All religions are dangerous?

[_JAK]

As usual, dart misstates from the quote.

Do you see the word likely?

JAK:
People believe religious dogma because they have been indoctrinated likely from cradle up. That addresses your “because” question.

dart stated:
Ah, so all theists stay in the same religion from birth, and no atheists ever convert to theism? You can' possibly be this stupid!

And what the hell does any of this have to do with anything?

Of course not to your first statement, nor did I state that. You distort and misrepresent. It is you who is “stupid” here, dart. It’s your word and it applies to you. You cannot even read a post with accuracy or represent it with integrity .

JAK:
There is a cause for people holding beliefs which are contrary to fact and in spite of fact. That’s one reason.

dart stated:
You're just reiterating your same dogma in a different form, but you are still dodging questions. If you're such a great debater, why are you hiding from the questions I asked? Why are you conveniently ignoring every post that challenges your position, and responding to only a fraction of other posts?

No refutation of the point. What’s the question which is unanswered?
You’re hiding from all the evidence in the websites which demonstrate:

“Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”

That’s the issue much as you would like to shift the debate.

JAK:
Of course they don’t believe the beliefs are unjustified. That belief in fiction does not make the beliefs reliable, accurate, or valid.

dart stated:
You're making the illicit leap again, refusing to acknolwedge that you have not substantiated any given religious belief to be fiction. Attributing fiction to it is another truth by assertion.

Non sequitur. It has nothing to do with the statement it follows. People don’t believe their views are unjustified. And beliefs are not made reliable, accurate or valid based on truth by assertion. You’re off topic, as usual.

JAK:
We have more than 1,000 Christian groups which each believe somewhat or greatly different things.

dart stated:
Yes, and this means nothing and the hilarious thing is that you constantly reiterate this as if it means a hill of beans. Here is a clue for you. Not everything posting on infidels.org is to be taken as factual. I know you have your own belief system that rejects reason and facts, but that is one of the great ironies here. All theists believe a God exists.

Here is what it means. None is reliable. Each claim to be reliable. In as much as they contradict one another, they are not reliable. If you can’t attack the evidence always attack the source. It’s a fallacy of logic. If you plan to deny the evidence for more than 1,000 groups which call themselves Christian, let’s see your evidence. I presented evidence which listed hundreds of groups. Unless you plan to deny these groups, these different groups exist, you will need to present some evidence. You present none..

dart stated:
All the quibbling over doctrine in Christianity is an issue with biblical interpretation for the most part. So what? We see the same thing with politicians interpreting and misinterpreting the constitution. Show me two politicians who agree on every single issue. Does that mean politics is unjustified?

There is no quibble. The “so what” is that we have more than 1,000 groups which call themselves Christian. They all believe somewhat or very different things. “Politicians” are entirely irrelevant to the issue which you continue to dodge. It’s irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that we have more than 1,000 groups, organizations, sects, or cults which are Christian. They disagree. Their positions are unreliable. None can be demonstrated to have credibility over all the others.

Try to keep on the topic, dart.

JAK:
Each believes his/her beliefs are true.

dart stated:
Including you!!

Irrelevant to the issue:

“Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”

Try to stay on topic.

“Truth by assertion” is unreliable. Religions rely on “truth by assertion.” These are the issues under discussion.

You offer nothing in refutation. The points stand.

JAK:
That in no way makes any of them true.

The various religious groups both inside and outside Christianity have their particular beliefs and they are contradictory. Muslims do not believe what Methodists (a Christian group) believe. Roman Catholics (a Christian group) do not believe what Southern Baptists (another Christian group) believe.

The issue is reliability.

dart stated:
Including yours!!

Why are you attacking another straw man?

There is no “straw man” here. What is it? The issue is as I have stated above and repeated throughout the debate. You are defending nothing here. Why not? Why the failure to address the issue?

dart stated:
Who in the HELL ever argued that God must exist simply because many theists claim their beliefs are true?

WHO??????

Does “God” have anything to do with this discussion? If so, let’s see your characterization.

Now, Christianity in virtually all its forms makes some kind of claim for “God.” They don’t agree about the claims, but they make them. Of course, they present no evidence for their various and contradictory claims. But they do make claims.

Why are those claims unreliable? There is absence of consensus in the claims. Further, Christian claims are at odds with Muslim claims.

Hence, no reliability for the claims.

JAK:
Since you attack any documentation, I’ll provide none

dart stated:
What's the matter, afraid I'll be able to track down the web article you'd be plagiarizing?

Irrelevant and non-topical. I provided an entire page of websites in more than one place demonstrating the “Dangers of Religion.” Thus far, you have responded to none of them. Dismissal is evasion. You evade addressing the issues and documentation that there are clear “Dangers of Religion.”

You continue to evade the central thesis:

“Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”

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

Try to keep your eye on the issues, dart.

dart stated:
Now go find your backbone and start answering some questions. If you don't, then shut the hell up about how your thesis withstands all scrutiny. You can't even address simple points that challenge it and you absolutely refuse to clarify or qualify the ambiguity of your various statements.

Just what questions have you asked? You not only have ask no questions on the topic at hand, you evade the topic at hand.

“Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”

No refutation or evidence against that. I have documented not merely small dangers but large dangers in which thousands of people died in religious wars.

Did you read all those websites you were given? I can’t do all your homework for you. You need to become informed on your own. Clearly, you are not.

Also no refutation for:

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

If you intend to demonstrate that “dogma and claim” are somehow superior to “reason and evidence,” you need to get to work. You have offered nothing.

And if you intend to demonstrate that Truth by assertion is superior to discovery by documentation (evidence and reasoning), you have even more work to do, dart.

Re-read carefully the posts relevant to the debate. You appear ill equipped for debate or rational discussion thus far.

JAK

[_JAK]

You guys know that Bond was joking right? It was obvious from his post that JAK hadn't actually said the quote that Bond attributed to him. He specifically said "channelling JAK".

I think that JAK missed this, called Bond a liar, then Dartagnon attacked JAK for calling Bond a liar, and then it continued from there.

(Of course, I think there were probably lots of other namecalling going on too ... I can't keep up with all the lengthy, lengthy posts in this thread.)

Review the post, Canucklehead.

Just where does the phrase appear? Does it appear before “JAK responds:”

No. It appears much farther up well before the falsification of “JAK responds:”

That you are knowledgeable about what "channelling JAK" means is good for you.

Had it appeared immediately before “JAK responds:”, I might have had some idea, but probably not. In any event the phrase meant nothing to me.

It obviously meant nothing to Moniker as well since she asked about the term. Since Moniker has nearly 1,500 posts on this forum and did not know about the term, with my puny 850, it might be understandable that I didn’t know about the term either.

In any case, it was in the wrong place to be a signal for anything.

JAK

[_Jersey Girl]

You guys know that Bond was joking right? It was obvious from his post that JAK hadn't actually said the quote that Bond attributed to him. He specifically said "channelling JAK".

I think that JAK missed this, called Bond a liar, then Dartagnon attacked JAK for calling Bond a liar, and then it continued from there.

(Of course, I think there were probably lots of other namecalling going on too ... I can't keep up with all the lengthy, lengthy posts in this thread.)

I think I can clarify what the objection is and if I am mistaken, JAK will correct me as he has done so in the past.

Yes, Bond specifically said "channeling JAK" however his post was not well put together and I'm fairly certain I know what JAK objects to and why he calls Bond's integrity into question. But first, when people on this board use the phrase "channeling" a poster, they mean they are going to post in the "persona" if you will, of the poster they are channeling. Having said that...not wanting to pick nits here but this is where the objection lies and if it had involved me, I would have responded in similar fashion.

This is what Bond's post looked like:

"channelling JAK"

Bond to Moniker: Blah, blah, blah
JAK: Blah, blah, blah
JAK

See the signature? That's what JAK objects to.

JAK if you are still reading here would you comment as to whether or not I "read" you accurately?

Jersey Girl

[_Jersey Girl]

You guys know that Bond was joking right? It was obvious from his post that JAK hadn't actually said the quote that Bond attributed to him. He specifically said "channelling JAK".

I think that JAK missed this, called Bond a liar, then Dartagnon attacked JAK for calling Bond a liar, and then it continued from there.

(Of course, I think there were probably lots of other namecalling going on too ... I can't keep up with all the lengthy, lengthy posts in this thread.)

Review the post, Canucklehead.

Just where does the phrase appear? Does it appear before “JAK responds:”

No. It appears much farther up well before the falsification of “JAK responds:”

That you are knowledgeable about what "channelling JAK" means is good for you.

Had it appeared immediately before “JAK responds:”, I might have had some idea, but probably not. In any event the phrase meant nothing to me.

It obviously meant nothing to Moniker as well since she asked about the term. Since Moniker has nearly 1,500 posts on this forum and did not know about the term, with my puny 850, it might be understandable that I didn’t know about the term either.

In any case, it was in the wrong place to be a signal for anything.

JAK

So, what you're saying is that had it read:

Bond to Moniker: Blah, blah, blah
chaneling JAK: Blah, blah, blah

You might not have objected to it? What about the presence of your screen name as signature?

[_Bond...James Bond]

NO WHERE can you find the “quote” which you attribute to JAK. It does not exist. We have an unfortunate forum here which allows for false quotation, and YOU, BOND, are guilty of falsifying. You may have a sense of humor, but you lack integrity.

JAK

OMFG!

I'm going to assume someone told you I was being satirical. Jeez. Pull the butt plug out.


by the way: I knew this thread would play out like this...because JAK might be a retired professor of whatever but he is thickskulled to the point of embarrassment.

Or he acts deliberately obtuse. Take your choice.

[_Jersey Girl]

NO WHERE can you find the “quote” which you attribute to JAK. It does not exist. We have an unfortunate forum here which allows for false quotation, and YOU, BOND, are guilty of falsifying. You may have a sense of humor, but you lack integrity.

JAK

OMFG!

I'm going to assume someone told you I was being satirical. Jeez. Pull the butt plug out.


by the way: I knew this thread would play out like this...because JAK might be a retired professor of whatever but he is thickskulled to the point of embarrassment. How does he ever get through "STOP" signs while driving? The sign doesn't say "STOP, wait 3 seconds, look both ways, then proceed"....how the freaking hell does someone like this function in everyday life?

Are the mods allowed to duke it out in the public square on this board? Well, this isn't MAD so I guess so. ;-) I assume that when you chose to post satire you recognized that this was a serious discussion. What was it, about a week ago, we had a thread here regarding the lack of serious discussion on this board and derailing nonsensical replies that disrupt the thread?

Even Schmo, made serious contributions on this thread and in my experience, that's fully impressive.

What I noticed in your post, Bond, was that you signed off as JAK. Had that been my screen name, I would have objected to it as well. This isn't "everyday life", it's a serious topical discussion or so it would seem it was intended to be. And you're wrong about JAK. He has a keen sense of humor.

*exit duking out mode*
Jersey Girl

[_JAK]

You had a response on Shintoism from me. Rather than address that, you attacked me for using a source which I did not use. The fact that my 1985 World Book Encyclopedia paralleled your on-line source should be no surprise since little new if anything has been added in the past 20+ years to the fundamental information about Shintoism.

Moniker stated:
Shintoism is MY rebuttal to your central thesis! I have said these NUMEROUS TIMES! You are ignoring it!

It’s not a rebuttal. Here is why. I’ll use your source since you don’t like the World Book Encyclopedia vintage 1985.

The word Shinto means the way of the gods. Shintoists worship many gods, which are called kami. According to Shinto, kami are the basic force in mountains, rivers, rocks, trees, and other parts of nature.

Here’s the thesis:
“Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”

Belief that “gods” are responsible for “mountains, rivers, rocks, trees and other parts if nature” is not “reason” or “evidence” for what in fact we know about all the things mentioned. The danger lies in wrong conclusions.

There is no evidence for “gods” being responsible via Shintoism. Shinto by the definition on this link “is a type of polytheism and involves worship of kimi. You can read the link. Under cultural effects, find this:
“A more explicit link to Shinto is seen in sumo wrestling, where, even in the modern version of the sport, many Shinto-inspired ceremonies must be performed before a bout, such as purifying the wrestling arena by sprinkling it with salt.”

Of course nothing was purified by the practice. It was/is a belief which is incorrect. Wrong conclusions are inherently dangerous to those who have them and rely on them. I don’t know all the Shinto believe. But what is stated in various sources demonstrates that Shintos believe things which are not supported by information and evidence.

So how do they address health care for example? If they rely on “the gods” they rely on that which is unreliable. That’s a danger to the believers in the gods.

In the source, we find that they build “shrines” to the “gods.” Doing that took and takes time, energy, wealth which might have addressed disease, cultural problems, social problems, etc.

There is danger in relying on myth for answers. Myths do not produce reliable answers.

How great the dangers of that religion are may be difficult to assess. Certainly they do not appear to be as great as the dangers of Christianity over 2,000 years. If you read my websites on a few pages back, you know many deaths from wars fought in The Battle for God took place (book title).

My thesis does not suggest (as some have tried to attack) that all “dangers” are equal. Of course they are not. But misinformation or false conclusions are dangerous and Shintoism has demonstrable false conclusions.

JAK

[_Bond...James Bond]

Are the mods allowed to duke it out in the public square on this board? Well, this isn't MAD so I guess so. ;-) I assume that when you chose to post satire you recognized that this was a serious discussion. What was it, about a week ago, we had a thread here regarding the lack of serious discussion on this board and derailing nonsensical replies that disrupt the thread?

Even Schmo, made serious contributions on this thread and in my experience, that's fully impressive.

What I noticed in your post, Bond, was that you signed off as JAK. Had that been my screen name, I would have objected to it as well. This isn't "everyday life", it's a serious topical discussion or so it would seem it was intended to be. And you're wrong about JAK. He has a keen sense of humor.

*exit duking out mode*
Jersey Girl

Moderators are only allowed to give each other noogies...no duking. Or Princeing. Or Duchessing. (that's comedy JAK)

Yeah I recognized that it was a serious discussion. Sorry everybody for responding to a post of Moniker's dealing with the issue that JAK can't recognize humor, which I then used in lampooning his posting style. I don't need a cigarette or blindfold...just line me up against the nearest wall and execute me for derailing a message board thread. I don't think there is a crime greater than message boardum derailium. *sarcasm was used in this post by the way JAK*

I really didn't think anyone would mistake my post for anything but comedy. I mean seriously. I wrote that he'd put a link to the history of tacos for Christ sake. Duh! If that isn't evidence of stupid sarcasm I don't know what else I could do.

As to JAK having a keen sense of humor? Yeah right. He wouldn't know sarcasm if the official mascot of sarcasm, Sarcasm E. Sarcastic, ran him over driving the official "Sarcasm-mobile" while making a delivery of "Sarcasm for Dummies" books to a Sarcasmless Anonymous meeting at the Sarcasm Center, at the Corner of Sarcasm and Sarcastica Streets in the great town of Sarcasmville located in an outer province of the Union of Social Sarcastic Republics.

[_Jersey Girl]

Are the mods allowed to duke it out in the public square on this board? Well, this isn't MAD so I guess so. ;-) I assume that when you chose to post satire you recognized that this was a serious discussion. What was it, about a week ago, we had a thread here regarding the lack of serious discussion on this board and derailing nonsensical replies that disrupt the thread?

Even Schmo, made serious contributions on this thread and in my experience, that's fully impressive.

What I noticed in your post, Bond, was that you signed off as JAK. Had that been my screen name, I would have objected to it as well. This isn't "everyday life", it's a serious topical discussion or so it would seem it was intended to be. And you're wrong about JAK. He has a keen sense of humor.

*exit duking out mode*
Jersey Girl

Yeah I recognized that it was a serious discussion. Sorry everybody for responding to a post of Moniker's dealing with the issue that JAK can't recognize humor, which I then used in lampooning his posting style. I don't need a cigarette or blindfold...just line me up against the nearest wall and execute me. *sarcasm was used in this post by the way JAK*

As to JAK having a keen sense of humor? Yeah right. He wouldn't know sarcasm if the official mascot of sarcasm, Sarcasm E. Sarcastic, ran him over driving the official "Sarcasm-mobile" while making a delivery of "Sarcasm for Dummies" books to a Sarcasmless Anonymous meeting at the Sarcasm Center, at the Corner of Sarcasm and Sarcastica Streets in the great town of Sarcasmville located in an outer province of the Union of Social Sarcastic Republics.

Yes, he certainly does have a keen sense of humor however, this was intended to be a serious topical discussion/debate. JAK, dart, and others have strived to maintain the integrity of the thread. Schmo maintained the integrity of the thread and in my eyes, I find that really impressive.

And now, I'm derailing the thread myself...

[_JAK]

Are the mods allowed to duke it out in the public square on this board? Well, this isn't MAD so I guess so. ;-) I assume that when you chose to post satire you recognized that this was a serious discussion. What was it, about a week ago, we had a thread here regarding the lack of serious discussion on this board and derailing nonsensical replies that disrupt the thread?

Even Schmo, made serious contributions on this thread and in my experience, that's fully impressive.

What I noticed in your post, Bond, was that you signed off as JAK. Had that been my screen name, I would have objected to it as well. This isn't "everyday life", it's a serious topical discussion or so it would seem it was intended to be. And you're wrong about JAK. He has a keen sense of humor.

*exit duking out mode*
Jersey Girl

Yeah I recognized that it was a serious discussion. Sorry everybody for responding to a post of Moniker's dealing with the issue that JAK can't recognize humor, which I then used in lampooning his posting style. I don't need a cigarette or blindfold...just line me up against the nearest wall and execute me for derailing a message board thread. I don't think there is a crime greater than message boardum derailium. *sarcasm was used in this post by the way JAK*

As to JAK having a keen sense of humor? Yeah right. He wouldn't know sarcasm if the official mascot of sarcasm, Sarcasm E. Sarcastic, ran him over driving the official "Sarcasm-mobile" while making a delivery of "Sarcasm for Dummies" books to a Sarcasmless Anonymous meeting at the Sarcasm Center, at the Corner of Sarcasm and Sarcastica Streets in the great town of Sarcasmville located in an outer province of the Union of Social Sarcastic Republics.

Thank you for your response, Bond.

JAK