All religions are dangerous?

[_BishopRic]

Mon, those are some gorgeous pictures!

They're not mine. I definitely need to upload a bunch. So ya'll can see lil Moniker in the festivals and running around like a wild heathen child on the beaches and hills of Japan. :D

I was even in a bunch of the beauty pageants! Those are GREAT pictures -- you can see lil Moniker almost in the picture and the beautiful Japanese ladies (I was standing next to) in the center of the picture -- my Dad took all those. :D

I put the pics on the thread to better define what precisely we're talking about. I like visual aides!! ;)

Thanks for the pics, Mon! As a returned mish from Japan, those photos are natsukashii!

Like the language, it's hard to compare our definitions of religion to theirs...or even the way we think differently. As missionaries we would teach an investigator, they would "accept our baptismal challenge," and when we would visit at times we would "catch them" praying to their butsudan (Buddha), and couldn't figure out why! They had learned of the "one true church of God," so why would they still be practicing their other religion?

The reality is that they have many longstanding traditions. To change them is rare, and difficult culturally. The black and white thinking of Americans is so different to them. If you understand "spirit" the way they do (and frankly, I think they're much closer to it than we are), it isn't a conflict to practice different religions. In a sense it is cherry-picking, but it can be fit into their spirituality quite easily.

Yes, I'm going back there in the next few years to enjoy the beauties of the country again -- this time without thinking I have more truth than they do!

[_Canucklehead]

The fact you're missing out on is that Christians do not interpret those passages literally. Jesus spoke in parables, and much of what he said requires proper hermeneutics. Jesus never carried a sword. How can anyone really believe Jesus came to "bring a sword" literally, when he refused to let his own bodyguard defend him with one?

As I understand it, the sword verse is generally interpreted as a prophetic statement, referring to the wars that would ensue because of his existence.

Oh I see. So the part where he tells his follower to not bury his father is ok with you. Also the part about how marrying a divorced person is adulterous.

[Guest]

I don't agree with everything Jesus said but (again, assuming he did exist) I respect him as a good moral visionary - for his time.
And I'd estimate that 90% of what he taught is stuff that I am happy to follow. (NOTE - not overly dogmatic interpretations though. When I say I believe in 'turning the other cheek' for example - I don't mean I believe in literally turning the other cheek in every viable situation. I mean that I believe that the moral principle is sound, and useful in many situations...)

Since you're able to rationally distinguish between those of Jesus' teachings are morally acceptable and those that are reprehensible, there must be another standard by which you are judging (other than an appeal to Jesus' authority as a moral teacher).

Any one of the principles that Jesus taught that is moral could be deduced from principles other than an appeal to authority. It kind of removes the need to "believe in" Jesus in the first place.

That is why I said that any group who accepts that Jesus is a moral authority has "the potential" to be dangerous if they become dogmatic in their acceptance of him. If, as you say, Unitarians are encouraged to rationally critique what Jesus said and accept only those teachings which withstand this scrutiny, then they can't really be said to "believe in" Jesus in any appreciable way. They are actually engaging in philosophy rather than religion.

Some good points Canucklehead:

You stated:
That is why I said that any group who accepts that Jesus is a moral authority has "the potential" to be dangerous if they become dogmatic in their acceptance of him.

Jim Jones was a Christian evangelists who founded the Peoples Temple. Most today would regard that his Christian organization was dangerous. He relied on truth by assertion, and his followers accepted mindlessly that truth. Most today would regard that Jones was wrong.

It’s but one example supporting your statement and the dangers of religion.

JAK

[Guest]

Since you're able to rationally distinguish between those of Jesus' teachings are morally acceptable and those that are reprehensible, there must be another standard by which you are judging.

Indeed. It's my own standard of right and wrong.
Religious people have such a sense too - independent of the religion they are bought up in.

Any one of the principles that Jesus taught that is moral could be deduced from principles other than an appeal to authority.

Agreed.

It kind of removes the need to "believe in" Jesus in the first place.

I don't think you need to 'believe in' him either. But I don't think it hurts. As long as that belief is kept in perspective...

That is why I said that any group who accepts that Jesus is a moral authority has "the potential" to be dangerous if they become dogmatic in their acceptance of him.

Agreed. A group like the Unitarianians make great pains to have an 'un-dogmatic' view - but that still isn't good enough. Either they aren't really a religion, or they must be dogmatic? They can't be both? (Apparently).

If, as you say, Unitarians are encouraged to rationally critique what Jesus said and accept only those teachings which withstand this scrutiny, then they can't really be said to "believe in" Jesus in any appreciable way.

I simply don't think this is an accurate description of the legitimate boundaries of religious belief. If you 'believe' in Christ, then you must believe in every single word he said - full stop? You cannot accept that there might be inaccuracies in the gospels? You cannot accept there might be misinterpretations? You cannot accept that many of the things Jesus said need to be considered in context of their time and place? That some of them were parables?

You cannot accept that Jesus might not have been 'perfect'? Might not be God?

PLENTY of religious people regard Jesus not as a God, but as a prophet. As an imperfect man - who was inspired by God. How can you say that such people 'don't believe in Christ'? They 'believe in him' alright - just not as the average Christian does.

Unitarians believe in God. AND they believe that Christ was inspired by God.
Do Christians not believe in Moses? Do Mormons not believe in Joseph Smith?!

They are actually engaging in philosophy rather than religion.

I reject that catagorisation. They believe in God, but believe Jesus to be a man who was inspired by God. That is not philosophy - that is religious belief. And SO MANY people of other religious persuasions do exactly what these guys do. The only difference is that their religion officially makes it very clear that that's what their members do.
But in practical terms, it's exactly what all kinds of Anglicans (with full, 'proper' membership status) here in Britain do. They make up their own idea of Christ. They pick and choose which bits they will follow, and which bits they don't. And they don't let their religious leaders dictate that idea to them. (And the religious leaders in return aren't that bothered about forcing anything in return. Sure, they'll get up and give the sermons. But they won't be 'checking up' on anybody...)

[_dartagnan]

No one (at lest not marg nor I) has argued “a clear dichotomy between religion and atheism where one side is all about accepting known facts and the other is all about rejecting them."

You don't seem to understand logical implication at all.

Group A has attribute X which makes it opposite to Group B.

Attribute X is religion, which defines Group A as theists and group B as atheists.

Now you have made it perfectly clear that every religionist from Group A is a "danger" because he:

1) "depend[s] on blind faith."
2) "exercises power over reason"
3) "plays to fear and anxiety"
4) "diminish[es] the role of evidence and reason."
5) "substitute[s] dogma for reason"
6) "assault[s] reason"
7) "attack[s]...rational thought"
8) "seek[s] to destroy the intellect"
9) "most...would and do raise weapons and ask for God’s blessing as they destroy."

Again, if you're speaking so negatively about night, you don't really have to mention daylight for us to understand how you feel about it. It is implied. And given your sudden departure without offering any clarifications whatsoever, you can't really complain about being misunderstood, which I doubt you are. You're singing the same tune with moniker, when it has become clear you're just contradicting yourself.

In as much as religion relies on truth by assertion, that reliance makes religion dangerous.

Truth by assertion happens in every day life without religion. It is part of human nature. We don't know everything for a fact nor do we operate in every day life by following strictly to science. For example, you're doing the truth asserting right now. It is your personal "belief" that you're trying to push, and you've produce no data, no anecdotal evidence that pertains, no rationale for this generalization, no basis for your argument nor any "skeptical review" as you demand for religious belief. That makes you a hypocrite to boot.

Now marg said the danger comes when those assertions turn out to be true, because it can make others have more faith in them. So what? Having more faith in things unproved, hardly means a rejection of things proved is inevitable. You guys can't seem to tell teh difference. You guys make it sound like faith is a contagious disease. Every religion I know relies on some sense of faith, and at the same time accepts scientific truths. They aren't mutually exclusive. Everywhere I look I see religion bending to scientific discovery, which completely undermines your silly thesis.

Why would Christians begin to reject the Old Testament as history, if what you say is true and they substitute faith over reason?

Why is the Mormon Church changing its position on the relationship between the Lamanites and the Jews, if what you say is true and they enforce faith over reason?

These are simple questions that have clearly stumped you, so you want to pretend they don't exist by exiting the debate.

Your problem is that science hasn't disproved the existence of God, and it drives you nuts. So all you're left with is panic mode. Make everyone afraid of theists by suggesting their mental defects can somehow backfire on society. Convince them that they are a danger to society. The next step on the bigotry ladder is segregation.

It’s generally non-productive to attempt refutation of straw-man constructions.

Oh, so now you want back in once you think marg earned you a little point here? Get in the game or stop whining. There is no "straw man" going on here. I know exactly what you're trying to prove, and you haven't even begun to mount a case for it. My comment about the dichotomy was a minor point and based on inference due by your own lack of participation.

Jim Jones was a Christian evangelists wo founded the Peoples Temple. Most today would regard that his Christian organization was dangerous. He relied on truth by assertion, and his followers accepted mindlessly that truth. Most today would regard that Jones was wrong.

This again sums up the logical deficiency in JAK's thinking. He can't seem to allow for the fact that just because John owned a gun and killed someone, that this doesn't necessarily make everyone with a gun dangerous. Some people know how to act responsibly with a gun. He is so hypnotized by his own theory about "truth by assertion," implying that it is an attribute of religion, therefore making religion dangerous, that he fails to acknowledge that this is something that occurs without religion, in every day life. It is something we all do. In fact, he's doing it right now. We all do it.

"That guy's gay."
"Iran already has nukes."
"Obama is going to be President."
"Jak is really smart."

These are all examples of "truth by assertion." Which one of these actively "destroys the intellect" and "assaults reason"?

Maybe marg can answer this since we know JAK won't.

[_JAK]

No one (at lest not marg nor I) has argued “a clear dichotomy between religion and atheism where one side is all about accepting known facts and the other is all about rejecting them."

You don't seem to understand logical implication at all.

Group A has attribute X which makes it opposite to Group B.

Attribute X is religion, which defines Group A as theists and group B as atheists.

Now you have made it perfectly clear that every religionist from Group A is a "danger" because he:

1) "depend[s] on blind faith."
2) "exercises power over reason"
3) "plays to fear and anxiety"
4) "diminish[es] the role of evidence and reason."
5) "substitute[s] dogma for reason"
6) "assault[s] reason"
7) "attack[s]...rational thought"
8) "seek[s] to destroy the intellect"
9) "most...would and do raise weapons and ask for God’s blessing as they destroy."

Again, if you're speaking so negatively about night, you don't really have to mention daylight for us to understand how you feel about it. It is implied. And given your sudden departure without offering any clarifications whatsoever, you can't really complain about being misunderstood, which I doubt you are. You're singing the same tune with moniker, when it has become clear you're just contradicting yourself.

In as much as religion relies on truth by assertion, that reliance makes religion dangerous.

Truth by assertion happens in every day life without religion. It is part of human nature. We don't know everything for a fact nor do we operate in every day life by following strictly to science. For example, you're doing the truth asserting right now. It is your personal "belief" that you're trying to push, and you've produce no data, no anecdotal evidence that pertains, no rationale for this generalization, no basis for your argument nor any "skeptical review" as you demand for religious belief. That makes you a hypocrite to boot.

Now marg said the danger comes when those assertions turn out to be true, because it can make others have more faith in them. So what? Having more faith in things unproved, hardly means a rejection of things proved is inevitable. You guys can't seem to tell the difference. You guys make it sound like faith is a contagious disease. Every religion I know relies on some sense of faith, and at the same time accepts scientific truths. They aren't mutually exclusive. Everywhere I look I see religion bending to scientific discovery, which completely undermines your silly thesis.

Why would Christians begin to reject the Old Testament as history, if what you say is true and they substitute faith over reason?

Why is the Mormon Church changing its position on the relationship between the Lamanites and the Jews, if what you say is true and they enforce faith over reason?

These are simple questions that have clearly stumped you, so you want to pretend they don't exist by exiting the debate.

Your problem is that science hasn't disproved the existence of God, and it drives you nuts. So all you're left with is panic mode. Make everyone afraid of theists by suggesting their mental defects can somehow backfire on society. Convince them that they are a danger to society. The next step on the bigotry ladder is segregation.

It’s generally non-productive to attempt refutation of straw-man constructions.

Oh, so now you want back in once you think marg earned you a little point here? Get in the game or stop whining. There is no "straw man" going on here. I know exactly what you're trying to prove, and you haven't even begun to mount a case for it. My comment about the dichotomy was a minor point and based on inference due by your own lack of participation.

Jim Jones was a Christian evangelists wo founded the Peoples Temple. Most today would regard that his Christian organization was dangerous. He relied on truth by assertion, and his followers accepted mindlessly that truth. Most today would regard that Jones was wrong.

This again sums up the logical deficiency in JAK's thinking. He can't seem to allow for the fact that just because John owned a gun and killed someone, that this doesn't necessarily make everyone with a gun dangerous. Some people know how to act responsibly with a gun. He is so hypnotized by his own theory about "truth by assertion," implying that it is an attribute of religion, therefore making religion dangerous, that he fails to acknowledge that this is something that occurs without religion, in every day life. It is something we all do. In fact, he's doing it right now. We all do it.

"That guy's gay."
"Iran already has nukes."
"Obama is going to be President."
"Jak is really smart."

These are all examples of "truth by assertion." Which one of these actively "destroys the intellect" and "assaults reason"?

Maybe marg can answer this since we know JAK won't.

dartagnan,

Examples of conclusions for which evidence can be presented and sustained by skeptical review and consensus begin with evidence first.

In your example: “Obama is going to be President,” it’s a forecast into the future from when we write.

It’s not parallel with your example: “That guy’s gay.”

A conclusion based on evidence, fact, skeptical review is a conclusion which is not truth by assertion.

You’re incorrect as you attempt to make these equal.

dartagnan stated:
We don't know everything for a fact nor do we operate in every day life by following strictly to science.

To the degree that we have reliable evidence, fact, information, we tend to operate in harmony with what we know. We also rely on probability based on what we know. If we plan to drive from one city to another that’s 200 miles away, we rely on evidence. We don’t begin the drive with no gasoline in the car, for example. We don’t drive with a flat tire, etc.

So while we clearly cannot “know everything,” we want to know as much as possible with a high degree of reliability before beginning our travel.

And we do operate following the laws of “science.” That is, we cannot defy the laws of science. Not knowing them and/or understanding them places us at risk.

We want all the evidence and the best reasoning we can make prior to and during behavior. Ignorance places us at risk.

JAK

[_dartagnan]

In your example: “Obama is going to be President,” it’s a forecast into the future from when we write.

It’s not parallel with your example: “That guy’s gay.”
.

But it is parallel to, "God exists," which is the issue.

You mean to tell me that you blew all of that wind just to point out that one of the four examples doesn't exactly parallel with the other three, yet you couldn't find it in yourself to actually answer my question regarding the three that do parallel with what you're complaining about?

To the degree that we have reliable evidence, fact, information, we tend to operate in harmony with what we know.

Oh really?

We know there are killers on the street, but we have faith that we can go out and make it home alive.

We know that driving is extremely unsafe as a mode of transportation, but we "believe" we'll make it home alive.

We know this planet is infested with deadly bacteria and viruses, yet we leave our homes every day, breathing air containing God knows what (pun intended).

As I tried to explain to EAllusion, it is impossible to be absolutely safe in life. The level of "danger" that could possibly come from believing in something based on faith, is extremely miniscule (and that is giving your theory the benefit of the doubt that you could even come up with a single plausible example - which you haven't) when compared to the dangers in every day life due to faith in things nonreligious. You're not likely to be killed because of a religion-related accident. You're more likely to be struck by lightning, yet you focus on attacking religion as if you're offering practical solutions to a serious danger in society.

All you are doing is showing what can only be interpreted as bigotry towards the majority of the planet. A majority that happens to be different from you.

We also rely on probability based on what we know.

Absolutely, but probability wasn't good enough for Clifford when using the shipowner analogy. One could argue that in all probability, he would have made it.

But that is when inductive reasoning comes into play. And there are plenty of people, scientists included, whose inductive reasoning led them to a belief in God. There is just too much coincidence in the Universe that we all ended up where we are by chance. Science doesn't explain everything that appears to be in harmony in the universe. It is because of our innate reasoning tendency that most people do believe in God. It isn't because they are hypnotized by ancient myths. That makes no sense at all. They are those who don't overemphasize the need to be absolutely sure about everything, which is quite silly given the fact that science doesn't tell us everything. Even the human body remains a complete mystery, particularly regarding the eyes and the brain. Scientists and doctors simply have no idea what's going on in there that gives us conscience and vision.

So for you to say religion attacks reason is patently absurd because it was the Christian reasoning that gave us modern science.

For you to say religion inherently rejects reason and substitutes it for faith, is patently absurd because religions have conformed to science.

You still haven't responded to many of the counter examples I provided. Why is Mormonism changing its position since DNA studies? According to your rant, it shoudl substitute this scinetific knowledge with faith alone. "To hell with science, let's believe the Indians are Jews anyway." You don't hear any of that like your "thesis" would have it. Joseph Smith said so, and he is the ultimate "religious authority" in the Church. So how does your theory account for this data, which flies in its face?

How do you explain the trend in Evangelical colleges becoming more liberal and less fundamentalist, how open theology has impacted modern Christianity as modern scholarship has determined new things about the Bible? You cannot speak on these things because your perspective of religion is so misinformed and narrow. You rely on infidels.org for all your information and it comes with your conclusion gift wrapped for you. There is no "reasoning" going on with your arguments here because you refuse to hear both sides.

For you all religions are equal. If you find one bad thing in one, you think that means it is safe to assume it exists in all of them. Why? Because they're all equal. This is fallacious reasoning,but that is essentially what you're doing.

And we do operate following the laws of “science.” That is, we cannot defy the laws of science. Not knowing them and/or understanding them places us at risk.

But most humans don't know them, and that has absolutely nothing to do with their belief in God. It has to do with lack of education.

We want all the evidence and the best reasoning we can make prior to and during behavior. Ignorance places us at risk.

Yes, like your various political rants based in ignorance put your credibility at high risk.

[_marg]

No one (at lest not marg nor I) has argued “a clear dichotomy between religion and atheism where one side is all about accepting known facts and the other is all about rejecting them."

You don't seem to understand logical implication at all.

Group A has attribute X which makes it opposite to Group B.

Attribute X is religion, which defines Group A as theists and group B as atheists.

Kevin atheism is not the opposite of theism. Atheism is a default position to theism. While a theist believes in a God's existence, an atheist does not disbelieve but rather lacks belief in existence due to lack of evidence. Granted some atheists might claim God does not exist, but that is not an essential position of atheism whereas a belief that God does exist is essential to theism. For this reason the positions are not opposite to one another as you have assumed in your argument.

Every religion I know relies on some sense of faith, and at the same time accepts scientific truths. They aren't mutually exclusive. Everywhere I look I see religion bending to scientific discovery, which completely undermines your silly thesis.

It's very time consuming Kevin discussing with you because you misrepresent and/or misunderstand what is actually said. JAK is fully aware of and has acknowledged that religious doctrines change to accomodate science. And that is a good thing. But sometimes it's a very slow process to change, and in the meantime harm may be caused and sometimes it is next to impossible to change. Could Jesus ever be non divine and Christianity still exist? Do you think that Mormonism could ever change its claim that the Book of Mormon is an historically true text and still exist?

Your problem is that science hasn't disproved the existence of God, and it drives you nuts.

There is a huge difference Kevin between a non worship worthy, non interfering deity/ ultimate knowledge and an interfering deity with humanlike qualities as presented by various religions, one which requires worship and obedience to. Science does address indirectly the latter but not the former. For example, science does address the God of Mormonism indirectly by the evidence indicating with extreme high probability the Book of Mormon is nothing more than a 20th century work of fiction and hence that God not supported by evidence in fact evidence counters that God.

So all you're left with is panic mode. Make everyone afraid of theists by suggesting their mental defects can somehow backfire on society. Convince them that they are a danger to society. The next step on the bigotry ladder is segregation.

Kevin as long as you question, are not gullible, not easily manipulated without questioning by religious authority or any authority for that matter, do not let religious authority dictate and supercede good critical thinking then that danger that JAK is referring to is not presented, at least by you. That you support religious groups which may yield powerful influences politically and be dangerous to others is how you would contribute to danger indirectly. (in my opinion)

This again sums up the logical deficiency in JAK's thinking. He can't seem to allow for the fact that just because John owned a gun and killed someone, that this doesn't necessarily make everyone with a gun dangerous.

Kevin you are again misunderstanding JAK's position, he is not claiming every theist is dangerous. It is the principals in thinking encouraged by religions which are dangerous. Indirectly all religious groups can be dangerous by their political power.

[_Moniker]

Thanks for the pics, Mon! As a returned mish from Japan, those photos are natsukashii!

Do itashi mashite! Yes, I have good memories too! I'm going back in just a few months. I had planned on going with the entire family, yet I've changed my plans and intend on going alone. I need it -- just for me. :)

Like the language, it's hard to compare our definitions of religion to theirs...or even the way we think differently. As missionaries we would teach an investigator, they would "accept our baptismal challenge," and when we would visit at times we would "catch them" praying to their butsudan (Buddha), and couldn't figure out why! They had learned of the "one true church of God," so why would they still be practicing their other religion?

Yes, it is so difficult to translate the culture, beliefs, traditions -- I can't do it! I loved living within it. I adored my time there -- happiest years in my life. There was an art gallery not far from where I lived and I still get printed cards from them every year -- there was a restaurant on the beach and the lady that ran it brought me my first Kimono as a present -- I'm still in touch with the girls that were our neighbors (we rented from their family-- our home swayed in the typhoons and earthquakes) -- we had a man "break in" our home one time and he merely soaked and then took a nap on my parents futon before departing! :) The beach was most excellent -- the stalls set up that had corn that I gobbled -- the festivals where there were games set up right infront of our home -- the FOOD! Oh man -- I miss Japan! I had blonde hair when I lived there and I was stroked incessantly and am in thousands of photos with strangers! I have soooo many good memories. I should actually type them up before I forget them all.

You're right about the "one true Church" -- to them they incorporate other religions quite easily and it all meshes for them.

The reality is that they have many longstanding traditions. To change them is rare, and difficult culturally. The black and white thinking of Americans is so different to them. If you understand "spirit" the way they do (and frankly, I think they're much closer to it than we are), it isn't a conflict to practice different religions. In a sense it is cherry-picking, but it can be fit into their spirituality quite easily.

Yes, I'm going back there in the next few years to enjoy the beauties of the country again -- this time without thinking I have more truth than they do!

Yes, I like the notion of Japanese spirits -- a lot! I think they have quite a bit of "truth" :) Where did you serve your mission? I lived on Hayama Beach.

Sorry Dart!

[_Bond...James Bond]

Do itashi mashite! Yes, I have good memories too! I'm going back in just a few months. I had planned on going with the entire family, yet I've changed my plans and intend on going alone. I need it -- just for me. :)

Yargh...I hate yee at this moment.

(Actually I might be going to China this summer...assuming I can scrape together a little cash....so I'll wave to you in Japan if I get the chance as a fly over)