All religions are dangerous?

[_Yoda]

3. You just enjoy arguing with me for the sake of it.

I think this option applies to both you and Marg.

LOL

[_Moniker]

3. You just enjoy arguing with me for the sake of it.

I think this option applies to both you and Marg.

LOL

It definitely applies to me. Not denying it. :)

[_Yoda]

3. You just enjoy arguing with me for the sake of it.

I think this option applies to both you and Marg.

LOL

It definitely applies to me. Not denying it. :)

Thought so! ;)

[_Yoda]

Moderator Note-

Folks, I split off the sexual references to the Telestial. Please keep your sniping in that area, and let's see if we can get back to Kevin's original OP here. Carry on.

Well we knew how bored you were so we talked about it, and decided to spice things up.

I have to admit, Marg. You guys certainly did spice this thread up! ;)

[_Moniker]

3. You just enjoy arguing with me for the sake of it.

I think this option applies to both you and Marg.

LOL

It definitely applies to me. Not denying it. :)

Thought so! ;)

Although I did walk away from the computer earlier after I saw the article marg pasted about the Japanese culture... didn't want to participate.... Sort of got out of sorts about sexual remarks made about me and Ren....... then I took more pleasure in arguing with her just for the sake of it.....

I got this far in the article:

You don’t have to go to Japan to have an inkling that the Japanese are not as the rest of us are. In fact, they’re decidedly weird. If you take the conventional gamut of human possibility as running, say, from Canadians to Brazilians, after ten minutes in the land of the rising sun, you realised the Japs are off the map, out of the game, on another planet. It’s not that they’re aliens, but they are the people that aliens might be if they’d learnt Human by correspondence course and wanted to slip in unnoticed.

...... and I walked away.

Marg, did you know a few of the men on this site are married (or have been married) to women from Japan?

[_marg]

Ah! So, my many posts earlier in the thread to you that say I don't see "critical thinking" skills can be determined by theism doesn't clue you in? I told you about the Cornell Evolution project that studies evolutionary biologists theism -- I also mentioned that dart was an intelligent man (a theist), how I'm NO better at "thinking" than a theist, and that there are physicists, scientists, etc... that are theists and I see no correlation....... that didn't clue you in?

I was doing a spoof on you. My bad that 1. you're either pretending you don't get that or 2. you forgot my REPEATED remarks on this thread that refuted your statements about theists not being "good critical thinkers", OR 3. you just enjoy arguing with me for the sake of it.

by the way, what are YOUR views on theists thinking skills, marg? I've made mine clear through out the thread. :)

Well because you misunderstood and misrepresented a good proportion of posts in the thread you assume incorrectly that JAK..was referring to all theists and all thinking that a theist does. Of course an evolutionary biologist can be a theist. Evolutionary theory does not preclude theism. However every religion to some extent does seek to promote acceptance of dogma and claims absent evidence. The reason being that every religion makes claims which they are unable to support with evidence. It starts out with God which is pretty much benign but then claims absent evidence are built upon that basic assumption and next we have men speaking on behalf of God, books being claimed to be from or of God, histories fabricated and claimed as literally true, emperors and kings having divine unquestioning authority, billions dollar religious organization with political influence, con artists taken advantage of the gullibility of people using religion ..etc etc. Not everyone theist gets duped, not every theist gets hurt or hurts others, not everyone suffers, not every theist is gullible or a poor critical thinker, but JAK is pointing out that everyone should first and foremost use their own reasoning applied to evidence rather than to rely on blind faith or the authorities in religion. It is religion which promotes faith and reliance on authority. Religion has no interest/motivation to promote people to be objective, critical of what they are taught. Does the Mormon church really want people to critically evaluate its history, critically objectively evaluate the Book of Mormon how it came into being, critically study and evaluate J.Smith. Individuals indoctrinated from a young age, intelligent individuals have great difficulty objectively evaluating where they got their religious beliefs and whether they truly are true and/or make much sense. However they can generally be quite objective about religions in conflict with their own.

by the way..I'd like to add that every religion which makes claims absent evidence makes the sort of claims which are extraordinary..defy how our world operates in actuality and many believers accept these claims unquestioningly and as literally true. Extraordinary claims generally should be accepted with extraordinary evidence to match, not less evidence than normal or blind faith. J. Smith and his crew got away with some humdinger claims..and intelligent people believe him.

[_marg]

Marg, did you know a few of the men on this site are married (or have been married) to women from Japan?

Yes I do...Shades. So?

[_Moniker]

I didn't say JAK said it.

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.

Now, which religion does not make religious claims, or have followers? A theist has a belief in some supernatural, is this something a theist should reject if "they were a good critical thinker"? Which theists don't fit into the above scenario? Which belief is acceptable that they won't reject and they can still be "good critical thinkers"?

The antithesis of critical thinking is acceptance of claims absent evidence.

Is God belief one of those claims absent evidence?

????

[_Moniker]

Marg, did you know a few of the men on this site are married (or have been married) to women from Japan?

Yes I do...Shades. So?

That didn't even make you pause or consider that there are men on this site that have children with these women, married to these women and that article refers to the Japanese as "weird" and makes remarks about them not quite being human and more like "aliens"? Seriously, marg -- I'm not being ugly here....... you don't think that's ........ can't think of the right word....... hmmm...... I don't know -- I guess it doesn't bother you.

I guess the surprise here is that I'm surprised........

I'm finished discussing anything with you. You posted an article that painted an entire race of human beings as more like "aliens" than humans....... and I suppose I'm just finished......

[_marg]

I didn't say JAK said it. I said you said it. I have a gooooood memory. :)

Said what?


marg: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.


Moniker: Now, which religion does not make religious claims, or have followers? A theist has a belief in God -- which is evident in most Western religions -- is this something a theist should reject if "they were a good critical thinker"? Which theists don't fit into the above scenario? Which belief is acceptable that they won't reject and they can still be "good critical thinkers"?

Response: I did address belief in God in this thread. I said it wasn't the problem (in and of itself) in my opinion religious belief is acceptable as long as an individual doesn't allow religious authority to supercede their own responsibility to think, evaluate objectively claims and decision making. As an example..Mormons and alcohol. A Mormon should choose to not drink after evaluating objectively the costs versus benefits of drinking alcohol rather than being told to not drink and accept that without question. That's a minor example but that's what I'm talking about.

marg: the antithesis of critical thinking is acceptance of claims absent evidence.

Moniker: Is God belief one of those claims absent evidence?



Response: In a philosophy of religion course I took the prof. presented an argument regarding God belief (and he was a theist by the way) ...if an individual worships a non existing God he is truly wasting his time. I'm paraphrasing. I believe I posted in the Celestial forum the argument (not sure) in the thread on logic & religion. I'll review to see if I can find it.

Here is a quote from Prof. Hall from the Philosophy of Religion course by The Teaching co.

"You could argue that the bottom line of both Anselms and Descartes argument is that all gods exists..a universal affirmative. That might not sound too plausible on its face immediately but there is an equivalent form that says exactly the same thing by means of obversion. That is obviously true, self evidently true. “ Nothing that doesn’t exist is a god.” Nothing that doesn’t exist deserves worship. It is folly to waste worship on non existent things. But that’s all in the world the statement that all gods exists says. It’s genuinely a hypothetical on a modern understanding of how class logic works. To say all gods exist is to say for any x if it is a God, then it exists. And if it doesn’t exist then it’s not a god. On those grounds, on that interpretation Anselm and Descartes are right , the bottom line of their argument can validly be drawn. Each and everything that deserves to be worshipped exists. Now how many are there? That’s the catch. Is there even one. The argument doesn’ t tell us. The argument simply tells us if you are wasting your time worshipping non existent things, you are genuinely wasting your time. I like to think of the ontological argument then as an argument against idolatry rather than an argument for the existence of god."