All religions are dangerous?

[Guest]

GoodK,

I think I'm gonna make this my last reply to this 'sub-topic'. You can have the last word if you like.
...I could see this going on for a while, without much to show for it at the end. I think most of us have moved on from pedantics around the word 'atheism'... I think it might make more sense to start a new thread on this maybe - perhaps get some of this stuff split over...

But since I've typed all this out already...

I'm surprised to hear this from an atheist.

Well, of course atheists are free to disagree on all kinds of things :)

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.

It didn't mean it in that sense. Why make the word 'atheist' more complicated than it is? I'm certainly not trying to.

They replaced religious dogma with their own non-religious version.

Agreed. What I have been saying all along?
Fundamentalism and dogmatism are the enemy.

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.

Some religions aren't dogmatic either.

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

Cool. Again, I actually like it when atheists disagree. Shows we have our own minds - right?

But religious moderation is an impediment to this goal, not a means to achieve it.

...says Dawkins. And you I guess...

Does a Christian not want to be considered a Christian?

Don't think so. I'm happy to be known as an atheist. And I have no earthly idea why I'd try to avoid the 'label'. It's a perfectly sensible label for a position on reality.

But you do say atheists are more inclined to be nihilist,

Nope - didn't say that. Find me the bit where I said that.
I said it's possible for an atheist to be a nihilist.

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.

So you can link to wikipedia, but I can't. Have I got that right?

Look - I have provided a reference for what the term nihilist means. If you think you have a more accurate one that is going to Trump mine, I'd like YOU provide it please.

But maybe you can help me understand why it is useful to point out that an atheist can be a nihilist.

...because... it's TRUE?!

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

The fact that the term 'nihilist' might be 'used as a club' by the religious is neither here nor there.

How different is it?

They are two completely different things!

She was by all means religions, yet seemed to have the believe that there was no higher ruler or creator.

She was doubting her Christian belief...!

"Jesus has a very special love for you," she assured Van der Peet. "[But] as for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great, that I look and do not see, — Listen and do not hear — the tongue moves [in prayer] but does not speak ... I want you to pray for me — that I let Him have [a] free hand."

So yes - there is a way for a Christian to lean towards nihilism...
Doubt your Christian belief! i.e. lean towards non-Christianity!!

Atheist is not a belief system.

I'm not saying it is a belief system. I'm saying that it doesn't make sense to be able to believe some things whilst being an atheist. I'm not saying anything outrageous or challenging.

There is only one thing you could not believe in as a self-proclaimed Atheist.

By not believing in God, you are ruling out believing in anything:

* From God
* By God
* For God

Who's to say "loving your neighbor" is a belief?

As a moral principle - of course you can 'believe' in it.

Animals seem to do it just fine without having to have range of belief in anything.

Agreed.

ATHEISM IS NOT A BELIEF. Thus, Nihilism is not distinctly within your range of belief as an atheist.

Err - nihilism IS distinctly within my 'range of belief' - as an atheist. Atheism doesn't have to be 'a belief' for that to be true. It just has to make holding certain beliefs non-nonsensical given the status of being an 'atheist'.

I can be an atheist, and a nihilist.
Using caps won't help you alter that fact.

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.

Thanks for the opinion. I'll keep it in mind...

Wanting to run away from the label 'atheist' just because Pol Pot and Stalin were atheists is as daft as me wanting to run away from the label 'English' because Jack The Ripper was English.
But if you want to run away from it, be my guest. We don't need to go ten rounds over it. Feel free to run away from it as fast as you can... Happy trails...

[Guest]

Speaking of Dawkins...

I remember a video I saw of Dawkins recently. He was involved in a "Q&A" session in a university somewhere in the USA. He got asked the following question:

"I am doubting my religious belief, but I'm afraid to tell my family and friends. Do you have any advice?"

Dawkins reply started something like this: "You know, I get a lot of letters and e-mails about this. I'm honestly surprised how many people are worried about this..."


This is the kind of point where I find Dawkins just a little nieve in his understanding of religion. (I don't mean 'just a little' sarcastically - I do literally mean 'just a little' - a lot of the time he's spot on...)
...why would he be surprised by the fact that people are 'afraid' of letting people know how their beliefs have changed?

Could it be that it's because he was raised in the Church Of England...?!

Up until the age of about 16, Dawkins was an Anglican, and considered himself a 'believer' (with the occasional nagging doubt). It wasn't until he was 16 - when he studied evolution in detail and saw the argument for design disappear in front of him - that he 'properly' lost belief.
But he doesn't relate to the idea of being 'scared' of that change of belief, or admitting it.

..why? Because the Church of England is no longer a dogmatic religious organisation. he knew that nobody was gonna view him (in any significant way) 'differently' because of his change of belief. He knew he was free to believe as he liked.

He ended up drifting out of belief as naturally as a leaf on the wind.


The Mormon church will excommunicate a member if they do so much as speak too publically on an opinion that counters that of the church leaders.
You know the last reference to an 'excommunication' in the Church of England that I can find? It was in 1909 - and it was a clergyman who had murdered four parishioners!

So, the Mormon church will excommunicate you for speaking your mind.
But in the Church of England, you have to go and KILL some people before they'll excommunicate you!


EDIT: People might get the impression that just because I dare criticize Dawkins in anyway, that must mean I disagree with him on all kinds of things.
I really, really don't. Most of the time, he's pretty much spot on on everything... I just consider him the 'Bad cop'. He's good at what he does, but that doesn't mean that it's the only one, right approach...

[_marg]

(Please appreciate Moniker that I currently have little time for the MB. ½ hr today perhaps.)

You write:

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.

First of all I've not indicated ever Shintoism is not a religion. What I have said is that a communication system to be consider religious must have beliefs in supernatural beings, and Shintoism does. Now if you to disagree with that definition, then give yours.

Now we add to this, what you’ve said, that Shintoism doesn’t require belief in supernatural beings, hence many Shintoists participate in the rituals but don’t believe in supernatural beings.

So there is a disconnect here between the def'n of religion and some practioners of shintoism. in my opinion what we have in this case some non believing Shintoists who are essentially secular Shintoists. That is they are part of the group for reasons other than religious belief. What we have are members of a religious communication system not believing in the dogma. If all members of any religious system rejected all dogma relating to supernatural beings then we’d have a communication system that was non religious. (that is if we accept the def’n that all religions must have supernatural beings.)


Now I gave a link to a web site with an individual who expressed similar views to mine, with regards to Buddhism. http://www.mtfreethinkers.org/religion/buddhism/americanbuddha/Buddhism_is.html

(Please read what he says, he says it better than I do.)

Shintoism has dogma. It has the belief that Japanese ancestry were Gods or spirits. It has the belief in spirits. That some ritual practioners of Shintoism reject the dogma which I mention doesn’t mean it doesn’t have dogma. What it means is some practioners are not religious participants. They do not involve themselves in the religious beliefs of Shintoism they only involve themselves in the ritual aspects. It doesn’t take away from the point, that Shintoism does have dogma. That dogma I mention is based on claims absent evidence. Without that dogma, no emperor could ever have used the religion and represented himself as having authority through divine ancestry. The emperor was forced to deny divine ancestry but none the less Shintoism remains to have dogma of spirits, of Japanese ancestry being spirits. That dogma has had an impact on the cultural attitude of the Japanese. I've explained in a previous post why that attitude became dangerous in their aggression during war.

[_Moniker]

(Please appreciate Moniker that I currently have little time for the MB. ½ hr today perhaps.)

You write:

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.

First of all I've not indicated ever Shintoism is not a religion. What I have said is that a communication system to be consider religious must have beliefs in supernatural beings, and Shintoism does. Now if you to disagree with that definition, then give yours.

I reviewed the thread earlier and you asked about it being a religion. I thought you might still think that. Yes, there are supernatural beliefs in Shintoism -- yet, they are not unified and one does not have a "core" belief that must be followed. That they are there does not make it dogma in a religious sense. Religious dogma (unless you want to counter this) is where an authority creates beliefs that all must then believe to be practitioners in this belief system. That a Shintoist may believe in a local Kami and yet, dismiss that Kami created anything (let's say they are a Christian and believe that it was actually God the Father that created them) does not further how this one belief in supernatural is unified with others.

Now we add to this, what you’ve said, that Shintoism doesn’t require belief in supernatural beings, hence many Shintoists participate in the rituals but don’t believe in supernatural beings.

That's true -- or they may just ask for blessings as the shrines or at their altars. They may use Buddhism interspersed with their own Shintoism, or Christianity, or anything else that floats their boat. Yet, the ritual is and of itself is a practice of Shintoism as it is the way the religion is practiced. I already posted a few articles that tried to explain this to you. That you CAN be a Shintoist and not accept the supernatural (kami) and you may just be superstitious -- for instance wanting good luck, fortune, etc... Some may participate and not believe in the supernatural aspect at all.

So there is a disconnect here between the def'n of religion and some practioners of shintoism. in my opinion what we have in this case some non believing Shintoists who are essentially secular Shintoists. That is they are part of the group for reasons other than religious belief. What we have are members of a religious communication system not believing in the dogma. If all members of any religious system rejected all dogma relating to supernatural beings then we’d have a communication system that was non religious. (that is if we accept the def’n that all religions must have supernatural beings.)

I think I agree with the secular Shintoist description ---- YET they would not! :) Which is very odd, for me -- as I don't understand it. And I certainly can't translate the Japanese mind. I earlier searched the web to see any reference to Secular Shintoism as this too was on my mind and found NOTHING. Yet, I do know that the rituals can be done and the beliefs are not what is important -- the rituals themselves teach lessons on community (festivals), patience (doing the ritual the CORRECT way and the time it takes to do it), and an aspect of spiritualism that is just in the appreciation of the aesthetics. That one may be spiritual in this context and not believe in the supernatural can also occur.

Now I gave a link to a web site with an individual who expressed similar views to mine, with regards to Buddhism. http://www.mtfreethinkers.org/religion/buddhism/americanbuddha/Buddhism_is.html

I looked at that and yet it still does not explain Shintoism or further express what I'm attempting to say to you. I FULLY understand what you are saying! And I am attempting to clarify as best I can.

Shintoism has dogma. It has the belief that Japanese ancestry were Gods or spirits.

Dogma is not just a belief, Marg. Please tell me what dogma is when it comes to religion. Dogma is more than just a belief in the supernatural, isn't it? Please explain how those that may have a belief in the supernatural that do not focus on the same teachings creates a dogma they MUST believe. I ALREADY explained that you can be a CHRISTIAN (belief that the individual practicing this religion believes they were created by the CHRISTIAN GOD) and STILL be a Shintoist! I don't know how to make that any clearer to you. I'm trying! :)

It has the belief in spirits. That some ritual practioners of Shintoism reject the dogma which I mention doesn’t mean it doesn’t have dogma.

You're right. That there is nothing that they MUST believe in makes it lack dogma. That there are Shintoists that believe the Christian God created them shows that there is no unifying core belief. That some believe in a local shrine Kami that is different from others that don't worship at a Shrine does not correlate to uniformity. There are no moral codes, there are no teachings that one MUST follow to be a Shintoist.

What it means is some practioners are not religious participants. They do not involve themselves in the religious beliefs of Shintoism they only involve themselves in the ritual aspects. It doesn’t take away from the point, that Shintoism does have dogma. That dogma I mention is based on claims absent evidence. Without that dogma, no emperor could ever have used the religion and represented himself as having authority through divine ancestry. The emperor was forced to deny divine ancestry but none the less Shintoism remains to have dogma of spirits, of Japanese ancestry being spirits. That dogma has had an impact on the cultural attitude of the Japanese. I've explained in a previous post why that attitude became dangerous in their aggression during war.

Yes, I saw you explained it. I already replied to it. The Buddhists were persecuted during that time period by the state and religious tolerance was wiped out. Please note that TODAY there is so much religious tolerance in Shintoism (you can practice anything and still be a Shintoist) that this is likely not to happen again until the Emperor is given political power again (I already replied that Japan is a TYPE of Democracy), and that other religions are expelled from the country. Considering that Japan is a part of the world community and actively seeks a role in the world affairs I see this as highly unlikely. That there was politics that acted in unison with religion in the past does not show how this country/religion is a danger today.

[_GoodK]

Wanting to run away from the label 'atheist' just because Pol Pot and Stalin were atheists is as daft as me wanting to run away from the label 'English' because Jack The Ripper was English.
But if you want to run away from it, be my guest. We don't need to go ten rounds over it. Feel free to run away from it as fast as you can... Happy trails...

Ah man... why'd you have to go on and poison the well?

Sounds like you are running.... away from your own illogic... so I'll let you go. Anyone that has read our exchange should be able to sort things out for themselves.

But since YOU did ask for a better definition of Nihilism, I can't resist. But you are right, it deserves it's own thread.

[_JAK]

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.

There is no question about the validity of your observation here. The truth of it is somewhat puzzling as we might reflect.

The conclusion that American fundamentalists were a dying breed was historically inaccurate. The growth of fundamentalist denominations at the expense of mainstream and liberal Protestantism which began in the 1950s, accelerated throughout the sixties, seventies and eighties and gave rise to the Christian right in America. Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists and Unitarians, four of the oldest and most influential Protestant mainline denominations lost ground steadily to churches affiliated with the Southern Baptist convention which had reasserted its fundamentalist identy strongly in the sixties.

In the 1960s, the Methodist church alone had 2 million more members than Southern Baptist churches. By the beginning of the 21st Century, Southern Baptists outnumbered Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians and members of the United Church of Christ combined.

Between 1979 and 1985, the hard-core fundamentalists within the Southern Baptist Convention gained control of the demonization’s elective and administrative offices. Fundamentalist influence among the Southern Baptists solidified just in time for the 1980 presidential campaign and R. Reagan became the first Republican candidate to openly court conservative Christian voters.

The movement of Protestant fundamentalists into the Republican party presented a political shift of historic proportions, and political analysts who had ignored the right-wing religious undercurrents were surprised.

It is interesting that over there (are you in England?) far less credibility is given to fundamentalists and right-wing Catholics. Here for example, they insist, against all scientific evidence, that condoms do nothing to slow the spread of AIDS and that abstinence – the only method sanctioned by God must be taught as the single morally legitimate way to fight this life-threatening disease.

So how is it that America, presumed to be on the cutting edge scientifically, is so regressive in its approach to religion and its insistence that politicians be religious or even evangelical?

Indeed, as you observe: “Religious attitudes are different in different places.” And when I have gone off my screen, I should have sense enough to know I have typed too long.

Again, I quite agree with your analysis which does not assist me with the puzzle in American religiosity.

(I'm away and have little opportunity or time to look at a computer, but noted your post.)

JAK

[_JAK]

JAK,

The following comment made by you was contained in a post to Moniker in the link supplied below.

JAK

No comment will be made regarding personal attacks.

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?p=127326#127326

JAK, can you tell me why you made that statement in your post to Moniker? Are you claiming there that she personally attacked you prior to her "tsk tsk" post?

Clarify?

Jersey Girl

It was, as you observed earlier, simply a statement of general position at that time and in the context of the post. I did not attempt to find the original Moniker post in those many pages. The statement was not making “claim” as your question was phrased but rather stating a position to keep focus on issues under discussion.

You are correct, Jersey Girl, in taking the statement at its face value.

JAK

[_Moniker]

JAK,

The following comment made by you was contained in a post to Moniker in the link supplied below.

JAK

No comment will be made regarding personal attacks.

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?p=127326#127326

JAK, can you tell me why you made that statement in your post to Moniker? Are you claiming there that she personally attacked you prior to her "tsk tsk" post?

Clarify?

Jersey Girl

It was, as you observed earlier, simply a statement of general position at that time and in the context of the post. I did not attempt to find the original Moniker post in those many pages. The statement was not making “claim” as your question was phrased but rather stating a position to keep focus on issues under discussion.

You are correct, Jersey Girl, in taking the statement at its face value.

JAK

Bold emphasis added by Moniker.

JAK -- what post of mine were you looking for? Maybe I can help you out.

See below for my original post
http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 275#127275

Then you replied to the above post with this (the statement about personal attacks is found in this post) http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 326#127326

I replied with this: http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 480#127480

JAK then replies with this and mentions me being "disingenuous" and I "insult my own intelligence" and mentions my being "truthful".
http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 530#127530

I reply with this: http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 573#127573

[_Jersey Girl]

marg

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.

Consider this definition of "dogma" from dictionary.com. I don't see that someone else has posted this or perhaps I overlooked it:

dog·ma /ˈdɔgmə, ˈdɒg-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dawg-muh, dog-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -mas, -ma·ta /-mətə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[-muh-tuh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation.

1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.
3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

Are there no guiding principles in Shintoism? No system of ethics? I think there are. It's late, I'll try to find support for that tomorrow. Certainly the belief regarding ancestors becoming gods would fall into the above bolded category?

[_Ren]

Jersey Girl,

Yeah. I think it's fair to say that there are different things in peoples minds when they hear 'dogma'.
It's interesting to look at the other sets of definitions on the same page as the main dictionary.com one:

Check out the WordNet one:

dogma

noun
1. a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
2. a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative; "he believed all the Marxist dogma"

In the above definition, there isn't one available definition that doesn't emphasise the point that the 'beliefs' are either 'true without proof', or 'authoritative'.
The dictionary.com definition (in my mind) seems to allow more breathing room - to the point that even just a set of 'lightly' (if that's the right word...) proposed beliefs - without the emphasis on them being taken as literally true or anybody being 'expected' to believe them - could be called 'dogma'.

I've never related to the word that way, but I do agree that according to the definition you have provided, it looks like it can be legitimately seen that way.

To be clear, I only care about beliefs that are considered 'unquestionable', or being 'unduly pressured' to believe within the given system.
As opposed to just a plain 'set of beliefs'. (No matter how 'whacky')
I don't care what word we use to describe that - but when I've said 'dogma', and being 'dogmatic' - that's what I've been talking about...


JAK,

Again, I quite agree with your analysis which does not assist me with the puzzle in American religiosity.

Well, I'm not really sure on how the situation built up historically. That's an interesting question, and when I have some time I'd be interested to look into that -although there may well be others here who can fill in the gaps already...

...but when it comes to the word 'secularism', there certainly appears to be two distinctly different meanings between here (Yeah - I'm in England... :) ), and the USA.

Here in England, Secularism means that religion is a strictly private affair. It cannot - and must not - have any place in the running of government, or any public policy.
This is why nobody approves of a politician raising their religious views in relation to their political life. It goes against the 'secular' culture that is accepted by pretty much everybody over here - religious and non-religious alike.

As I understand it - over in the USA - secularism means something a bit different. It means that no one religion should be given any more official 'preference' over another i.e. no 'national' religion. But it doesn't mean that religion can't be raised in relation to public office and politics. As you state, it seems to be all the time... The version of 'secularism' that the USA runs by doesn't 'disallow' that.

So yeah - I don't know the details of history that lead to that difference. But there is a clear difference in cultural attitude towards religion.


GoodK,

Ah man... why'd you have to go on and poison the well?

...because I wanted to talk about something worth talking about...?

Sounds like you are running.... away from your own illogic...

...OK. No Problem. If you're happy, then I'm happy :)

But since YOU did ask for a better definition of Nihilism, I can't resist. But you are right, it deserves it's own thread.

...I can't wait...