All religions are dangerous?

[_Ren]

Mon, those are some gorgeous pictures!

They're not mine.

Ahh - ok. Well, their gorgeous anyway :)
Just got the impression the way you were talking that they were from your personal album...

I definitely need to upload a bunch. So ya'll can see lil Moniker in the festivals and running around like a wild heathen child on the beaches and hills of Japan. :D

Oh yeah - please do :)

[_Canucklehead]

As far as having no need for Jesus, well - even I think it's a good idea to follow the (general) teachings of Jesus. And I'm an atheist...!
I think the clarifier here is "Not necessarily following what people try and tell me Jesus 'really meant'"

I'm just curious (not trying to be combative), do you think that the following teachings of Jesus should be followed?

That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you

Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? ... Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

[Guest]

I'm just curious (not trying to be combative), do you think that the following teachings of Jesus should be followed?

Ok - fair enough. Not literally every single word he said :)
I mean 'generally', he came up with some pretty good stuff. Assuming he really did exist of course (I personally believe he did) - and that the gospels are a decent representation of his teachings, I think he was ahead of his time morally in many ways. And I respect that. Not in ALL ways, but in very specific, important ways.

But that's what the Unitarianisms teach too. They don't think the Bible is inerrant, and they don't believe in swallowing everything in there without critical analysis. In fact, they are very specifically against that.

They are literally encouraged to 'cherry pick' from the Bible - by their religion!
...just as I'm about to :)

'

That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Yeah - don't believe in that one. Jesus didn't get everything quite right...

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you

Within reason, sure. I think this a great moral principle.

Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? ... Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

Taking this one too literally is dangerous. But there is a truth in it's message. And when read in context in the chapter - which has been talking about concentrating on 'treasures' - I'm not sure it's meant to be taken too literally.
I read that as 'the small stuff can work itself out...'

And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

Yeah - it's a bit rude :)

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

You know, there are so few overly judgmental sections in the gospels, I often wonder how these kinds of parts fit in. I do wonder how accurate sections like this are.
But either way, this ain't my cup of tea :)

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Ditto.


But then, of course, I could quote entire pages of discourse that I would fully agree with from the gospels. I would say that the good would heavily outweigh the bad - certainly in the gospels.
Not bad for a guy who was raised on the 'Old Law'.

I don't agree with everything Jesus said but (again, assuming he did exist) I respect him as a good moral visionary - for his time.
And I'd estimate that 90% of what he taught is stuff that I am happy to follow. (NOTE - not overly dogmatic interpretations though. When I say I believe in 'turning the other cheek' for example - I don't mean I believe in literally turning the other cheek in every viable situation. I mean that I believe that the moral principle is sound, and useful in many situations...)

[_marg]

You've written a long response Kevin so let me focus on small areas first.

You said: "I agree that this is generally true. But the problem with yours and JAK's thinking is that you seem to think there is a clear dichotomy between religion and atheism where one side is all about accepting known facts and the other is all about rejecting them."

Where has Jak or I argued the above? Preferable please quote. Where have either of us ever claimed atheism leads to rational conclusions, relies only upon known facts only, entails that one must be a good critical thinker based on being an atheist. by the way...one other point Kevin, where has Jak or I ever claimed (all) atheism entails the denial of a God's existence.

Atheists can be credulous, poor critical thinkers, can be nut cases, JAK was not arguuing otherwise. JAK was only discussing religion and its affect through its teachings/dogmas on the (potential) behavior of followers. JAK was saying nothing about atheists and their likely behaviors and I believe in one post I read he even expressed that to you. I believe you are attempting to peg JAK into a position you've created in your mind but one he doesn't hold. I think he's lost motivation in discussing with you because of your ad hominem unjustified. You have no idea of his knowledge level...you are attempting to "poison the well" with your attacks and have him waste time countering you rather than address actual issues under discussion.

[_dartagnan]

Where has Jak or I argued the above? Preferable please quote.

JAK and I had our first encounter a few weeks ago when he tried arguing Jesus never exieted as a historical figure. For him, Jesus was a myth. Historians don't matter. They're all theists who can't tell the truth anyway. This was before I ever called him an idiot or insulted him. Yet, he abandoned that discussion as well, as soon as I made it clear he didn't know what on earth he was talking about: http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=4813

As far as your request, here are some choice quotations from JAK:

"belief in ancient religious myths is dangerous" - Thu May 17, 2007

Not demonstrated.

"All religions are dangerous. They all depend on dogma and blind faith. Where dogma is confronted by reason, dogma prevails in religion. Religion exercises power over reason and plays to fear and anxiety diminishing the role of evidence and reason." - Fri Feb 15, 2008

Patently untrue. I have provided examples where dogma has conformed to modern scientific findings. Christian history in particular, is replete with such examples.

"What makes the zeal of religious ideologues dangerous is their willingness to substitute dogma for reason. It is power that is key to understanding the cynical manipulation of faith and the assault on reason. Over time, religious zealots use propaganda to justify that attack on rational thought."- Sat Feb 16, 2008

"All religions are dangerous. They seek to destroy the intellect replacing it with dogma not derived from reason and evidence." - Sun Feb 17, 2008

So you see marg, according to JAK, religion actually seeks to do this. Preachers actually sit around conjuring up ways to replace scientific knowledge with new "dogmas." Yea, and you're telling me this guy has a clue.

"While it is generally correct that most people today would not raise a weapon for the sake of their religion, they would and do raise weapons and ask for God’s blessing as they destroy, maim and kill others against whom they wage destruction and death." - Sun Feb 17, 2008

In that thread JAK went off on how George Bush posed a danger as if he was acting strictly as a Christian and not a politician. His proof? Bush said "God Bless", as if every other President in history hasn't. Further, there are plenty non-Christians who support Bush's policies, but JAK is sure not to let them disrupt his wet dream. JAK is the messenger boy for conspiracy blogs. From the infidels.org to the laughable Zeitgeist hoopla, JAK is sure to touch on all of their themes as often as possible. And he is not interested in any "evidence" contrary to his "belief" that these constitute facts.

"Some in religion, preach love as they practice killing of others. Religion has not historically been a guide for more loving, peaceful and ethical life.” - Sun Feb 17, 2008

Now you tell me if this strikes you as informed and void of anger/bias?

Where have either of us ever claimed atheism leads to rational conclusions, relies only upon known facts only, entails that one must be a good critical thinker based on being an atheist.

Here is what I said, and you're free to distance yourself from this if you will: "the problem with yours and JAK's thinking is that you seem to think there is a clear dichotomy between religion and atheism where one side is all about accepting known facts and the other is all about rejecting them."

Now this is easily inferred from JAK's comments, but only implied by your defense of his position. I assume you reject this position so let me tell you why JAK has implied it. JAK never used the word atheism, but he spends a great deal of time talking about how theists present a danger. Since he is only attacking theists, it is safe toa ssume he's not including the opposite group: atheists. So if theists are anti-reason, then their opposite must be pro-reason, or at the very least, are more likely to be.

JAK was only discussing religion and its affect through its teachings/dogmas on the (potential) behavior of followers.

No, he didn't say it was potentially dangerous, instead he said is was dangerous. Not just some religions, but all religions.

JAK was saying nothing about atheists and their likely behaviors and I believe in one post I read he even expressed that to you.

He doesn't have to explicitly state this. When a Klan member insists all blacks lack intelligence and that they all present a danger to society, this says just as much about his view of the white man as it does the negro. They're exempt from this defect. JAK likes to fancy himself a philosopher of sorts, and in joining the atheist crowd, which already has intellectual ego issues, it makes him feel all the more special.

I think he's lost motivation in discussing with you because of your ad hominem unjustified

No, they are justified. JAK is a crackpot conspiracy theorist who has added the spice of atheistic bigotry to his arsenal. Join him if you want, but I wouldn't recommend it. Just read his rants about the crusades, which he knows nothing about; the historicity of Christ, which he knows nothing about; the potential for Christian theocracy in America, which he knows nothing about. He is striking fear into the hearts of his readers unjustifiably. This in itself tells me he is a bigot. His job is to make you afraid of it, then you can begin justifying destroying it. That's how bigotry has worked, historically.

You have no idea of his knowledge level.

Why, because you don't? I know what I am talking about on these issues, and he does not. That is what I know. If he were at all educated on these matters he wouldn't be citing infidels.org and Muslim websites that bash the crusades. That tells me that he considers these sources reliable, which tells me what he considers quality education.

you are attempting to "poison the well" with your attacks and have him waste time countering you rather than address actual issues under discussion.

Please pay attention marg, I have addressed every single point of his "argument", if that's really what you want to call it. Just go browse through his pathetic "dangers of religion" thread, where he dropped the ball after I refuted his ignorance. Complain about my tone if you want, but don't pretend I haven't responded to his assertions. Speaking of which, I have asked all three of you to provide something on at least two or three occasions now. What's the hold up?

Please show me a hypothetical example where I as a theist, would be less likely to act safely in decision making, than say an atheist. You see, it is difficult to take you guys seriously if you cannot even think of a possible scenario where my belief would cause me to make dangerous decisions.

I'm still waiting.

[_JAK]

You've written a long response Kevin so let me focus on small areas first.

You said: "I agree that this is generally true. But the problem with yours and JAK's thinking is that you seem to think there is a clear dichotomy between religion and atheism where one side is all about accepting known facts and the other is all about rejecting them."

Where has Jak or I argued the above? Preferable please quote. Where have either of us ever claimed atheism leads to rational conclusions, relies only upon known facts only, entails that one must be a good critical thinker based on being an atheist. by the way...one other point Kevin, where has Jak or I ever claimed (all) atheism entails the denial of a God's existence.

Atheists can be credulous, poor critical thinkers, can be nut cases, JAK was not arguuing otherwise. JAK was only discussing religion and its affect through its teachings/dogmas on the (potential) behavior of followers. JAK was saying nothing about atheists and their likely behaviors and I believe in one post I read he even expressed that to you. I believe you are attempting to peg JAK into a position you've created in your mind but one he doesn't hold. I think he's lost motivation in discussing with you because of your ad hominem unjustified. You have no idea of his knowledge level...you are attempting to "poison the well" with your attacks and have him waste time countering you rather than address actual issues under discussion.

No one (at lest not marg nor I) has argued “a clear dichotomy between religion and atheism where one side is all about accepting known facts and the other is all about rejecting them."

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

In as much as religion relies on truth by assertion, that reliance makes religion dangerous. That does not exclude other dangers derived from other absent-of-evidence conclusions.

In addition, the position included Truth by assertion is unreliable and religions rely on truth by assertion.

As marg observed correctly, “Atheists can be credulous, poor critical thinkers, can be nut cases…”

It’s generally non-productive to attempt refutation of straw-man constructions. That is particularly the case as such straw men are misrepresentative of an actual comment and attempt to twist and distort what was actually said.

JAK

[Guest]

I don't agree with everything Jesus said but (again, assuming he did exist) I respect him as a good moral visionary - for his time.
And I'd estimate that 90% of what he taught is stuff that I am happy to follow. (NOTE - not overly dogmatic interpretations though. When I say I believe in 'turning the other cheek' for example - I don't mean I believe in literally turning the other cheek in every viable situation. I mean that I believe that the moral principle is sound, and useful in many situations...)

Since you're able to rationally distinguish between those of Jesus' teachings are morally acceptable and those that are reprehensible, there must be another standard by which you are judging (other than an appeal to Jesus' authority as a moral teacher).

Any one of the principles that Jesus taught that is moral could be deduced from principles other than an appeal to authority. It kind of removes the need to "believe in" Jesus in the first place.

That is why I said that any group who accepts that Jesus is a moral authority has "the potential" to be dangerous if they become dogmatic in their acceptance of him. If, as you say, Unitarians are encouraged to rationally critique what Jesus said and accept only those teachings which withstand this scrutiny, then they can't really be said to "believe in" Jesus in any appreciable way. They are actually engaging in philosophy rather than religion.

[_dartagnan]

Please show me a hypothetical example where I as a theist, would be less likely to act safely in decision making, than say an atheist. You see, it is difficult to take you guys seriously if you cannot even think of a possible scenario where my belief would cause me to make dangerous decisions.

I'm still waiting.

But you guys can't even think of one.

So what does that say about the plausibility of your theory? It is bogus.

The only example thus far was given by a 19th century philospher, and even that example wasn't religion related.

So until you can come up with something that makes sense, some scenario where you think I would make an irrational decision whereas you wouldn't, then you're just pissing in the wind with your own assertions.

[_dartagnan]

Since you're able to rationally distinguish between those of Jesus' teachings are morally acceptable and those that are reprehensible, there must be another standard by which you are judging.

The fact you're missing out on is that Christians do not interpret those passages literally. Jesus spoke in parables, and much of what he said requires proper hermeneutics. Jesus never carried a sword. How can anyone really believe Jesus came to "bring a sword" literally, when he refused to let his own bodyguard defend him with one?

As I understand it, the sword verse is generally interpreted as a prophetic statement, referring to the wars that would ensue because of his existence.

[_Canucklehead]

Please show me a hypothetical example where I as a theist, would be less likely to act safely in decision making, than say an atheist. You see, it is difficult to take you guys seriously if you cannot even think of a possible scenario where my belief would cause me to make dangerous decisions.

I'm still waiting.

But you guys can't even think of one.

So what does that say about the plausibility of your theory? It is bogus.

The only example thus far was given by a 19th century philospher, and even that example wasn't religion related.

So until you can come up with something that makes sense, some scenario where you think I would make an irrational decision whereas you wouldn't, then you're just pissing in the wind with your own assertions.

This is such an easy challenge!! I expect that nobody has replied because it is an inane question.

Here's one that I just thought of before even finishing to read your post. Imagine that the leader of a powerful country armed with nuclear weapons believes that his god has told him that the world will end in a fiery armageddon in which the wicked are burned. This armageddon will usher in the return of his god. Another country, predominantly comprised of adherents to a different religion has declared an "unholy war". Now .... can you imagine how this theist might react differently in this situation than, say, an atheist who doesn't believe that there is a life after this one and that this is the only world we humans will ever get to inhabit. Didn't require much imagination did it?