All religions are dangerous?

[_Chap]

dartagnan:

We're still waiting for JAK to respond to the fact that most suicide bombers don't use religion as an excuse. In fact they are Marxist secularists. I guess he didn't know that, which is why he hasn't responded to this in days. Speaking in ignorance can become an embarrasing endeavor. JAK is making a hobby from it.

I don't want to get caught in the cross-fire, but where has dartagnan documented the assertion that "most suicide bombers don't use religion as an excuse"? Searching the thread, I see that he has claimed (without documentation) that suicide bombers in Sri Lanka carry out their acts for secular motives, but that is all. Suicide bombing happens in a lot of other places, does it not?

Can we have some reference to studies supporting the general claim made, please? If it is true it is important, though it certainly does fly in the face of impressions gathered over decades of reading fairly serious current affairs materials. Can you prove those impressions wrong, dartagnan? I would be happy to be set right.

[_JAK]

Before I go further, I'd like to try and have a little "Kumbaya" moment here...
...oh - oops. That's a bit too religious isn't it :) Let's just say an 'ideologically-neutral' moment of peace and reflection!

...guys, no matter what the disagreements we have here, the problems of the world aren't going to be solved on this message board. The 'conclusions' we come to (or don't come to) here aren't going to move the 'corridors of power'. Of course the answers to the future are in our hands as individuals. But we've all gotta accept that we each have to come to the conclusions we see as the 'best' ones.

There's probably been mis-communications on all sides here. And I'm sure I'm as to blame as anybody else.


Just consider the above a small attempt to diffuse some of the tension here. Will it work? Probably not, but oh well :D

Again, what evidence makes you feel that “dogmatism and fundamentalism is on the wane in religion - across the world”?

Before we go into big, lengthy back and forths, let me be VERY clear on what I meant.

I don't mean that all religions - universally, across the world - are becoming less fundementalistic and less dogmatic. Of COURSE that is not true. You have all accurately cited clear examples of places in this world where it sticks around, and worrying enough is spreading to some degree.

What I meant was:
In most - if not all - areas of the world, you can find religions and religious movements that are becoming less 'dogmatic' and less 'fundemetnalistic' - on their own steam. Even in America, you can find them - check the examples I provided earlier of religious movements are specifically SAY that you are NOT to swallow the Bible as dogma.


Look OK - here's a more solid version of what I am claiming.

Take any snapshot of the world-wide religious view of any point in the past (And I mean ALL religions everywhere - not just USA, middle-east etc.) Construct some 'figure' for how much 'fundamentalism' and 'dogmatism' exists as a sum total world-wide.

Now create a snapshot of today and do the same thing. (And I mean ALL religions everywhere - not just USA, middle-east etc.) Construct some 'figure' for how much 'fundamentalism' and 'dogmatism' exists as a sum total world-wide today.

Now compare the two figures.
My assertion is that the figure from the past would ALWAYS be lower than the figure from the present

ROP,

Your clarification is excellent and a differentiating observation. No “lengthy back and forths” from me on your well-stated communication.

Clarity is critical for concept comprehension and communication. :-)

JAK

[_Ren]

I know of no politician which has not and does not make an affirmative statement about his/her religion.

Over here, there are plenty of politicians with religious views. (Tony Blair was himself a Christian).
But it is considered distinctly strange if you are to mention your religious views in relation to your 'pitch' as a politician.

Over here, your religious view is seen as absolutely irrelevant - by both the religious and the non-religious. It is considered 'inappropriate' to mention your religious views in relation to public policy in any way. And that is accepted by everybody. Both the religious and the non-religious alike...


Religious attitudes are different in different places.

[_Moniker]

dartagnan:

We're still waiting for JAK to respond to the fact that most suicide bombers don't use religion as an excuse. In fact they are Marxist secularists. I guess he didn't know that, which is why he hasn't responded to this in days. Speaking in ignorance can become an embarrasing endeavor. JAK is making a hobby from it.

I don't want to get caught in the cross-fire, but where has dartagnan documented the assertion that "most suicide bombers don't use religion as an excuse"? Searching the thread, I see that he has claimed (without documentation) that suicide bombers in Sri Lanka carry out their acts for secular motives, but that is all. Suicide bombing happens in a lot of other places, does it not?

Can we have some reference to studies supporting the general claim made, please? If it is true it is important, though it certainly does fly in the face of impressions gathered over decades of reading fairly serious current affairs materials. Can you prove those impressions wrong, dartagnan? I would be happy to be set right.

I already posted the relevant study (with documented facts) on page 2 of this thread. Please refer to it. It is well documented that more suicide bombings are done by secular groups. Those groups that are religious are doing the bombings for secular purposes. Please look to my original post on this.

I'll be back later to Jak and Marg.

[Guest]

I don't think "Islamic insanity" has ever been realtively calm, and it certainly isn't doing what it's doing because of US policy. Islam is what it is. It just does what it does.

http://www.howardbloom.net/militant_islam_map.gif

From taxi cab drivers in SLC and Minneapolis refusing to take passengers who carry alcohol or use seeing eye dogs, to individual acts of jihad (SLC mall shooter, seemingly random acts of violence in Southern Thailand and the Philippines, DC sniper, or a Muslim man running over students at UNC Chapel Hill), to small group jihad, and finally to outright Quranic warfare (Darfur)... Islam has never been peaceful, never will be peaceful, and we certainly can't afford to wish upon it our point of view.

I'm not really sure why there are some on this board that are so willing to exculpate religious influence, ie, religion, on political, social, and moral affairs... But that seems to be the message you're sending to the rest of the board.

While religion, in of itself, isn't entirely at fault for bad behavior, it does, in fact, influence people's decision making process, acts as a culutural unifier in times of depravity, and provides justification for otherwise criminal behavior. Political ideology provides the same kind of justifications. However, it would be incredibly naïve to extricate religion from politics and vice versa. They both have profound effects on each other and the acts people commit in their names.

An incredibly, oversimplified and underreported list of Islamic jihad... But it gives you an idea:

http://www.howardbloom.net/militant_isl ... htm#_edn10

[_Moniker]

I wasn't able to devote anytime this evening other than at this point and it is likely tomorrow I won't have much time, actually nor sunday, but I will try to respond to JAK and Moniker's responses as soon as possible.

Just a quick note as I skimmed some posts.

Hi, marg, thanks for the reply. I don't have a lot of time to spend on this today, either. I fear with every reply to you, and then the 3 or 4 to JAK, that I'm going to be bombarded. I'll get back to all of the replies as soon as I can.

Jak writes one definition of dogma: from American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Cite This Source - Share This
dogma

"A teaching or set of teachings laid down by a religious group, usually as part of the essential beliefs of the group."

Moniker replies: "Well, then Shinto doesn't fit into that as there are no essential beliefs or set of teachings as I've attempted to show on this thread a few times.

What are the essential beliefs of the group? Kami -- no! You can do the rituals and be a Shintoist and still the belief is not necessary! What are the "teachings"? What is the religious group that laid down these teachings and beliefs in Shinto?

The ritual is what is important. There are no preachers teaching anything."

If Shintoism was simply about ritual I don't think it would be considered a religion. And the fact that some people do the rituals but don't believe in the claims to supernatural beings does not mean they are religious Shintoists, they really are not following a religion if their involvement is limited to activity rituals only. When I use the word "religion" as I mentioned previously in this thread I'm referring to a belief system which incorporates supernatural beings. I didn't make that necessary inclusion up. It is what I learned in a course by R. Oden with The Teaching Co. I'll give the note lesson format from the lesson from the lesson notebook they supply.

I didn't say it was "simply about ritual". I said the rituals are what is important -- the rituals is how the religion is practiced. I already supplied a link that I thought could more adequately explain that. I don't know if you looked at it.

Yet, there are Shintoists that do believe in supernatural (superstitions as well) that do the rituals. There is no required beliefs is what I'm getting at. It is not NECESSARY for you to have a belief -- can you? Yes! Marg, I'm not being ugly here -- but it doesn't matter if you believe it's a religion or not. It is and you can google "Shinto" and have what I've been telling you confirmed. Just because it is different from what you're used to does not make it not a religion. I think what you are seeing is that when one doesn’t believe that they’re not a Shintoist – but WHAT are they supposed to believe? That is the point. There is no defining teachings that tell them what to believe.

"Religion is a communication system that is constituted by supernatural beings and is related to specific patterns of behavior" (H.H. Penner)

1) This definition imparts a definite structure and complexity to religion that is systemic.

2) A communication system indicates to those within and outside our religion who and what we are, as well as what we do and do not believe in.

3) This definition does not limit religion to verbal communication, ritual is a crucial aspect

4) One or more supernatural being must be part of the system

5) This definition imparts specific patterns of behavior. As discuss above, all religions are ritualistic by nature. Even those that appear to be aritualistic are ritualistically aritualistic.

Yes, Shinto is a communication system and is related to a specific pattern of behavior -- the rituals. The rituals are what transmits the religion, those that participate learn about community, may have spiritual experiences, etc… There are supernatural beings, there are rituals, there are sacred sites. Yet, some of the other points don't fit. There is no communication system that says what a Shintoist believes that is communicated to outside groups.

Are you now arguing that Shintoism is not a religion because you took a course that defined religion using a narrow scope? What do you call people that believe (at varying degrees) aspects of the supernatural, use rituals to observe the supernatural, ask for blessings from the supernatural, and do this in their homes, at shrines, and might worship at various aspects of nature?

Now there is no mention of written sacred texts, necessary, or preachers in this definition. It is a communication system among fellow believers. Shintoism is not devoid of supernatural beings, but if some Shintoists are solely performing rituals, have no beliefs in the supernatural and if those rituals have nothing to do with spirits, then those Shintoists are not really following Shintoism at least not the religion Shintoism which communicates to fellow Shintoists mythical stories of supernatural entities.

I never said Shintoists are only performing rituals. Ritual is at the heart of Shintoism. The point is that some that do the rituals have a belief in Kami and vary from one house to the next. There are others that merely do the ritual as a part of the culture of Japan -- yet the mythology is still there. My point is the beliefs vary and the beliefs are not stressed -- yet they ARE there for some participants. The rituals do have to do with the supernatural aspect -- just the supernatural aspect is not set in stone and people believe at varying degrees (or not at all) because there is no one being told WHAT to believe.

Shintoism as a religious communication system seeks to teach the belief in spirits, and Gods, that some people don't believe fully what it seeks to communicate calls into question to what extent are these skeptics, believers in the system. As you notice in the definition JAK gave of (religious) dogma, it says it is teachings of a religious group usually as part of the essential beliefs.
You responded to JAK with Shinto doesn't fit there are no essential beliefs. Read the def'n more carefully Moniker it doesn't say dogma is essential.

How does it seek to teach the beliefs in spirits and Gods? There should be a dogma -- where is it Marg? No one is told what to believe. No one is told what not to believe. No one is told to believe ANYTHING! There are NO essential beliefs. It says essential beliefs are being transmitted -- what are those?

Now I know you think shintoism has no dogma and I'm sorry I haven't yet read your previous response to me which might possibly elaborate more on this. But I've read somewhere that Shintoism communicates/teaches that the Japanese are descendants of Gods. That would be religious dogma.

Oh, man. I wish I hadn't replied to you if I hadn't recognized you hadn't read my previous response! The mythology of Japan does say the Japanese are descendents of KAMI, yet, to be a Shintoist you may accept this or not – it’s not essential. You may believe in your local Kami and worship at your local Shrine and yet that may be different from the person next to you, or at the next Shrine. I hope that makes it clearer. For dogma to be present there must be some uniformity as to what believers are to believe – this is lacking in Shintoism. That some believe does not make in uniformity as there are varying local kami that may be worshipped – so even if there is supernatural involved there is no unifying force that says all must believe in one thing. There is no requirement to believe that Japanese are descended from Kami to still partake of the rituals and worship your local Kami or ask for blessings.


Please look here to see a bit more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... gion.shtml

Although most Japanese follow many Shinto traditions throughout life, they actually regard themselves as being devoted to their community's local shrine and kami, rather than to a countrywide religion.

This is a pretty good link and I already posted some information from it. This is the culture of Japan, essentially, and there are supernatural aspects, worship, rituals, shrines, etc... and yet there is no unified belief that one must have and there are no essential teachings that are involved.

Now, Kami can still be an important aspect in Shinto. I don't want to say they're not. Kami are "spirits" in things (or they ARE the thing -- a mountain, for instance), and Kami are worshiped. There is a belief that Kami did not create the universe -- they are the universe. Yet, Kami are not omnipotent, Kami make mistakes (the Kami that created Japan actually messed up on the first go around), they are OF this world -- not on a higher plane. The point is that this is the very mythology of Japan, and the culture and that the Kami are in everything, are everything (even in the higher human mind) is not make a dogma. You don't have to believe in all of it, you don't have to worship other Kami, you can do what works for you and it is OKAY.

I think we need a better definition of dogma. Marg, are you saying that dogma is just any belief that a group of people may have? I think dogma when it comes to religion is core essentials that one must believe to be a participant of that religion. Earlier you mentioned Christ as a core concept of Christianity, and I understand that. Yet, in Shintoism there is no core concept that makes one individual supreme to others (there is no omnipotent being that is worshipped), and the Shintoist can pick and choose what works for them.

[_Moniker]

I'm not really sure why there are some on this board that are so willing to exculpate religious influence, ie, religion, on political, social, and moral affairs... But that seems to be the message you're sending to the rest of the board.

I'm not doing that -- I don't think. I wish you wouldn't say "some" and say who if you are making a generalized statement. I wonder why there "some" ;) on this board that COMPLETELY ignore the political aspects of some of these discussions.

While religion, in of itself, isn't entirely at fault for bad behavior, it does, in fact, influence people's decision making process, acts as a culutural unifier in times of depravity, and provides justification for otherwise criminal behavior. Political ideology provides the same kind of justifications. However, it would be incredibly naïve to extricate religion from politics and vice versa. They both have profound effects on each other and the acts people commit in their names.

No doubt religion can influence behavior, was this in dispute? Yet, it seems there are "some" on this board that fault religion for all bad behavior and then extrapolate that all religion is dangerous because of a few instances of bad behavior. I have ALWAYS intertwined religious with the political in these discussions -- so I shall assume you weren't talking to me. :)

[_GoodK]

I'm not gonna go with the Hitler reference because it's disputed by some, and there is no need, because you have provided the instances of Pol Pot and Stalin - who, unless it's disputed - were clearly atheists.

I'm surprised to hear this from an atheist. Pol Pot and Stalin were not "clearly atheists" in the sense that they were not acting out of too much skepticism, or too much reasoning, or secularism, or a simple lack of belief in Gods or deity. They replaced religious dogma with their own non-religious version. The dogma was always there, as it was with Hitler.

I also hate those instances being bought up as a 'generalising' tool. It annoys me to death. Check ALL the threads I've been involved in on MAD where I've said just that. I agree that it's nonsense to bring those examples up as some kind of 'indication' of general atheistic behaviour.

But in THIS thread, it isn't the religious who are trying to generalise the non-religious. It is the non-religious who are trying to generalise the religious! Why is that not just as 'silly'?
For some reason, you don't see that as 'wrong'. And yet you see the above comparisons as 'wrong'.
Whereas I see BOTH instances of generalisation as 'wrong'.

I believe you misunderstand why I see the examples as wrong. The comparisons don't work when using Pol Pot and Stalin, or any other leader who ruled using non-religious dogmatism.
Atheism is not dogmatic.

I am a HUGE Dawkins fan in most respects. But I DO think his approach to critising religion is a little skewed.

Well we can agree to disagree on this :) I love what Professor Dawkins is doing.

I don't want religion gone. I want fundamentalism and dogmatism gone.

Me too. But religious moderation is an impedement to this goal, not a means to achieve it.

I didn't say it didn't make sense, it makes sense in that most people understand what the word atheism means. But to echoe Sam Harris, I don't think we need the word atheist.

Yes, let's get rid of it. I don't think we should use it at all, I do not feel compelled to label myself anything. (some people do, perhaps you are one of them http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007 ... ew_ath.php)

I'm sorry GoodK - but this comes across to me as:

I want to place labels on other people, but I don't want them placing labels on me

I'm not with you on that.

What do you mean place labels on other people? These people are labeling themselves! Does a Christian not want to be considered a Christian?
Maybe I'm misreading, but I'm not following your logic here.

Why isn't this an instance of you misunderstanding me? I never said that atheism 'leads' to nihilism, and I'd already made that VERY clear before we even started this exchange.

Maybe I did misunderstand you. But again, I wasn't saying that you said that. But you do say atheists are more inclined to be nihilist, something I still don't agree with.

As much as I love wikipedia

Well, I felt using wikipedia would be fine in this case, because I didn't feel the definition of 'nihilism' is actually that contentious.

I really don't mind wikipedia at all, it needs to be backed up by references. The whole paragraph you quoted was citationless, specifically the part where you think it says that one of the basic beliefs of a nihilist is belief that there is no evidence for a supreme creator.

I don't see any reason to infer that believing that there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator is a nihilistic requirement.

Right. Except that it's right there in the reference I provided.
Let me get this straight - are you saying that the reference I provided is just plain wrong?

Well, you didn't really provide a reference for the part that you highlighted (which seems to be the only part of the article that supports this) and that is what I think is plain wrong.

For all this talk about me misunderstanding you, I can't help but think it is you that is actually misunderstanding me.

I hope I have been misunderstanding you :) But maybe you can help me understand why it is useful to point out that an atheist can be a nihilist. An atheist can also be a republican or a member of the Labor Party.

1. "On the one hand, the term is widely used to denote the doctrine that moral norms or standards cannot be justified by rational argument. On the other hand, it is widely used to denote a mood of despair over the emptiness or triviality of human existence. This double meaning appears to derive from the fact that the term was often employed in the nineteenth century by the religiously oriented as a club against atheists, atheists being regarded as ipso facto nihilists in both senses. The atheist, it was held [by the religiously oriented], would not feel bound by moral norms; consequently, he would tend to be callous or selfish, even criminal."

See that little part about ipso facto nihilists. Is this the line of reasoning you are trying to employ?

I know you don't accept the explanation of what 'nihilism' is I've provided (I'm still not sure why...), but if you check that explanation, it doesn't say the person MUST believe there is CERTAINLY no "higher ruler or creator". It just says that the person will find "there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator".
Wait a sec. YOU said that this was a key tenet of Nihilism, didn't you?

but either you are implying that an atheist is more inclined to be a nihilist

I'm saying it'd be pretty damn weird for a religious person TO BE a nihilist.

You tried to dispute that with a reference to metaphysical nihilism, which is something completely different!

How different is it?
How about Mother Theresa, then?
She was by all means religions, yet seemed to have the believe that there was no higher ruler or creator.

and a Christian COULD become a nihilist

Please explain how a Christian is supposed to sensibly believe that:

* there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator,
* a "true morality" does not exist, and
* objective secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has, in a sense, no truth, and no action is objectively preferable to any other.

Easy. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 15,00.html

Umm.. I'm confused. What does "range of belief" even mean?

It means that - as an atheist - there'd be certain things that would make no sense if I were to claim to believe them. I'd have to either not really be an atheist, or I'd actually not 'really' believe what I claimed to believe.

Here is why I think you are wrong: Atheist is not a belief system. It contains nothing for you to claim to believe as an atheist. You don't have a range of belief as an atheist. You may have a range of disbelief, but so does everyone else, even a Christian knows what it is like to have an "atheist range of belief" in respects to Islam.
There is only one thing you could not believe in as a self-proclaimed Atheist.

Wasn't I very clear on the fact that an atheist CAN 'love their neighbour'?
What I said was: They can't believe that it is a divine commandment to love their neighbour. That belief is 'out of my belief range' - as an atheist.

I don't know how complicated this can be. Who's to say "loving your neighbor" is a belief? Animals seem to do it just fine without having to have range of belief in anything.

Nihilism - however - isn't. In fact, it is distinctly within my 'belief range'.

ATHEISM IS NOT A BELIEF. Thus, Nihilism is not distinctly within your range of belief as an atheist. If you like this term, range of belief, then perhaps you should use it in terms of a humans range of belief. You are consistently misusing the term atheism and it just doesn't fit.

Well, yes - the word religion was mentioned in that reference. (But it's a wiki reference - didn't you just say those aren't 'good enough'? Hmm - but anyway...)

It's good enough when it cites references. And this passage happens to cite quite a few, from the get-go.

In that reference, it says:

Although atheism is often equated with irreligion, some religious philosophies, such as secular theology and some varieties of Buddhism such as Theravada, either do not include belief in a personal god as a tenet of the religion, or actively teach nontheism.

So you stated that an atheist 'rejects being religious'. And yet in the very reference you provided, it states the opposite. It says that some religious philosophies are distinctly non-theistic!

[/quote]

Hmmm.. Perhaps you would benefit from reading the whole passage (and notice the footnotes):

Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2]

I don't consider "secular theology, or Therevada" religion, I consider them religious philosophies, a distinct difference that is also spelled out on wikipeida

When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[3] alternatively called nontheism.[4] Although atheism is often equated with irreligion, some religious philosophies, such as secular theology and some varieties of Buddhism such as Theravada, either do not include belief in a personal god as a tenet of the religion, or actively teach nontheism.
Many self-described atheists are skeptical of all supernatural beings and cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Others argue for atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds. Although many self-described atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism[5] and naturalism,[6] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[7]

And here the part I wish you would pay attention to most:

The term atheism originated as a pejorative epithet applied to any person or belief in conflict with established religion.[8]

[Guest]

I do understand your point that unquestioning allegiance to a central authority is dangerous! You will get no dispute from me on that. I understand that to replace reason with fanciful notions that can be harmful happens. I just am seriously having a great deal of difficulty understanding how Shintoism (that does not stress beliefs) that is no longer in part of a political rule of one man can be considered dangerous today.

My previous post mentioned religion being a communication system. So religion as a teaching system has an affect on how people view the world and critically think. By teaching that it is the norm to accept and believe in extraordinary claims absent evidence despite those claims being contrary to how the actual world operates and is observed, it teaches that poor critical thinking is acceptable. And that teaches an attitude, a way of thinking, which is the antithesis of good critical thinking which requires evidence and reasoning to match extraordinary claims.

Yes, religion certain does have an affect on how the world is viewed. I don't dispute that. I never have. Yet, it must be shown that critical thinking is relegated to the dustbin as these religious beliefs are incorporated. I posted many, many pages ago the Cornell Evolution project where a study seeks to understand evolutionary biologists views on theism -- there are evolutionary biologists that are theists. Now, why would we assume that these men and women lack critical thinking skills? Do they accept extraordinary claims on existence or believe in Adam & Eve? I rather doubt it as their field of study actually makes them quite aware of the world and evolutionary theory (fact). Just because one may have a belief in something does not show proof that their critical thinking skills actually suffer from it. Can it in some? I would say yes -- not all. I just am uncomfortable with the intent I see (from some atheists) that view all religion as necessarily harmful to all. It's just not. That it is for a few does not then follow that it is for all.

For many religious claims, followers, if they were good critical thinkers should reject the claims.

So, why are there incredibly intelligent, well educated evolutionary biologists, physicists, scientists of all stripes that still have a belief in a deity? Perhaps this belief brings them comfort, allows social bonds -- their belief serves a purpose and may not define their thinking skills at all.

Yet typically those who have received early indoctrination, despite intelligence., and being able to critically evalute well other issues outside their religion are not able to objectively be critical about their religious beliefs. If religions teach a group think mentality of subservience to religious authority, an attitude of unquestioning obedience, followers are easily manipulated and controlled by the authority. That can be a bad thing. So religions as a teaching system communicates to followers to an extent poor critical thinking which may carry over into area outside religion.

That it might do so does not then follow that it does to all. Of course their religious beliefs may counter the "real world", yet I just am not comfortable with the assertion that intelligent, thoughtful men and women would forgo reason when the beliefs come into conflict.

Now shintoism has been a communication system which has encouraged followers to be excessive obedient, as you pointed out (I believe) it is a contributing factor to Japanese discouraging the individual in favor of the group. That excessive obedience was observed in the military, Nanking massacre, Kamikazi pilots. In addition Shintoism has encouraged an attitude of Japanese superiority, Japanese decendents of god. The Japanese were ruthless in war. Fight until death, not give up, to the extreme. If the Japanese gov't would have surrendered during WW2 another atomic bomb would need not have been necessary to drop, but given their ruthlessness the refusal to ever give up, extreme measures were used to end the war. So shintoism contributed to obedience to authority and an attitude of it being an honor to sacrifice the individual for the goals of the group in war, and that was dangerous to the world when the Japanese used aggression against others.

Did you ignore my post that actually already responded to your claims here? You are talking about the religion and totally ignoring the political aspect. Please refer to my response to you 2 pages ago. Now, you may disagree with what I said, and that's fine -- but I would rather not just going back and forth with you then adding on to each of your posts.

To be quick about it: Political structures where a dictator, ruler, king is where the threat lies. Japan's political structure mirrors other political evolution that went from theocracy to democracy -- if it was the religion that did it I don't see it as the rest of the world had the pretty much similar evolution of political structures. That Shintoism lived in both political structures does not show how the religion created the political structure -- rather how the political structure hijacked the religion for its own goals. How TODAY is Shintoism dangerous in a different political structure? Please look to other countries that are a threat with NO religious indoctrination -- what is the political structure of those states? Where in lies the threat to us?

by the way, the Emperor now has no political power as he is the same as the Royal Family in the UK. I already told you my thoughts on this and you didn't really reply to them.

[_Moniker]

I do understand your point that unquestioning allegiance to a central authority is dangerous! You will get no dispute from me on that. I understand that to replace reason with fanciful notions that can be harmful happens. I just am seriously having a great deal of difficulty understanding how Shintoism (that does not stress beliefs) that is no longer in part of a political rule of one man can be considered dangerous today.

My previous post mentioned religion being a communication system. So religion as a teaching system has an affect on how people view the world and critically think. By teaching that it is the norm to accept and believe in extraordinary claims absent evidence despite those claims being contrary to how the actual world operates and is observed, it teaches that poor critical thinking is acceptable. And that teaches an attitude, a way of thinking, which is the antithesis of good critical thinking which requires evidence and reasoning to match extraordinary claims.

For many religious claims, followers, if they were good critical thinkers should reject the claims. Yet typically those who have received early indoctrination, despite intelligence., and being able to critically evalute well other issues outside their religion are not able to objectively be critical about their religious beliefs. If religions teach a group think mentality of subservience to religious authority, an attitude of unquestioning obedience, followers are easily manipulated and controlled by the authority. That can be a bad thing. So religions as a teaching system communicates to followers to an extent poor critical thinking which may carry over into area outside religion.

Now shintoism has been a communication system which has encouraged followers to be excessive obedient, as you pointed out (I believe) it is a contributing factor to Japanese discouraging the individual in favor of the group. That excessive obedience was observed in the military, Nanking massacre, Kamikazi pilots. In addition Shintoism has encouraged an attitude of Japanese superiority, Japanese decendents of god. The Japanese were ruthless in war. Fight until death, not give up, to the extreme. If the Japanese gov't would have surrendered during WW2 another atomic bomb would need not have been necessary to drop, but given their ruthlessness the refusal to ever give up, extreme measures were used to end the war. So shintoism contributed to obedience to authority and an attitude of it being an honor to sacrifice the individual for the goals of the group in war, and that was dangerous to the world when the Japanese used aggression against others.

One of the things about this discussion is the desperate search to find somewhere one, just one religion, which makes no statement, takes no position, holds up no view (absent evidence) which can be called a religion.

Hi, JAK -- I don't know who you're talking about but I made no desperate search. Surely you weren't talking about me? I grew up with Shintoism and a few years back really read a lot on it and have asked many questions of Japanese that are more familiar with it as I wanted to fully understand it -- it is rather impossible to understand it. It's a mind set and very difficult to translate. I merely replied to your original post about dogma and pointed out that Shinto has no dogma as in other religions. If you want to call that desperate so be it. I rather think of the time others had to desperately search for something to show that there is dogma in Shintoism, myself. But whatever floats your boat. :)

Such a find would allow cheers of Ah Ha here is a religion which says nothing about anything, therefore, therefore we have won.

Well, I wasn't cheering -- I was merely relating some part of the faith that I thought was a valid part of the discussion. Sorry if you don't see it that way. I did at one point become frustrated in the thread and got a bit heated.

The effort to make Shintoism that religion is failing as a result in part of marg’s analysis and her previous post on Shintoism.

Hi, JAK -- if there can not be shown to be dogma or core essential beliefs that are required to be a Shintoist then it does not fail to refute your original statement that started this thread. That there ARE beliefs does not then equate that they are essential and core to being a Shintoist.

Would you reply to the remarks I made to you earlier in the thread about Shintoism? I provided links (since you like those) to further show educate you on the religion. I would suspect that you're very interested in learning about some of the world's religions and thought I could help with that endeavor.

It would appear that absent any refutation, there is no disagreement that such world religions as Christianity and Islam cannot be held up as religions based on reason and evidence.

marg observe (and documented), “Now shintoism has been a communication system which has encouraged followers to be excessive obedient, as you pointed out (I believe) it is a contributing factor to Japanese discouraging the individual in favor of the group.”

marg also stated: “In addition Shintoism has encouraged an attitude of Japanese superiority, Japanese descendents of god.”

Hi, JAK. There are no religions that are based on reason and evidence. This is not in dispute, is it? I'm curious are we going on what Marg says about Shintoism as proof that she understands the religion? I would suggest you think twice about that as I've refuted some of her points a few times on this thread. For your original thesis to stand it must be shown how absent the political structure of the past this religion is still dangerous and actually does have dogma.

Of course this is a doctrine/dogma which is religious. Any claim for god or gods is doctrine/dogma which is religious.

No, you're wrong. Are you changing your definition of dogma now? There are no core essentials to belief. There is no claim to God or Gods -- there is no omnipotent being that is at the core of Shintoism.

marg opened with this: “So religion as a teaching system has an affect on how people view the world and critically think. By teaching that it is the norm to accept and believe in extraordinary claims absent evidence despite those claims being contrary to how the actual world operates and is observed, it teaches that poor critical thinking is acceptable. And that teaches an attitude, a way of thinking, which is the antithesis of good critical thinking which requires evidence and reasoning to match extraordinary claims.”

All this reference to the fine post is to underscore the importance of the points made and to underscore that Shintoism is not a religion which makes no statement, takes no position, holds up no view (absent evidence).

There are views to Shintoism that are absent evidence -- yet that's not what this discussion was about. Was it???

In addition, no one has addressed the great harms resulting from application of religious dogma on the many websites {page 2 and others} of this discussion which were listed. And those who have attacked the web as source have also used the web as source.

Actually Calculus Crusader popped into the thread and already said something about your posted articles.

marg recognizes in her statement: “So shintoism contributed to obedience to authority and an attitude of it being an honor to sacrifice the individual for the goals of the group in war, and that was dangerous to the world when the Japanese used aggression against others.”

There has been no refutation to:

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

I have agreed that "truth by assertion is unreliable" for the 4th time now, JAK. :) That is not what is being disputed. :)

Moniker wrote:
I just am seriously having a great deal of difficulty understanding how Shintoism (that does not stress beliefs) that is no longer in part of a political rule of one man can be considered dangerous today.

JAK wrote:
The fact that a particular danger may now be mitigated or may no longer exist as a part of “a political rule” does not minimize the facts marg has established. Hitler no longer lives to continue his extermination of Jews. But, Hitler was a Roman Catholic. Pope Pius XII was in power (head of the RCC) at the time Hitler was systematically killing Jews, and Pope Pius XII remained silent in the face of the Holocaust.

JAK -- I do not dispute that the religion was co-opted for the purposes of nationalism in the past. I've repeatedly said that. Matter of fact I think I was one of the first to discuss the Meiji Restoration on this thread. :) Yet, when one looks at dangers from political power what structure is there? This is incredibly relevant to the discussion.

The attempt to find that one religion which says nothing and relies on no doctrine/dogma fails if it relies on Shintoism.

Really? Why don't you define dogma for me once more JAK -- as being "essential" beliefs and tell me how Shintoism has dogma. K?

From wiki again:

Dogmata are found in many religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam, where they are considered core principles that must be upheld by all followers of that religion. As a fundamental element of religion, the term "dogma" is assigned to those theological tenets which are considered to be well demonstrated, such that their proposed disputation or revision effectively means that a person no longer accepts the given religion as his or her own, or has entered into a period of personal doubt

That Shinto allows for other religions to be practiced along side actually shows that there is no essential dogma to their beliefs. You can believe in ANYTHING and still be a Shintoist. That you can be a Buddhist or a Christian and STILL be a Shintoist shows that there is no essential beliefs. You can believe Christ is your saviourand still go down to worship your local Kami (or just ask for blessings) or just do the rituals and intersperse Christ with whatever.