All religions are dangerous?

[_Some Schmo]

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!!

You don't come off as angry to me, but then, I feel like I know you a bit better than I know dart. (I'll take his word for it that he's not angry - I'm not going to pretend that I know much about him based on what he posts).

As far as what JAK said to you, I think you should try to resist becoming angry about anything said on these message boards. It's not worth it. I've really begun paying attention to how little spats get started because people tend to not really read each other very closely. We're all guilty of it at one time or another; some people are more willing to admit it (to themselves) than others, I guess. But yeah, there's so much distorted communication going on here, to get upset about what people say it is only hurting yourself.

And what's up? Not much. Thank you for asking. (How you doin'?) I'm feeling pretty good these days. No religious nuts have caused me any danger lately, so things are good. It's only a matter of time though... I'm glad dart doesn't know where I live.

;)

[_dartagnan]

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

Sigh... No Schmoe. The fact that it exists in the minds of others means your initial statement can't be true: that it was only in my head.

The "battle between information and disinformation?" LOL... wow... you're like a crusader or something, huh? Impressive.

Actually JAK is. He is on the attack. I'm responding with facts and logic. He ignores responses he can't handle.

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.

That's true. Except for your support for Zeitgeist, I know little. Or at least I recall very little.

How dare anyone criticize your right to declare facts by assertion only, hey?

Now you're just mimicking JAK. Who is declaring facts by assertion besides JAK? Not me.

Insult me again. It really helps your argument.

You have no argument, and I didn't think I insulted you. You're just here for diversionary purposes.

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

I asked you a question. You don't know what a straw man is, that's fine. You said not everyone agrees with my opinion that I'm notdangerous because of my belief in God. I simply asked you who else believes it besides JAK. You're claiming "Not everyone agrees with you," as if there are more a substantial number who don't. Well, are you putting your name on the list? This is a reasonable question, not a straw man.

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

You just reminded me why discourse with you is pointless. You're a diversion personified. That's all you do. You can't even keep up with what you just said. First you complain that you haven't seen something in my posts and then in teh same breathe you admit you haven't even read half of my posts. All I said was that maybe if you actually read all of what I write, you'd see what you're looking for. And how do you respond? With this nonsense about how my comment reveals self-importance! I cannot even respond to direct questions without you twisting my response as if I were responding to something entirely different from what you originally said.

Your mind has such a short attention span, which probably explains why you're better at quips than actual dialogue.

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 respect people who say stupid things, get educated, and never repeat them. I've corrected JAK on too many occassions and backed up my refutations with scholarship. He sits and waits until the storm blows over and then when he thinks teh coast is clear, he starts regurgitating the same batch of disinformation that was dealt with a long time ago. I have no respect for idiots like him because he is not interested in learning. He is only interetsed in converting more idiots to his cause.

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)?

When have I ever accused a poster of acting angrily? Idiocy can be determined by the quality of information produced and the rejection of reliable information.

"Most people who leave Mormonism become antagonistic atheists?" This is a statement right out of a charity post.

Charity is an idiot in her own unique way, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

You really ought to quit using the word "bigot" unless hypocrisy is a goal of yours.

Unlike some people here, I actually know what the term means.

[_dartagnan]

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."

You're right, it isn't, but I happen to know his actual argument. This only goes to prove what I'm talking about. You don't pay attention.

The name of this thread should make clear what the issue really is. It is a citation from JAK's numerous statements in other threads. If you had bothered to read my very first post - you know, the one that leads this discussion - you would realize he said, "All religions are dangerous."

So you're defending him without even realizing what the hell he is arguing.

And you think I'm the one providing comedy here?

[_dartagnan]

Darts gonna ban me from his threads!!

No way. You're just too good at what you do.

[_marg]

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.

You misunderstand the argument by JAK in my opinion. Let’s look at his words “Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”

So it is not a matter limited to relying on unreliable information, it is a matter of relinguishing personal responsibility to use reason and evidence and hand the responsibility over to some authority which derived their conclusion or dictates not by evidence but by mere assertion.

Kevin

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.

What is dangerous Kevin is not what the man speaking on behalf of a God says but the dangers lies with an individual who does not critically think well about what that man claims God said. It is potentially dangerous to rely upon that man as an ultimate authority a conduit of a God. It is dangerous because reliance upon faith in lieu of reason and evidence/good critical thinking means that individual is more open to the probability of making decisions which may cause harm to himself or others than if he used reason and evidence. Just because one claims to speak on behalf of God does not mean they can be trusted or relied upon to not cause harm or be speaking the truth. Religious groups tend to encourage complete reliance upon authority in the form of sacred texts (and the leadership’s interpretation) and in leadership dictates based on “faith” alone. Followers are not encourage to ever question leadership and sacred text.

At the end of the essay by William Clifford he says: “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.”

So Kevin the problem is not having beliefs which aren’t true, because false beliefs may not be harmful or wrong. It is the encouragement by religion of accepting without question religious authority. It leads to individuals easily manipulated, credulous.

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.

The fact that good may come from relying upon religious authority does not diminish JAK’s argument. JAK isn’t arguing that no good can come from religious belief but rather that if one doesn’t question and relies upon religious authority based solely on faith in lieu of reason and evidence then whatever conclusions/actions etc are reached or used are not reliable. They may be good, true, they may not. Whereas if a person used reasoning and evidence they have a higher probability of reaching a reliable conclusion.

Kevin:

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.

First of all in my opinion, you misunderstand JAK’s argument as I explain above. I think W. Clifford says it well “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.” And this gets back to what I said in my previous post to you (which you haven't replied to). The problem is not a belief in a God, the problem is faith and complete reliance on religious authority which makes claim absent evidence on behalf of that God. It is the relinquishing of personal responsibilities to think and the allowance of religious authority to supercede one’s own thinking on various matters.

[_Ren]

Religious groups tend to encourage complete reliance upon authority in the form of sacred texts (and the leadership’s interpretation) and in leadership dictates based on “faith” alone. Followers are not encourage to ever question leadership and sacred text.

Add the word 'fundamental' to the beginning of that sentence, and I'd agree with it.
There are religious groups (either whole religions, or subgroups within the one religious movement) that actually encourage the complete opposite. And literally mounds of other religious people who are no-where near being so controlling, nor controlled.

The above statement represents a 'subset' of religion fairly well. But only a subset.

[_marg]

There are religious groups (either whole religions, or subgroups within the one religious movement) that actually encourage the complete opposite.

Could you give me some examples I could look into.

[Guest]

Here's one for starters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism
I'd also like to see Monikers comments on Shintoism addressed further. Some may consider them 'addressed', but not addressed 'properly' in my mind - at least not yet.
I'm also interested in what people have to say about Hinduism. Believing in Gods with Elephant heads is perhaps the daftest thing I've ever heard. (It's cool as hell mind...!)
But - I swear - Hindu's are not only some of the nicest, least 'dangerous' people I've ever met - but generally some of the sanest! Half my family is Indian, so I know quite a few Hindus. I can't see how they could be catagorised as dangerous in any meaningful way. To my knowledge, they don't 'duck their heads in the sand' on materialistic matters...

They do certainly have some laugh-out-loud beliefs, but that's an entirely different story...

What evidence do people wish to put forward that Hinduism is dangerous?

[_huckelberry]

I see it is proposed that the subject here despite the title, all religion is dangerous, is the encouragement by religion of accenting without question religious authority figures. Seems to my mind two seperate subjects.

To whom it may concern," without question" it is your responsibility not to do religion in this stupid and destructive manner.

[_Ren]

I see it is proposed that the subject here despite the title, all religion is dangerous, is the encouragement by religion of accenting without question religious authority figures. Seems to my mind two seperate subjects.

To whom it may concern," without question" it is your responsibility not to do religion in this stupid and destructive manner.

Indeed. Giving someone else the right to make all your decisions for you is daft.
Whether that be a religious leader, or a political leader, or Richard 'wipe them out - all of them' Dawkins. Its all the same principle...