All religions are dangerous?

[Guest]

Did I already reply to this? I can't keep up! Hahaaaa!!!

Moniker stated:
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?

Moniker,

Old though it may be, we have in our library a 1985 edition of the World Book Encyclopedia from which I collected information regarding Shintoism.

While you may believe your comment, it’s wrong, and it’s inaccurate. I never saw the website which you found.

But you do not dispute the information.

YES I DID! You don't read my posts. There were statements made that were incorrect. I commented on it many, many pages ago and then again just a few pages back!

If you can’t attack the information, you attack the source.

I attacked the information, JAK! I attacked the information BEFORE I even realized you had copy and pasted it. I replied about the moral codes and something bothered me after I replied -- so I pasted a few of those words in your post in Google and up popped the same words (that you tweaked). I attacked the information BEFORE I even realized you had just copy and pasted them!

If you can’t attack the source, you attack the source or the information, you attack the one who provided the information.

Whatever JAK. I attacked the information. Not the source and not you. I said what you did after I realized it. And I thought I was fairly kind about it as I said this: "Tsk! Tsk! JAK -- cite your sources". It's after you started calling me disingenious and accusing me of straw men that I sort of got fed up with this whole shebang!

But you do not attack the information with any countervailing source.

Well, I said in the reply to your original copy and paste that it is not accurate to say Kami are Gods. I also stated that there is no moral codes to Shintoism. Want a source?

Here's the first one that popped up when I typed in "Shinto moral" into google -- I'm sure there are MANY more:
http://www.japan-zone.com/omnibus/shinto.shtml

Unlike the world's major religions, Shinto has no fixed dogma, moral precepts, or sacred scriptures.

Your copy and pasted article said Kami were Gods -- I mentioned they were better understood as "spirits". Here ya go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kami

Kami (神, Kami?) is the Japanese word for the spirits within objects in the Shinto faith. Although the word is sometimes translated as "god" or "deity," Shinto scholars point out that such a translation can cause a serious misunderstanding of the term (Ono, 1962). In some instances, such as Izanagi and Izanami, kami are personified deities, similar to the gods of ancient Greece or Rome. In other cases, such as those concerning the phenomenon of growth and natural objects, the spirits dwelling in trees, or forces of nature, translating "kami" exclusively as "god" or "deity" would be a gross mischaracterization. In this respect it is more similar to the Roman concept of the numen.

You give example of personal attack. You denied making personal attack. That was false.

You quote where I made a personal attack -- you said you were going to not comment on the personal attacks that I made. Okay, where are they? What about saying I was disingenuous or that I was insulting my intelligence? That sounds like a personal attack to me!

You attempted to shift the topic to attack a person with information.

Where? I REPLIED to the information and you IGNORED my post!

That multiple sources for Shintoism would have essentially the same information is not surprising.

If you can find a 1985 edition of the World book Encyclopedia, you can confirm the same information there as was on the website which you found and which I did not see.

The fact is that the information is established. That is the critical point. Your contradiction of two sources does not give you credibility. The fact that essentially the same information came from at least two different encyclopedia sources is in no way refuted by your rejection of that information. Wishful thinking is self-deception.

It is NOT established! On my FIRST reply to you (when your copy and paste was put in this thread) I showed how some points were incorrect!

So just continue on your ignorant merry way, Moniker.

JAK

Is that another personal attack? I think it is. Why? Seriously. I am completely baffled. I think I've handled myself fairly well in this thread. When others on this website shove their credentials down my choking throat or just say I'm "ignorant" or "stupid" I should take it at face value and slink off? Here's the thing JAK -- as much as you want to say I'm ignorant I can still refute your points and have a reasonable debate with you. You decided to attack me personally in this thread and not counter many of my statements!

[_Moniker]

Catching up with the thread from the point of where I left it last evening. A word of unsolicited advice: When people start using phrases such as "you're the one", calling eachother liars and interrupting the thread with inane "channeling" posts, the thread is pretty much one step shy of destruction. But what do I know, eh?

Just an observation...

Jersey Girl

(This type of discussion would have been far more effective on a threaded view option.)

What are "channeling" posts?

I love it when well educated men have to tell me I'm "ignorant", "disingenuous", and "I insult my intelligence" in order for them to score points. If I wanted to handle that I would have stayed married.

[_Jersey Girl]

Catching up with the thread from the point of where I left it last evening. A word of unsolicited advice: When people start using phrases such as "you're the one", calling eachother liars and interrupting the thread with inane "channeling" posts, the thread is pretty much one step shy of destruction. But what do I know, eh?

Just an observation...

Jersey Girl

(This type of discussion would have been far more effective on a threaded view option.)

What are "channeling" posts?

I love it when well educated men have to tell me I'm "ignorant", "disingenuous", and "I insult my intelligence" in order for them to score points. If I wanted to handle that I would have stayed married.

I'll return and respond to this in a bit, Moniker. Don't expect the wisdom of Solomon though!

Angel with a flaming sword, more like it.

I will try to be good.*

Jersey Girl

*I'm totally lying.

[_JAK]

You, Moniker, have addressed no critical information here or elsewhere. Your attack of me was just exactly as I characterized it.

You wanted to leap to a conclusion to for personal attack rather than address the substance of the information which likely appears in virtually all encyclopedias of academic substance.

I did research. You attacked the researcher rather than the research and simply claim that you don’t agree with it.

You have consistently ignored information, changed the subject, attempted tangents rather that address the central issue regarding:

“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.”

In short, you’re poorly informed and leap to conclusions which are wrong.

On the issue, I posted a lengthy lists of websites demonstrating clear and transparent dangers of religion. These were not trivial dangers. They were dangers to large masses of people.

Did you address any of those?

You did not.

Did you provide links refuting those links regarding the dangers of religion?

You did not.

You appear to know little or nothing about the history of religion mythology beyond the past 20 minutes. (Notice the qualifier “appear.”) If you know, you don’t demonstrate it.

I posted history relevant to the position which I stated.

You have offered no refutation to any of that. You misdirect comment to the trivial or put up irrelevant comment or question to the central thesis which I have supported with evidence.

JAK

[_Moniker]

JAK -- I am seriously baffled. WHERE did I make an attack on YOU?


This is the post in question. You copy and pasted something and this is my FIRST reply to your copy and pasted article:

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... 469#127469

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.

The Kami are more like spirits than Gods. Shinto does not emphasize moral standards. Buddhism was interspersed (and is still) to deal with an afterlife in Japan. The Japanese live NOW with Shintoism and rely on Buddhism for their deaths -- pretty cool, I think. :)

Where is the personal attack? I mentioned the spirits and that Shintoism does not emphasize moral standards. You NEVER replied to my points! Ever! So, I didn't go for more sources 'cause you never said anything else about it!

About 5 minutes later I was still reading your post and something *bothered* me about it so I did a search with a few of the words and made this post:

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... 470#127470

JAK -- tsk! tsk!

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

Quote:

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.



JAK wrote:
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.

Where is the personal attack? Where? I FIRST mentioned what was INCORRECT in your copy and paste before I even noticed you had done so! I didn't attack YOU, I didn't attack the source -- I countered the information!

[_dartagnan]

JAK -- I am seriously baffled. WHERE did I make an attack on YOU?

Don't you remember?

You accused him of being an "educated" man.

[_JAK]

Catching up with the thread from the point of where I left it last evening. A word of unsolicited advice: When people start using phrases such as "you're the one", calling eachother liars and interrupting the thread with inane "channeling" posts, the thread is pretty much one step shy of destruction. But what do I know, eh?

Just an observation...

Jersey Girl

(This type of discussion would have been far more effective on a threaded view option.)

What are "channeling" posts?

I love it when well educated men have to tell me I'm "ignorant", "disingenuous", and "I insult my intelligence" in order for them to score points. If I wanted to handle that I would have stayed married.

I'll return and respond to this in a bit, Moniker. Don't expect the wisdom of Solomon though!

Angel with a flaming sword, more like it.

I will try to be good.*

Jersey Girl

*I'm totally lying.

Moniker,

You asked Jersey Girl the very same question which I have.

It was Bond back on page 12 (depending on your computer or some other factor) who put up a post that had these words:

“JAK responded:”

Following that, Bond put his own words which were nothing which I had stated. It was Bond who was lying in that post. He posted in blue and signed in blue JAK to the post.

I did not make the post. It was falsification.

You were not “dumb or ignorant” on this. I had no information about what that meant – NONE.

It meant NOTHING.

So in this comment, I am with you and neither of us knew anything about it.

A bb which allows people to post and sign someone else’s name to the post is seriously flawed.

THIS BB DOES ALLOW FOR THAT. You can go back and read it unless it has been removed by some administrator.

NOTHING which I recently stated to you about YOUR posts was remotely related to what BOND did in that post. I want you to know that. Do you understand? You are at no fault and you were no more uninformed than I was or anyone else who had not heard the phrase.

It was still a falsification because the “channeling” word did not appear immediately before “JAK responded:” which was followed by a statement any reader would logically think JAK had made.

JAK

[_Moniker]

You, Moniker, have addressed no critical information here or elsewhere. Your attack of me was just exactly as I characterized it.

You wanted to leap to a conclusion to for personal attack rather than address the substance of the information which likely appears in virtually all encyclopedias of academic substance.

I did research. You attacked the researcher rather than the research and simply claim that you don’t agree with it.

CFR!!! YOU SHOW ME WHERE I DID THAT! You won't find it on a search engine. You must actually take the time to read my posts and show me how I attacked YOU rather than countering some information you copy and pasted!!

You have consistently ignored information, changed the subject, attempted tangents rather that address the central issue regarding:

You IGNORED my post that countered your information! YOU changed the subject to what cultures I would live in (as I repeatedly asked what the relevance was)!

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

This was not the central issue! The central issue was on PAGE ONE on this thread that Dart brought over from another thread.

I'm seriously confounded as to what I've done that has upset you so much that you have made assumptions about my life, that you can call me "ignorant", that I "insult my intelligence", etc.. etc...

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

If you had read an earlier post I already agreed with this statement. :D

In short, you’re poorly informed and leap to conclusions which are wrong.

Really? Is that another personal attack? That I'm poorly informed? I am MORE informed about the things I chose to talk about on this thread then you were, weren't I, JAK? I thought we were having pleasant conversation and all of a sudden I have to counter things you assume about my life, I put up with you saying I'm disingenious, and saying I "insult my intelligence" and STILL attempted to be pleasant to you. by the way, I still am not emotional.

On the issue, I posted a lengthy lists of websites demonstrating clear and transparent dangers of religion. These were not trivial dangers. They were dangers to large masses of people.

I did read that post but only chose to address the NUMEROUS posts you made to me! I was SOOO busy trying to keep up with them! Seriously, should I have ignored all of your posts that you addressed to me?

Did you address any of those?

You did not.

Did you provide links refuting those links regarding the dangers of religion?

You did not.

You're right, I didn't. I was busy replying to the numerous posts where you said you didn't say what I had just quoted you saying. *insert confused smilie here*

You appear to know little or nothing about the history of religion mythology beyond the past 20 minutes. (Notice the qualifier “appear.”) If you know, you don’t demonstrate it.

I actually know more about Shintoism than you do and I think that's been established. Was that another personal attack, by the way?

I posted history relevant to the position which I stated.

You have offered no refutation to any of that. You misdirect comment to the trivial or put up irrelevant comment or question to the central thesis which I have supported with evidence.

JAK

Shintoism is MY rebuttal to your central thesis! I have said these NUMEROUS TIMES! You are ignoring it!

[_Canucklehead]

You guys know that Bond was joking right? It was obvious from his post that JAK hadn't actually said the quote that Bond attributed to him. He specifically said "channelling JAK".

I think that JAK missed this, called Bond a liar, then Dartagnon attacked JAK for calling Bond a liar, and then it continued from there.

(Of course, I think there were probably lots of other namecalling going on too ... I can't keep up with all the lengthy, lengthy posts in this thread.)

[_Moniker]

You guys know that Bond was joking right? It was obvious from his post that JAK hadn't actually said the quote that Bond attributed to him. He specifically said "channelling JAK".

I think that JAK missed this, called Bond a liar, then Dartagnon attacked JAK for calling Bond a liar, and then it continued from there.

(Of course, I think there were probably lots of other namecalling going on too ... I can't keep up with all the lengthy, lengthy posts in this thread.)

Well, I feel sorta dejected and out of the loop. I wanna play.

Canucklehead is a liar liar pants on fire!

Psst: yah, I got it.......