All religions are dangerous?

[_Jersey Girl]

Well let's just cut to the chase. Why not ask him?

"I don't recall a single instance where JAK claimed that all theists lack critical thinking or evaluation skills."

Is this true JAK?

Do you really not believe that believers in God are dangerous?

Nowhere on this thread has he asserted that believers in God are dangerous. Again, Kevin, you aren't seeing the distinction between "believers in God" and "religion".

Are all believers in God participants in religion?

Do you not see the inconsistency in your thinking?

I promise you, I am not attempting to provoke you in any way, Kevin. Provoke you to think more, maybe.


Jersey Girl

(I won't be responding to you further this evening)

[_Jersey Girl]

Quickie for you, Mon, I really need to log off here...

Moniker

I think individualizing the statement is appropriate. Religion is not some glob of goo -- it is made of people. How do you separate what he says religion does -- from those very people that are on the receiving end of the religion?

Answering your question with questions. Do ALL of the very people that are on the receiving end of religion receive it in the same way across the board? Do ALL people involved in religion trade critical thinking/reasoning in favor of religious dogma?

Has JAK stated such?

Not so long ago on this board, I asked JAK if he thought a God believer could also be a skeptic. He answered in the affirmative.

Does that help you to see the difference?


Jersey Girl

[_dartagnan]

Are all believers in God participants in religion?

According to JAK, they must be. That's why I'm know I'm not "misrepresenting" him.

He did say, after all, "Theists rely on the doctrine and dogma ready-made by the myth-makers who invented the myths."

So it seems for JAK, theists cannot be so easily divorced from religion.

Just calm down and wait for him to respond. No matter how he responds, one of you will be embarassed. I'm guessing it will be him.

Incidentally, I was perusing some old threads and came across a similar discussion where JAK was trying to speak on logic, when Calculus Crusader and Tarski mopped the floors with him. This wasn't surprising, but what did surprise me is that it seemed to be the flip side of this discussion because marg was there at JAK's side through the entire embarrassing ordeal, defending him at every turn, calling him brilliant, rejecting Tarski's hilarious refutations.

I mean come on now. Now I feel better knowing that Tarski and Gad had a similar excruciating experience with JAK; they came extremely close to calling JAK an idiot on several occassions.

I was laughing so hard through that discussion, especially around page 8 it got really hilarious when someone called in Tarski to refute CC, and it turned out Tarski agreed with him and thgen started making JAK look foolish for ever thinking he was qualified to speak on the matter. It got especially funny when GAD busted JAK for plagiarizing a citation from, you guessed it, another website, while passing it off as something he said himself- just trying to sound smart I guess.

"JAK, yeah, he finally signs on to wiki and presents an analysis, but maybe he'd be better off going back to his role of quote-mining anything on the internet that's of no relevance to the discussion? " - Gad

"JAK, you absolutely do not know how to correctly identify relevant fallacies. The jig is up. You are the kind of person it is useless to debate. A person armed with the ability to cut and paste and access the wiki and google. I bet you would doggedly debate quantum field theory with me too wouldn't you." - Tarski

"After all your bloviating, it turns out you don't know the difference between valid and sound? Priceless! An argument can be valid without being sound." - Tarski

"Tarski you are incorrect to think JAK doesn't understand sound, valid form, and what ad hominem fallacy is." - marg

"As I said though rereading last night the thread and JAK's post again, made me appreciate just how brilliant he is." - marg

"You've been bamboozled." - Tarski

Priceless stuff in that discussion. I bumped it in the celestial forum.

[_marg]

Incidentally, I was perusing some old threads and came across a similar discussion where JAK was trying to speak on logic, when Calculus Crusader and Tarski mopped the floors with him. This wasn't surprising, but what did surprise me is that it seemed to be the flip side of this discussion because marg was there at JAK's side through the entire embarrassing ordeal, defending him at every turn, calling him brilliant, rejecting Tarski's hilarious refutations.

I was involved in that discussion kevin, and Tarski did not mop the floors with JAK. Tarksi used appeal to authority by stating he has a phd in math. JAK didn't use any appeal to authority but I happen to know he had more justifcation to do so in that discussion on logic and reasoning than Tarksi.

I mean come on now. Now I feel better knowing that Tarski and Gad had a similar excruciating experience with JAK; they came extremely close to calling JAK an idiot on several occassions.

Sure they nearly did, perhaps even did, but that only went to show their arrogance not their knowledge or reasoning on the matter.

I was laughing so hard through that discussion, especially around page 8 it got really hilarious when someone called in Tarski to refute CC, and it turned out Tarski agreed with him and thgen started making JAK look foolish for ever thinking he was qualified to speak on the matter. It got especially funny when GAD busted JAK for plagiarizing a citation from, you guessed it, another website, while passing it off as something he said himself- just trying to sound smart I guess.

Oi vey, why don't you go to that thread, bring over your remarks from here and support your accusations. It's easy isn't it to babble on, making accusations with no back up.

"JAK, yeah, he finally signs on to wiki and presents an analysis, but maybe he'd be better off going back to his role of quote-mining anything on the internet that's of no relevance to the discussion? " - Gad

Kevin you don't know what you are talking about.

"JAK, you absolutely do not know how to correctly identify relevant fallacies. The jig is up. You are the kind of person it is useless to debate. A person armed with the ability to cut and paste and access the wiki and google. I bet you would doggedly debate quantum field theory with me too wouldn't you." - Tarski

Well Kevin, JAK is a retired university professor of logic and debate. Tarksi even acknowledged his forté was not logic but rather math. I followed that discussion and Tarski was in the wrong in support of CC.

"After all your bloviating, it turns out you don't know the difference between valid and sound? Priceless! An argument can be valid without being sound." - Tarski

And do you notice through out that discussion JAK never resorted to such arrogant ad hominems as Tarski did. Trust me, Kevin, JAK thoroughly understands validity and soundness. While logic and debate is JAK's educational specialty it is not Tarski's.

"Tarski you are incorrect to think JAK doesn't understand sound, valid form, and what ad hominem fallacy is." - marg

"As I said though rereading last night the thread and JAK's post again, made me appreciate just how brilliant he is." - marg

"You've been bamboozled." - Tarski

Priceless stuff in that discussion. I bumped it in the celestial forum.

I'm glad you think it's priceless Kevin, I don't think you were able to follow that discussion well.

[_dartagnan]

JAK is a retired university professor of logic and debate.

Then why does he suck at both? Why does he run to the wiki for his next response? Why was Gad able to nail him for plagiarizing a web article, word for word, while only changing a word to make it sound like he came up with it himself? I know of no other credible professor who has to engage in web plagiarism to successfully debate issues.

And do you notice through out that discussion JAK never resorted to such arrogant ad hominems as Tarski did.

Yes he did. He was antagonistic towards CC from the start, totally tearing down a straw man proving he doesn't understand logical fallacies. Tarski, Gad and CC were just playing with JAK like a toy, and all it did was make the two of you more pissed, always coming up with new excuses as to why Tarski had to be wrong.

Trust me, Kevin, JAK thoroughly understands validity and soundness.

Obviously he doesn't. Why should I have "faith" in your unfounded "belief" when the reliable "evidence" says otherwise?

Are you his wife or something? I've never seen anyone so wedded to the fumblings of another person like this. JAK's credibility has been shot to hell. If you want to god own in flames with him, then be my guest and keep calling him brilliant!

He picks up pieces here and there from the web, in as much as it serves his anti-religion agenda. That is all he is about.

While logic and debate is JAK's educational specialty it is not Tarski's.

Obviously not. If that were true, he wouldn't look so stupid on so many occassions.

I'm glad you think it's priceless Kevin, I don't think you were able to follow that discussion well.

I wasn't even aware of the discussion until a few hours ago. I spent a good 30 minutes reading through it and laughing most of the way. I was surprised you kept trying to stay in there, trying to figure out ways to defend JAK. That showed me you're going to defend him no matter how badly he is losing.

It was relief in a sense because now I know that discussing with the two of you really is a waste of time. You play the same game with me as you played with them. Accuse everyone of misrepresentation and then appeal to the wiki whle pretending to be an expert on issues you know nothing about. Perhaps the most hilarious bit was when JAK tried throwing Karen Armstrong our way as an authority!! He still does that, and he doesn't seem to care that she is not an authority on anything he uses her for.

[Guest]

I honestly think a continuing issue in this thread is the word 'religion'. I think some are coming to the table with a fairly narrow view of it ready-prepared.

Not only does a religion not have to include dogma (check the definition yourself if you don't believe me), but even if it does contain 'dogma', there is absolutely no requirement stated that religious 'leadership' has to suspend the critical thinking of it's members in order to get them to swallow that dogma.

Can that happen? Of course. No doubt about it. I would call these groups fundamentalists - and I am opposed to fundamentalism. In any world-view.
But I think several 'religions' have been raised that clearly have no - or next to no - dogma, and have no interest in 'forcing' any conclusion on anybody. And yet they are being denied the status of 'religion' on points that aren't specified in the actual definition of 'religion'...! The catagorisation of religion seems to be based on individuals pre-conceived notions of what religion must be, based on their own religious past, or a local religious 'situation'. Not what religion actually IS, and the clear diversity present - in a wider, world-wide sense.

Many other religions with more 'Authoritarian' histories have essentially become the same in nature - all over the place. They have ritual and readings, but they have long ago given up the dream of making peoples minds up for them. In many religions, in many parts of the world, that 'golden age' of the church is long dead.

Certainly in regards to Christianity, I'd say fundamentalism has been taking a distinctly downward trend ever since the Bible was available in a language people could actually understand! People have been continually (and in increasing numbers) making up their own minds, questioning authority and striking their own religious path. No doubt it still exists in some parts of the world. (and makes me glad that I live where I do!) That doesn't make it any more accurate to make the claim that literally 'all religion is dangerous'.

I can see the kernel of truth in the idea (although I would suggest that 'kernel of truth' could apply to extreme interpretations of any ideology - politics, science etc.)
...But I also see it as an unwarranted generalisation.

[_marg]

Yes he did. He was antagonistic towards CC from the start, totally tearing down a straw man proving he doesn't understand logical fallacies. Tarski, Gad and CC were just playing with JAK like a toy, and all it did was make the two of you more pissed, always coming up with new excuses as to why Tarski had to be wrong.

Tarski was wrong. However I will not go into an elaborate explanation in this thread. If you want to make comments about that thread, go to it and post there with support by quotes and I will address what you say there.

It was relief in a sense because now I know that discussing with the two of you really is a waste of time. You play the same game with me as you played with them. Accuse everyone of misrepresentation and then appeal to the wiki whle pretending to be an expert on issues you know nothing about. Perhaps the most hilarious bit was when JAK tried throwing Karen Armstrong our way as an authority!! He still does that, and he doesn't seem to care that she is not an authority on anything he uses her for.

This just goes to demonstrate how either stupid or intellectually dishonest you are, it's one or the other. Again however go to the thread bring over what you say here, quote from the thread and I will address what you have to say.

[_marg]

It was relief in a sense because now I know that discussing with the two of you really is a waste of time. You play the same game with me as you played with them. Accuse everyone of misrepresentation and then appeal to the wiki whle pretending to be an expert on issues you know nothing about.

You are a liar Kevin, I did not accuse anyone in that thread, Tarksi, CC or Gad of misrepresenting JAk or myself. It is only you I accuse of in this thread of misrepresenting JAK's position. It is a very time consuming task to correct misrepresentations and when done repeatedly as you have done in this thread, it indicates high probability of intellectual dishonesty through diversionary disingenuous tactics. The fact that you are lying and claiming I said I accused everyone of misrepresentation in that thread in the Celestial forum is evidence to me of your lack of integrity in discussion. I don't think that was a mere slip up.

Perhaps the most hilarious bit was when JAK tried throwing Karen Armstrong our way as an authority!! He still does that, and he doesn't seem to care that she is not an authority on anything he uses her for.

Karen has the authority to point out fractures in various religions as well as the existence of various religions which I believe was the extent JAK used K. Armstrong for. But no, you with your lack on integrity in discussion choose to distort once again JAK's position. Why am I bothering wasting my time responding to you? You simply are not worth it.

[_JAK]

marg

Kevin you are again misunderstanding JAK's position, he is not claiming every theist is dangerous.

dart

He said all religions are dangerous marg. I don't know why you're trying to save him from himself. This is what he said, and he should be held accountable. Let him back it up or denounce it. There is nothing unreasonable in this request.

Do you not see the flaw in your representation of what JAK stated and that which marg identified above, dart? JAK's statement (that you quoted in your OP) pertains to "all religions" not "all theists" as marg describes above. While you continue to offer challenge based on the hypothetical "Joe Blow" or more recently yourself, the more applicable challenge in terms of JAK's statement that "all religions are dangerous" would be "What does Joe Blow's religion teach him to do?

Tell me that you see that, dart.

Haven't been following closely. So, I likely should not reply. Yet, JAK stated this:

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

He says religions are dangerous because they do such and such a thing -- to what? To the religion? NO -- to an individual. It strips from an INDIVIDUAL the intellect and replaces it with dogma. So, yes, it would boil down to an individual theist in the simplest sense. Religion isn't dangerous without the theists that it is stripping intellect from. Right???

Moniker,

I've been following this thread since it started and have read every single post here. While the majority of posts are quite lengthy, I don't recall a single instance where JAK claimed that all theists lack critical thinking or evaluation skills. Do you?

The quote that dart used for the basis of this thread is a statement on the nature/influence of religion and it's dogma, not a wholesale write off of the intellect of theists. dart's attempt to individualize/personalize the statement is where it goes wrong.

I've read every page but the current one -- just caught the tail end. I only looked to his original statement. Whose intellect is being stripped? It comes down to his statement that religions "seek to destroy the intellect" -- whose? The individual.

I have not stated that JAK said, "all theists lack critical or evaluation skills". I replied that JAK made a statement -- that religion seeks to destroy intellect.

I think individualizing the statement is appropriate. Religion is not some glob of goo -- it is made of people. How do you separate what he says religion does -- from those very people that are on the receiving end of the religion?

JAK does apparently believe the Amish are dangerous because their religion requires them to ride in buggies -- this is a behavior that he said is dangerous. He never came back to my points. He ACTUALLY relied on ONE individual acting in a reckless manner to then say that the entire Amish community is dangerous because of it. It's in an early post -- surely you caught that?

Moniker,

Please re-read the exact words which I addressed to you. You will find nothing in those words in context to warrant your statement here:

Moniker stated:
JAK does apparently believe the Amish are dangerous because their religion requires them to ride in buggies -- this is a behavior that he said is dangerous. He never came back to my points. He ACTUALLY relied on ONE individual acting in a reckless manner to then say that the entire Amish community is dangerous because of it. It's in an early post -- surely you caught that?

None of my comments reflect this misrepresentation. It was you who used an illustration of your on-the-road-encounter with the Amish. Not only did I respond to that statement, I later quoted you verbatim regarding that encounter.

The causal link to danger was never stated by me regarding the Amish interpretation of Christianity. It continues as a straw man attack on what was never stated.

My repeated statement to you was this:

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

The danger in religion is from minimization of reason and evidence in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence.

Why you persist in this straw man attack is a puzzle. The principle is the recognition and use of information as opposed to the insistence on doctrine and dogma which is counter to available evidence and information.

Religion tends to market dogma and doctrine. In that, we find “Dangers of Religion” my topic title in another thread which was repackaged by dart for this thread.

JAK

[_Ren]

Tarski was wrong.

I'd seriously reconsider that position marg. Reading that thread was - frankly - painful.