All religions are dangerous?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_marg

Post by _marg »

RenegadeOfPhunk wrote:Canucklehead,

I realise you are only replying to dart, but just to add my own comments.

Yes - an extreme religious person might do as you describe.
An extreme atheist might decide that since there is no 'ultimate' point to neither human life, not the universe - that it really doesn't matter if a few nukes go off either way.

If it can be shown that such dangers are possible within any ideology (even pacifism could be considered 'dangerous', since it would allow the defenseless to be trodden underfoot), then where is the need to single out religion?


As I mentioned previously it is not so much a belief in a God which is the problem but how that belief is used. How willing a believer is to suspending critical thinking in favor of faith based conclusions. And it’s an attitude, a way of thinking that leads to a greater probability of relying on conclusions which are much less reliable, more likely dangerous than if one incorporates at attitude of good critical thinking, reasoned skepticism of all authority. This is not a matter of theism versus atheism. This is a matter of religion built upon claims absent evidence which discourages critical thinking in areas versus critical thinking being used at all times, which it’s possible. Atheists can be poor critical thinkers. But there is no doctrine to atheism, which encourages suspension of critical thinking, a reliance or obedience to any authority be it a God or men who speak for God, and nor does atheism encourage a belief that they are chosen by some supernatural agent making them the favored superior ones..and that is the key.

So religions encourage suspension of good critical thinking when they encourage reliance upon faith over and above critical thinking. At a basic level of so many religions is the claim to an interfering personal God, which oftentimes has given authority to men who use that claim of the divine as a means to yield power, control and manipulate their theists.

These claims to God or Gods, absent evidence go against mankind’s noted, observable, testable, consistent natural physical laws. The natural physical laws identified have enabled mankind to reach consensus on conclusion about how the world actually is. Religions are not particularly interested in how the world actually is. Religions use stories, myths which deny natural laws, with I believe the main purpose of the stories being to give a group an identity and unify them. It’s makes a group stronger but often puts others outside the groups at odds with the group.

The proof of whether people are manipulated, encouraged to obey without questioning religious authority is in looking at historical evidence. Without this acceptance of a personal interfering God, which is a claim absent evidence, religious authorities historically could not have used God as a means to manipulate and control.

Why do Christians believe Jesus is a son of God? Not because they've questioned critically but it goes back to the first step of willingly, accepting religious authority claims to a personal Christian God. Once they have accepted that claim, other claims are built on, such as Jesus is the son of God. The N.T. are claimed true stories of divine involvement with man. So how can those stories for example have dangerous consequences? Would Jews have been so persecuted historically were it not for the N.T. storyline of P. Pilate asking the Jewish crowd whether Jesus should be crucified? That story is an obviously created one to appeal to a Roman audience at the expense of the older established religion in which it was in competition with, Judaism. It paints the Jews as the bad guys who had a hand in the tortuous execution of a their divine Christian leader, Jesus. Christianity historically was in competition with other religions as were other religions in competition with Christianity, they didn't co-exist without conflict.

Moniker has pointed out that Shintoism has no sacred texts, no leader and I believe she basically painted it as a religion which encourages peace, harmony with nature, couldn’t be dangerous. Yet if that's the case why were the Japanese so aggressive in WW 2? “Japan is responsible for the deaths of more than 20 million Chinese during the 14 years of invason, not to mention large numbers of Koreans, Indonesia (4 million), Vietnam (2 million), India (1.5 million), Filipions (1 million) and other Asian countries.” It was a Holocaust committed by Japan in World War II and not yet confessed. [ur]http://www.aiipowmia.com/731/731holocaust.html[/url]

From this link http://www.users.bigpond.com/battleforaustralia/foundationJapmilaggro/FacadeofDemocracy.html it says “This pattern of government was superimposed on a society conditioned over centuries to militarism, authoritarian rule, and obedience to authority. The national religion Shinto held that the emperor was divine, that Japan was blessed by the gods, and that Japan had a divine mission to extend its rule and enlightenment to less fortunate races.” So if Shintoism had no belief in personal interfering God/Gods which blessed Japan, that faith based belief, that claim absent evidence couldn’t have been used by the government in the first place.

In this thread it’s been discussed whether or not Shintoism has dogma. At this link http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch27/default.htm it says: “Around 1700 Shinto experienced a revival when the study of archaic Japanese texts was reinstituted. One of the most learned Shinto scholars of the period was Hirata, who wrote:

The two fundamental doctrines are: that Japan is the country of the Gods, and her inhabitants are the descendants of the Gods.”

Without this fundamental belief in personal Gods, Shintu could never have been used and turned into a state religion which claimed an emperor descended from a God.

The link is a book or article written by a Christian apologist Josh McDowell. While he’s able to be critical of Shintoism and the reasoning he gives seems justified he writes nothing critical of Christianity. “Shinto finds little acceptance apart from Japan since everything of Japanese origin is exalted and that which is non-Japanese is abased. Shinto is a textbook example of a religion invented by man to explain his ancestry and environment while taking no consideration of anyone but himself.”

While Shintoism doesn’t have the amount of dogma of other organized religions, the religion is a contributing factor to the Japanese culture of being excessively obedient to authority.

And it gets back to the point that religions are responsible for encouraging uncritical acceptance of “faith based conclusions” which are more likely to be dangerous than conclusions which use evidence and reasoning.

That doesn’t mean that all religious individuals are dangerous or poor critical thinkers. But at a minimum all religious individuals who believe in a personal God of any religion, who are obedient to that authority to the extent they willingly suspend critical thinking in favor of that authority's claims have the potential to be manipulated and make poor decisions which lack good critical thinking.
Last edited by _marg on Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Mercury wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:
Moniker wrote:Jersey Girl -- since you apparently can figure out what in the hell JAK is doing explain this comment in reply to me:

No comment will be made regarding personal attacks.


http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 326#127326

You'll have to scroll down.

What personal attacks (notice it's plural) did I make????


Where did he state that YOU made personal attacks?

Now get away from me! I'm going to bed! You're on your own!

Jersey Girl


Bad Language Image used by Merc and edited by Bond

Stop it jersey.


Stop what?
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

Jersey Girl wrote:
Moniker wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:
Moniker wrote:Jersey Girl -- since you apparently can figure out what in the hell JAK is doing explain this comment in reply to me:

No comment will be made regarding personal attacks.


http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 326#127326

You'll have to scroll down.

What personal attacks (notice it's plural) did I make????


Where did he state that YOU made personal attacks?

Now get away from me! I'm going to bed! You're on your own!

Jersey Girl


OMG! He said it in the post where he was talking to me!!!!!!!!!

*smacks forehead* Yes, I think I am on my own........ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9uYEM2osYQ


Again, where does he say that you made personal attacks? Quote it...just the line or two or whatever where he claims that you made personal attacks. What you showed me said this:

JAK

No comment will be made regarding personal attacks.


That doesn't say that you made a personal attack, Moniker.

[/quote]

Really? Then who was he speaking to??? He started the post with "Moniker," and then he pasted my replies and replied to me. He said "No comments will be made regarding personal attacks" in his response to me and then continues on replying to me. by the way, since Marg, you (I guess), and Schmo are soooo concerned with personal attacks why has no one called JAK out on the numerous ones he's made on me?

I don't really care all that much -- EXCEPT he says I personally attacked him (a few times -- Jersey Girl surely you read all the times I just copy and pasted his other posts where he says I attacked the "source" or the "messenger") all the while he is in actuality attacking me.

I am OFTEN swiped aside as if I'm "ignorant" or stupid -- and I'm rather tired of it! If I'm merely an "ignorant" woman then surely he can refute my points rather than calling me names. Right?

I'm so sick of some of the men on this board. And the women that defend them. :)
Last edited by Guest on Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

Jersey Girl, since you're concerned with me saying JAK says I attacked him let me focus your direction to this post of his:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 102#128102

The things he stated are incorrect. I did refute the information in his source. I never attacked the "source", I never attacked the "the person with information".

Please notice this:

You denied making personal attack. That was false.


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


Please show me where I made a personal attack on this oh so esteemed professor of logic that calls me "ignorant" in that post. Please?
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Moniker wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:
Moniker wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:
Moniker wrote:Jersey Girl -- since you apparently can figure out what in the hell JAK is doing explain this comment in reply to me:

No comment will be made regarding personal attacks.


http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 326#127326

You'll have to scroll down.

What personal attacks (notice it's plural) did I make????


Where did he state that YOU made personal attacks?

Now get away from me! I'm going to bed! You're on your own!

Jersey Girl


OMG! He said it in the post where he was talking to me!!!!!!!!!

*smacks forehead* Yes, I think I am on my own........ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9uYEM2osYQ


Again, where does he say that you made personal attacks? Quote it...just the line or two or whatever where he claims that you made personal attacks. What you showed me said this:

JAK

No comment will be made regarding personal attacks.


That doesn't say that you made a personal attack, Moniker.



Really? Then who was he speaking to??? He started the post with "Moniker," and then he pasted my replies and replied to me. He said "No comments will be made regarding personal attacks" in his response to me and then continues on replying to me. by the way, since Marg, you (I guess), and Schmo are soooo concerned with personal attacks why has no one called JAK out on the numerous ones he's made on me?

I don't really care all that much -- EXCEPT he says I personally attacked him (a few times -- Jersey Girl surely you read all the times I just copy and pasted his other posts where he says I attacked the "source" or the "messenger") all the while he is in actuality attacking me.

I think some bias is poking through in some people on this board. Yes, indeed. If anyone is interested I'm not a professor -- I do have a degree in poli-sci with an emphasis in pre-law, I did debate in mock trial, took honor courses, graduated with an excellent gpa, and have just applied to a top notch law-school that I most likely will be accepted to. I grew up going to museums, theatre, art galleries, symphonies and traveled abroad -- and lived abroad. Why is this relevant? 'Cause I am OFTEN swiped aside as if I'm "ignorant" or stupid -- and I'm rather tired of it! If I'm merely an "ignorant" woman then surely he can refute my points rather than calling me names. Right?

I'm so sick of some of the men on this board. And the women that defend them. :)[/quote]

First off, I'm not defending JAK, if that's what you think. Is that what you interpret this as? I'm simply trying to get you to READ what he types to you instead of reading things into his words that he doesn't say.

In the post that he made to you, the comment you extracted DOES NOT say that you attacked him! It's a simple statement of his intention. While you were wigging out over this did it occur to you to ask him point blank (using the quote) what he meant by it?

Moniker, I've been called every name in the book on message boards like this and I assure you that the descriptors that have been applied to you on this thread PALE in comparison so get over it. Stop defending yourself and start READING what is in front of you.

I took time last evening to copy and paste comments to show you where the disconnect was. To help YOU, Moniker, not to"defend" JAK.

Look again at the comment we're dragging around here, it DOES NOT say that you attacked him. Look at it repeatedly until you see what it actually says instead of what you think it says, cause you're wrong.

Jersey Girl
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Moniker wrote:Jersey Girl, since you're concerned with me saying JAK says I attacked him let me focus your direction to this post of his:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 102#128102

The things he stated are incorrect. I did refute the information in his source. I never attacked the "source", I never attacked the "the person with information".

Please notice this:

You denied making personal attack. That was false.


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


Please show me where I made a personal attack on this oh so esteemed professor of logic that calls me "ignorant" in that post. Please?


No, not yet. This thread is already a trainwreck to hell and I'm not going to hop around issues. I'll deal with this when you think you understand the remark where you thought JAK stated that you attacked him. I'm willing to try to help resolve one thing at a time, Moniker.
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

Jersey Girl wrote:
First off, I'm not defending JAK, if that's what you think. Is that what you interpret this as? I'm simply trying to get you to READ what he types to you instead of reading things into his words that he doesn't say.


I interpret it as you saying you've read this thread and you seem to want to come in and ask me to attempt to understand JAK -- why not let JAK speak for himself? No one else speaks for me. Surely he can make himself understood.

In the post that he made to you, the comment you extracted DOES NOT say that you attacked him! It's a simple statement of his intention. While you were wigging out over this did it occur to you to ask him point blank (using the quote) what he meant by it?


Please refer to the other times he says I personally attacked him. But, since you've read the thread in its entirety you've no doubt already noticed it and am merely quibbling over this one instance. Right? I didn't wig out on it until he REPEATEDLY says I'm attacking him. I WANT TO KNOW WHERE!

I think I pushed his buttons. :) Yep! So he says I attacked him....

Moniker, I've been called every name in the book on message boards like this and I assure you that the descriptors that have been applied to you on this thread PALE in comparison so get over it. Stop defending yourself and start READING what is in front of you.


Actually Jersey Girl -- I am over it. I don't care that he called me names, I care that he says I ATTACKED HIM WHILE HE WAS ATTACKING ME! I am quite interested in hypocrisy and pointing it out. It's fun. :D

What did I misread? I read the thread -- apparently you didn't if you're unaware that he has said I attacked him. Why is this a concern of yours? Why do you care? This conversation would have ended pages ago if you hadn't popped in to say JAK didn't say I attacked him. The rest of it is trying to point out to you (oh wonder of reading comprehension:) that he's said that a few times on this thread. :)

I took time last evening to copy and paste comments to show you where the disconnect was. To help YOU, Moniker, not to"defend" JAK.


Ah! I needed "help" to understand that JAK saying I personally attacked him does not equate to what he said? Ooookay. Thanks! I know, I must be too dense to read his words and comprehend them..... okey dokey.

Look again at the comment we're dragging around here, it DOES NOT say that you attacked him. Look at it repeatedly until you see what it actually says instead of what you think it says, cause you're wrong.

Jersey Girl


Then why later does he say I attacked him and I denied it? I think you may want to read the thread again Jersey Girl. I mean, since you actually understand better than I what actually happened maybe you can see the few times he did say I attacked him and then come back and explain to "ignorant" me what he actually intended by his words.

K?
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Moniker....

Show me the first time he accuses you of making a personal attack on him.
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

Jersey Girl wrote:
No, not yet. This thread is already a trainwreck to hell and I'm not going to hop around issues. I'll deal with this when you think you understand the remark where you thought JAK stated that you attacked him. I'm willing to try to help resolve one thing at a time, Moniker.


Jersey Girl, that post was directed at me. Why do you need to resolve anything? JAK can resolve it, no? If he didn't intend those words for me he can certainly clarify that instance and the other instances of him saying I attacked him -- he can then point me in the direction of those personal attacks I did on him.

Here's what I believe happened. I refuted JAK's points, I disagreed with JAK, I pointed out JAK was incorrect on a few things, I noticed JAK plagiarized a source and he had to then start making swipes at me at various times through the thread.

He rarely refuted my points, says I created multiple straw men (I didn't), says I went off-topic (he assumed things and I refuted his assumptions), and started calling me names. That's poor form.
_marg

Post by _marg »

Moniker
by the way, since Marg, you (I guess), and Schmo are soooo concerned with personal attacks why has no one called JAK out on the numerous ones he's made on me?


For the record I don't complain about personal attacks unless they are used as diversionary disingenuous tools to shift focus off issues and onto the person.

Pointing out that someone "plagiarized" in any discussion is meant as an attack on the person, it is not taking issue with the substance of what was said. Now of course in essays for school, in books or articles published, in science papers submitted for peer review etc. it is a big deal if someone plagairizes and takes credit for work not their own when they are putting their own name to it. On message boards when someone posts information from a source and doesn't cite it is not meant disingenuously. JAK is not looking for personal credit for his knowledge of Shintoism. In this discussion, his focus it getting across ideas, concepts and information which relate to the issues. Accusing someone of plagiarism on message boards is simply a personal attack (fallacious ad hominem). It is a shift of focus off the issues onto the person in lieu of discussing the issues of the argument. It is meant to discredit the person, and has no bearing on the substance of the argument.
Post Reply