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."
You don't seem to understand logical implication at all.
Group A has attribute X which makes it opposite to Group B.
Attribute X is religion, which defines Group A as theists and group B as atheists.
Now you have made it perfectly clear that
every religionist from Group A is a "danger" because he:
1) "depend[s] on blind faith."
2) "exercises power over reason"
3) "plays to fear and anxiety"
4) "diminish[es] the role of evidence and reason."
5) "substitute[s] dogma for reason"
6) "assault[s] reason"
7) "attack[s]...rational thought"
8) "seek[s] to destroy the intellect"
9) "
most...would and
do raise weapons and ask for God’s blessing as they destroy."
Again, if you're speaking so negatively about night, you don't really have to mention daylight for us to understand how you feel about it. It is implied. And given your sudden departure without offering any clarifications whatsoever, you can't really complain about being misunderstood, which I doubt you are. You're singing the same tune with moniker, when it has become clear you're just contradicting yourself.
In as much as religion relies on truth by assertion, that reliance makes religion dangerous.
Truth by assertion happens in every day life without religion. It is part of human nature. We don't know everything for a fact nor do we operate in every day life by following strictly to science. For example, you're doing the truth asserting right now. It is your personal "belief" that you're trying to push, and you've produce no data, no anecdotal evidence that pertains, no rationale for this generalization, no basis for your argument nor any "skeptical review" as you demand for religious belief. That makes you a hypocrite to boot.
Now marg said the danger comes when those assertions turn out to be true, because it can make others have more faith in them. So what? Having more faith in things unproved, hardly means a rejection of things proved is inevitable. You guys can't seem to tell teh difference. You guys make it sound like faith is a contagious disease. Every religion I know relies on some sense of faith, and at the same time accepts scientific truths. They aren't mutually exclusive. Everywhere I look I see religion bending to scientific discovery, which completely undermines your silly thesis.
Why would Christians begin to reject the Old Testament as history, if what you say is true and they substitute faith over reason?
Why is the Mormon Church changing its position on the relationship between the Lamanites and the Jews, if what you say is true and they enforce faith over reason?
These are simple questions that have clearly stumped you, so you want to pretend they don't exist by exiting the debate.
Your problem is that science hasn't disproved the existence of God, and it drives you nuts. So all you're left with is panic mode. Make everyone afraid of theists by suggesting their mental defects can somehow backfire on society. Convince them that they are a danger to society. The next step on the bigotry ladder is segregation.
It’s generally non-productive to attempt refutation of straw-man constructions.
Oh, so now you want back in once you think marg earned you a little point here? Get in the game or stop whining. There is no "straw man" going on here. I know exactly what you're trying to prove, and you haven't even begun to mount a case for it. My comment about the dichotomy was a minor point and based on inference due by your own lack of participation.
Jim Jones was a Christian evangelists wo founded the Peoples Temple. Most today would regard that his Christian organization was dangerous. He relied on truth by assertion, and his followers accepted mindlessly that truth. Most today would regard that Jones was wrong.
This again sums up the logical deficiency in JAK's thinking. He can't seem to allow for the fact that just because John owned a gun and killed someone, that this doesn't necessarily make everyone with a gun dangerous. Some people know how to act responsibly with a gun. He is so hypnotized by his own theory about "truth by assertion," implying that it is an attribute of religion, therefore making religion dangerous, that he fails to acknowledge that this is something that occurs without religion, in every day life. It is something we all do. In fact, he's doing it right now. We all do it.
"That guy's gay."
"Iran already has nukes."
"Obama is going to be President."
"Jak is really smart."
These are all examples of "truth by assertion." Which one of these actively "destroys the intellect" and "assaults reason"?
Maybe marg can answer this since we know JAK won't.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein