you.

Oh? Take a look around, as it seems there are others who disagree with JAK's "thesis" just the same.

So what? I'm sure there are several people on both sides of the fence. Do numbers decide who's right?

But don't mistake people's not responding to you as a concession that you've somehow won the argument

It isn't a mistake. I know when people cannot respond and why. JAK hasn't demonstrated any ability to research issues beyond clicking infidels.org. He is out of his league here. He doesn't read books. He doesn't understand logic. He doesn't understand the concept of plagiarism. He doesn't respect the truth. He is only interested in attacking 90% of the planet. The fact that you are here supporting him is of little consequence. Aren't you one of those Zeitgeist supporters? I guess you're going to say the Zeitgeist supporters went silent for reasons other than that they couldn't defend it any longer.

LOL... wow. Just... wow. So, you know when people cannot respond and why, huh? Omniscient, are we? How on earth do you support the weight of that 100 lb ego on your shoulders?

Sorry, but unless you personally know every poster personally and what's going on in their life, you haven't a freaking clue why they may or may not be responding to you (and even if you did know them, you could be wrong). Has it occurred to you that maybe some people just don't give a s*** what you think? Is there any room for that possibility in your head or is your ego taking up all the space?

About Zeitgeist, all I said about it is that the ideas are worth considering. That fact that people watching and recommending it sent you into a posting frenzy decrying it as a load of crap means little. I'm not saying what you posted about it right or wrong. I'm just saying that the movie inspires thought and holds value from that perspective. If you don't think so, that's up to you. I hate to break it to you, but open-mindedness and thoughtfulness are not signs of idiocy or gullibility.

I notice you rarely respond to me.

No offense, but I pay little attention to you. You don't generally engage in many discussions beyond the casual quip. From what I can tell, you kinda leech onto your favorite posters and support them. And that's fine. But nothing changes the fact that JAK cannot handle a one on one debate. He needs people like you to serve as diversions. He's pulling everything he can; even relying on colors.

No offense taken. I don't read much of what you say either, primarily because you self-assuredness comes off as simultaneously naïve and pretentious. No offense.

I'm not a fan of JAK's (or anyone else's, really). Sometimes I like what he writes, and I agree with it, but I don’t read everything he writes either. I've thought religion's potential for danger was a given many years ago, and no amount of your own rationalization will change that.

I don't support posters, I support ideas. I'm not a cheering section and don't need one of my own.

Should I take that as a sign you agree with or can't dispute the things I've written?

No, I just don't think too many people take you seriously. JAK acts like a man on a mission, with all the zeal of any preacher I've known. He is constantly waging his little battles against religion, and he is constantly pretending he has logic and reason on his side. That's the sad thing. Of ocurse, its easy to think that way when you refuse to address refutations. He's been schooled too many times on this forum to have gained any sense of credibility.

Yes, it wouldn't surprise me if people don't take me seriously. That's good. I don't really take any of this seriously. Perhaps that's the difference between us. You actually think what's said here matters somehow.

And that might also be an alternate reason why JAK hasn't addressed you. Maybe he doesn't take you seriously. Quite frankly, I could understand why. It's not that I think you're an idiot; I don't think you are. But sometimes, your conclusions leave much to be desired.

It's quite obvious you're set in your opinion

What, my opinion that I'm not a dangerous person because I believe a God exists? That the vast majority of the world is more dangerous than atheists, simply because they believe in God? That's a hell of a "thesis" that requires strong evidence. JAK cannot produce and those who know how to discern between rational arguments and rhetorical fluff, can tell the difference. All he does is what coggins likes to do. He runs to his favorite one-sided website and starts shoveling citations our way pretending he is coming up with this stuff on his own. I happen to know something about infidels.org and its owner. It is no more credible that the Zeitgeist clan.

Yes, that opinion. Not everyone agrees with you.

as far as I can tell, you guys aren't even arguing the same point.

He's arguing that all religions are dangerous and I'm arguing that theyre not. He keeps diverting onto weird tangents though, like George Bush, the war in Iraq, the Crusades, and now Hitler and the Pope. All of which do nothing to reinforce his "thesis."

Hmmm... I thought he was arguing that non-evidence based beliefs have the potential for danger. That's not quite the same thing as "all religions are dangerous." And that's why I had a feeling you guys weren't arguing the same point. I appreciate you confirming that.

Besides, if I decided to actually engage your arguments (with the assumption you might actually respond to me) it's only a matter of time before you call me an idiot for disagreeing with you. Don't get me wrong; I understand why you call people idiots

No you don't. Not if you think it is simply because they disagree with me. I disagree with people here all the time, but not everyone is an idiot. EAllusion isn't an idiot. Marg isn't an idiot. Hell most people here aren't. But people who consistently produce uninformed commentary while plagiarizing from other sources, deserve to be called idiots. It shows they are unwilling to be educated. It shows that they are the ones set in their opinion. Their minds might be small, but at least they're made up.

Granted, I haven't read everything you've written (or even half of it), but I've never once seen you concede a point. Your mind seems pretty made up to me.

I know you don't think you call people idiots for disagreeing with you; how intellectual would that be? I get the feeling, given the tone of your posts these days, that it's more about anger than anything else. I recognize, however, that I’m just guessing. It’s an educated guess, given your recent departure from your religion and the fact that most people go through a pretty angry phase as the move away from the church. I can't say that I paid much a ton of attention to your posts a year or so ago, but you didn't seem nearly as angry back then as you do now. Just an observation.

And as a side note, it seems to me that when a person is going through the stages of recovery from a dogmatic, controlling religion, it presents a potential psychological danger to the relationships with people who have to live with him/her.

I've found that it doesn't inspire much conversation, if that's what you want from people.

People don't generally have problems conversing with me. Only idiots do.

Holy crap, that's rich. Yes dart. OK, dart. That's right... if they have a problem with you, they simply must be idiots.

LMAO

I trust you have little regard for me and this post

Actually, I haven't even thought about it. Aside from your support for the Zeitgeist crowd, I can't recall much coming from you in the past. I know you participate in many discussions, but they're usually quip related.

Fair enough.

[_dartagnan]

Well, all I can say is that in the absence of evidence, you can only assume he's not responding to you because he "hasn't figured out how to."

But I have plenty of evidence. I have facts and truth on my side. I happen to know what I'm talking about when it comes to Christian history, the crusades, Christainity in politics, etc. JAK doesn't know what he's talking about, which is why he cannot discuss the issues intelligently with me.

However, your arguments aren't that convincing to me

Yes, and you're also on eof those Zeitgeist supporters, true? If I wasn't able to make a dent in your opinion then, I have no hope of being able to convince you of much of anything else. So I don't bother.

So what? I'm sure there are several people on both sides of the fence. Do numbers decide who's right?

Of course not. I'm responding to your claim that the notion I am right is just something in my "own head," as if it exists nowhere else.

Perhaps that's the difference between us. You actually think what's said here matters somehow.

Agreed. I think the battle between information and disinformation, is worth fighting. You don't. Of course, you have to actually know what you're talking about first, which is probably why you're not taking it seriously.

Yes, that opinion. Not everyone agrees with you

So far the only person to unambiguously suggest I am dangerous because I believe in God, is JAK. Are you willing to throw your name on that position as well?

I haven't read everything you've written (or even half of it)

That explains a lot.

I've never once seen you concede a point.

Well read at least half and maybe you will.

Your mind seems pretty made up to me.

That my religion doesn't make me dangerous? You're right, it is. The burden of proof will forever remain on JAK's shoulders. Is this too much to ask, that he actually produce and stop with the bigoted insistence that he has a thesis that can't be refuted?

I get the feeling, given the tone of your posts these days, that it's more about anger than anything else.

I call people at work idiots every day almost. It usually involves a smirk and rolling eyes, not a scream or pounding fist. The same is true here. I wish sometimes we could have a webcam option here so you can see the facial expressions of those as they write in their responses. I usually have a grin while shaking my head.

I recognize, however, that I’m just guessing.

It is impossible to pick up on body language over the internet. Body language represents roughly 80% of our communication in every day life. Without that you're left with guesses. But i cannot emphasize it enough that you are wrong. I'm not "angry" here.

It’s an educated guess, given your recent departure from your religion and the fact that most people go through a pretty angry phase as the move away from the church.

Nonsense, this has nothing to do with Mormonism. We're not even talking a bout that. We're talking about theism in general. Most people who leave Mormonism become antagonistic atheists. That's certainly not me.

I can't say that I paid much a ton of attention to your posts a year or so ago, but you didn't seem nearly as angry back then as you do now. Just an observation.

Well, you were probably watching me debate people who knew how to argue, at least to some extent. People like Bokovoy, Hauglid, Peterson, Hamblin, took up most of my time last year. They're not idiots.

[Guest]

Well, all I can say is that in the absence of evidence, you can only assume he's not responding to you because he "hasn't figured out how to."

Yet, he's taking the time to reply to me? Takes the time to go pages with me where we merely go back and forth? I would thankfully let him address the points I ACTUALLY made regarding the refutations of "danger" he prescribed to some religions! Yet, he does not do so. He says he never said there was a danger -- ooookkkkkkaaaaayyyy..... after he said the "practices" make one dangerous and the Japanese culture is behind the times.

:)


So, let him go at it with Dart.

[Guest]

I call people at work idiots every day almost. It usually involves a smirk and rolling eyes, not a scream or pounding fist. The same is true here. I wish sometimes we could have a webcam option here so you can see the facial expressions of those as they write in their responses. I usually have a grin while shaking my head.

I always look as such ----><use your imagination>

[Alf'Omega]

Well, all I can say is that in the absence of evidence, you can only assume he's not responding to you because he "hasn't figured out how to."

But I have plenty of evidence. I have facts and truth on my side. I happen to know what I'm talking about when it comes to Christian history, the crusades, Christainity in politics, etc. JAK doesn't know what he's talking about, which is why he cannot discuss the issues intelligently with me.

*sigh* Ok, dart. If you say so.

However, your arguments aren't that convincing to me

Yes, and you're also on eof those Zeitgeist supporters, true? If I wasn't able to make a dent in your opinion then, I have no hope of being able to convince you of much of anything else. So I don't bother.

Ahh, so now you're actually gaining some insight into why some people may not bother with others. It’s not always an inability to refute. Good for you.

So what? I'm sure there are several people on both sides of the fence. Do numbers decide who's right?

Of course not. I'm responding to your claim that the notion I am right is just something in my "own head," as if it exists nowhere else.

Oh, so because the notion exists in other people's heads, it's automatically right?

Perhaps that's the difference between us. You actually think what's said here matters somehow.

Agreed. I think the battle between information and disinformation, is worth fighting. You don't. Of course, you have to actually know what you're talking about first, which is probably why you're not taking it seriously.

The "battle between information and disinformation?" LOL... wow... you're like a crusader or something, huh? Impressive. I'm sure the world is turning on it's axis in response to what goes on here at MDB. Enjoy another hit off your crack pipe, big guy.

What's really funny is that you think you know what you're talking about with respect to me. You don't know a thing about me. You're just spitting in the wind. I've seen you make these kinds of pronouncements about people before. How dare anyone criticize your right to declare facts by assertion only, hey?

Insult me again. It really helps your argument. (Here's where I'd be tempted to call you an idiot - statements like this last one you made sure are idiotic - but I'll resist).

Yes, that opinion. Not everyone agrees with you

So far the only person to unambiguously suggest I am dangerous because I believe in God, is JAK. Are you willing to throw your name on that position as well?

Here we go again with the strawman... *yawn*

I haven't read everything you've written (or even half of it)

That explains a lot.

Like what, oh elephantiasis of the ego man?

I've never once seen you concede a point.

Well read at least half and maybe you will.

Sorry, what was that? It's hard to see around your inflated sense of self-importance. (No wonder you respect DCP.)

Your mind seems pretty made up to me.

That my religion doesn't make me dangerous? You're right, it is. The burden of proof will forever remain on JAK's shoulders. Is this too much to ask, that he actually produce and stop with the bigoted insistence that he has a thesis that can't be refuted?

If you're so benign, why not just be confident about it and let it go? Why the fight? Oh, that's right. It's the Battle Between Information and Disinformation (coming soon to a theatre near you).

I get the feeling, given the tone of your posts these days, that it's more about anger than anything else.

I call people at work idiots every day almost. It usually involves a smirk and rolling eyes, not a scream or pounding fist. The same is true here. I wish sometimes we could have a webcam option here so you can see the facial expressions of those as they write in their responses. I usually have a grin while shaking my head.

Isn't it funny how you're misunderstood because we can't see your body language and yet you are fully dialed in to the nuance of every poster here (or so you'd have us believe)?

I recognize, however, that I’m just guessing.

It is impossible to pick up on body language over the internet. Body language represents roughly 80% of our communication in every day life. Without that you're left with guesses. But I cannot emphasize it enough that you are wrong. I'm not "angry" here.

If you say so. Perhaps it may inform you a bit that you come off as angry, whether intended or not. Perhaps that provides you with some alternative explanations for the way people react (or don’t react) to you here. Perhaps it doesn't.

It’s an educated guess, given your recent departure from your religion and the fact that most people go through a pretty angry phase as the move away from the church.

Nonsense, this has nothing to do with Mormonism. We're not even talking a bout that. We're talking about theism in general. Most people who leave Mormonism become antagonistic atheists. That's certainly not me.

Right. People who leave Mormonism only become angry when talking about Mormonism, but the cheer right up if anything else is discussed.

"Most people who leave Mormonism become antagonistic atheists?" This is a statement right out of a charity post. You really ought to quit using the word "bigot" unless hypocrisy is a goal of yours.

I can't say that I paid much a ton of attention to your posts a year or so ago, but you didn't seem nearly as angry back then as you do now. Just an observation.

Well, you were probably watching me debate people who knew how to argue, at least to some extent. People like Bokovoy, Hauglid, Peterson, Hamblin, took up most of my time last year. They're not idiots.

Wow. Looks like you've moved from one self-preserving dogma to another.

Enjoy!

[_Moniker]

Schmo, I just want to know if I come off as angry. JAK said that I did a personal attack (HUH?), has said I insult my intelligence (by stating things he takes out of context), says I'm disingenuous, and then says I'm distorting.

Should I be angry? Guess what? I'm STILL doing this ---> ;P

by the way, What's up?

Darts gonna ban me from his threads!!