All religions are dangerous?

[_JAK]

ROP,

The central issue regarding “Dangers of Religion” was not addressed in your comments.

Realize the central issue:

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

“Truth by assertion” is unreliable. Religions rely on “truth by assertion.”

JAK

[_Ren]

ROP,

The central issue regarding “Dangers of Religion” was not addressed in your comments.

Realize the central issue:

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

“Truth by assertion” is unreliable. Religions rely on “truth by assertion.”

Ahh.

So addressing whether Moniker was actually attacking a straw-man argument (as you claimed) is 'off-topic'? You can just declare that she was - and that's it...?
Addressing whether driving horse-drawn carts on modern roads is actually 'dangerous' (as you claimed) is 'off-topic'? You can just declare it is - and that's it...?

Hmmm - I see... Interesting...

Well, if you get bored waiting for me to turn the old gears a little and work out what I am going to get away with that will be considered on topic, there are other posts I've made that have gone un-addressed. I think there may be a few from others too... :)

[_JAK]

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?

dartagnan,

A quick reference to Jersey Girl who is reading correctly as is marg.

You fail to distinguish your questions from Jersey Girl’s comment.

It was Jersey girl who stated:
"I don't recall a single instance where JAK claimed that all theists lack critical thinking or evaluation skills."

It was daragnon who asked: “Do you really not believe that believers in God are dangerous?”

Realize the central issue:

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

“Truth by assertion” is unreliable. Religions rely on “truth by assertion.”

JAK

[_antishock8]

Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means; it is an end in itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent’s heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose upon him. Psychological and physical dislocation is, at best, a mean, though, by no means, conclusive for striking terror into the hearts of the enemies. Its effects are related to the physical and spiritual stamina of the opponent but are seldom of a permanent and lasting nature. An army that practices the Quranic philosophy of war in its totality is immune to psychological pressures.

Brigadier Malik’s book The Quranic Concept of War

[_antishock8]

As if that's not eye-opening enough:

Terror cannot be struck into the hearts of an army by merely cutting its lines of communications or depriving it of its routes or withdrawal. It is basically related only if the opponent’s Faith is destroyed. Psychological dislocation is temporary; spiritual
dislocation is permanent. Psychological dislocation can be produced by a physical act but this does not hold good of the spiritual dislocation. To instill terror into the hearts of the enemy, it is essential, in the ultimate analysis, to dislocate his Faith. An invincible Faith is immune to terror. A weak Faith offers inroads to terror. The Faith conferred upon us by the Holy Qur’an has an inherent strength to ward off terror from us and enable us to strike terror into the enemy. Whatever the form or type of strategy directed against the enemy, it must, in order to be effective, be capable of striking terror into the
hearts of the enemy. A strategy that fails to attain this condition suffers from inherent drawbacks and weaknesses; and should be reviewed and modified. This rule is fully applicable to nuclear as well as conventional wars.

Brigadier Malik’s book The Quranic Concept of War

[_Moniker]

Oh, man! You are really starting to irritate me. My ;P is turning into a :/ quickly!!!

Moniker actually ended that original claim with:
"Does this mean anything? No."

As far as I understand it, she was just sharing a story practically as a joke! (Correct me if I'm wrong Mon). The joke being that anybody would actually blame the Amish for dangerous behaviour based on that incident! One bad buggy-driver does not a dangerous religion (or religious attitude) make.

Let's make this simple for all:

75% of my posts I am being silly! 20% there is silliness incorporated within some slight seriousness -- let's just call it me being a smart ass. 3% is me rambling on about stuff that will later be deleted. The remaining 2% might be a stern sort of, "I'm thinking here" type of posts.

You can all make your own determination as to which category the above paragraph fits.

Moniker,

It seems to me that this gives you the Dick Cheney plausible denial for any statement you make.

Could it be that I was joking with the above paragraph? Could it be that I like to make subtle points through humor JAK? I do! Often! VERY, VERY OFTEN. That you don't get that my point is incorporated into a joke is not my fault -- is it?

If you intend it seriously, but it is established by analysis to be incorrect, you can just say you were
“being silly.”

Ah - see this is where we part ways. Where have in ANY of my posts I said something to be "incorrect"? I believe I have "corrected" your statements a FEW TIMES IN THIS THREAD -- even while being "silly" while doing so. It's just my style. K?

If you are able to establish a thoughtful valid position, it’s “I'm thinking here.”

Unless you clearly distinguish one from the other, misunderstanding is a certainty.

I addressed your comments as they appeared on the screen. Absent an on-screen clarity that I’m joking, I took your comments at face value as if they were intended to be intelligent, thoughtful observation.

Perhaps that’s a hazard particularly for me in that I have participated in discussions which were intended to be thoughtful address of issues.

Would thoughtful replies include you plagiarizing a website and pasting it a few pages back while changing one or two words. That wouldn't have been SOOOO terrible but the article was INCORRECT on a few points. I not only nailed you on copy and pasting another's work but then explained how some of the points in the copy and paste were incorrect. Just 'cause I choose not to be "serious" while I do so does not discount the points made. Does it?

With close to 1,500 posts on this forum (nearly double mind), how should I treat your statement here? Is this one of your “silly” posts as you present percentages, or is this a serious post (one of the “2%”)?

It looks as if you are serious. But with only “2%” of your posts “I'm thinking here,” that would make this post in the minority of your posts.

Could it be that that paragraph fits into the category of me being a "smart ass"? hint: It was. :)

By no means have I read all your posts. So, I only know what I see on the screen in a given post.

I don’t attempt to judge that post by an invisible standard, but rather by exactly the words you place on the screen.

Anyone coming in new to this form has only what they see before them. They cannot know the history of a given person who has more than 1,000 posts on the forum.

Hence, they have only what they see on the screen as they come in.

And your point is?

So, perhaps it’s best if I take you at your word and conclude that 95% of your posts are as you describe them.

It was likely, then, my error to regard so many posts as “I’m thinking here” posts to which I responded as if they were “I’m thinking here.”

JAK

I'm still thinking that I can use subtle humor and smart assery to make points against your "thinking" posts where you make statements that are false. by the way, JAK -- there's no formal dogma in Shintoism (a religion) -- have you recanted the OP statement?

[_marg]

by the way, JAK -- there's no formal dogma in Shintoism (a religion) -- have you recanted the OP statement?

Correct me if I'm wrong and I'm not just saying that to you Moniker, but any belief within a religion which is asserted without evidence is dogma...isn't it? So in Shintoism if the belief taught is that the the emperor descends from God or God that would be dogma? If in shintoism there is a belief in many existing spirits, that would be dogma?

[_Ren]

Dogma:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

Dogma (the plural is either dogmata or dogmas, Greek δόγμα, plural δόγματα) is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.

A dogma isn't just a belief. Dogma has to be believed... 'or else'.
Not all religions emphasise such strictness in what is believed. They may propose a certain reality, but at the very same time completely down-play the importance in believing in 'that one version only'. In fact, they don't have to consider it important at all!

Until the breadth and range of religious attitudes are acknowledged, then of course some here will reach exactly the conclusion they wish to reach...

*shrug* Or you can declare the investigation of what the word 'religion' encompasses (as well as words like 'danger') off-topic - I suppose. Whatever works...

[_Moniker]

JAK - with all due respect, you said:

The conclusion of your post demonstrates that the practices of the Amish present a danger not only to themselves on the highways (or roads) but present a danger to you as well.

Forgetting whether your conclusion is true or false, this is a claim that you made. And is the claim that Moniker was / is addressing.
In one sense, of course the buggy driver presented 'some' danger - he was on the road in the first place! Any vehicle on the road presents some danger. Surely such an observation isn't worthy of any debate. But what hasn't been demonstrated is that the danger presented in Monikers 'story' was due to the driver being Amish. As far as I can see, it has nothing to do with anything.

Go to New York, and ask for a 'horse-drawn' ride round the city. The 'driver' probably won't be Amish.
If Amish don't pose any more reasonable level of danger than anybody else poses (if they were to also choose to drive badly), then where is the actual point?

Moniker actually ended that original claim with:
"Does this mean anything? No."

As far as I understand it, she was just sharing a story practically as a joke! (Correct me if I'm wrong Mon). The joke being that anybody would actually blame the Amish for dangerous behaviour based on that incident! One bad buggy-driver does not a dangerous religion (or religious attitude) make. If you deny that is what you were arguing, can I respectfully ask you to look at the direct quote not more than 10 lines up?

I know we've been over the 'relative' dangers. But there are relative dangers in all modes of transportation. From horse-drawn buggies, to motor-bikes, to stupidly powerful sports cars. Being on the road AT ALL is dangerous. But either way, you did make the claim that Monikers story was an example of Amish 'danger' - specifically. Whereas I - and many others - would simply catagorise it as the dangers of driving a horse-drawn buggy badly!

But whatever the conclusion of your original assertion, I can't for the life of me see how Moniker is involved in a 'straw-man argument' if she attempts to refute that conclusion.

Incorrect analysis, ROP.

Correct analysis, Ren! :)

Moniker writes:
HA! Just yesterday one brave (foolish) Amish man veered straight into my path! I had to quickly apply my brakes and swerve, and those behind me followed suit! I was going about 55 (the speed limit) and his horse and buggy darted right in front of me to go to the other side of the road. On my way home I wanted to pass a large semi on a hill and turned on my blinker to give notice that I was going to enter the right lane. Woops! There was a buggy right in front of me in that lane. SWERVED back in to the left lane.

Moniker writes:
Uh, so if they present a danger then we need to get rid of all automobiles? WHAT? So what if one man in a buggy is dangerous? Anything that is dangerous needs to be outlawed and done away with? WHAT???? (bold emphasis to show your position)

I addressed Moniker’s example directly quoting her. Do you see the bold emphasis in the quote above? It’s a direct quote form Moniker.

Let's try this again the way it went down. Shall we? I'm tired of you saying I'm misrepresenting things when you're the one that does not give YOUR replies and in the correct order of how the posts happened.

I wrote about the brave (foolish) Amish man. At the end of "story time" I asked: "Does this mean anything? No. :)"

Then YOU replied with THIS!

Moniker,

The conclusion of your post demonstrates that the practices of the Amish present a danger not only to themselves on the highways (or roads) but present a danger to you as well.

The Amish believe (faith, religion) that they should be not of this world. Their beliefs (religion) and practices are a danger to them. The danger on the road is the least of the dangers to themselves.

They are at risk as they tend to reject that which is accepted in the culture of this time.

You take one example of ONE individual and use that to say that concludes that the practice of horse drawn buggies supports the case for the Amish religion as a danger.

I ask you to explain how ONE man acting recklessly can be then traced back to a religious tenet or teachings. You have not done so.

I ALSO asked you to explain what "the culture of our time is" and then you really stepped in it when you said the Japanese culture is not the culture of our time -- you didn't realize I was speaking of the Japanese culture. But when I related aspects of their culture (the very aspects you said I would not live in) you said they were dangerous because they were not "in the culture of our time". Recall?

I merely took her example and identified the danger inherent in horses and buggies on roads built for 55 MPH speeds for cars and trucks. The practice of using horses and buggies (in Moniker's example) is a practice drawn from religions dogma. There are many other practices drawn from religion which might be cited. Moniker used this one. I addressed it. (Your reference to a horse drawn ride in NYC is irrelevant to the use and religious doctrine which produces the use of horses by Amish in Moniker's example.)

Unless you can show that the religious doctrine shows that Amish are suppose to dart in front of traffic you have done NO such thing!

This is the principle contention which has not been refuted or even addressed as some individual posts have resorted to off-topic tangents as well as ad hominem. Such tactics are an evasion of the issue presented.

Would some of those off-topic tangents include you telling me that it is not likely I would live in a culture that is "not of our time" or culture, JAK? Then further questioning me and saying you are skeptical??? I'm thinking (this is a thinking sentence) that would be a big ten four!

Ad homs? Would that be you saying that I am being disingenuous? Would that be you saying I did a personal attack? I didn't by the way and am STILL waiting on you to clarify that statement!

[_Ren]

Correct analysis, Ren! :)

Haha! Ok - here's the deal...

After all your posts, I'll say 'Correct analysis', if you say it to all of mine.
...that way, we both never need be wrong again!

That'd be quite cool huh?