JAK wrote:Moniker wrote:Oh, tired of this thread............
blabbity blabbity blabbity JAK -- you told me I wouldn't go without certain conveniences -- I told you "I have lived in a different culture where".... and I rattled off some of the things in that culture -- just so happens it was Japan.
You thought the Amish pee on the streets? RIGHT NEXT TO ME!? :O
I don't think they do that.......
Moniker,
You continue to misrepresent. You have no direct quote, but rely on flawed paraphrase. In addition, I made no statement in the post you referred regarding your failed attempt to read my mind.
From this post
Moniker stated:
If I could live in their world, I would!
I’m skeptical. What’s preventing you from having all your power turned off, cars removed, the purchase of horses and buggies and clothing which matches that of the Amish you know?
Moniker stated:
I'm pretty sure they wouldn't let me, however. Yet, doesn't mean I don't yearn to go off into some hillside somewhere and rough it for a few years. I have lived in a different culture where there was no heat or AC and the plumbing was QUITE different.
JAK:
It’s not relevant to the issue of “Dangers of Religion.” You would not be doing it for religious reasons. You have modern convenience presently and I assume access to quality medical care. What is the relevance to the issue?
Moniker stated:
Men peed on the streets (right next to me) and the homes were very sparse -- even wood heat was used. I've hung about in cabins with no electricity and no heat besides a fireplace and quite enjoyed it! Where is the danger there??? I'm not following you!
JAK:
Obviously, you’re not following. The issue is “Dangers of Religion.” Religious mythology relies on truth by assertion. The danger in that is that that conclusions are unreliable or false. It has nothing to do with a choice you make personally about where to spend time or observe people in other religious/cultural environments.
(Above from post to which you refer)
You continue to distort and misrepresent. Since your "tired of this thread" and since you can't get it right, why not stop posting.
JAK
OH MY GODNESS!
JAK -- Where's the REST of that post? You think you can BS your way through this thread? YOU JUST DID IT AGAIN! WHERE IS THE 7th QUOTE that we were DISCUSSING on the last page JAK -- THE ONE I WAS REFERENCING! Oh man!
Here is YOUR direct quote -- LOOK AT THE ENTIRE POST! YOU say I distort and misrepresent?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaNQjhXhfVs
JAK wrote:Hi Moniker,
Let’s look at some of your points.
Moniker stated:
What does my not embracing their lifestyle have to do with dangers? I was relating that I find a great deal of enjoyment from DIFFERENT cultures and it broadens my perspectives.
Of course it may broaden your perspectives. However, you appeared to use your favorable impression as a defense for the Amish religious practice and belief as it benefited you and your children to watch them. That didn’t ameliorate their level of information regarding their own religious myths.
Moniker stated:
I did actually squat for a time when I was a young woman. I lived with people that shucked off ALL sorts of middle class American dictates and reveled in it -- guess what??? THEY WERE ALL ATHEISTS!!!! I don't think you know me too well. :)
In what way is this relevant to the issue?
The focus point is: “Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”
Moniker stated:
If I could live in their world, I would!
I’m skeptical. What’s preventing you from having all your power turned off, cars removed, the purchase of horses and buggies and clothing which matches that of the Amish you know?
Moniker stated:
I'm pretty sure they wouldn't let me, however. Yet, doesn't mean I don't yearn to go off into some hillside somewhere and rough it for a few years. I have lived in a different culture where there was no heat or AC and the plumbing was QUITE different.
It’s not relevant to the issue of “Dangers of Religion.” You would not be doing it for religious reasons. You have modern convenience presently and I assume access to quality medical care. What is the relevance to the issue?
Moniker stated:
Men peed on the streets (right next to me) and the homes were very sparse -- even wood heat was used. I've hung about in cabins with no electricity and no heat besides a fireplace and quite enjoyed it! Where is the danger there??? I'm not following you!
Obviously, you’re not following. The issue is “Dangers of Religion.” Religious mythology relies on truth by assertion. The danger in that is that that conclusions are unreliable or false. It has nothing to do with a choice you make personally about where to spend time or observe people in other religious/cultural environments.
Moniker stated:
No -- YOU must prove that they are dangerous! YOU made the assertion, it is up to you to prove your case. I relate that I enjoy their culture, their community, and what they offer the wider community -- you tell me how they are dangerous! I work with a teen that doesn't read past a 3rd grade level -- is he DANGEROUS, JAK? Why? 'Cause he's not as intellectually equipped as others? What should we do with him? There are other cultures where there is NO formal education -- should we swoop in and save them from their culture???
There is much irrelevant material in your statement and emotional as well, Moniker.
Faith-based conclusions are unreliable. That makes them inherently dangerous. Religion relies on faith-based conclusion and on truth by assertion. Those are dangerous as they lead to flawed, false, and unreliable conclusions blindly accepted to be truth. This is in support of the principle previously stated. Education is valued because it seeks to replace ignorance with information. Today, we have a propensity to favor reliable information.
In addition, accumulation of information gathered with transparency, clarity, skeptical review, and tested sharply contrasts with truth by assertion. False conclusions are inherently dangerous. Not only does religion use truth by assertion, religion attempts to promote dogma and doctrine, absence of fact-finding and information-based conclusion which can be tested.
Much evidence can be assembled to establish this, however, it cannot be assembled on a bb such as this. Previously, I presented various links to the only common denominator which we have (the Internet) in discussion here demonstrating the “Dangers of Religion.” No one can provide you with a comparison of the many, many religious doctrines and dogmas present in the plethora of religious myths present globally today.
Here are some examples of faith-based conclusions which the religious right (today) would like to impose by law on all American citizens.
• turn our nation into a "Christians only" theocracy
• further limit freedom of speech
• remove a woman's right to choose to end a pregnancy
• make it difficult to obtain reliable birth control
• attempt to frighten children with inaccuracies about sex, disease, and pregnancy
• bring religion into schools and teach it openly
• denounce evolution and prohibit challenge to "creation science" (pseudo-science)
• use fear and paranoia to discourage rational thought
• prohibit challenge to truth by assertion (Christian fundamentalism)
• censor television and movies
• make news organizations subservient to government censorship
These are some positions of the religious right frequently set forward.
Of course not everyone in the religious right would subscribe to all of these. It depends upon just how far religiously they are to the right.
Would you suggest that false conclusions are superior to valid reliable ones?
Would you suggest that evidence should be abandoned in favor of religious dogma?
If not, why not?
The answer is that reliable information is essential to avoid danger.
Reliable information is essential to sound reasoning.
Reliable information is critical to valid conclusion.
Moniker stated:
Men peed on the streets (right next to me) and the homes were very sparse -- even wood heat was used. I've hung about in cabins with no electricity and no heat besides a fireplace and quite enjoyed it! Where is the danger there??? I'm not following you!
JAK previously:
They are at risk as they tend to reject that which is accepted in the culture of this time.
Moniker stated:
Why is that a risk? Other cultures reject our culture and I don't see this as a bad thing? So what if someone doesn't like our current culture? Are you talking about America, specifically?
The thesis was:
“Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”
Moniker stated:
Yes, but you've not proved your thesis, have you? Have you?? Did I miss it???
No refutation has been offered. In this an other posts the case has been made for reason and evidence over dogma and claim without evidence.
If it is your claim to the contrary, it defends religious dogma over reason and evidence.
Moniker stated:
JAK, well if it's not America which culture is the PREFERRED one that we should shove down everyones throats? Have you ever traveled abroad, JAK? I find that I'd like it if America was relegated to the back of the cultural brigade and someone else would take over with culturally educating the world! You first stated the it was the "culture of this time" -- WHAT precisely is THAT? Now, you've gone off into medical advancements?
What is the "culture of this time", JAK?
"Culture" is international with regard to the issue under discussioin. The defense of transparent, clear, tested evidence is not a nationalistic issue. By “culture of this time,” I intended to convey the prevalence and effort to access reliable information. While that culture is clearly present in the United States, it is also prevalent in other countries which value reliable information over propaganda and dogma.
That is, the reference was to those who pursue “reason and evidence” and reject “dogma and claim which lacks evidence.” That quite transcends nationalism.
Given the thesis, it seemed self-evident that the thesis was international in scope.
Moniker stated:
Yet, I told you that these Amish DO go to the hospital! These people do not eat the processed foods that we gobble down, don't sit in front of tvs and zone out, don't spend hours on the internet wasting hours, they spend their lives with their families -- with their community -- toiling their fields -- tending to each other -- enjoying their life! This is a bad thing????
It’s irrelevant to the issue at hand.
“Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”
Moniker stated:
Uh, so if they present a danger then we need to get rid of all automobiles? WHAT? So what if one man in a buggy is dangerous? Anything that is dangerous needs to be outlawed and done away with? WHAT????
The primary persons endangered by absence and evidence and sound reasoning are those who lack both and the capacity to think free from erroneous conclusions from religion.
You make a straw man attack. None of your comment reflects upon defense of evidence and reason as the basis for sound conclusions. Danger lies in faith-based conclusions which ignore fact or deny fact. So you were correct earlier as you observed that you are not following me. Paraphrase as you do misrepresents the thought and language of my analysis.
You gave a fine example in your story which supported the view that reason and evidence are preferable to dogma and claim. Fortunately for you and the Amish in the buggy, you did not hit them. You quickly used reasoning and evidence in an avoidance maneuver which averted an accident.
Moniker, no one can entirely avoid dangers in their own perceptions. They can minimize those dangers by having information which is as complete as possible.
Religion is dangerous in that it marginalizes reason and evidence in favor of doctrine and dogma. Truth by assertion is a failure at discovery. To the extent that religion ignores information, distorts information, and marginalizes information in favor of truth by fiat, religion is dangerous.
It has nothing to do with my “say so.” It has to do with the principle which I have articulated with you in these discussions.
JAK
I hope that helps.............
hoping...... hoping......... hoping..........