All religions are dangerous?

[_dartagnan]

Bond, a lie.

NO WHERE can you find the “quote” which you attribute to JAK. It does not exist. We have an unfortunate forum here which allows for false quotation, and YOU, BOND, are guilty of falsifying. You may have a sense of humor, but you lack integrity.

This coming from someone who plagiarizes from the web?

So far marg has called me stupid and now you're calling Bond a liar.

Tisk tisk.. And after all your preaching about ad hominems. You almost had me convinced you were serious about that... well, not really.

Gad busted you already for a lack of integrity when he posted:
======================================
Of historic interest concerning JAK's opening words and accusations.

Within 1 hour of CC posting on Godel, JAK had made his first accusation of assuming conclusions. But that accusation was merely 7 minutes after his analysis of Armstrong. Is it reasonable that JAK familiarized himself with Godel in one hour -- but most likely 7 minutes?

As some of the lurkers may be curious, note JAK's instructive paragraph:

To accept the ontological arguments of Gödel, requires an irrational leap. His ontological argument has often been said to ascertain God's existence by a philosophical sleight of hand or a ruse of words. Gödel’s arguments are flawed, if by nothing else, his assumptions absent evidence. The minutia of his arguments tends to be intimidating. In any case, they are not transparent and philosophers today do not accept (universally) his assumptions and application of those assumptions to agree with Gödel’s conclusion.

Note the bold is plagiarized from here:

http://www.apollos.ws/ontological-argument/

But also note that the "HIS" reads from the article "THE". JAK's original misuse of copyrighted material also betrays that he thinks "the ontological argument" had its origin in Godel. How funny.
=========================================
http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... &start=210

You were saying about integrity JAK?

[_marg]

[
So far marg has called me stupid and now you're calling Bond a liar.

Get it right Kevin, I said you are either stupid or intellectually dishonest, one or the other. I've said you are a liar and explained why, and that you lack integrity in discussions.

As far as which is it "stupid or intellectually dishonest" ...while it is possible to be both I'm operating with the assumption you are intellectually dishonest and therefore of little worth carrying on a discussion with.

[_Ren]

marg,

First of all our focus is religion and what is dogma with religion, we are not focussed or particularly concerned with what is dogma outside religion.

If that is the focus that's wanted, then well - OK. But why the big surprise when it's only religion that is found to be 'dogmatic' in some way, when we haven't even looked elsewhere? Where is the surprise?

Yes - dogmatism exists within religion. Of course it does. Who disagrees with that? It's the 'extent' of it, and the idea that religion MUST be inherently dogmatic that is being argued. (At least by me, and I believe others...)

I can appreciate religious dogma can be more than beliefs in the supernatural.

But here's the point you don't seem to accept - not all religious belief is dogmatic in nature.

If religious dogma is beliefs that are necessary to be part of the system

I think there are two main 'senses' to this:

One sense is literally what boundaries there are to the belief system itself. And the other sense is the 'moral requirement' taught by the religion for individuals to keep those beliefs within those prescribed boundaries.
So in a non-dogmatic example, even if you were to believe, or live in a way that meant you really couldn't be considered to 'match' this broad, liberal belief system, there would - even then - still be no real sense of being 'lost', or 'a heathen' - as there can be in more dogmatic religions like Christianity, or Islam. At least only based on the fact that you don't believe as they do...

Why does this matter? Only because we've been talking about 'dogma' a lot. And that's what dogma means. So do we want to talk about 'dogma', or not?

It seems to me that is a dogma of the shinto religion.

This seems to be because you appear to equate any belief you see as 'false' with 'dogma'. Why?

There is no inherent link between 'supernatural' belief and dogma. A dogmatic belief has to have distinct, 'solid' boundaries of belief and distinct, 'solid' penalties for disbelief (i.e. questioning) embedded within the belief system. Demonstrate what those are in relation to shintoism, and you'll have a point...

Here's the real point. It doesn't even matter if a belief is literally true, or literally false. The 'truthfulness' of a belief is not part of the definition of 'dogmatic'. It makes no difference to whether it is dogmatic or not... Check the definition of 'dogma'. It doesn't state whether the belief it literally true or false. Only that it is (obviously) 'considered' to be true by those involved in it.

[_dartagnan]

To some extent all religions do turn aside reason and evidence while subtituting claims absent evidence.

This is just more assertion that is used to back up the thesis. But truth by assertion isn't acceptable, remember? There is no evidence that all religions substitute reason and evidence. Substitute essentially means to replace, so in order to replace X with Z, then X had to be there in the first place. I doubt that you're saying religion automatically has reason as an attribute, so substitute is not the right word. Perhaps you're trying to say religion prefers unverifiable claims to proven claims, but this doesn't make much sense either.

Religion is what it is. It is a system of belief with inherent qualities that do not necessarily involve a rejection of reason. In order for you to prove this, you must first prove that a belief in the supernatural is unreasonable. The definition of reason is ismply this: "the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences." There is nothing that requires religious beliefs to be proved via empirical testing in order for them to be deemed reasonable. "Reasonable" is just another term atheists like to hijack for themselves, and that is essentially one of the huge holes in JAK's thesis. He operates on too many assumptions without lifting a finger to establish the validity of those assumptions.

Do religions turn aside evidence? Sure, they do, but that is an attribute of human nature, not religion. We turn aside evidence in our daily lives without religious coercion. Its called confirmation bias. Get two people, I don't cae who they are, and sit them down and watch them have a discussion about sex, religion or politics. There will be disagreement and you'll watch each side ignore the evidence presented by the other. That is human nature. One doesn't need to be afraid of religion; one might as well fear other humans entirely.
"Religion" isn't a boogeyman as JAK likes to pretend. Religion is a term we give to a system of belief that is simply a part of human nature. Religion has always existed with or without "myth." Myth is simply a subset of religion. Humans naturally and overwhelmingly reason that God exists, and they do this with or without a religious unpbringing. But it is done inductively, not deductively. It is done with a perfect knowledge that much of the religious belief is beyond the realm of the phsyical world and cannot be proven or tested by empirical means.

All religions make claims which go beyond known natural physical observable laws. Where is the justification for doing so Kevin?

You haven't explained or demonstrated why there needs to be. Nobody has to "justify" himself to you as far as his personal beliefs go. But they do justify their beliefs with themselves. Certainly no theist believes his or her beliefs are not justified. They don't believe for no reason whatsoever. Most claim a supernatural experience on some level. "Justify" is a relative term the same as reasonable. What might be justified to you might not be considered justified to me. What it all boils down to is whether a belief is true. And since you cannot disprove most supernatural beliefs using natural laws, you have no basis to declare them unjust or unreasonable.

What is still required here is more discussion about the illicit leap to "danger" in all religions. Everyone seems to be talking about irrelevant stuff about shintoism, whether religion has dogma, etc. Nobody seems to be focusing on the title and purpose of this thread.

[_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?

Moniker,

“Formal” is an irrelevant term in this discussion. My post essentially from The World Book Encyclopedia stands on its own merit. And marg’s observation is correct as it adds to my comment.

Is this in the “2%” of "I'm thinkng" or of your “95%” "silly"?

I cannot tell.

JAK

For Marg -- I think I stated repeatedly that it is intertwined within the culture of Japan -- there are rituals, festivals, etc... that many in Japan participate in and still do not believe in the "spirits" --- I stated you can be a Buddhist and be a Shintoist -- you can be a Christian and be a Shintoist -- you can be NOTHING and you can be a Shintoist! Shintoism-- an emphasis on cleanliness, appreciating nature, family (ancestors), and festivals. There are NO required beliefs to be a Shintoist. That SOME believe in spirits does not correlate to a dogma. Beliefs may be different from one family to the next -- since no one tells you to believe in ANYTHING! I think this is confusing for some of you because when I say "spirits" or you think "God" that this correlates to a "truth" of God. It is polytheism -- there is NO true "God". I am having great difficulty explaining it. There is a fuzzy line between the physical and spiritual worlds is as best as I can describe it. Nature worship? I don't know how to explain it -- trying my best.

JAK, You copy and pasted an article (changed a few words) straight from a website (or book) and didn't put it in quotes and didn't say where it came from. The article was incorrect -- and I already pointed that out a few pages back. I wonder if you even read my replies?

You copy and pasted (changed a few words) this:

Shinto is the oldest surviving religion of Japan. The word Shinto means the way of the gods. Shintoists worship many gods, which are called kami. According to Shinto, kami (plural) are the basic forces in mountains, rivers, rocks, trees, and other parts of nature. Shinto also considers kami the basic force in such processes as creativity, disease, growth and healing.

Shinto emphasized rituals and moral standards. It does not have an elaborate philosophy and does not stress life after death as do some other religions.

It just looked *off* to me so I put a few words in and wala this popped up:

http://www.studyworld.com/newsite/Repor ... -38643.htm

Shinto is the oldest surviving religion of Japan. The word
Shinto means the way of the gods. Shintoists worship many
gods, which are called kami. According to Shinto, kami are
the basic force in mountains, rivers, rocks, trees, and
other parts of nature. Shinto also considers kami the basic
force in such processes as creativity, disease, growth and
healing.

Shinto emphasizes rituals and moral standards. It does not
have an elaborate philosophy, and, unlike many religions,
it does not stress life after death.

It is incorrect to say that the Kami are "gods" as I already stated. Also I stated that Shintoism does NOT emphasize moral standards. There are no moral codes in Shintoism. It does not stand.

JAK, stop with the ad homs or else Marg may call you out on them. I bet she will since she was upset about dart and Tarski using them. You were a professor (which is mentioned often -- who cares WHO mentions it) and I would have failed a course if I copy and pasted another's words and not credited it, and passed it off as my own. Who said something about intellectual dishonesty? Well, there's a prime example!

[_dartagnan]

Good grief JAK, is everything you post merely a plagiarism from the web with a few tweaked words?

First Gad busted you and now Moniker. How many of your posts are plagiarisms that nobody has confirmed?

How could you ever expect anyone to trust you again?

You've lost all credibility. Plagiarism is an academic crime punishable by academic death.

[_GoodK]

To some extent all religions do turn aside reason and evidence while substituting claims absent evidence.

This is just more assertion that is used to back up the thesis. But truth by assertion isn't acceptable, remember? There is no evidence that all religions substitute reason and evidence. Substitute essentially means to replace, so in order to replace X with Z, then X had to be there in the first place. I doubt that you're saying religion automatically has reason as an attribute, so substitute is not the right word. Perhaps you're trying to say religion prefers unverifiable claims to proven claims, but this doesn't make much sense either.

It would be hard to provide evidence that all religions substitute reason and evidence with empty claims, only because it is such a blanket statement.
I would rather say - and maybe JAK will agree with this - religious dogma substitutes evidence and reason with empty claims when evidence and reason is in conflict with a key tenet of said religious dogma.

Religion is what it is. It is a system of belief with inherent qualities that do not necessarily involve a rejection of reason.

Right. Not necessarily is not the same as not at all, though.

In order for you to prove this, you must first prove that a belief in the supernatural is unreasonable. The definition of reason is simply this: "the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences."

I agree that reason is certainly in the eye of the beholder, but I think you could have chosen a much better definition for reason. Here are a few I found quickly :

1. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. See Usage Note at because, why.
2. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction: inquired about her reason for leaving.
3. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence: There is reason to believe that the accused did not commit this crime.
4. The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.
5. Good judgment; sound sense.
6. A normal mental state; sanity: He has lost his reason.
7. Logic. A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument.

It is possible, without providing "empirical evidence" to determine a belief is unreasonable.


Kevin, you know what this is don't you?[img src=] http://www.akroservices.co.uk/smprodima ... EP-070.jpg [/img]

I take it you do not require empirical evidence to convince you that L. Ron Hubbard's little enterprise is a sham, but maybe I'm wrong.

There is nothing that requires religious beliefs to be proved via empirical testing in order for them to be deemed reasonable.

Empirical evidence and Scientific Method are not the only means of testing the reasonableness of claims. [img src=] http://www.akroservices.co.uk/smprodima ... EP-070.jpg [/img]

"Reasonable" is just another term atheists like to hijack for themselves, and that is essentially one of the huge holes in JAK's thesis. He operates on too many assumptions without lifting a finger to establish the validity of those assumptions.

I reject this statement, at least the part where atheists hijack words. But I haven't read all of JAK's thesis to comment on that.

We turn aside evidence in our daily lives without religious coercion. Its called confirmation bias. Get two people, I don't care who they are, and sit them down and watch them have a discussion about sex, religion or politics. There will be disagreement and you'll watch each side ignore the evidence presented by the other. That is human nature.

Couldn't agree more.

What it all boils down to is whether a belief is true. And since you cannot disprove most supernatural beliefs using natural laws, you have no basis to declare them unjust or unreasonable.

This is a wrong. Think about Russell's teapot.
[img src=] http://www.akroservices.co.uk/smprodima ... EP-070.jpg [/img]

What is still required here is more discussion about the illicit leap to "danger" in all religions. Everyone seems to be talking about irrelevant stuff about Shintoism, whether religion has dogma, etc. Nobody seems to be focusing on the title and purpose of this thread.

I'm willing to discuss the danger in religions, but I don't think all religions are equally dangerous, and we must define "danger". I have never worried about Jain suicide bombers, or Amish mercy killings, but does dangerous have to mean that I am in physical danger? What about the amount of resources that are wasted by religions collectively and people individually on behalf of a belief in god or gods? What about the public policy that is inspired by religious dogma? What about the people wasting away in jail for victimless crimes (sins)? I already said the Amish are dangerous because they don't educate their children, but that could go for many other religions, as well as the way they treat their women. I think it would be possible to find one tenet or aspect of any religion that is dangerous - perhaps a better way to say it is detrimental to humanity.

[_Moniker]

Let me try this. It's the rituals that are of note not the beliefs -- I hope that helps. This is why the rituals can be incorporated easily to mesh with other religions. It is a part of the very culture of Japan. Perhaps we should move away from Shintoism? ;)

Let's try this. Let's say that there is a dogma to Shintoism (I wonder what that would be??) and then JAK can explain how this dogma makes the Shintoist dangerous. This practitioner of Shintoism believes in Kami and now why is this in and of itself dangerous?

[_marg]

To some extent all religions do turn aside reason and evidence while substituting claims absent evidence.

This is just more assertion that is used to back up the thesis. But truth by assertion isn't acceptable, remember? There is no evidence that all religions substitute reason and evidence. Substitute essentially means to replace, so in order to replace X with Z, then X had to be there in the first place. I doubt that you're saying religion automatically has reason as an attribute, so substitute is not the right word. Perhaps you're trying to say religion prefers unverifiable claims to proven claims, but this doesn't make much sense either.

It would be hard to provide evidence that all religions substitute reason and evidence with empty claims, only because it is such a blanket statement.

Well the problem is Good K you are quoting Kevin who didn't put my words in the context I gave them.

I said "To some extent all religions do turn aside reason and evidence while subtituting claims absent evidence. All religions make claims which go beyond known natural physical observable laws. Where is the justification for doing so Kevin?"

In otherwords the reason that all religion turn aside reason and evidence is because they make claims which defy the evidence we have of consistent natural physical laws in the world we live in. I asked Kevin the justification for religions doing so, and of course instead or responding with an answer he took my words out of context. I don't expect much better from him at this point.

[_Moniker]

Bond, a lie.

NO WHERE can you find the “quote” which you attribute to JAK. It does not exist. We have an unfortunate forum here which allows for false quotation, and YOU, BOND, are guilty of falsifying. You may have a sense of humor, but you lack integrity.

This coming from someone who plagiarizes from the web?

So far marg has called me stupid and now you're calling Bond a liar.

He called me disingenuous, as well.