On another threat one regular contributor expressed that she won't read the Koran because she doesn't want to read any religious book. Yet this person often defends the Muslims, is opposed to Australian involvement against ISIS and appears to be pro-immigration. To me this is very typical of many on the left who make up their minds based on hating Tony Abbott, rather than taking the time to honestly consider what their opposition is saying. In fairness to the left thinkers I recognise that some of the views expressed by the 'right' contributors are just as narrow minded.

If you haven't read the Koran perhaps you should at least thumb through it, even if only an online version. The Koran is in some ways not really 'religious', it's more of an outline of how to live one's life, according to Mohammed. It was an ongoing work that evolved as different events unfolded in Mohammed's life. He seems to be writing the Rules to suit his own agenda.

If you do read it you may come to better understand the criticism of the hypocrisy the Koran contains. The Koran is pretty basic and was written 1500 years ago to bring some order into the lives of very basic nomadic peoples who needed to be told not to rape their mothers; it does not contain the higher aspirations of the enlightened teachers like Buddha.

What really caps off the Koran/Islam and sets up an impossible situation is the fact Mohammed proclaims himself to be the Last Prophet god will ever send to earth and therefore his word supersedes all other men of God for all time to come. Billions of Muslims have the proof everyone else is wrong, ignorant and expendable.

There is no room for growth or interpretation to adapt to the modern world in Islam as it must be followed exactly the way Mohammed laid it down. Changes or alternative interpretations are forbidden. This is why its impossible to negotiate with the Muslim mind set, the Muslims have the final word and its their duty to convert the World.

...and Mosques are a symbol of conquest.
The Koran's contents are also presented in order of the length of the verses, so the gory bits may be at the start but they're not the oldest and least developed sections, the "moderate" teachings are supposedly the earliest and as Mohammed and his men conquered more territory the regime became more brutal.
That's the important thing to remember, you're reading a book dictated by a military commander, Mohammed is more like Julius Caesar or Napoleon Bonaparte than Jesus Christ or Gautamah Buddah, he was a messianic war chieftain as opposed to a sage.

yep the bible is often ridiculed by all sorts of ignorant people. Usually the journalist who have never read the Koran or questioned Muslims about what the Koran says are quick to say Isalm is a religion of peace. If you want a promotion in the Police force or army make sure you learn this lie and repeat it many times over. Ignore the massive amounts of evidence but just repeat Islam is a religion of peace. As a conservative I am embarassed to say George Bush started this rot after 9/11.

Dear Conservative Hippie,

Our current situation regarding the religion of Islam
is that many people are not well informed about
the religion of Islam or religion generally, and they
are often influenced by stereotypes and caricatures.

There are very few well-informed religious journalists
working for Australia's daily newspapers. And, as The
Age religion reporter Barney Swartz has pointed out
there are tremendous difficulties that the informed religion
reporter faces. "There are hardly any religion specialists
in the media in Australia, there is no instructor, and
its a subject that often inspires strong passions."

He outlines the essence of the task, "I have to satisfy the
editors not that a story is worthy, but that it is
newsworthy, a much harder task. I have to present it
powerfully, bring out the controversial aspects, so that
people will understand why it is important... He also
points out the reporting has to deal with the
religious communities
under siege, like the Australian Muslims."

A complex situation all round.

Hi Foxy

It's a sad statement on our freedom when news editors don't find the Truth is newsworthy. Why is it that calling a spade a spade is no longer acceptable?

Political correctness is to blame. As the sensitivities of the so called victims outweigh the true nature of the big picture, we find ourselves in a situation where the media and even the politicians are dancing around the truth in order to avoid stepping on anyone's toes.

The truth, in my opinion, is the Islamic way needs to come into the 21st Century. Islam must recognise the need and find a way to bring its thinking out of the medieval mindset. Educated Islamic clerics have to take the lead, but they are constrained by the very nature of Islam's root tenants.

Islam's inability to modernise has become the rest of the world's problem and now political correctness prevents us from even talking about the problem openly. Damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Just because Muslim followers of Islam will have their feelings hurt if we point out the flaws in their belief system, that is not justification to avoid the truth that their dark age religion is causing havoc all around the globe.

There was a time Muslim's were the world's scientific leaders and Islam had outstanding thinkers, but they have been going backward at a rapid pace over the last 100 years, instead of adapting and progressing with the rest of the world.

Unfortunately Muslims cannot adapt to the modern world for to do so would be to admit that the Koran is not the word of Allah, that Muhammad was thus not his Prophet and that to follow the Koran is uncivilized.

I have only read bits of the Koran, and have no intention delve deeper.
It is necessary to have some knowledge otherwise any argument you put can only be shallow.
It comes down to; "know thy enemy."

Make no mistake Islam is the enemy, because Islam has declared we are the enemy if we won't convert.

Here is an example of a town called Luton, just north of London:
http://qpolitical.com/her-town-was-invaded-by-muslim-extremists-watch-what-happens-when-she-confronts-them/

WARNING!

Don't open the link above (Luton) - at least don't follow the links on that page because they lead to malware that can harm your computer!

---

As for this discussion, which I've been watching silently so far until I get a solid opinion and would have continued to do so before this bad link required me to comment, so far what it seems is that there is a Muslim religion and there is a Muslim culture - and these are not the same.

The Muslim religion is good, the Muslim culture is bad.

I am not convinced that Muhammad is behind the Muslim culture - I think that this culture was there already when he came and Muhammad tried to curtail it. Muhammad also didn't write the Koran - it was edited by his followers after his death, selecting what fitted them, out of context, and discarding the rest. Even what was written in his name, he couldn't verify because he couldn't read, so they could have written just anything on those pieces of paper found 2 years after his death. It is therefore quite possible to be both a religious Muslim and a peaceful citizen.

The Islamic culture is an enemy because they try to take away our freedom - and needs to be dealt with as such, but we should have no problem with the Islamic religion itself. The main tool to separate the two is to refute the authenticity of the Koran.

Dear Hippie,

There is no need for anyone to "adapt and progress with the rest of the world". Demanding that others do so places you in line with oppressive regimes, including Islamic ones. Suffice that we refrain from violence, that we live our own lives while letting others live theirs.

I agree in some part with Yuyutsu.

Certainly, if there were gods, thry would not condone such violent acts as beheading people to prove a point.

Those people are not following a religion, they are following their own murderous tendencies.

It is similar to many people belonging to the violent side of the IRA in it's latter years.
Most people in Ireland did not support these violent men in the IRA who bombed places that contained people of all religious persuasions, just to kill a few Protestants!

Often violent, aggressive, angry people drift towards these organisations where they can practice their murders more easily, under the guise of giving a damn about any religious 'causes'.

Look at what Christianity has done throughout history http://www.markhumphrys.com/christianity.killings.html It's JUST as bad as what Islam has done throughout history http://www.markhumphrys.com/islam.killings.html

BOTH religions have an evil and wicked history. Several hundred years ago Christianity was forced to change via the imposition of secular democracy and secular freedom upon Christianity. Christianity lost it's power then. The process took several hundred years, and Christianity finally reached the stage where it was no longer a threat to the freedom and peace of society.

Currently Islam in the Middle East, has to go through the same process that Christianity went through hundreds of years ago. Islam will do it more quickly than Christianity because we are now in the modern age of communications, but it will still take time.

BOTH religions have an evil, wicked and extremely violent history, and they have sought to dominate.

Yuyutsu,

Are you just saying there is malware to discourage viewing?

Mohammad is their role model - hence the cult of Mohamadism. He was no man of peace. A business man who had 11 wives/concubines (heck, even 3 in his afterlife including the mother of Jesus), including a wealthy older widow, and a 6yr old child when he was a 53yro. He was a warrior who raped, pillaged and invaded.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Muhammads_Wives_and_Concubines

Here are a few of his wives:-

Aisha:
“She was the daughter of Muhammad's best friend and head evangelist Abu Bakr. Muhammad selected the six-year-old Aisha in preference to her teenaged sister, and she remained his favourite wife. She contributed a major body of information to Islamic law and history. The paedophilic aspect of this relationship has institutionalised such marriages within Islam.”

Hind:
“An attractive widow with four young children, Hind had been rejected by her aristocratic family in Mecca because they were so hostile to Islam. Her tact and practical wisdom sometimes mitigated Muhammad's cruelties. She was a notable teacher of Islamic law and a partisan of Ali.”

Zaynab:
“An early convert to Islam, Zaynab was the wife of Muhammad's adopted son Zayd ibn Harithah. She was also the Prophet's biological cousin. When Muhammad became infatuated with Zaynab, Zayd was pressured into a divorce. To justify marrying her, Muhammad announced new revelations that (1) an adopted son did not count as a real son, so Zaynab was not his daughter-in-law, and (2) as a prophet, he was allowed more than the standard four wives. Zaynab excelled at leather-crafts.”

Cont...

....Cont.

Rayhana:
“Her first husband was one of the 600-900 Qurayza men whom Muhammad beheaded in April 627. He enslaved all the women and selected Rayhana for himself because she was the most beautiful. When she refused to marry him, he kept her as a concubine instead. She died shortly before Muhammad in 632.”

Juwayriyah:
“The daughter of an Arab chief, she was taken prisoner when Muhammad attacked her tribe. Muhammad did not make a habit of marrying his war-captives, but Aisha claimed that Juwayriyah was so beautiful that men always fell in love with her at first sight.”

Safiyah:
“She was the beautiful daughter of a Jewish chief, Huyayy ibn Akhtab. Muhammad married her on the day he defeated the last Jewish tribe in Arabia, only hours after he had supervised the slaying of Kinana her second husband. His earlier victims had included her father, brother, first husband, three uncles and several cousins. This marriage was of no benefit to Safiyah's defeated tribe, who were banished from Arabia a few years later; its real political significance was that Safiyah's presence in Muhammad's household was an open demonstration that he had defeated the Jews.”

In the afterlife - Mary, mother of Jesus:
“Muhammad said that Allah had wedded him in Heaven to the Virgin Mary, who was one of the four perfect women. The Qur'an refers several times to Mary, praising her chastity and affirming the virgin birth of Jesus. Muhammad said she lived in a beautiful jewelled palace in Paradise next to Khadijah's.”

And they call Islam a religion?

What other religious figure compares?

When Muslims speak of peace it is only when all Non Muslims have been subjugated, I’m afraid.

There's obviously a LOT of Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones fans here.

May Mat said;
There's obviously a LOT of Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones fans here.

Now this is not an unusual tactic. It serves the left well, it ties everyone
who opposes them to someone they all hate.
This simplifies their argument and means they do not have to use argument.
It is actually quite a dishonest way to participate on here.
It overlooks any chance that maybe Jones & Bolt are right !

So it is not only dishonest but cowardly.
Now to more honest comment.
Yuyutsu; I have had no problem with those links.
Mind you I am using Linux so that may be the reason.
If you are right makes a good case to dump Windows.

Hey Bazz baby, I LOVE Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones. Alan is a gay icon, and Andrew is so good looking, especially in a pair of budgie smugglers.

Oh that was a quick response !
Well because such a statement is what you hear from the lefties I had
presumed, wrongly it appears, you were one of their haters.
I had heard all this criticism of them and started to read Bolt's column
looking for distortions and lies but never found any.
When he made a mistake he was quick to apologise.
I think Alan Jones has the pollies frightened and that is a good thing.
Don't agree with everything he says, but my disageements are based
are based on the implications of his positions not so much the facts.

Dear May,

Did Jesus seek power and domination?

No, he didn't!

What you describe are social issues - not religious issues.

And in the same manner I put forward the theory that Muhammad did not condone any of this violence and terror either, that just as so-called "Christians" do not follow the teachings of Jesus, so do so-called "Muslims" who resort to terror and cruelty to others, especially women, fail to follow the teachings of Muhammad.

Dear Constance,

The immediate page you pointed at was OK, but once I clicked on one of the links there, I nearly got a virus or something: I immediately killed my browser and wanted to warn others too. No doubt that so-called "Muslims" do horrible and scary things, but I contest that any of that has anything to do with religion.

What you relate is the "official" press, laundered by Abu Bakr. I doubt how much of this is historically true.

You ask:

<<And they call Islam a religion?>>

The package is definitely not. There seems to be a good religion therein, which some take seriously and benefit immensely from, especially Sufis, but it's packaged as a social movement and that package is rotten and violent.

<<What other religious figure compares?>>

Here is a contemporary example how a disciple took control of their preceptor's new religion and turned it into something ugly without the preceptor's knowledge: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNCJlc7afC8

In that case, it took Osho 3.5 years to discover the plot and start repairing the damage. In the case of Muhammad, I suspect that Abu Bakr and his gang had the last say and re-wrote history to please and justify their corruption. That is unless we help the real Muhammad to have the last say by urging Muslims to discriminate, to excavate the spiritual wealth within their literature and discard the fake and violent shell around it.

Yuyutsu, you wrote "Did Jesus seek power and domination? No he didn't". That's factually incorrect I'm afraid. Here's the proof with Jesus' own words, spoken by Jesus Himself in the New Testament "So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I shall make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am He, who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds" Rev 2:22.23.

You also wrote, "What you describe are social issues, not religious issues". Again, that's factually incorrect. Here's the proof, http://www.evilbible.com Read the links to the actual writings in both the Old and New Testaments, and read the links to the actual "factual" history of Christianity. It's been a violent, wicked religion, JUST as violent and wicked as Islam: Evil done in the name of God, and NOT evil done solely in the name of a country, an army or a political view.

The evil within Christianity and it's theological interpretations was forced out of Christianity several hundred years ago via secular freedom, secular democracy and secular decency. Islam (in the Middle East) still needs to go through that cleansing process. The modern communication era will accelerate that process. It will take a lot less time than it took with Christianity.

Regarding the Koran, I've read and studied the Bible, so I have no motivation to read any more of the Koran than I already have. The Skeptic's Annotated Quran (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran) has everything one could want to know about it without wasting their precious time reading the whole thing. The Bible, too, for that matter.

Yuyutsu,

Once again, you are committing the No True Scotsman fallacy with your claim that people who commit evil deeds in the name of religion aren’t truly religious.

You need to learn the difference between what religion 'is' and what it 'means to you'. On what evidence do base your claim that the meaning you derive from religion is the one true interpretation of what it means to be religious? What authority are you on the matter?

Yuyutsu,

All I can say is my or Wiki’s examples given of Mohammad and his spouses certainly seem to correlate with a significant amount of Muslim behaviour. If you are in disbelief, why? Why are they problematic as a minority in every country they live in all around the world? There would have to be a reason, don’t you think?

Do you also not believe that he married a 6 year old?

In regards to religious figures, I did not mean to include cults. I remember Rajneesh and the Orange people, and Sheila, his assistant, his sexual promiscuities and his 99 Rolls Royces, whatever.

May May, welcome to the Online Opinion Forum.
I like your opinions so far :)

Constance, did you read May May's post above?
What are your thoughts?
Certainly violence is not exclusive to members of the Muslim religion.

You certainly have a dislike for all things Muslim.
Surely even you must know there are good and bad in every race, culture and religion?

Suse,

Why would the Protestants in the IRA want to kill Protestants?

'The evil within Christianity and it's theological interpretations was forced out of Christianity several hundred years ago via secular freedom, secular democracy and secular decency.'

your ignorance is astounding May May. Secular and decency do not go together. No doubt some of your heroes were Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and of course those who murder millions of unborn babies. You distort your own belief system so well so its not surprising you hopelessly attempt to demonise Scripture.

Thanks for supporting my points with your reply runner. Shows I'm correct. Nice of you. Thanks.

May May,

"Yuyutsu, you wrote "Did Jesus seek power and domination? No he didn't". That's factually incorrect I'm afraid. Here's the proof with Jesus' own words, spoken by Jesus Himself in the New Testament "So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I shall make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am He, who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds" Rev 2:22.23."

My my, you do need to increase your comprehension, the words are not Jesus' own words as spoken by him but the words written by John in Revelations and in very similar vein to the revelations given to Muhammad, except that Muhammad came later and seems to have borrowed (plagiarized) from John.

wow some of the Swiss have woken up

http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2013/12/29/swiss-parliament-member-has-had-enough-of-islam/

http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2013/11/10/a-courageous-french-woman-talks-openly-about-what-islam-is-doing-to-her-country/

couragous French woman says it for how it is.

Dear May,

<<Here's the proof with Jesus' own words, Rev 2:22.23>>

The book of revelation was written around the years 81-96, so none of Jesus' disciples were alive. Someone "John" said that "Jesus said" - so what? Likewise, Abu Bakr said that "Muhammad said"...

It's sadly true that some who are considered "Christian" have done evil in the name of God: that's using God's name in vain, that's desecration of His holy name, evil people do these things all the time - because they aren't religious, they only pretend to be.

---

Dear A.J. Philips,

People who practice religion arrive at a common experience, no matter which religion they were using to get there. Those who do not arrive at this experience or at least had a glimpse, have nothing to hold on and being blind they can only latch onto external phenomena such as the specifics of the culture of those who practice religion.

Just because one is colour-blind, one should not use the word 'blue' to describe the shape, weight or temperature of some blue object.

---

Dear Constance,

All that we know today about Muhammad, is what Abu Bakr and his gang wanted us to know. How much of it is true? How can we tell?

What I CAN tell, is that some people receive profound religious experiences from following [some of] the practices of Islam, hence I think that Muhammad was up to something highly spiritual.

I am not contesting that those calling themselves Muslims are causing problems, which they do: I contest the belief as if they follow the teachings and life of the prophet Muhammad. If they also could discover that they aren't truly following Muhammad, then they too will want to stay away from terror, abuse and hatred.

<<I did not mean to include cults.>>

The difference is only in the size of the organisation, which is superficial. What matters is only whether or not one has effective religious practices which can help people come closer to God.

Yuyutsu, you posted a comment to me saying - "There is no need for anyone to "adapt and progress with the rest of the world". Demanding that others do so places you in line with oppressive regimes, including Islamic ones. Suffice that we refrain from violence, that we live our own lives while letting others live theirs."

I really don't follow your logic at all. Firstly I did not demand that Islam adapt and progress, but I did point out that not doing so is creating a problem for the rest of the world.

Do you honestly think if we (the West) refrains from violence that the followers of Islam will suddenly see the Light and the world will begin to live in harmony?

Evolution is a natural process; criticising Islam for consciously choosing to not evolve and opting to stay in a medieval mindset whilst taking advantage of the modern weapons on offer does not make me as bad as a dictator.

Is Mise "Why would the Protestants in the IRA want to kill Protestants?"

Is Mise, the IRA predominantly consisted of Catholics, so what is your silly point about?
Shouldn't you read up on Irish history before embarrassing yourself?

My point was that one does not have to be a radical Muslim to be very violent.
The Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland have been bombing each other for years until very recently.
Humans are violent, not religions...

Is Mise, of course the words were written by John. Every single word in the Bible, both Old and New Testament, were written by MEN. Duh ! ! ! !

Christianity doesn't say that because Jesus Himself didn't physically write the actual words it therefore follows that Jesus didn't speak those words. No sireeee, Christianity says that the words of God in the Bible are the words of God, even though they are physically written by men. You can't comprehend that Is Mise? The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, and Qur'an, are all based on ancient superstition.

Dear Hippie,

My comment to you was of a general nature, not particularly about Islam.

Obviously, those who are violent and dangerous need to be treated accordingly, including those who call themselves "Muslims".

That has nothing to do with their willingness to assimilate and progress or otherwise, but with the fact that they are violent and dangerous.

If making Muslims assimilate and progress is the only way to make them stop their violence, then so be it, but perhaps there are other ways too.

Unlike the Muslims in question, when someone who isn't violent or dangerous refuses to adapt and "progress", then there is no justification to make that demand on them. Unfortunately, and probably because of the current Muslim problem, I read such demands to adapt and progress too often recently here on OLO.

---

Dear May,

<<The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, and Qur'an, are all based on ancient superstition.>>

More likely, deliberate editing.

But who cares?

The real question should be: "does believing in the words of this book bring one closer to God?", otherwise "does believing in the words of this book at least make one a better, less selfish, person?".

If so, then who cares where the words came from - and if not, then you better burn that book, or at least hide it from those who cannot discover its inner value.

Yuyutsu,

I take it you mean ‘your particular idea of what religion is’, here:

<<People who practice religion arrive at a common experience, no matter which religion they were using to get there.>>

What is this “common experience”, and how have you eliminated the possibility of it having a rational, natural explanation? Also, what is it about this common experience that demonstrates your assertion that it is representative of true religion?

Until you can explain this, my ‘No True Scotsman’ charge still stands.

<<Those who do not arrive at this experience or at least had a glimpse, have nothing to hold on and being blind they can only latch onto external phenomena such as the specifics of the culture of those who practice religion.>>

Religions are a part of the culture they belong to and help to shape them. To deny this displays an incredible level sociological naiveté. You cannot separate them the way you have and nor have you even attempted to explain how one could.

<<Just because one is colour-blind, one should not use the word 'blue' to describe the shape, weight or temperature of some blue object.>>

This makes no sense at all. Is there a typo there?

The link that Runner put up showed level of frustration with Islam in Switzerland.
I was the other day making up in my head a list of countries having trouble with Islam.
I came to Switzerland and thought, have not heard of any trouble there.
When the video finished there was another of an Austrian politician having a go at
the Turkish ambassador. Seems like he was told to not concern himself about
the decapitation of a Catholic Arch Bishop.

No, we are not alone it does seem to be true EVERYONE is having trouble with Islam.
When is a political party going to give us a choice ?
When are our politicians going to have the guts and stand up and tell it as it is ?

It is surprising how every time an attempt to outlaw the current behaviour of radical Islam is put forward we have the Islamic supporters claiming the history of Christianity equalizes what Islam is doing today. Therefore we have no argument to defend Western Democracy against primitive barbarism.

We are supposed to just let the modern communications do the job. They despise Western media. Wars were fought to remove society from Roman Catholic suppression. As much as we hate Henry the VIII, his decision to break for personal lust from the control of the Roman Cultured Church did begin change in England.

May May,

You wrote "....spoken by Jesus himself in the New Testament....".

The words that you used indicate something quite different to what is attributed to Jesus in the Apocalypse.

'Spoken by' is entirely different to 'attributed to' and I think that we are all well aware that the Bible was written by men, that's why the New Testament has attributions to the various authors within its own text.

Still, full marks to you for realizing that it was written by men; or did someone tell you?

Josephus, who on this forum do you identify as "Islamic Supporters" and where, exactly, has anyone said this apart from the occasional Muslim who identifies themselves as Muslim?

Just because I don't believe ALL Muslims are potential terrorists, or that those Muslims who do kill in the name of their God are no worse or better than any other murderers in our society, does not make me an Islamic Supporter.

I don't need to read the Koran or understand anything about Islam, to know that murder and terrorism is wrong and should be punished, no matter who does it.

Dear A.J. Philips,

Sorry, but how can I possibly describe something you have no experience of?

<<What is this “common experience”>>

Unity with God.

<<and how have you eliminated the possibility of it having a rational, natural explanation?>>

Why, there is a rational explanation, for those who care to listen, but a dry intellectual/rational idea doesn't solve ontological anxiety, whereas the direct-experience, aimed by religion, does.

<<Also, what is it about this common experience that demonstrates your assertion that it is representative of true religion?>>

It's the experience itself which relieves all anxiety, pain and death. Had the direct-experience of God been absent, there would be no need to ever mention "religion" as a separate category.

<<Religions are a part of the culture>>

This is where we disagree: religion is universal, but is adjusted to cultural conditions, climate, genetics, etc.

<<Is there a typo there?>>

Say there's a blue beach-ball. A colour-blind person, if told that ball is blue, could think: "Oh, that refers to its roundness" or "Oh, that's because it's light-weight", or "Oh, that's due to its warmth". Religiousness is a real property of groups and activities, but if you can't recognise it, you might mistakenly consider other attributes of the group as its "religiousness".

Here's a story from: http://oaks.nvg.org/sa5ra17.html#einstein-anecdotes

EINSTEIN was asked by his hostess at a social gathering to explain his theory of relativity. Said the great mathematician,

"Madam, I was once walking in the country on a hot day with a blind friend, and said that I would like a drink of milk."

"Milk?" said my friend, "Drink I know; but what is milk?"

"A white liquid," I replied.

"Liquid I know; but what is white?"

"The colour of a swan's feathers."

"Feathers I know; what is a swan?"

"A bird with a crooked neck."

"Neck I know; but what is this crooked?"

"Thereupon I lost patience. I seized his arm and straightened it. "That's straight," I said; and then I bent it at the elbow. "That's crooked."

"Ah!" said the blind man, "Now I know what you mean by milk!"

Suse,

"Is Mise "Why would the Protestants in the IRA want to kill Protestants?"
Is Mise, the IRA predominantly consisted of Catholics, so what is your silly point about?

[My point is that the IRA didn't kill anyone because they were Protestants, except on ONE notable occasion]

"Shouldn't you read up on Irish history before embarrassing yourself?"

[I assure you that I shall never embarrass myself with any lack of knowledge of Irish history]

"My point was that one does not have to be a radical Muslim to be very violent."
[ a valid point]

"The Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland have been bombing each other for years until very recently."

Irish Nationalists have been fighting the invaders of their country since my un-revered ancestor, known in Irish history as "The First Traitor", Diarmait Mac Murchada ,(26 June 1110 – 1 May 1171), invited my (somewhat more revered other ancestor) Henry II of England to come to his aid in Ireland. Henry sent over Richard de Clare, the 2nd Earl of Pembroke (nicknamed "Strongbow") who married Dermot's daughter, Aoife.
(there's another couple of interesting ancestors).

Suse, do read Irish history it's very enlightening and entertaining especially if one can trace one's line back into pre-history, supposition though some of it must be.

Yuyutsu,

I kindly suggest that you look up the effects of colour blindness!!

'The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, and Qur'an, are all based on ancient superstition.'

May May,

yep May May and your so called ' superstitution makes your wisdom look vey silly.

Yuyutsu,

How do you know I’ve had no experience of what you describe?

<<Sorry, but how can I possibly describe something you have no experience of?>>

I was once very religious and believed myself to have had a lot of “experiences”. The only difference now is that I understand that there were rational reasons for those experiences. They can even be seen by monitoring brain activity. Die hard Apple fans have the same experiences when they see or think about Apple products. Sometimes religious experiences can be the result of mental illness. Temporal lobe epilepsy can cause them too. Have you ruled that out yet?

<<[The common experience is]Unity with God.>>

Okay, but if you can’t describe what this “unity with God” is to someone who has never experienced it, then how were you able to determine that that was in fact what you had experienced the first time you experienced it? Furthermore, how can you assume that others have had this experience as well if none of you can describe it to each other? A wink and a nod?

<<Why, there is a rational explanation, for those who care to listen, but a dry intellectual/rational idea doesn't solve ontological anxiety, whereas the direct-experience, aimed by religion, does.>>

So, there *is* a rational explanation, but you either don’t think I’ll listen, or you’re concerned about any ontological anxiety I may be experiencing? But before, you said someone who hasn’t experienced it couldn’t possibly have it described to them.

I think there’s a bit of ducking and weaving going on here because you have no idea of what it is that you’re talking about, and you sure as heck don’t want me to know either.

<<It's the experience itself which relieves all anxiety, pain and death. Had the direct-experience of God been absent, there would be no need to ever mention "religion" as a separate category.>>

That didn’t answer my question at all. It more sidestepped it. But thanks anyway.

Continued…

…Continued

<<This is where we disagree: religion is universal, but is adjusted to cultural conditions, climate, genetics, etc.>>

Then when each of us says “religion”, we are referring to something different. I’m talking about what everyone else in the world refers to as religion; you, on the other hand, are referring to a concept that you have not yet rationally justified. So we don’t necessarily disagree at all. You are simply sidestepping what I said there by talking about something completely different and pretending it addresses my point.

As for the Einstein story, I’m not sure why mystics on this forum feel they need to invoke Einstein whenever they have no idea of what it is that they’re talking about. Maybe it makes them feel like they do. Nevertheless I enjoyed the story. It is not, however, an analogy for our discussion as you have made no attempt to explain what it is you're talking about and nor do I think you know.

Or are you supposed to be the blind person who (through some divine inspiration) made a series of impossible connections to understand what "milk" is (with the milk representing God)?

I also hope Einstein never actually told that story to anyone. It would have been extremely presumptuous and condescending to assume that the other person could not have understood his theory.

Mr runner tries to write a personal putdown with "yep May May, and your so called superstitution makes your wisdom look very silly". That's not very Christian of you Mr runner.

Well Mr runner, pray tell what is my "superstitution" (sic)? I can hardly wait for the answer. Oh by the way, please make sure your answer is factual and relates specifically to "me".

Is Mise, you are being a wee bit simplistic about Irish history I think.
Naturally it was also an Irish versus English conflict as well as a religious one.
Most members of the IRA were Catholic, but were not always Irish, as they came from around the world back to Ireland to help in the fight against the English Protestants.

My husband is from the Irish Republic, from a town that was always an IRA stronghold throughout the 'troubles'.
The first time I went to this town, I was always asked if I was Catholic, by complete strangers. I was told to say I was, to avoid any 'problems'.

My ancestors were predominantly from Ireland as well.
I have studied my family history back to the 1500's, so I am impressed you have gone back so far in your family!

Both sides of the conflict had violent terrorist members.
I know this because I was in both England and Ireland when bombs went off in both countries. We were every bit as scared as anyone is of the terrorists today.

Suse,

I've lived in the Republic of Ireland and I never heard of anyone caring a hoot about what someone's religion was, here's an example from a town near Galway; it was Christmas, 1978, and we were at the 10 am Mass.
There were people over from the US for the holidays and one of them was standing at the back of the church with his brother and me.
A local came in and went towards the choir but merely nodded his head towards the altar.
The visitor inquired of his brother "Why didn't that fella genuflect?"
"Sure you wouldn't expect him to" he answered, "He's our Presbyterian Minister".

He was indeed and I knew him well, his wife, who was the choir mistress, was a Catholic from Belfast and he was from Scotland and when they married he had to get out to save his life, so they moved into a 99% Catholic area for his safety. He sang in the choir.

Well I lived there in the southwest of Ireland where my husband is from for a year in 1988.
Many of them asked me was I Catholic, and I remember being shocked because no one ever asked me that in Australia unless I was filling in the census.
I certainly never discussed my dislike of the violent members of the IRA.

They used to have boxes collecting money for the 'cause' outside the church at Easter.
Protestants were most definitely frowned upon in that part of Ireland for sure.
I never mentioned to anyone that though my mum was Catholic, my father was Protestant!

Religion unchecked has a deadening effect on thought and reason. With the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire the Dark Ages settled on Europe. The early centuries of Islam were enlightened. Muslim universities allowed Christians, Jews, Buddhists and other non-Muslims to attend and teach. Averroes, Avicenna, the Jewish Maimonides and other great philosophers and scientists of the Muslim world contributed their thought and discoveries. The Muslim states in those early years did not pressure the conquered peoples to become Muslims. Christian universities of the time only admitted Christians and were subservient to the church. however, with the Renaissance and the Enlightenment European thought became freer and great minds such as Newton, Leibniz, Spinoza and others made their contribution. At roughly the same time the clerics in Islam took over, and Islam entered their Dark Ages, discouraged speculation in science and other areas and forced Islam on non-Muslims. Unenlightened minds in the West still deny science to accept the stone age myths of the bible. However, they have limited power to force their ignorance on others. It is different in Islam. Apostasy can mean imprisonment or death. One can hope for freedom of though and speech to appear in the Islamic countries. Kemal Ataturk has had some success in Turkey, but most Islamic countries are still in the Dark Ages.

Separation of religion and state has gone along with democracy and science. What supernatural mumbojumbo people choose to believe should be no business of government. Those who believe in supernatural mumbojumbo should not have the power to use the state to put it on others.

The recent victory of Ron Williams in getting the Commonwealth to stop funding chaplains in the public schools represents progress in the separation of religion and state.

The problem is not with true religion: it is to do with anger and intolerance of difference.
In the 1940's I lived in a small country town on the East mid coast of NSW we had recent Irish settlers settle in our street. These kids now attending the Catholic School wanted to fight us because we attended the Public school. This was my first encounter with the Irish.

Suse,

Ten years difference probably made a difference, sounds as if you were in Connemara!
We might be distant relatives.
By 1988 I was back in Australia and on Australia Day of that year I was at 'Larpers' (La Perouse), as an invited guest, I stayed for a while and while I was with some of the Aboriginal notables felt OK but from the glances, I soon became conscious of the fact that I was one of very few Europeans among the thousands gathered there, not a good feeling to be odd-man-out, so as soon as I decently could I got the driver of the Commonwealth car to take me back to the Domain.

ConservativeHippie, as I understand it, you are advocating the reading of the Koran by Australians, to have a better appreciation of the situation in the Middle East.

But I am unclear as to why you think that the Koran is not 'religious': guidance on how to live one's life is what religion is about. The Koran is not the only religious text written a long time ago and so needs interpretation for today (the Tanakh, Bible, and the &#256;gama of Buddhism are also not new). Unfortunately, the followers of many faiths have used religion as an excuse for committing inhuman acts, but we should hold the individuals to account for their actions, not their books.

'Religion unchecked has a deadening effect on thought and reason. '

actually David G I have found the 'progressives'the most dead head reasoners on earth. Many actually believe order came from chaos. Your dogmas do get in the way of reason.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<How do you know I’ve had no experience of what you describe?>>

I don't.
---

Yes we are referring to two different things, but it's not my fault:

I am using 'religion' in its original meaning: 're-ligare' to bind with God. Myself and many others believe that this is a very real process, which while we all go through it regardless whether we know it or not, can be accelerated by using certain methods consciously.

If you believe that we are wrong, or hallucinating or have a problem with our temporal lobe, then the honest thing for you to say is "religion does not exist".

Once you make that statement, then we can begin discussing scripture, my own experiences, other people's experiences, neurology, physics, etc., disputing whether religion exists or not.

However, for someone who does not believe the very existence of religion, looking at the culture of those who do believe in religion, observing their customs - what they wear, what they eat, what and how they celebrate, what and how they mourn, what they say, what they believe, whom and what they respect and whom and what they despise, etc. etc. and then calling it "religion", is dishonest plagiarism.

Among those who believe in religion, it is valid to discuss whether a specific food, a specific habit, a specific dress, a specific belief or a specific ritual is helpful or detrimental to the common goal of coming closer to God. You could have very original views about it, perhaps very strange ones too, or even conflicting ones - but if you don't believe in the whole process to begin with, then you have nothing to say about it except that it doesn't exist.

Let us deal with your other questions once we are clear what we are talking about.

Dear Tom,

<<guidance on how to live one's life is what religion is about.>>

How to live one's life FOR THE PURPOSE OF REACHING GOD.

If your goals in life are different, then you should listen to others: doctors, dieticians, financial-advisers, architects, government, car-mechanics, travel-agents, etc.

Yuyutsu

the likes of AJ pretend that somehow their enlightened rationalism is rational. You actually find their beliefs dogmas are more a moral issue than intellectual. They just dress it up in irrational pseudo science.

I understand this, Yuyustu.

<<I am using 'religion' in its original meaning: 're-ligare' to bind with God.>>

The problem is that you think this negates anything I say when I talk about what everyone else calls religion, and in doing so, you commit the No True Scotsman fallacy.

<<Myself and many others believe that this is a very real process, which while we all go through it regardless whether we know it or not, can be accelerated by using certain methods consciously.>>

A lot of people believe they’ve been abducted by aliens. You have still not provided any reason for anyone to take what you say any more seriously than what they say, yet you speak as if everything you said was self-evident.

<<If you believe that we are wrong, or hallucinating or have a problem with our temporal lobe, then the honest thing for you to say is "religion does not exist".>>

There is nothing dishonest about using the word ‘religion’ in its universally agreed upon context. You still haven’t demonstrated that your understanding of what constitutes religion is the right understanding. It is arrogant of you to simply press on with your own definition when its validity has been challenged and you have made no attempt to justify it. Not to mention that fact that you treat your definition of ‘religion’ as so self-evident that you are willing to imply that I’m being dishonest by not using it. That takes some real chutzpah.

Going back to my last post, though, how did you rule out any of the above rational explanations for religious experiences?

<<Once you make that statement, then we can begin discussing scripture, my own experiences, other people's experiences, neurology, physics, etc., disputing whether religion exists or not.>>

I’ll say that I don’t believe that what you refer to as “religion” has any validity. But I’ll still use the term in its universally accepted context when necessary.

Continued…

…Continued

<<However, for someone who does not believe the very existence of religion, looking at the culture of those who do believe in religion, observing their customs - what they wear, what they eat, what and how they celebrate, what and how they mourn, what they say, what they believe, whom and what they respect and whom and what they despise, etc. etc. and then calling it "religion", is dishonest plagiarism.>>

Again, it's not dishonest when it adheres to everyone else’s agreed upon definition of religion. And even if everyone else was wrong, it wouldn’t constitute plagiarism since it’s not deliberate. You would also need to demonstrate that your understanding of what religion is, is the only valid one - something you still haven’t done.

<<…if you don't believe in the whole process [of coming closer to God] to begin with, then you have nothing to say about it except that it doesn't exist.>>

Well, if someone enters a discussion and disrupts the flow of it by creating confusion with their own unique definition of a word that everyone else thought they already agreed upon; then implies that what others have been saying is not valid because of the way they have been using that word, then requesting a rational justification for the claims of that person is something else that could be said.

Which is what I‘m doing now.

TomW... I'm suggesting those who are blindly supporting an open door policy for Muslim refugees, those who protest the arrest of terrorists in Australia, those who are stating ISIS terrorists is no worse than the American Government, and those who say Islam is a religion of peace that is no more threatening than Christianity, to read the Koran, or enough of it to get the gist.

Christianity has evolved with the times in many ways such as including women clerics, gay rights, as well as seeking to do benevolent charities and the Red Cross. Buddhism teaches the practice of being ever present, in the Here and Now; accepting what is rather than desiring what isn't. Buddhism is a journey toward discovering the infinite within, and does not require following a dogma.

Islam is all about dogma, strict rules to live by just about every hour of the day. Those rules were laid down almost 1500 years ago for Arab nomads, and they haven't changed.

Islam by its very nature is stuck, it cannot evolve or change because doing so would be going against Allah's instructions, as revealed by Mohammed. Islam is 'the religion' and Muslims are its followers.

Dear Conservative Hippie,

Perhaps the following link may provide
some food for thought:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/26/tolerance-is-bigotrys-counterpart-in-keeping-muslims-divided

Worth a read.

Dear ConservativeHippie,

I am not a religious person but I appreciated the majesty of the King James Bible. Its eloquence, its poetry, its narratives, especially in the so called 'Old Testament' still blow me away. My favorite book is Job, something I hold belongs in the top 20 pieces of English literature.

The KJB was written at the time of Shakespeare and the richness of the language is the loving fruit of devoted, gifted and inspired scholars who created a work that has stood the test of time.

I have it on reliable authority that the Koran similarly is imbued with 'loving fruit of devoted, gifted and inspired scholars'. There was a time post the rise of a jealous and strident Christianity that saw many of the West's literary works held safe by those Islamic scholars who appreciated their worth.

I also have it on good authority that when read in Arabic the Koran is a most sublime and beautiful poetic work. It is something I am unlikely to experience and that knowledge does sadden me.

Just as for the first 3 decades of my life I wrongly accepted the general wisdom that the Old Testament was not worth any effort I'm afraid I am unable to place much credence in your opinion of the Koran.

Perhaps a slightly more qualified appraisal might be more judicious in the future.

Could someone point to one country that has some Muslim population that has not had trouble with them.

Could someone point to one country that has some tall people in the population that has not had trouble with them?

Dear AJ Philips,

I take back the "dishonest" part: you are not acting dishonestly since you simply follow the herd... and the herd is blind.

<<You have still not provided any reason for anyone to take what you say any more seriously>>

But that wasn't my intention: why would I enter a full-on theological discussion in a session devoted to Islam, Koran, ISIS, etc.? This is hardly the time and place, besides I am not an evangelist in nature. I am here to protect the freedom of religion, not to convince anyone who isn't already religiously inclined. I admit that I do occasionally get carried away by questions addressed to me, but only because I want to be polite and satisfy the asker.

A lot of people may believe they’ve been abducted by aliens, but while they may be mistaken, they are not branded as "terrorists", "woman-haters", "money-grabbers" or "child-molesters" as a result. The way the word 'religion' is abused by those who do not believe in religion, has turned derogatory.

<<I’ll say that I don’t believe that what you refer to as “religion” has any validity. But I’ll still use the term in its universally accepted context when necessary.>>

Universally? No, religious people do not use it that way.

What modernism does is to attach a completely new meaning to an old word which is dear to the hearts of a significant section of the population and is still in active and meaningful use amongst them. The new meaning refers instead to certain large cultural/tribal groups/organisations (without even a clear definition, as Constance for example excludes cults), that despite the modern conviction that none of those groups/organisations lead to God, go figure. Subsequently, abuses (some justified) are showered on those groups/organisations with no consideration toward those who answer the original meaning of the word, who do not deserve this derogatory (and at times even threatening) language.

If your intent is to mock the Muslim and other cultures, their books and their establishments, then please find other words to make it very clear whom it is that you criticise.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<how did you rule out any of the above rational explanations for religious experiences?>>

Sigh, that's the kind of questions I wasn't intending to get into on this particular topic, but since you asked:

The question unfairly assumes that the explanations of scripture are irrational while the neurological explanation, that which claims that one's experiences are derived from the brain, is rational: the brain is a fine physical mechanism, but there are billions of those just on this planet. Why should you have an experience because some electrical-current or biochemical reaction occurs in one of them, but not in the others? You may believe so, but it's at least as irrational!

<<Again, it's not dishonest when it adheres to everyone else’s agreed upon definition of religion.>>

But it's not true that everyone else agreed so. That agreement is essentially between those who believe that religion doesn't exist, thus they feel free to recycle the word for another use.

I do apologise and accept that you haven't done so deliberately.

Dear Hippie,

<<Islam by its very nature is stuck, it cannot evolve or change because doing so would be going against Allah's instructions, as revealed by Mohammed. Islam is 'the religion' and Muslims are its followers.>>

Islam as we know it is a package, not a religion. That package includes much rubbish, but hidden in that garbage is also the gem of religion - peaceful as any other. Those who see themselves as Muslims today, are unable to follow Mohammed because they have no access to what he really said, including Allah's instructions. Some of it seems still to be there and shines through, but sadly it's highly censored and contaminated by the evil political aspirations of Abu Bakr and his gang.

Muslims who understand this (and we should do our best to help them to understand), can therefore become unstuck by ignoring the garbage and holding only onto those parts within Islam that are pure.

---

Dear Foxy,

Thank you for bringing the article about the refused mosque-building.

It is shocking.

It makes me feel like in Germany of the early 1930's.

It is also stupid: what more can divert people from terrorism and violence than sincere and devoted prayers to Allah? What more can drive people into terrorism and violence than denying them the space to worship?

When one remembers five times a day that Allah is merciful and benevolent, when one humbles themselves in the presence of Allah, with shoes off and head touching the ground, that purifies the heart and drives it away from worldly and political ambitions.

No gods exist.

Dear May,

<<No gods exist.>>

Indeed, and I thank God for that morning and evening.

How awful and distasteful would it be to worship a god that exists?

No gods/god exist. That's factual reality.

May May,

Proof?

Dear May,

<<No gods/god exist. That's factual reality.>>

OK, OK, and the sun rises in the east and sets in the west - so what?
There are no implications, no obvious connection with the topic and this was already clear from your previous post - are you trying to say something, or just to make us spend our OLO posting-quota?

ConservativeHippie, thanks for the clarification: you are not suggesting all Australians read the Koran, just those who support giving asylum to religiously persecuted refugees and those worried about human rights abuses.

I was a little surprised by your portraying Christianity as including women clerics: I thought that was confined to only some sects (not the Catholic Church for example). My understanding was that there are also followers of Islam who accept female religious leaders.

Also I thought charity was one of the central pillars of Islam and the full formal name of the "Red Cross" is now the "International Red Cross and Red Crescent", including Islam and with the "Red Crystal" symbol added for the followers of no religion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Red_Cross_and_Red_Crescent_Movement

While this discussion has been interesting, I don't see it is relevant to Australian domestic or international security policy. I suggest we judge nations, and people, on their actions, not on a religion they claim to follow. As JFK said, we should "... support any friend, oppose any foe ...".

Is Mise, you asked "proof?". It's an empirical impossibility to "prove" any negative. For example, it's impossible for science to empirically "prove" that a two headed, invisible, undetectable, supernatural, floating Pink Fairy doesn't live in my garden.

Yuyutsu, on the contrary "no gods exist" has EVERYTHING to do with the subject matter. If the world recognised the factual reality of "no gods exist" then the Bible and Qur'an wouldn't exist. That means throughout history there would have been a quantum reduction in wars, torture, invasions, killings, domination, sexism, squabbling and fear. Ancient, superstitious religions have a LOT of "history" regarding these things. Yes, without religions all those things would still remain in the world, but at a lower level. And the necessity for this thread specifically about the Qur'an, wouldn't exist. Therefore "no gods exist" is highly relevant to this topic.

May,

You made the assertion so it's up to you to offer some proof.

The ball, as they say, is in your court.

Is Mise, I see you didn't actually read my reply to you, or chose to 'pretend' that you didn't comprehend it. Try reading a science book or two, it may assist you. Believe it or not, science is actually good for you.

May,

Of course I read your reply but as you made the assertion it is up to you to prove it, not for me to disprove.

Go fer it!

Try reading my reply again Is Mise, as it answers your question. Why are you 'pretending' that you don't comprehend my reply?

Ok is Mise, in an attempt to stop your game playing, I'll explain it even more fully.

I originally said, "no gods exist". You replied, "proof?". I replied,"It's an impossibility to empirically prove any negative. For example, it impossible for science to empirically prove that a two headed, undetectable, invisible, supernatural, floating Pink Fairy doesn't live in my garden".Is Mise, you're now pretending that you don't comprehend my reply. So I'll expand yet simplify, so now you'll have no excuse to pretend you don't understand.

Here goes Is Mise: There is NO proof. Here's why: It's because science can't prove that any non existing entity doesn't exist, regardless of what the perception of that entity is or isn't. For example, Science can't prove that the god Zeus doesn't exist, that flying unicorns don't exist, that Allah doesn't exist, that two headed Pink Fairies don't exist, that the Holy Ghost thingy doesn't exist, that undetectable invisible green dragons don't exist on Pluto, that demons don't exist .... the list is near endless.

When an entity doesn't exist science can't prove it doesn't exist. THAT'S why the various religions, and over 40,000 mythical gods invented (including the god thingy that YOU worship), are on VERY safe ground. It's impossible to empirically "prove" that any of these 40,000 gods don't exist.

There ya go Is Mise. Explained to you in full. I bet you're still going to "pretend" you don't understand. I bet your next post will be, "ok, but where's the proof?". Ha ha ha.

Thanks Yuyustu,

<<I take back the "dishonest" part: you are not acting dishonestly since you simply follow the herd... and the herd is blind.>>

But you have still given me no reason to accept that your understanding of what constitutes religion is the right one.

<But [it] wasn't my intention [to provide you with any reason for anyone to take what I say seriously]: why would I enter a full-on theological discussion in a session devoted to Islam, Koran, ISIS, etc.? This is hardly the time and place…>>

Okay, that’s fine. But if that’s the case, then you need to qualify what you say with phrases such as , “In my opinion…”, “If you ask me, “The way I see it…”. Without such qualifiers, you bear a burden of proof; especially if you convey your claims in such a matter-of-factly way. Surely you don’t expect that we just take your word for it?

<<A lot of people may believe they’ve been abducted by aliens, but while they may be mistaken, they are not branded as "terrorists", "woman-haters", "money-grabbers" or "child-molesters" as a result. The way the word 'religion' is abused by those who do not believe in religion, has turned derogatory.>>

Well, they are branded “crazy”. That’s pretty bad too. Nevertheless, this is beside the point. My point was that there is no reason why I should take the claims of religious people more seriously than those who claim to have been abducted by aliens. The fact that the religious may be berated more than alien abductees is not a reason for me, or anyone else, to take your particular claims seriously without any rational justification for them.

<<Universally? No, religious people do not use it that way.>>

What do you mean by “that way”? Do you mean, “In a castigating way”? If so, then I’d agree, but we both know that’s not what I meant. I was referring to the common understanding of what constitutes a religion; which *is* universally accepted.

Continued…

…Continued

<<What modernism does is to attach a completely new meaning to an old word which is dear to the hearts of a significant section of the population and is still in active and meaningful use amongst them.>>

Then why don’t you just say, “That’s not what religion means to me”? Once again, there’s a difference between what religion is and what it means to someone. But in your attempts to protect religion from all criticism (e.g. your nonsensical “God does not exist; there is nothing but God” claim), you’ve overlooked this and try to re-define religion while telling everyone else that they’re wrong. You can have your definition of religion and the rest of us can call it “schmeligion”, if you want. It makes no difference. The criticisms still stand or fall on their own merit. This is why your attempts to re-define religion are futile.

<<The question unfairly assumes that the explanations of scripture are irrational…>>

You’re free to give a rational explanation if you'd like. In fact, doing so would answer my question, so there’s nothing unfair there at all.

<<…while the neurological explanation, that which claims that one's experiences are derived from the brain, is rational: the brain is a fine physical mechanism, but there are billions of those just on this planet. Why should you have an experience because some electrical-current or biochemical reaction occurs in one of them, but not in the others?>>

What you’ve said here actually make no sense at all. Nor does it appear to come close to answering my question, or challenging its validity. What relevance do other people’s brains have?

<<But it's not true that everyone else agreed so. That agreement is essentially between those who believe that religion doesn't exist…>>

Not in my experience. Theist or atheist, I have never had difficulty coming to an agreement on the definition of ‘religion’. Such a universal understanding of the definition of ‘religion’ has spawned the whole 'Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus' thing. It’s also why some Christians will claim that Christianity is not ‘a religion’ but ‘the truth’.

Actually Yuyutsu, there’s something I should probably add to the following to strengthen my point there:

“You can have your definition of religion and the rest of us can call it “schmeligion”, if you want. It makes no difference. The criticisms still stand or fall on their own merit. This is why your attempts to re-define religion are futile.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#197839)

What I should also add - to demonstrate the futility of re-defining ‘religion’ - is that both religion and schmeligion cannot be divorced simply by accepting the validity of what it is that you refer to when you say “religion”. This is because it would still have been the process of religion that helped form the thousands of schmeligions (warts ‘n’ all) throughout the ages.

That schmeligion can have so many disastrous results, is, in part, due to the inability of the god, in which the process of religion attempts to come closer to, to adequately convey to us the ideal methods of coming closer to it (that which is not discernible from brain mal-function and neurological misfiring is not adequate). Therefore, religion still carries with it the baggage that schmeligion brings it.

If it weren’t for the existence of religion, there would be no schmeligion and people would have one less reason to fight.

It is for these reasons that your re-defining of religion is futile and does not achieve the avoidance of criticism that you hope for it to achieve.

The following link may be of interest:

http://theconversation.com/its-not-just-islam-most-religions-are-discriminatory-13817

Some of the points the link makes are as follows:

"Religion is a set of beliefs that people either reject or
accept and in a democratic society such as ours it should
not be acceptable to point to any religion as the basis of
prejudice and discrimination...what is unacceptable is that
the critics ignore the behaviour of other religions and
concentrate on attacking Muslims because this plays well
in the current political environment."

"...as soon as religions start trying to impose their
views on non-believers they have crossed the line that makes
a truly democratic and liberal society possible, but while
this is seized upon where Muslims are concerned, it is
largely ignored when Chritians and others do the same."

Quantum physicists agree there are several planes that stuff is happening, possibly 10 or 11 and even possibly an infinite number. We live in one of those planes/realities but are influenced and affected by the others we cannot see, taste, touch or smell. In this reality, made up of atoms and subatomic particle there is more empty space than there is matter, yet we experience the world around us as though its solid.

We share the same reality and yet often see and experience it completely differently. Influences that effect me don't necessarily effect everyone, and visa versa.

Not being able to perceive or scientifically prove something doesn't mean its doesn't exist. Take acupuncture as an example, Western science still doesn't recognise the medians on which the acupuncturist treats, but it does work.

There is so much unknown that it is very narrow minded refute the existence of things we don't believe or want to believe, such as a divine force at work.

David f,

You said " With the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire the Dark Ages settled on Europe."

You don't seem to realize that the term "Dark Ages" has no basis in fact as you used it and the term is no longer used by any serious historians because there was no "Dark Ages".

Hippie wrote, "not being able to perceive or scientifically prove something doesn't mean it doesn't exist".

It also doesn't mean it DOES exist. Hippie, using your exact same logic it also means you must think it's "possible" that a three headed, undetectable, invisible, supernatural, floating Pink Fairy is living in my garden" ... after all "not being able to scientifically prove something doesn't mean it doesn't exist" according to you. That's your intellectual justification for the "possibility" of the existence of gods, or your specific one god thingy.

It's interesting and revealing, that you also wrote you consider people who don't share *YOUR* beliefs about what you call a divine force, to be narrow minded. That says a lot about you, not them.

Dear May,

You made a heap of assumptions in your last post, all unfounded:

<<If the world recognised the factual reality of "no gods exist" then the Bible and Qur'an wouldn't exist.>>

Nonsense. The obsession with existence is a modern fashion. Existence was never of importance to the ancients.

Further, as I mentioned, the author(s) of the Koran couldn't care less whether gods exist or otherwise - they just wanted to push their political agenda.

<<That means throughout history there would have been a quantum reduction in wars, torture, invasions, killings, domination, sexism, squabbling and fear>>

Wishful thinking!

<<Ancient, superstitious religions have a LOT of "history" regarding these things>>

And what makes you think that these superstitious organisations were in fact religious? That they in fact constituted a religion, rather than boast it superficially?

<<Yes, without religions all those things would still remain in the world, but at a lower level.>>

As far as I can tell from what you write here (excuse me if I'm wrong), you do not even believe that religion exists. If so, then we already have no religions, hence nothing would change!

<<And the necessity for this thread specifically about the Qur'an, wouldn't exist.>>

The Koran probably contains bits and pieces of valuable religious advice (though you probably don't believe so), but overall it is a political text, not a religious one - and the political aspirations of those who wrote it wouldn't disappear in a puff had religion not been there.

<<Therefore "no gods exist" is highly relevant to this topic.>>

Completely naive. Why should Muslims care whether gods exist or not? existence is a modern concern, unknown to those tribes to begin with.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<But you have still given me no reason to accept that your understanding of what constitutes religion is the right one.>>

I already explained that the way myself and most religious people use the word "religion" is the original, hence it is not right to use this word for other purposes, how more so when the new use berates those who still use it in its original sense.

Alien-abductees who are branded "crazy", are at least berated for their own alleged faults, not those of others: they can then defend themselves as they wish, but the only defence left for religious people is: "It's not me!".

<<then you need to qualify what you say with phrases such as , “In my opinion…”, “If you ask me, “The way I see it…”>>

Okay, I understand the need, but as it would not be appropriate to qualify that which is in fact so by "In my opinion", I will try to remember to use the qualifier, "although you are not expected to believe this".

<<What do you mean by “that way”?>>

That religious people do not conceive of 'religion' as a culture, an organisation, a group-thing, a political system or a set of habits, etc. Religious people conceive of 'religion' as a set of methods which brings them closer to God (although you are not expected to believe this).

So long as there is at least one religious person alive, it is therefore incorrect to say that what is 'religion' is universally accepted.

But perhaps you are claiming that there is no religious person alive (in the sense that I use), that it's the empty set... If so, say so!

<<But in your attempts to protect religion from all criticism>>

I wish I could do that, but I can't. All I can is to protect religion from misconceptions, from being criticised for the faults of that which is NOT religion.

One could still, for example, claim that religion is too-hard, almost-impossible, boring and not-fun, for which I may have no answer.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<What relevance do other people’s brains have?>>

The point was that the idea that "the physical stimulation in a particular brain must cause me to have an experience, but not so if the stimulation is of another brain", is an irrational superstition. I could go into it in depth if you want, although it takes us too far away from the topic.

<<Not in my experience. Theist or atheist, I have never had difficulty coming to an agreement on the definition of ‘religion’.>>

First, theism has little to do with religion. It's true that belief in God (or gods) is a common religious technique/method, but it's not the only available method and it suits some people more than others. I dare even say that while many come closer to God by using this method (although you are not expected to believe this), there are some even who are in fact driven away from God by that belief. Thus, there are religious theists; irreligious theists; religious atheists; and irreligious atheists.

Second, yes, there are some within organised religion who have accepted society's "verdict" that 'religion' means theirs and similar organisations/group-identities. This only indicates their shallow understanding of what they were taught and the lack of the intellectual sharpness to follow through the cynical implications of that idea. If indeed religion was akin the belonging to a social club, then their whole referring to God would only be a social game (and in my view, such behaviour does not deserve the title "religion").

In your latest post, you use "religion" and "schmeligion" interchangeably and inconsistently, which makes it hard for me to follow. Please make sure it's in order.

Religion requires sacrifices. Going all the way requires completely sacrificing all attachments to the world, against human-nature. The requirements are well-documented by sages, for those who are willing to follow, but most people are not ready, so they try a bit here and a bit there (which is good), then settle for a routine and those routines eventually decay: not because of religion, but due to human-nature's resistance to follow it.

May May, when I used the term narrow minded I was referring people who won't accept there may be possibilities other than there own. from your posts and now your defensive reaction to my post I can only say "if the shoe fits..."

Also from your posts it is obvious you have a problem with other people choosing to believe in things you don't. You are going out of your way to argue the point your point. We get it!

Why is it a problem for you to allow other's to have their belief, even it's in your mind total wrong? No one here is trying to convert anyone. Why not just live and let live?

You can play devil's advocate or argue with others every other post but you don't have too.

Okay then, Yuyutsu. I’ll try explaining it another way.

<<I already explained that the way myself and most religious people use the word "religion" is the original, hence it is not right to use this word for other purposes, how more so when the new use berates those who still use it in its original sense.>>

The purpose for which one may use the word is entirely beside the point and I’ll show you why…

For some people, “coming closer to God” means harassing women in an already-fragile state of mind with anti-abortion placards; for some, it means teaching their kids to reject science; for others, it means killing one’s children so that they go straight to heaven without the risk of hell; and for some, it means keeping slaves. These are all harmful actions that are worthy of berating (theologically sound, too, mind you). All the people who commit them would consider themselves religious.

According to you, though, they can still call themselves religious, but a non-believer, who was pointing out the bad that religion can inspire, is not allowed to call it religion.

And if your response is to say that they are not coming closer to God, then we’re back to one of my original points: Why are you the one who is right? By what objective standard would you make this claim?

Here are the definitions of religion: http://tinyurl.com/p9okgvt

<<Alien-abductees who are branded "crazy", are at least berated for their own alleged faults, not those of others: they can then defend themselves as they wish, but the only defence left for religious people is: "It's not me!".>>

That’s why I figured you re-define religion.

<<Okay, I understand the need, but as it would not be appropriate to qualify that which is in fact so by "In my opinion", I will try to remember to use the qualifier, "although you are not expected to believe this".>>

You’re still missing the point. It comes across as arrogant and only does your credibility damage if you assert as fact that which cannot be proved.

Continued…

…Continued

<<So long as there is at least one religious person alive, it is therefore incorrect to say that what is 'religion' is universally accepted.>>

Okay, I’ll say “by just about everyone” instead. Foxy’s first quote adheres very much to what myself (as a Christian and atheist) and every other person I’ve known of consider religion to be. It is also considered by theists to be what you say, but I don’t know of anyone (other than yourself) who denies that the bad parts constitute religion too; hence the whole, 'Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus' thing.

<<The point was that the idea that "the physical stimulation in a particular brain must cause me to have an experience, but not so if the stimulation is of another brain", is an irrational superstition. I could go into it in depth if you want, although it takes us too far away from the topic.>>

Sorry, I still don’t see what relevance other people’s brains have to do with what I said. We’re all capable of experiencing the neurological episodes that I described.

<<First, theism has little to do with religion. It's true that belief in God (or gods) is a common religious technique/method, but it's not the only available method and it suits some people more than others.>>

It's like I've been saying...

Here’s the definition of ‘theism’ too: http://tinyurl.com/ot7v7ny

<<...yes, there are some within organised religion who have accepted society's "verdict" that 'religion' means theirs and similar organisations/group-identities.>>

Thank you; what we can now refer to as “schmeligion ”, if you prefer.

<<This only indicates their shallow understanding of what they were taught and the lack of the intellectual sharpness to follow through the cynical implications of that idea.>>

So by what methods have you determined that they are wrong, and you are right?

<<In your latest post, you use "religion" and "schmeligion" interchangeably and inconsistently, which makes it hard for me to follow. Please make sure it's in order.>>

No, it’s certainly in order. Perhaps change “the process of religion” to just “religion”.

Can anyone answer this question ? It's been bugging me reading this thread.

Was the Koran passed on to Muhammad word-for-word as the literal word of Allah ? [Assuming that there is/was an Allah, of course, for which I suppose you have to be a believer to believe that bit],

AND/OR did Muhammad write any of it ?

So which bits were passed on to this illiterate businessman in his cave, and which bits did the illiterate businessman add afterwards ?

And which bits were added after Muhammad ?

And, for good measure, which bits were already floating around in desert Arab culture long before all that, amongst the Jewish and Christian tribes, and which bits were appropriated, perhaps in a garbled form, from their religious books, the Bible and the Halacha ?

Just trying to clarify.

Joe

Joe,

What makes you think that Muhammad was illiterate?

Yuyutsu, you made a heap of assumptions in your last reply to me, all unfounded:

Yuyutsu: "Nonsense. The obsession with existence is a modern fashion. Existence was never of importance to the ancients."

Your answer (which is mere "opinion" and not even close to accurate anyway) had no relevance to what I wrote. Try again, and please keep it relevant.

Yuyutsu: "The authors of the Koran couldn't care less whether gods exist or otherwise."

And please quote me where I said they did. That's right, you can't. Why? Because I didn't say that. Come on Yuyustu, have another go.

Yuyustu: "Wishful thinking."

No, accurate, historical fact. Try reading a few history books Yuyustu. Believe it or not, an education in factual history is good for you.

Yuyustu: And what makes you believer these superstitious organisations were in fact religions?"

I see, you're now "trying" to tell us that religions aren't religions, because you've adapted a "personal" opinion and philosophy that says religions aren't religions unless they adhere to "your" moral interpretations. Poor effort Yuyustu, you'll need to try MUCH harder than that.

Yuyustu: "You do not even believe that religion exists".

Ahh, now you just "make up" what I write and post an outright lie. Of COURSE religion exists, duh!! You're now getting desperate Yuyustu.

Yuyustu: "Completely naive. Why should Muslims care whether gods exists or not? Existence is a modern concern, unknown to those tribes to begin with".

Firstly you're factually incorrect, that's just an "opinion" you hold. But more importantly, I NEVER said anything whatsoever about existence being specifically either a modern or ancient concern. You're making up lies regarding what I said, then you're arguing against those lies .... typical strawman technique. Very poor effort Yuyustu.

May May,

Yuyutsu isn't actually being as dishonest as it at first appears. He’s just speaking a totally different language to you as if you already realise that he's completely redefined the terms "god", "religion" and "existence". A Yuyutsu discussion takes years of experience and even then, he seems to drift to and fro a bit with his definitions.

Yuyutsu,

This is the type of confusion you cause when you invent your own definitions and then engage in discussion with others without clarifying what it is that you're actually talking about. It's almost as if it is a tactic used to throw discussions off when the facts become a bit too uncomfortable for you.

It all goes back to what I was saying about asserting as fact that which is not evidently true.

Dear AJ Philips,

I am happy to take your advice and henceforth call organised-systems-of-belief-related-to-gods-etc, "Schmeligion".

At times, associating with Schmeligions can support one's religion. At times it doesn't. Schmeligions, I believe, were initially formed to promote and support religion, but each one of them eventually decays sooner or later, to one degree or another. Buddha, for example, predicted that his own schmeligion will decay and its essence be lost in 500 years.

Of course, anyone can SAY that they are religious, that they are drawing closer to God, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. Of course, being religious is not black-and-white but a matter of degree.

If someone harasses women, enslaves others or chops their heads off, then I wouldn't personally believe that they are very religious. This is because I believe Patanjali, as well as experienced myself to some degree the correctness of his teachings, that non-violence or 'Ahimsa', is the first requisite of religion, without which little progress is possible.

<<And if your response is to say that they are not coming closer to God, then we’re back to one of my original points: Why are you the one who is right? By what objective standard would you make this claim?>>

I am not necessarily right. I rely on scripture and on my limited experience, but there is still the possibility that I misinterpret them. Still I take the risk, wagering everything I've got that this guy who laughs when he chops the heads of innocent people, is not a saint!

<<And if your response is to say that they are not coming closer to God, then we’re back to one of my original points: Why are you the one who is right? By what objective standard would you make this claim?>>

As above, I cannot be 100% objective, but I rely on scripture and try doing my best.

<<Here are the definitions of religion:>>

Written by outsiders, but the second, "a particular system of faith and worship" comes somewhat close, because faith and worship are effective means of coming closer to God.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<That’s why I figured you re-define religion.>>

It's been many decades that I use 'religion' in this manner and it's used this way within the circles I frequent, It's been long since I understood that those belonging to, or even heading, an organised religion (schmeligion), are not necessarily religious.

<<It comes across as arrogant and only does your credibility damage>>

I'm trying to protect religion, not my credibility.

<<but I don’t know of anyone (other than yourself) who denies that the bad parts constitute religion too>>

My friends do and Jesus said: "Only God is truly good", so how can coming closer to Him produce any evil? Schmeligions decay and their teachings can become impure, no longer religion alone, and that's what leads to the bad parts.

<<I still don’t see what relevance other people’s brains have to do with what I said.>>

It's probably only remotely relevant now: your very first question was: "how did you rule out any of the above rational explanations for religious experiences?", so I provided an example to deny that the neurological explanation is rational. I realise that my reply was shorthand, because a complete response would take me pages upon pages and I really didn't want to go into that.

<<So by what methods have you determined that they are wrong, and you are right?>>

Common sense: if someone who considers themselves "religious" thinks that 'religion' is about belonging to (/identifying with) an organisation such as theirs, then if they're sharp and honest, they must admit that their worship of God is just a social game, contrary to what their own organisation teaches.

<<It's almost as if it is a tactic used to throw discussions off when the facts become a bit too uncomfortable for you.>>

But I have no problems with the facts, so long as it's clear they pertain to schmeligions, not to religion. I consider myself and my friends religious, not schmeligious: so long as you don't blame us of the faults of schmeligion, we have no problem.

May May,

Thank you for the long explanation as to why your statement "no gods exist" was not a factual statement and that you may (may) have been wrong.
It is rather silly to make a statement as though it were fact and then explain why the statement cannot be fact.

Dear Joe,

The same questions are bugging me too. I wish I had the answers!

If we had the answers, backed by evidence, then Islamic terrorism and abuse of women would be ended very quickly, by proving to all lovers of Muhammad that such bad acts are not mandated by him.

<<Was the Koran passed on to Muhammad word-for-word as the literal word of Allah?>>

Extremely unlikely.

<<So which bits were passed on to this illiterate businessman in his cave, and which bits did the illiterate businessman add afterwards?>>

That's the million-dollar question!

Most likely, he had a profound direct experience of God - which isn't verbal, then he assembled the words himself to try to communicate this experience to others, as best he could.

<<And which bits were added after Muhammad?>>

Obviously quite a bit, certainly the violent parts. A man who discovered and taught such profound methods of worship was very unlikely to also teach violence. Most likely, he was framed.

<<And, for good measure, which bits were already floating around in desert Arab culture long before all that, amongst the Jewish and Christian tribes, and which bits were appropriated, perhaps in a garbled form, from their religious books, the Bible and the Halacha?>>

There's probably some of this too. For example the prohibition on eating pork and the circumcision of boys (no later than the age of 13, because that's according to Genesis, is when Yishmael, Abraham's son and progenitor of the Arab tribes, was circumcised). Also, rumours are that the number of daily prayers in Islam is 5 because it's the average of the Jewish (3) and the Christian (7).

But whether those instructions were introduced into Islam by Muhammad himself, is very hard to tell.

Dear May,

It's becoming too long and tedious, so allow me to go back to the basics and rephrase:

By repeatedly saying that "no gods/god exist" you are bursting into an open door.

God's existence is not required for religion.

On the contrary: from a spiritual perspective, existence is unimportant and the lack of God's existence allows me to love and worship Him even more.

Had God existed, then our relationship with Him would become business-like, give-and-take, a bartering system: we worship and obey you thus and you in return send us the rain, heal our sick, grant us strong sons and beautiful daughters and when we die give us 72 virgins in heaven. How shallow would that be!

Fortunately, as He doesn't, our relationship can remain pure and we can just love Him unconditionally and worship Him purely with no desires attached.

Sadly, most of the establishments that were set for the purpose of forwarding religion, have forgotten this simple truth.

Yuyustu, you're not nearly as "deep" as you "think" you are. Your self invented philosophy is full of flaws, I've pointed them out, obviously you'll never ever change no matter what, so we'll leave it there. Have a nice life. Bye.

Is Mise, you're still finding it difficult to comprehend it, or purposely choose to "pretend" you don't comprehend. That's fine, Like Yuyutsu, you'll never change no matter what. So you too have a lovely life, full of joy and happiness. And by the way, no gods exist. Bye.

AJ Philips, yes I kind of eventually concluded that. By twisting and altering logical perceptions into illogical perceptions by basing the altered view on the "initial" logic used, some people (like "you know who") can argue nonsense endlessly, and be utterly convinced that their arguments are logical. It's a bit harder for me to pick them out as I haven't been here very long. Have a good day.

May May,

You're the one who made a statement of fact and then proved that the statement was not factual, so sleep on it and come back and tell us all that there is a possibility that you may be wrong, or you may be right but the only ascertainable fact is that you can't (as you explained) prove it either way
What you should have said is that "there may be no god".

You find it really offensive when someone doesn't agree with your belief don't you Is Mise. That's ok. Really, it's ok. "Pretending" not to comprehend what someone else says is also ok. No need to get your panties in a knot. Have a nice life, and may Zeus bless you with His everlasting grace. Hang on, I mean Apollo. Wait a second, better still Aphrodite, after all She's your Goddess. Bye.

May May,

I do comprehend, I comprehend that you made a statement of fact that was not factual, the problem appears to be that you cannot comprehend that your statement was not a fact.

May May

Is Mise

Yuyutsu

Between you all you have thrown so much cotton wool into the air I don’t think any of you can see the way ahead. In my view Islam and the Koran are dead in the water. Islam must surely face a period enlightenment when it must change or perish. People must eventually realise that reading or reciting the Koran has about as much application picking feathers out of a bucket with honey on your fingers.

SILLER, yes Islam is ancient superstition, just like Christianity is ancient superstition.

Christianity was primarily entrenched within Europe, UK, North America. Christianity was defeated by secular freedom, secular democracy and secular decency. It was a process that took several hundred years. The old style brutal, murderous, terrorist Christianity is no more (let's hope they don't ever regress ... a tiny minority of Christian fundamentalists miss the "old days").

The current entrenched Islam, primarily in the Middle East, needs to undergo the same secular cleansing that was forced upon Christianity. Secular freedom, secular democracy and secular decency needs to infuse the Middle East. We can't expect it to happen overnight, as it took the Christianity regions HUNDREDS OF YEARS to complete the same task. However I think it will happen more quickly though, because of the communication age; maybe about 100 years or so.

May May,

I despair for you, such ignorance, Christianity started in the East and is still entrenched there, and no end in sight for it.

Is Mise, I see you're still having comprehension difficulties. I wrote, "Christianity was PRIMARILY entrenched within Europe, UK and North America". I did NOT write Christianity was "solely" entrenched in those locations, I also did NOT write that Christianity started in those locations. I blame your English comprehension teacher. Please may I have her address? I need to pay her a little visit and chat to her about her methods.

May May,

"Primarily: for the most part; mainly"

There are, at last count 2.1 billion Christians in the world,
there are 1.3 billion people in Europe, the UK and North America combined and not all of them are Christian.
The proportion of the population in THE AMERICAS who are Christian is 86% so North America will be lower than this and the figure for Europe is 76%

So I don't think that your statement stands up.

See Is Mise, you yet again proved you didn't comprehend. My comment about secular decency, democracy and freedom defeating Old style brutal Christianity over a period of several hundred years was clearly and obviously about Christianity as it WAS, not "is". For the past 300 years or so Christianity has maintained that change, luckily.

Yep, you really should give me the name of your English comprehension teacher. I really, really need to have a good talk to her.

Thanks Yuyutsu. For the first time in four years I feel like we’re getting somewhere, and just when I was about to give up.

<<I am happy to take your advice and henceforth call organised-systems-of-belief-related-to-gods-etc, "Schmeligion".>>

Thank you. Going back to what I was alluding to before about there being no meaningful difference between religion and schmeligion, this acceptance is all that is necessary to render your narrowing of the definition of religion futile, and I’ll explain why at the end of my response to you.

<<I am not necessarily right. I rely on scripture and on my limited experience, but there is still the possibility that I misinterpret them.>>

Great! More progress. Your entire tone has changed throughout your last response, which is why I’m not bothering to respond to every line. If that’s all that results from this discussion, then it’s been worth it.

<<Still I take the risk, wagering everything I've got that this guy who laughs when he chops the heads of innocent people, is not a saint!>>

That sounds like the safe bet, but what if God is evil? He certainly was in the Old Testament, and slightly less so in the New Testament: “Slaves obey your masters…”, “I did not come to abolish the law…”.

<<...the second, "a particular system of faith and worship" comes somewhat close, because faith and worship are effective means of coming closer to God.>>

How can you know that? We make determinations about what we don’t know by contrasting it with what we do know (Which is why the probability of May May’s definitive assertion that no gods exist being accurate is more likely than Is Mise’s “There may be no god”), so how could you possibly even arrive at the point of believing this?

Continued…

…Continued

<<I'm trying to protect religion, not my credibility.>>

Once again, I figured that you were at least trying to protect religion. Which is why I’ve mentioned the No True Scotsman Fallacy:

“No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing; this fallacy also applies to defining a term or criteria biasedly as to defend it from counterargument which can be identified as a biased, persuasive, or rhetorical definition. Instead of acknowledging that some members of a group have undesirable characteristics, the fallacy tries to redefine the group to exclude them. Sentences such as "all members of X have desirable trait Y" then become tautologies, because Y becomes a requirement of membership in X.” (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman)

Technically speaking, you have not committed this fallacy because you didn’t change your definition half-way through our discussion. However, you effectively admitted that you define religion narrowly to protect religion, so your reasoning was still fallacious.

<<Schmeligions decay and their teachings can become impure, no longer religion alone, and that's what leads to the bad parts.>>

Then why did the Bible get slightly better (albeit still bad) in the New Testament? How is it that Christianity is so civilised now that secularism has dragged it kicking and screaming into modernity? Are you honestly suggesting that in the days of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, Christian theology (granted Christianity didn’t technically exist at that point) was actually better?!

<<It's probably only remotely relevant now: your very first question was: "how did you rule out any of the above rational explanations for religious experiences?", so I provided an example to deny that the neurological explanation is rational.>>

That’s what I suspected, but didn’t want to presume too much. I don’t think you’ve provided a reason to deny that neurological explanations are not rational.

Continued…

…Continued

<<Common sense: if someone who considers themselves "religious" thinks that 'religion' is about belonging to (/identifying with) an organisation such as theirs, then if they're sharp and honest, they must admit that their worship of God is just a social game, contrary to what their own organisation teaches.>>

The answer to my question (that you are attempting to answer here): By what methods have you determined that they are wrong, and you are right? Would explain why this is supposedly “common-sense”. But you haven’t gone that far, conveniently enough. So my question remains unanswered.

<<I consider myself and my friends religious, not schmeligious: so long as you don't blame us of the faults of schmeligion, we have no problem.>>

The problem is that you do actually share a part of the blame for what the fundies and the extremists do, however small, because of your passive support. All theists do, by sheer virtue of the type of belief that you are promulgating. If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence and sheer ignorance as religion is, you'd resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler; a Mafia wife of the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travellers.

This is another reason why your - I’ll say narrowing - of the definition of religion is futile.

On a final note, you haven’t addressed my point about your god’s inadequacy in explaining to us the best method of coming closer to him. I thought that was quite pertinent.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<your narrowing of the definition of religion>>

I was not narrowing the definition - others were using the word improperly to designate that which is only remotely related - Schmeligions.

Why should I recognise a pig as a swan? Why should I recognise schmeligions as religious?
Schmeligions are a mixed bag. While some are totally corrupt, most in my view, in varying degrees, do more good than evil, promoting more religion than irreligion.

<<but what if God is evil? He certainly was in the Old Testament>>

God cannot be evil because He doesn't even exist!

What idea did those silly guys from the Old Testament have anyway about God? Until the 12th century, at the time of Maimonides, most Jews thought that God has a location and size...

<<so how could you possibly even arrive at the point of believing this?>>

[that "faith-and-worship-are-effective-means-of-coming-closer-to-God"?]

By combining the teachings of sages with my humble little experience of trying to follow them.

<<the No True Scotsman Fallacy ...However, you effectively admitted that you define religion narrowly to protect religion, so your reasoning was still fallacious.>>

I maintain the purity of the term 'religion' and refuse the imposition of impure overlayed definitions. If the judge in court tells me "Mr. Leibovitz, you are accused of murder", it is most reasonable for me to respond: "Your honour, I am not Mr. Leibovitz".

<<Then why did the Bible...New Testament? How is it that Christianity is so civilised now...? Are you honestly suggesting that in the days of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, Christian theology (...) was actually better?!>>

What a mishmash!

I may well have some opinion about the Abrahamic schmeligions, but they aren't my baby. It is my OPINION that Christianity overall promotes religion more than hinders it (which it also does at times). It is also my opinion that Judaism isn't even a schmeligion because it wasn't designed for the furtherance of religion in the first place (although SOME individuals, especially Hasidic, somehow manage successfully to use it anyway to enhance their religion).

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<So my question remains unanswered.>>

By now, I find it hard to try and correctly dig your original questions: would you mind re-stating any old question(s) you still have of me?

<<I don’t think you’ve provided a reason to deny that neurological explanations are not rational.>>

Such explanations assume that just because some stimulation happens in [the so-called] "my" brain, I must have a corresponding experience. This supposed causation is irrational (as it requires the acceptance of certain axioms which cannot be deducted logically) and it's also irrational to assume a unique and exclusive connection between me and this particular brain. Why not the brains of other people for example?

It may be rational for example to assume that some memory-record corresponding with that stimulation will be created in the same brain where the stimulation occurred. It may even be rational to assume that the mouth connected to that brain may say something about it. It is irrational however to assume that I have anything to do with those activities, but not with what happens in other brains.

God cannot be experienced through the brain because the nature of the brain/mind/senses is dualistic, dividing the reality between "me" and otherness, subject and object. This was developed in the course of evolution because it's useful for survival, but it's useless in realising the ontological Truth, which is God, where no such divisions exist.

Thus, the path of religion is of subtraction, not of addition. Not about improving/enhancing perception, but about the removal of obstacles (such as the mind) that obstruct our direct experience of us as God.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<your passive support...If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence and sheer ignorance as religion is, you'd resign in protest.>>

And I've done so several times. But being a member of the original club, I rather expel those pretenders who do not belong there.

However, religion is not a closed club because the situation is not black-and-white. We are all religious to some extent - everything is, even a stone: we are all on our way back to God, some slower, some faster, some consciously, some not. Most of those who are consciously religious fail from time to time and sin, or temporarily stray from the path. Overall however, as long as they make an effort I'd still like to call them "religious".

As for orgnisations that claim to forward religion (schmeligions), while sometimes obvious, it's sometimes difficult to evaluate and come to a verdict: do they, on balance, do more good or more evil? The larger an organisation, it's more likely to find there bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence and sheer ignorance - but it could possibly be doing much good as well, so when possible, including in the case of Islam, I would like to avoid throwing away the baby with the bath-water.

Yuyutsu,

I feel a bit silly responding so late, but I hinted that I would, and want to make good of that since I never got back to you one other time due to being tied up in a time-consuming debate with a self-confessed racist.

I still don’t have much time so I’ll just finish by pointing out that by clinging to an etymological interpretation of a word (i.e. “religion”) and insisting that any new meaning that it has evolved is necessarily invalid, you are committing the Etymological fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy). You, seemingly, try to avoid this accusation by suggesting sinister motives and intent behind the evolution of the word’s meaning, but you haven’t provided any good reason to believe that this really is the case.

<<Such explanations assume that just because some stimulation happens in [the so-called] "my" brain, I must have a corresponding experience. This supposed causation is irrational (as it requires the acceptance of certain axioms which cannot be deducted logically) and it's also irrational to assume a unique and exclusive connection between me and this particular brain. Why not the brains of other people for example?>>

If you’re suggesting (as some do) that there is a mystical side to our consciousness (which is often justified by the fact that consciousness cannot yet be explained, and asserted through a fear of acknowledging a limit of one’s own free will), then this is easily discredited by simply pointing out that everything that makes an individual who they are can be reset: their personality, their memory, their preferences, their desires, their ability to form new memories.

If there was a mystical component to the consciousness - acting through the brain - then there‘s no explanation as to how this could occur. If I’m in an accident and my personality is consequently reset, then what happened to the mystical component to my consciousness? Did it leave? Did it die? Was it replaced? What about split-brain patients where two completely different personalities reside in the same brain? Where does mysticism fit in there?

Dear AJ Philips,

According to Wikipedia, "The etymological fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning."

The difference here is that the original historical meaning is not dead, but still in use by billions of religious people, mainly among themselves.

As modernism denies the existence of religion as an independent and real phenomena, its 'newspeak' made this word to conveniently refer instead to the shadow cast by religion over society - it's especially convenient because now it allows modernism to contemptuously describe 'religion' as the ugly corpses of organisations which once promoted religion (or the decrepit remains of organisations that still partially do so).

This tactic of stealing sacred names, is in a way similar to saying that Jews/blacks/aboriginals are not real people with real feelings.

Lets not introduce this new idea of 'mysticism', being a new can of worms which is hard to define. I rather keep it simple:

I don't know whether or not everything that makes an individual can be reset - while it could make a fascinating discussion, it matters not to this discussion, because ultimately we are not individuals - we are God. Ultimately, even the person(s)/forces conducting the "reset operation" are not separate or external - they too are God, they too are us.

Everything that makes an individual can perhaps be reset, but nothing makes YOU who you are, thus no matter what happens to your individual attributes, YOU are YOU and nothing can change that.

Similarly, other than for curiosity's sake we don't need to answer such questions as "If I’m in an accident and my personality is consequently reset": if that happens, then you would probably no longer be aware, or conscious, of this world. You may then become aware of this world again from another point of view, perhaps from the point of view of another brain (or two) - or you may not: this is the realm of mysticism and speculation, but I can't see how it's relevant here.

Dear Yuyutsu,

<<According to Wikipedia, "The etymological fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning.">>

The article also says: “A variant of the etymological fallacy involves looking for the "true" meaning of words by delving into their etymologies, or claiming that a word should be used in a particular way because it has a particular etymology.”

This is what you do. So again, you are committing the Etymological fallacy, and continue to do so in your very next paragraph...

<<As modernism denies the existence of religion as an independent and real phenomena, its 'newspeak' made this word to conveniently refer instead to the shadow cast by religion over society - it's especially convenient because now it allows modernism to contemptuously describe 'religion' as the ugly corpses of organisations which once promoted religion ...>>

If that is not what you are doing in the above, then, once again, you need to stop asserting in such a matter-of-factly way ideas that suggest that the only valid definition of ‘religion’ is your definition:

"What you describe are social issues - not religious issues." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#197635)
"All I can is to protect religion from misconceptions, from being criticised for the faults of that which is NOT religion." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#197864)

<<This tactic of stealing sacred names, is in a way similar to saying that Jews/blacks/aboriginals are not real people with real feelings.>>

No-one has stolen anything. Theft requires intent.

Your analogy is absurd, too, because such claims can be scientifically and conclusively debunked.

<<I don't know whether or not everything that makes an individual can be reset…>>

Well I do, and so do scientists and medical doctors.

Continued…

...Continued

<<... it matters not to this discussion, because ultimately we are not individuals - we are God.>>

This is merely an assertion. You have not provided any evidence for this and so, in the words of Hitchens: “What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence” (now known as ‘Hitchens’ Razor’).

<<Everything that makes an individual can perhaps be reset, but nothing makes YOU who you are, thus no matter what happens to your individual attributes, YOU are YOU and nothing can change that.>>

Only physically. So are you suggesting that the mystical side to our consciousness is tied to our physical bodies and does nothing for our personality? That’s how it remains? That wouldn't resolve the dilemma for mystics that I put forward. Nor would it help the mystics out there who cling to the belief out of a fear of acknowledging limits to their free will either.

<<... we don't need to answer such questions as "If I’m in an accident and my personality is consequently reset": if that happens, then you would probably no longer be aware, or conscious, of this world. You may then become aware of this world again from another point of view, perhaps from the point of view of another brain (or two) - or you may not: this is the realm of mysticism and speculation, but I can't see how it's relevant here.>>

It became relevant because you seemed to allude to a mystical aspect of our consciousness…

“... it's ... irrational to assume a unique and exclusive connection between me and this particular brain. Why not the brains of other people for example?” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#198146)

You don’t get any more mystical than that.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<No-one has stolen anything. Theft requires intent.>>

Or reckless avoidance of observation of ownership.

All analogies are imperfect and have their limits, which I'm well aware of, but one comes to mind:

Suppose you find a car parked in the street, but you don't know what it does, you don't believe that anything mechanical could take you from A to B, nor do you find a need for that - so what you see is a jumble of metal and plastic which the owner has left there, so you take it away to scrap the metal, then fine the owner for littering the street.

As you find that a number of others have done the same and then complained angrily "what have you done to my car?", you make a word for it and write in your dictionary:

CAR - a large jumble of metal, plastic and glass, usually box-shaped and standing on rubber wheels, often deliberately left in streets.

In other words, one recklessly ignores the view of car-owners that their cars are useful and wanted. As far as they're concerned, going from A to B, which is what the owners claim their cars do, is the most silly idea to begin with, so why would anyone want to do it?

I have no shame in saying that the most valid definition of 'car' should be by those who own and use cars.

And yes, here ends the analogy - I wouldn't and couldn't attempt to prove that a car works to someone who doesn't even perceive a difference between locations A and B.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<Well I do, and so do scientists and medical doctors.>>

Please allow me to keep my reservations, yet I don't find it relevant for this discussion.

<<You have not provided any evidence for this>>

This was never my intention, nor can anyone prove objectively what is subjective in nature. The point I raise is that the modern cult of objectivism looks down on those who do not satisfy their internal protocol of demanding an objective proof and consider them a sort of untermenschen who can be trodden over and whose sacred vocabulary can be abused for mockery.

<<So are you suggesting that the mystical side to our consciousness is tied to our physical bodies and does nothing for our personality?>>

I was not suggesting anything about a "mystical side", whatever that means. I keep the question open as to how much of our personality is tied to our physical body. At least some is, no doubt, but then it is our choice whether or not we want to continue having anything to do with that particular body/personality combination - or just to leave it all behind to do its thing without us.

<<That wouldn't resolve the dilemma for mystics that I put forward. Nor would it help the mystics out there who cling to the belief out of a fear of acknowledging limits to their free will either>>

You would have to ask those mystics then, not me: the possibility of having no individual free will doesn't bother me.

<<It became relevant because you seemed to allude to a mystical aspect of our consciousness…>>

OK, so it SEEMED, but I didn't even mention consciousness in this context.

<<You don’t get any more mystical than that.>>

As I understand it, mystics make positive statements about "other realms", while all I did in that reference was to criticise the claim that neurological arguments are "rational". If you dig a bit below the surface of appearances, you find that NO argument is ever rational, that down below always rest irrational axiomatic assumptions.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I’m happy to accept your ‘car’ analogy. It somewhat highlights why the Etymological fallacy is fallacious: religious people don’t own the word “religion”, just as car owners don’t own the word “car”.

If some of the car owners in your analogy started using their cars for drug running, then the rest of the car owners don't get to say that what they're calling a "car" is not a 'car'.

Your only way of getting around this is to claim that those who do bad things are not coming closer to God, but until you can demonstrate that this God exists (or in your case, "doesn't exist"), and that there is a way of coming coming closer to it, and that your way of coming closer to it is the right way, your claim regarding the ownership of the word "religion" may be dismissed as nonsense.

Whether it be religion or schmeligion, the essence is still there: a belief in something (in this case, supernatural) without good reason - and that is one of the major reasons as to why so much bad can come from religion. It's not because those who do bad are not coming closer to God, and if you want to claim that it is, then you need to demonstrate the truth of your claims. If, by the very nature of your God and worship, this isn't possible, then that's unfortunate, but the rational thing to do is still to remain sceptical - whether or not what you claim is true.

I know it's not your intention to prove anything to anyone, but when you enter a discussion and effectively claim that everyone criticising religion is attacking a strawman, you bear a burden of proof.

Looked at from a different angle, the car owners in your analogy owned their cars; people who believe that there should be a particular definition of the word "religion", don't own the word.

The problem with the Koran is it is one man in his culture's interpretation of a 16th century political system based in theocratic Rule after listening to Catholic theology and Talmudic Judaic world views and believing he has a message from God. The problem: it is one deluded man's view of a theocratic political system.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<Your only way of getting around this is to claim that those who do bad things are not coming closer to God>>

Indeed they don't!

<<but until you can demonstrate that this God exists (...), and that there is a way of coming coming closer to it, and that your way of coming closer to it is the right way, your claim regarding the ownership of the word "religion" may be dismissed as nonsense.>>

Within religious circles there are indeed ongoing discussions whether or not a particular method or teaching is correct and there are at least attempts (successful or otherwise) to demonstrate-or-refute the validity of specific methods. However, within those circles it is a-priori agreed that some methods bring one closer to God - even when there may be disagreements over which methods do. Among car owners, one could claim: "Yours is not a car, but a piece of junk" and the other could refute it by driving it from A to B. However, this is only possible because both agree that A and B exist as different locations. For anyone else, the statement: "See, I drove it from A to B" would be dismissed as nonsense.

<<the essence is still there: a belief in something (in this case, supernatural) without good reason>>

First, belief is not the essence of religion (perhaps of shmeligion, Oh well), just a religious method, one among many.

Second, there IS a good reason: for many people, belief is a good and effective technique for coming closer to God (regardless whether the content of that belief is correct, incorrect or inaccurate).

<<so much bad can come from religion>>

All examples you or anyone else in this forum ever brought, were about some bad effects of schmeligions, not of religion.

Suppose you say "You Negroes stink!", I deny, asking for examples and all you can tell me is about the smell emanating from three black corpses hanging on the gallows for a week: am I not right in my defence that "these bodies WERE Negroes, but only until a week ago"?

Some of the Koran is sort of interesting. Here is a late verse (they are arranged by length, not by chronology, or any other rational process):

105: The Elephant

105:1 Hast thou not seen how thy Lord dealt with the owners of the Elephant ?
105:2 Did He not bring their stratagem to naught, Allah dealt with the owners of the elephant by sending swarms of "flying creatures".
105:3 And send against them swarms of flying creatures,
105:4 Which pelted them with stones of baked clay,
105:5 And made them like green crops devoured (by cattle) ?

Just take the time to study these words, to gauge what wisdom is encompassed there. Something may have been lost in the original translation from Aramaic or Syriac.

Joe

Dear Yuyutsu,

<<Indeed they don't!>>

Okay, but you need to demonstrate this. I'm happy to run with the idea that only your understanding, of what constitutes true religion, is valid, because it doesn't really detract from my main point unless you can explain how one can objectively determine what does and does not bring one closer to God.

I know you spoke of the subjectiveness of religion earlier, but that would just mean that you have no way of knowing that your understanding of what brings one closer to God is any better or more valid than the Islamic jihadist's. Islamic extremists believe that strapping explosives to themselves and detonating them in public places brings them closer to God. What's to say they're not right?

The best you've done to address this conundrum, so far, is to say:

"Jesus said: "Only God is truly good", so how can coming closer to Him produce any evil?" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#197947)

But so what? Captain Kirk said, "What does God need with a starship?"

What some alleged person (that we have no reliable evidence for the existence of) supposedly said, means absolutely nothing.

<<Among car owners, one could claim: "Yours is not a car, but a piece of junk" and the other could refute it by driving it from A to B. However, this is only possible because both agree that A and B exist as different locations. For anyone else, the statement: "See, I drove it from A to B" would be dismissed as nonsense.>>

I have no problem with this. You seem to be stating the obvious here in saying that religious belief - to a non-believer - is nonsense, and that both parties need to agree that coming closer to God is a valid concept for it to not be nonsense. Going back to what I've been saying, though, can this belief be rationally justified?

Continued…

...Continued

Again, I know you’ve said that this stuff is subjective by nature and outside the bounds of rationality, but when you enter a conversation effectively shouting, “Wait! Stop the presses! You’ve all got it wrong!”, you bear a burden of proof. You can’t just state something as fact, in an attempt to invalidate everything others have been saying, and then - when asked to justify your claims - run off and flip everyone the bird by claiming that you don’t have to because religion is a subjective thing.

It is dishonest to state as fact that which you cannot demonstrate.

As I’ve said several times before in the past, you can get around this by simply adding qualifiers to your claims such as, “I believe…”, “In my opinion...”, “The way I see it…” But you refuse to do this and so you bear a burden of proof.

<<Second, there IS a good reason: for many people, belief is a good and effective technique for coming closer to God (regardless whether the content of that belief is correct, incorrect or inaccurate).>>

This is not a good reason to belief in a God or follow a religion until this concept of 'coming closer to a God' can be demonstrated to be a valid concept.

<<All examples you or anyone else in this forum ever brought, were about some bad effects of schmeligions, not of religion.>>

You’re doing it all here again. You need to justify this claim.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<Islamic extremists believe that strapping explosives...What's to say they're not right?>>

OK, earlier I mentioned Jesus' words, but let me now address this from a different angle:

As there is nothing but God, the main obstacle that sets us apart from God is our ego, or selfishness: that faculty that produces the false experience and conviction that we are separate from others and otherness, having distinct and often opposing goals instead. We should therefore expect those more religiously-accomplished to have less (if any) of an ego.

Given that the guys you mentioned desire to enjoy the pleasures of heaven and the virgins therein, especially when evidenced by the fact that they run away when confronted by women-fighters, I can conclude in most likelihood that their motives are egoistic rather than religious.

<<shouting, “Wait! Stop the presses! You’ve all got it wrong!”, you bear a burden of proof.>>

I do not agree that the onus is on me to prove anything when I scream: "Stop hitting me, I'm innocent, it hurts!".

However, while there is no way anyone could produce a truly-objective proof, instead of being theologically nitpicky, let me produce a corollary, a practical definition which is 99.999% accurate, but good enough I think, to satisfy both yourself and most religious people:

** RELIGION is the war on [one's own] selfishness **

Accordingly, while this isn't a complete objective proof, it's a strong evidence to say for example: "If you agree that their motive is selfish, then you should agree that this priest who molests children isn't religious".

<<This is not a good reason to belief in a God or follow a religion until this concept of 'coming closer to a God' can be demonstrated to be a valid concept.>>

But if you accept that overcoming selfishness is a valid concept, then it can be shown that in most people, belief in God, as well as other techniques commonly employed by religion, are likely to result in reducing selfishness.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Regarding your alternate explanation as to why your method of coming closer to God is the right one (and not the jihadist’s), it relies upon some (as of yet) unsupported assertions. It assumes that there is nothing but God (when no justification for this additional and unnecessary layer (i.e. God) to everything has been provided); it assumes that the main obstacle that sets us apart from this God is our ego or selfishness; it assumes that ego produces a false experience and conviction that we are separate from others and otherness.

You haven't yet demonstrated that this God exists (or in your case, "doesn't exist"), so to making such claims is a bit premature as you have not yet supported the premise.

Your entire theology just seems like one big exercise in humility with unnecessary pantheistic supernatural elements for padding.

<<I do not agree that the onus is on me to prove anything when I scream: "Stop hitting me, I'm innocent, it hurts!".>>

When your method of screaming such things involves a positive claim, you absolutely have the burden of proof.

<<Accordingly, while this isn't a complete objective proof, it's a strong evidence to say for example: "If you agree that their motive is selfish, then you should agree that this priest who molests children isn't religious".>>

Yes, but only if you could demonstrate that religion is indeed “the war on [one's own] selfishness”. Religion is a lot of different things to a lot of different people. So, again, why should I accept your idea of what constitutes true religion over the jihadist's?

You can't answer an assertion with more assertions.

Before you say it, Yuyutsu, I know you don't think God is an additional layer to everything, but that he is indeed everything. My point is that you have added a concept that serves no purpose and are adding an unnecessary label.

Dear AJ Philips,

Actually, God isn't a layer; everything; a concept; or a label.

Never mind, by providing the corollary (or near-corollary, which is good enough for practical purposes), I already absolved you of the need to discuss God.

I still mention God, mainly because that's the language that me and my friends are used to speak among ourselves and inspires us to rise above the mundane and I write to them as well and to many others who may be reading this thread, but I'll try not to bother you with it. If I make a positive claim, then it's because it's so and I hope that it rings a bell in other readers, not because I expect you to believe in it.

Whatever me and my friends are doing, there is no need for you to understand, agree or believe, but as you ask "Hey guys, what are you doing there?", I gave you the alternate explanation which doesn't involve any terms you don't like: "We are working on getting rid our selfishness".

Now if you are open enough to put aside what religious people say or the symbolism they use and instead look at what they actually practice, you will find that it all comes to that - trying to get rid of selfishness - sometimes successfully, sometimes not as much, but the intention to do so runs as a clear thread in the teachings of all religions.

You would be right to claim that we are not being rational, including in our wish to rid ourselves of selfishness, but as I explained earlier, neither are you, nor anyone else: we all make axiomatic assumptions which can never be proved.

What is left is about living together with respect.

My starting point was, that using the word 'religion' which is dear to us because we used it for 1000's of years to describe what we strive to achieve in life, to describe the vices of dysfunctional organisations (albeit ones that were initially created for the furtherance of our goal to rid ourselves of our selfishness), is disrespectful.

For anybody interested in the topic of this thread, here's an interesting verse, probably a very early one:

109: The Disbelievers

109:1 Say: O disbelievers!
109:2 I worship not that which ye worship;
109:3 Nor worship ye that which I worship.
109:4 And I shall not worship that which ye worship.
109:5 Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
109:6 Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.

Later verses may be more exciting, more to the point.

Joe

Dear Yuyutsu,

I know this is what you believe.

<<Actually, God isn't a layer; everything; a concept; or a label.>>

But you claim that everything is God. I remain sceptical. Therefore, you are making an additional claim. To then (effectively) say, "God isn't an additional claim" is evasive. You know what I mean.

<<If I make a positive claim, then it's because it's so and I hope that it rings a bell in other readers, not because I expect you to believe in it.>>

Whether or not you are trying to convince the person you're talking to is irrelevant to the burden of proof. If you are making a positive claim, then you bear a burden of proof - especially if you are implying that it corrects or invalidates something the person you are taking to has said. (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof, http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof)

<<Whatever me and my friends are doing, there is no need for you to understand, agree or believe, but as you ask "Hey guys, what are you doing there?",...>>

But I wasn't asking you what you and your friends were doing; I was questioning that validity of your claims since you believe they correct or invalidate others'.

<<I gave you the alternate explanation which doesn't involve any terms you don't like: "We are working on getting rid our selfishness".>>

But then you also claim that this is what religion is and that certain other understandings are wrong, which is why a burden of proof still exists.

<<Now if you are open enough to put aside what religious people say or the symbolism they use and instead look at what they actually practice, you will find that it all comes to that - trying to get rid of selfishness...>>

But sometimes the ridding of selfishness is done for selfish reasons, like the promise of eternal bliss in return. The Islamic suicide bomber has very unselfish reasons for their actions: they sacrifice their earthly life for the greater "good" of their religion, and they assure their family members a place in heaven. The reasons for suicide bombing are actually quite altruistic.

Continued…

...Continued

<<You would be right to claim that we are not being rational ... but as I explained earlier, neither are you, nor anyone else: we all make axiomatic assumptions which can never be proved.>>

A position that is, ultimately, one of scepticism and makes fewer assumptions (if any at all), is still more rational.

<<My starting point was, that using the word 'religion' which is dear to us because we used it for 1000's of years to describe what we strive to achieve in life, to describe the vices of dysfunctional organisations (albeit ones that were initially created for the furtherance of our goal to rid ourselves of our selfishness), is disrespectful.>>

It's not disrespectful if others are sticking to a common and dictionary definition. Seemingly understanding this, you attempt to show others that the such a definition is invalid (with accusations of theft). Which (fast-forward a bit) is why you are now saddled with a burden of proof that you are so desperately trying to wriggle out of.

Dear AJ Philips,

A Soviet joke goes:

Igor: "Vladimir, hey stop, why are you running like crazy?"
Vladimir: "Hurry, Igor, run away with me - the ministry of interior castrates all the camels"
Igor: "But Vlad, you are not a camel!"
Vladimir: "First they castrate you, then go prove to them that you are not a camel..."

Let alone proving anything about God or beating selfishness - if you decided to be obstructive, then I couldn't even prove to you that I'm not a camel.

* But I have no hump!
- How wonderful and rare, I like camels with no humps.
* But I am not hairy!
- So much the better, camels without hairs are unique.
* But I can talk and play chess!
- Indeed, you are the most intelligent camel I ever met.
* And I can walk on two legs, see... Ouch, if only you untie me!
- Why waste your energy struggling? We only castrate camels and you know that no matter what you say, we will castrate you anyway, which will then constitute the ultimate proof that you are a camel.

<<If you are making a positive claim, then you bear a burden of proof>>

Perhaps I was a fool, for not consulting with my lawyer at the beginning of this interrogation. He would have probably reminded me that "anything you say can be used against you in court". Perhaps naively I believed that if people ask me questions then it's because they want to learn, rather than to interrogate me. Yes, I might have been a fool for even mentioning God - I should have only said: "Look man, this word, 'religion', is already in use, we've been using it for 1000's of years, none of your business why and for what, just find yourself and your dictionary other word(s), but don't steal ours, especially if you intend to use them derogatorily."

Pistorius wasn't asked to prove that he didn't murder Steenkamp: producing a consistent alibi was sufficient for his acquittal of murder, but for Soviets and yourself, that's not enough.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I’m not asking you to prove that you are not something, so you're Soviet and camel analogies are invalid.

If your way of proving that your religiosity is not in any way related to the religiosity of those with whom you find distasteful, then find a way to explain that without invoking the Etymological fallacy and making statements-of-fact about a god and reality that you cannot support (I’ve already suggested one). Until you do, you bear the burden of proof.

<<Perhaps I was a fool, for not consulting with my lawyer at the beginning of this interrogation. He would have probably reminded me that "anything you say can be used against you in court".>>

Your foolishness was in your asserting as fact that which you could not demonstrate, and your utter refusal to express your opinions as such with qualifiers such as, “In my opinion...”. Consequently, you have backed yourself into a corner and are now lashing out at me as a result.

Nothing has been held against you. You can’t turn this back on me. I am simply following a basic debating process conducive to productive discussion. This is how rationally-minded people weed out nonsense claims to improve their chances of arriving as close to the truth as possible.

<<Perhaps naively I believed that if people ask me questions then it's because they want to learn, rather than to interrogate me.>>

Your inability to answer my questions does not render them an interrogation. I love learning, but I’m not going to foolishly accept a way of thinking as valid until the reasoning behind it has been shown to be sound. Perhaps if you had done the same, you would not find yourself in the predicament you’re in now. One thing I quickly learned, after doing away with my religious belief, is how much easier life becomes when you start striving to have as many true beliefs as possible, and as fewer false ones. Doing otherwise can complicate your life in the same way that lying does.

Continued…

...Continued

<<Yes, I might have been a fool for even mentioning God - I should have only said: "Look man, this word, 'religion', is already in use, we've been using it for 1000's of years, none of your business why and for what, just find yourself and your dictionary other word(s), but don't steal ours, especially if you intend to use them derogatorily.">>

But then you would be invoking the Etymological fallacy. That would be even more foolish.

<<Pistorius wasn't asked to prove that he didn't murder Steenkamp: producing a consistent alibi was sufficient for his acquittal of murder, but for Soviets and yourself, that's not enough.>>

I knew you’d go there. I picked out the philosophic burden of proof (rather than the legal burden of proof) partly for this reason. Not that I needed to, mind you; courts deal with ‘guilty’ and ‘not guilty’, not ‘guilty’ and ‘innocent’.

With the philosophic purden of proof, we could take all possible nouns and all possible adjectives, apply them to the statement "A is B", and most of the statements we could construct at random would be false (e.g. The sky is red); whereas most of the statements in the form of "A is not B" are true. Therefore the burden of proof lies with the positive assertion, "A is B".

Just to clarify something that wasn't entirely clear there, Yuyutsu...

In the context of the burden of proof, your Pistorius analogy would be more accurate if you were the prosecution saying "guilty", and I were the defence saying "not guilty" (which is entirely different to asserting innocence). You are trying side-step your obligation of proof by painting yourself as the defence and then pointing out that the defence doesn't have to prove their innocence. What you fail to realise, however, is that if (in response to damning evidence put forth by the prosection) the defence makes a claim in support of their being 'not guilty', then they are saddled with a burden of proof regarding that claim.

So whether you're the defence or the prosecution in your analogy, your burden of proof remains.

Dear AJ Philips,

I do not need to prove what the religious process is because it's irrelevant: all I need to show is that religious people for 1000's of years referred to religion as a process rather than as organisation(s).

If you or someone else genuinely wanted to learn about this process, then I could indeed go into its details privately, but in the context of this discussion all that matters is that billions of people over several millennia have used the term 'religion' to describe a process that is sacred to them and its derivative 'religious' to describe those who try to base their life on that process. Whether or not you respect that process and whether or not you believe that it leads anywhere, is irrelevant.

Yes, I made a mistake by describing that process to you here instead of concentrating on the essence of this discussion.

As per your claim that I would commit the Etymological fallacy, all I can and need say is that we, religious people, have been wronged by dictionaries. Perhaps you were not aware of it, but if you continue using the dictionary's definition even after I alert you to it, then you become an accomplice to this identity-theft. Note also that the claim "I just used the dictionary" is dishonourable similar to the infamous claim "I just followed orders".

To make it easier for you, you don't even need to invent a new word for the way you use 'religion': I think the word you are after is 'Creed', along with its derivative 'Creedal'.

I claim that some creeds are typically more religious than others, but I'm well aware that without first reaching an understanding as to the nature of the religious process, there is no way I could prove it to you. Yet, this claim is meaningful and well understood among those who do understand the religious process, be they of different creeds or of no creed at all, including possibly some of the readers of this thread.

Dear Yuyutsu,

<<I do not need to prove what the religious process is because it's irrelevant…>>

You do need to prove what your idea of the religious process is if you are stating it as fact and suggesting that it corrects or invalidates what others say about religion.

Had you taken my advice and presented your claims as opinion instead of fact, then you would still bear a burden of proof, but it would be well within your rights to say, “That’s just what I believe, so bugger off”, if I harassed you for evidence of your claims.

<<If you or someone else genuinely wanted to learn about this process...>>

Oh, I’d be fascinated to learn more about this process you speak of. Understand, however, that if you claim it to be the one true process, then you will bear a burden of proof regarding that claim.

<<... in the context of this discussion all that matters is that billions of people over several millennia have used the term 'religion' to describe a process that is sacred to them and its derivative 'religious' to describe those who try to base their life on that process.>>

Are you now going to invoke the argumentum ad populum fallacy to support the Etymological fallacy? If the above is all that matters to this discussion, then that’s precisely what you would be doing, because the context of this discussion is that your understanding of religion is the right one and that those who criticise religion are, therefore, attacking something that is not actually religion.

Once again, if you are going to suggest that what you say corrects or invalidates what others say, then you bear a burden of proof. You need to demonstrate why you are right and others are wrong. The best you’ve done to achieve this, so far, is to label the (arguably) altruistic suicide-bomber as selfish when it could easily be said that your desire to rid yourself of your ego and selfishness is also selfish, since it would (presumably) benefit you.

Continued…

...Continued

<<Whether or not you respect that process and whether or not you believe that it leads anywhere, is irrelevant.>>

Indeed it is.

<<Yes, I made a mistake by describing that process to you here instead of concentrating on the essence of this discussion.>>

That essence being, of course, that your understanding of religion is the correct understanding, and that the critics are attacking a kind of strawman.

Once again, your only mistake was to assert as fact that which you could not demonstrate.

<<Perhaps you were not aware of it, but if you continue using the dictionary's definition even after I alert you to it, then you become an accomplice to this identity-theft.>>

The whole idea of me pointing out your committing of the Etymological fallacy was to demonstrate that this isn't the case at all. Do you not appreciate the significance of committing such a fallacy?

<<Note also that the claim "I just used the dictionary" is dishonourable similar to the infamous claim "I just followed orders".>>

So you’re now accusing me of the Nuremberg defence? You think that adhering to a dictionary definition of a word, and its common usage, is similarly dishonorable to killing Jews simply because one is ordered to? I can at least demonstrate that killing Jews is wrong; you haven’t yet demonstrated that your understanding of what constitutes religion is the true one.

You are becoming hysterical.

<<To make it easier for you, you don't even need to invent a new word for the way you use 'religion': I think the word you are after is 'Creed', along with its derivative 'Creedal'.>>

But “creed” doesn’t embody the institutional nature that seems to inevitably result over time from what you believe religion to be.

By insisting that everyone else come up with a new word for what we refer to as "religion", you’re engaging in Etymological-fallacy-esque thinking. It should probably be you, and the relatively few who agree with you, who need to come up with a new term.

You can have “schmeligion”, if you like. I don’t think I’ll be needing it anymore.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<Oh, I’d be fascinated to learn more about this process you speak of. Understand, however, that if you claim it to be the one true process, then you will bear a burden of proof regarding that claim.>>

So you expect me to provide an objective proof for a subjective process? You must be kidding!

The only proof for a subjective process is to undergo this process yourself (something which I never asked or expected you to do).

But you knew it all along...

<<Are you now going to invoke the argumentum ad populum fallacy to support the Etymological fallacy?>>

No, I am only invoking our intellectual-property rights. The use of 'religion' to describe dysfunctional organisations (to which most of us do not even belong), is akin to someone else using our TradeMark which we attach to our products after investing in them for generations with diligence love and care, to sell their own inferior and faulty products. This becomes even more serious if we are then being sued or stoned for the faults of those products which aren't ours.

<<Once again, if you are going to suggest that what you say corrects or invalidates what others say, then you bear a burden of proof.>>

Yes, I can prove that this intellectual-property is ours: vast amounts of scripture show that we've been using the term 'religion' for thousands of years and that by this we referred to the process we undergo, rather than to any organisation(s), let alone dysfunctional ones. There is nothing that I need to prove beyond that, including the details or results of the process itself.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<But “creed” doesn’t embody the institutional nature that seems to inevitably result over time from what you believe religion to be.>>

Religion (which you claim is only what I believe it to be), does not necessary result in institutions. Occasionally it does, which the world then sees, but most of the time it doesn't, which then nobody takes notice. Also, there are organisations (Scientology is probably the most known of these) which claim to be religious, but never were. More common are organisations which claim to be religious and indeed have been advancing religion in the past, at least to some extent, but decayed over the centuries and are now in poor shape.

Creed, on the other hand, often denotes institutions. As well as the belief-system or doctrine itself, the word 'Creed' also denotes the body of people (church, denomination or sect) which uphold that doctrine.

I therefore suggested you the word 'creed', but of course, if you are not happy with it, then you are free to choose another word, so long as it is not 'religion' or 'faith'.

Dear Yuyutsu,

All these posts and still no headway. Your confidence is tipping over into insanity.

<<So you expect me to provide an objective proof for a subjective process?>>

Of course not, and I never asked for that. If you claim, however, that there is a right way and a wrong way to go about this process, then that is an objective claim, and the onus will be on you to prove that before we can proceed from there. Similarly, I can’t objectively prove how you should taste your food, but I can objectively prove how you should eat it.

<<No, I am only invoking our intellectual-property rights.>>

So, to avoid committing the etymological fallacy, you're claiming intellectual property rights? I'm sorry, but the common, and dictionary, definition of 'religion' has been in use for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. For you to come into this world now and suddenly tell us all that we can't use the word the way we have been, and that all those people throughout history were wrong to use it in the way that they were, is the height of arrogance. You are not an authority, so your argument and your ‘TradeMark’ comparison are invalid.

<<The use of 'religion' to describe dysfunctional organisations (to which most of us do not even belong)...>>

Most of you? So most people who are (actually) religious don't belong to the major religions? I'm sorry, but you have not demonstrated this yet, and are taking great pains to avoid doing so.

<<...akin to someone else using our TradeMark which we attach to our products after investing in them for generations...>>

This is not a recent change in definition, and the change evolved naturally with no sinister intent anyway. No-one has suddenly come in and deliberately wrecked everything you've been working on. You began your journey in the knowledge that the definition had already evolved from its etymology eons ago, so don't play the victim.

That being said, actually, it is in fact you who is attempting to steal the word.

Continued…

...Continued

<<I can prove that this intellectual-property is ours: vast amounts of scripture show that we've been using the term 'religion' for thousands of years and that by this we referred to the process we undergo, rather than to any organisation(s), let alone dysfunctional ones.>>

Those vast amounts of scripture also support and guide the actions of the majority, whom (by your admission above) you don’t consider to be truly religious. So you're back to square one in that you need to demonstrate that your understanding of what constitutes religion (and cherry-picking of scripture) is the valid one.

<<Religion (which you claim is only what I believe it to be), does not necessary result in institutions.>>

Firstly, I have not claimed that religion is only what you believe to be. What a bizarre thing to say. Secondly, history and social patterns suggest that you’re wrong.

<<Occasionally [religion] does [result in institutions], which the world then sees, but most of the time it doesn't, which then nobody takes notice.>>

You still have your true-religion/false-religion premise to prove and have not yet successfully absolved yourself of your obligation to do so.

<<More common are organisations which claim to be religious and indeed have been advancing religion in the past, at least to some extent, but decayed over the centuries and are now in poor shape.>>

So, despite the fact that Judaism, Christianity and (to a much lesser extent) Islam have become eminently more civil and tolerant than their barbaric past, you think they’ve decayed? You should be congratulating these institutions for aligning themselves closer to what you believe to be true religion, and thanking secularism for getting them there.

<<I therefore suggested you the word 'creed', but of course, if you are not happy with it, then you are free to choose another word, so long as it is not 'religion' or 'faith'.>>

I will continue to use the words ‘religion’ and ‘faith’ the way they've been used for centuries, until you can demonstrate why I should not. All these posts and you have still not done this.

Another afterthought, Yuyutsu (sorry, I'm making a habit of these)...

If the process of coming closer to God is so subjective that you cannot objectively prove a right way and a wrong way to go about it, then anything goes and you have no right to claim that there is a right way and a wrong way; just as I wouldn't be able to tell you that there is a right way and a wrong way to perceive the taste of your food.

This is why the proverbial flipping-of-the-bird that you give to others, in dodging their requests for evidence with appeals to the subjective, doesn't work.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<If you claim, however, that there is a right way and a wrong way to go about this process, then that is an objective claim>>

I make true claims, not objective claims: objectivity is your baby, not mine. You keep insisting that I follow your protocols, even though I don't insist that you follow mine.

Anyway, I am no longer discussing the details of the process itself, but only its existence and the intellectual-property rights that come with it.

<<Those vast amounts of scripture also support and guide the actions of the majority, whom (by your admission above) you don’t consider to be truly religious.>>

Even while some scriptures are in error, promoting behaviours that are not truly religious, and despite all quarrels in the family, scriptures prove by their language that 'religion' has been used for millennia to describe a process rather than organisations, moreover, a process which is SUPPOSED to bring one closer to God (notwithstanding the occasional differences in the understanding of 'God').

<<I'm sorry, but the common, and dictionary, definition of 'religion' has been in use for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.>>

only 3-4 centuries, since your so-called "enlightenment" (itself a term stolen from Buddhism to mean something completely different), which was seeking to undermine the political power and superstitions of those corrupt organisations that it considered 'religious'.

<<and the change evolved naturally with no sinister intent anyway.>>

Are you claiming that the "enlightenment" movement had no intention to destroy the churches? Emptying the churches of all spiritual contents, using language/dictionaries to deny the processes that the churches were supposed to facilitate (even if they didn't by then, or not much) as if they never existed, thus telling a story that all that ever was there are corrupt organisations seeking money, sex and power - was a clear and sinister strategy.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<You still have your true-religion/false-religion premise to prove and have not yet successfully absolved yourself of your obligation to do so.>>

Simply, there's religion along with other processes that are not religion, but I have no such obligations to prove it. Anyway, do you really need me to prove to you that it's not a good idea to blindly follow the teachings of established churches or Islam? You are old enough to choose for yourself what methods (if any) you want to follow.

<<So, despite the fact that Judaism, Christianity and (to a much lesser extent) Islam have become eminently more civil and tolerant than their barbaric past, you think they’ve decayed?>>

Judaism, sigh, is a special case: it wasn't promoting religion in the first place, it always was nationalism-under-the-guise-of-religion.

I am glad that Christianity (and to a lesser extent Islam) recently became more tolerant, but most of the decay already occurred much earlier and the "enlightenment" was correct to criticise it. However, by using the term 'religion' as a pejorative for Christianity, it threw the baby with the bath-water.

<<You should be congratulating these institutions for aligning themselves closer to what you believe to be true religion, and thanking secularism for getting them there.>>

Indeed I do.

<<I will continue to use the words ‘religion’ and ‘faith’ the way they've been used for centuries>>

More or less the last three.

<<If the process of coming closer to God is so subjective that you cannot objectively prove a right way and a wrong way to go about it, then anything goes and you have no right to claim that there is a right way and a wrong way>>

No right?? What a Chutzpah!

You believe in objectivity, OK, but now you expect everyone else to follow your own protocols - or else what? Are you going to throw me in jail and use water-boarding until I either prove what I say objectively or stop claiming?

- believe what I claim if you like, don't believe it if you don't, but telling me that I have no right to claim?

Dear Yuyutsu,

<<I make true claims, not objective claims…>>

Let’s see what the Oxford dictionary has to say about ‘true’ and ‘objective’ then, shall we?

True: In accordance with fact or reality. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/true)
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing fact. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/objective)

So are you saying that your “facts” are influenced by personal feeling and/or opinions? That’s not a very reliable method of determining fact. Our personal feelings continuously prove themselves to be unreliable.

I could toss a coin to determine facts and I’d be right roughly 50% of the time. But that’s not a reliable method of arriving at the truth. So please tell me how your subjective method of arriving at the truth is any better than a coin toss.

<<...objectivity is your baby, not mine. You keep insisting that I follow your protocols…>>

These are not my protocols, but the protocols of rational discourse and critical thinking. There is a world of science out there to demonstrate this. Anyone with a modicum of critical thinking skills would question the assumptions of the claims they are presented with. For some reason, though, you seem to have a problem with this. Why is that?

<<...even though I don't insist that you follow mine.>>

Okay then, what are your protocols other than just that I sit back and mindlessly accept your claims? Because that’s what your protestations suggest that you insist I do.

<<Even while some scriptures are in error, promoting behaviours that are not truly religious…>>

Another objective claim… sorry… TRUTH-claim-with-no-reliable-method-by-which-to-determine-the-truth-value-of. So, yet again, you’re back to square one: you need to demonstrate this before we can proceed from here. We’ll get to your red herring (another fallacy, by the way) of the enlightenment (that nasty thing that did away with the assumption that disease was the result of sin and that criminality was the result of demon possession) in due course.

Continued…

...Continued

It’s ironic, isn’t it, that you can claim that an evil act such suicide bombing is not coming closer to God, and yet, when humanity was torturing the demons out of “criminals”, we were somehow closer to being on the right track when it comes to religion. Your appeal to history, in order to claim ownership over a word, has led you to the most absurd and contradictory claims.

I can’t resist this next bit, however. It’s too scrumptiously filled with hyperbole for me to ignore it:

<<No right [to claim that there is a right way and a wrong way to be religious]?? What a Chutzpah! … You believe in objectivity, OK, but now you expect everyone else to follow your own protocols - or else what? Are you going to throw me in jail and use water-boarding until I either prove what I say objectively or stop claiming?>>

I liked how you added the little “or else” bit for dramatic effect - as if my tone was threatening. You’re so dishonest in your hysteria.

You can claim whatever you like, but as soon as you claim that what you say is fact, the onus is on you to prove that before we can move on. This is critical thinking 101. I’m sorry you don’t understand that. It’s no wonder you’re in the desperate position that you’re currently in. The fact that you can communicate with me through a device that’s development was reliant on the reliability of such principles demonstrates that you have completely lost touch with reality.

I’ll tell you what, you demonstrate a method of reliably arriving at the truth without evidence and reason, and I’ll walk away now and never come back to OLO again. You can make all the unfounded claims you like then, and not feel the slightest obligation to prove any of them.

How you do that without evidence and reason, too, I’ll be curious to see.

Sorry, Yuyutsu. We should probably just accept that these afterthoughts are gonna keep happening.

I was just thinking, though, that you describe religion as being a strive to eliminate the ego and selfishness. Yet here you are, making the most offensive and unjustified claims about what I'm saying and why. You're attempting to trash someone else's reputation in order to save your own pride. How is that anything other than a grandiose display of immense ego and selfishness?

First you compare something I've said to insulting negros, then you accuse me of the Nuremberg defence, now I'm apparently forcing you, in a threatening manner, to adhere to a demonstrably reliable protocol that you try to paint as being arbitrary and uniquely mine.

Ever heard of the strawman fallacy? That's another one you can add to the list.

Yuyutsu/A.J.Phillips,

" ..... religion as being a striving to eliminate the ego and selfishness."

If one of the main reasons for being religious is a belief in an afterlife, not necessarily accompanied by good works, but a lot of praying, then isn't that about as selfish as it gets ?

Of course, not all religions promise an afterlife, or at least not until Armageddon. But one wonders if, if believers in such a myth could be persuaded that there wasn't one, how quickly might they become unbelievers ? Schopenhauer says twenty minutes.

And what then ? Would these new unbelievers adopt the notion that everything is permissible, there are no restraints on doing whatever you like ? Or are people better than that ?

Joe

Both good points, Joe. However, Yuyutsu doesn't believe in an afterlife, and believes that most of those who do aren't even religious, so I haven't bothered going there.

Just a clarification, Yuyutsu.

Regarding the coin tosses; of course, I'd only be right about the result of the coin toss 50% of the time. If I were to use it for determining other facts, I'd be wrong the vast majority of the time.

Hence the philosophic burden of proof.

Dear Joe,

<<If one of the main reasons for being religious is a belief in an afterlife, not necessarily accompanied by good works, but a lot of praying, then isn't that about as selfish as it gets?>>

Great question!

Where we start the journey is one thing and where we end is another.
We ARE selfish to begin with, it wouldn't help to deny and pretend otherwise - If we had no selfishness to begin with, then we would almost be there anyway, then there would be no reason for the world to exist, yet it does.

While the journey back to God is universal and ageless, the conscious endeavour to reach God is unique to humans (or whatever other species may exist with a similar capability of abstract thinking). The Bhagavad-Gita mentions four different types of people who seek God consciously:

"Four types of people seek Me – the distressed, the seekers of Knowledge, those desirous of good and the men of wisdom."
- http://auromere.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/gita-chapter-7-vers-16/

P.S., if what you are after is an afterlife (a good one, that is), rather than God, then the scriptures prescribe good works, not prayer.

<<Of course, not all religions promise an afterlife, or at least not until Armageddon.>>

Most creeds believe (and I think they are correct on this point) that more often than not, the afterlife is a painful experience that is better avoided.

<<But one wonders if, if believers in such a myth could be persuaded that there wasn't one, how quickly might they become unbelievers ? Schopenhauer says twenty minutes.>>

Belief in God is only one religious technique. There are religious people who do not believe in God and non-religious people who do.

Belief could perhaps change in 20 minutes, but not one's basic character.

<<And what then? Would these new unbelievers adopt the notion that everything is permissible, there are no restraints on doing whatever you like?>>

A minority would, but they probably weren't religious to begin with.

Speaking for myself, had AJ Philips convinced me that there is no afterlife, it wouldn't make a difference at all.

Okay, so Yuyutsu DOES believe in an afterlife, he/she just thinks that it should be avoided. Got it.

This is one of the problems with refusing to provide a rational justification for one’s claims: they can start to appear to others as a random assortment of disjointed thoughts cobbled together with no logical thought patterns or reasoning with which to connect them or make sense of them; and usually that's what they are, hence the refusal.

We all implicitly have a burden of proof when we make a positive claim. This is true whether or not the other person expects us to provide it; and it’s true whether or not we expect others to believe what we say. Our burden of proof remains even if we don’t have any intention of convincing others of the truth of our claims.

In fact, this, in itself, is a positive claim in which I have fulfilled my burden of proof. To then portray what is an almost universally accepted and demonstrably reliable technique of rational discourse and critical thinking as just someone’s arbitrary standard (almost pretending not to have heard of it before), is both unfair and dishonest. It’s the ad hominem fallacy.

There’s another one to add to the list.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<Okay, so Yuyutsu DOES believe in an afterlife, he/she just thinks that it should be avoided. Got it.>>

Surprise, Surprise: you never asked me about it before.

But you did ask me lots of other questions and I patiently answer them one by one as best I can, but then you also ask me to prove my answers, to which I responded "forget it - I can't". Even so, you continue to claim that I have a burden of proof, a burden which I already told you I cannot carry - so what could one deduce from that, other than you are trying to break my back?

You keep telling me that I owe you a proof, but I do not owe you anything: not only am I not being paid for this, but I even lose thousands of dollars for not doing my paid job instead.

<<To then portray what is an almost universally accepted and demonstrably reliable technique of rational discourse and critical thinking as just someone’s arbitrary standard... It’s the ad hominem fallacy>>

This is an argumentum ad populum, as well as a strawman: even if this was a reliable technique of rational discourse, who ever decided that I was interested in carrying such a discourse with you about whatever issue you happen to ask me about?

<<So please tell me how your subjective method of arriving at the truth is any better than a coin toss.>>

I could certainly do that, but I won't. This is because I already made this mistake too many times, of answering your unrelated questions and all I got in return was a rain of more unrelated questions that cause the original topic to be forgotten.

<<There is a world of science out there...For some reason, though, you seem to have a problem with this. Why is that?>>

Yes, and science is meant for studying the material/objective world: we are not discussing chemistry or astronomy at the moment.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<Okay then, what are your protocols other than just that I sit back and mindlessly accept your claims?>>

I have not asked you accept my subsidiary and unproven claims, which were only a result of answering your questions. Use my responses if you like, or ignore them, it's up to you.

<<How is that anything other than a grandiose display of immense ego and selfishness?>>

My personal reputation is unimportant. I am here to defend religion and from now on I will stay on that subject. Once complete, then you may ask me again about the internals of the process of religion, if you still want.

The topic at hand is that those Western-"enlightenment" people and their dictionaries, have taken a term, R, that was commonly used for 1000's of years to denote a personal/subjective process, and used it instead to denote S = certain belief-systems in the supernatural and the [mostly-corrupt] institutions which were promoting those belief-systems.

As a result, all people who undergo and cherish R, are being accused of the crimes of S (including child-molestation, power-grabbing, tax-evasion, beheadings and rape), to the extent that certain OLO members (who represent the general Australian society) propose making R illegal, punishing those who practice it, expelling them from Australia, sending them to re-education camps, taking away their children and all kinds of other hateful suggestions.

For now, that's what it's all about!

Dear Yuyutsu,

This is not an honest representation of the events...

<<...you did ask me lots of other questions and I patiently answer them one by one as best I can, but then you also ask me to prove my answers, to which I responded "forget it - I can't".>>

Not quite.

What started this is that you claimed that those whom you found distasteful were not truly religious (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#197635), thus implying that there was a right and wrong way to be religious. Granted you gave a lot of explanations for this claim, but each one contained assumptions that the truth value of your claims hinged upon. Claiming that what you were saying was fact, I then asked you to demonstrate these assumptions, and you’ve been evasive ever since with fallacies, hyperbole and sidestepping.

<<Even so, you continue to claim that I have a burden of proof…>>

No, no. I have demonstrated that you have a burden of proof. You have offered nothing to counter this.

<<...a burden which I already told you I cannot carry - so what could one deduce from that, other than you are trying to break my back?>>

If you can’t carry the burden, then don’t present your opinions as fact. Once again, you can’t put this back on me. If you claim that your “facts” invalidate what someone else says, then they have the right to defend their ideas by calling on your burden of proof. But no, you want the privilege of attacking others’ ideas without bearing any responsibility for your own claims.

<<You keep telling me that I owe you a proof, but I do not owe you anything: not only am I not being paid for this...>>

I have not claimed that you owe me anything. I have simply pointed out your burden of proof and requested evidence thusly.

Oh, the power of emotive language.

<<This is an argumentum ad populum…>>

No, it’s not, because rational discourse relies upon convention and I also offered it’s track record as evidence.

I suggest you look-up what the argumentum as populum is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Continued…

…Continued

<<...as well as a strawman: even if this was a reliable technique of rational discourse, who ever decided that I was interested in carrying such a discourse with you about whatever issue you happen to ask me about?>>

Whether or not you are interested in rational discourse or critical thought has nothing to do with the reliability of them.

I suggest you look-up what a strawman argument is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

<<I could certainly [tell you how my subjective method of arriving at the truth is any better than a coin toss], but I won't.>>

Yeah, I don’t think anyone’s buying that, because reasoning is utter tosh...

<<This is because I already made this mistake too many times, of answering your unrelated questions…>>

How are the assumptions of your claims unrelated to your claims?

<<Yes, and science is meant for studying the material/objective world: we are not discussing chemistry or astronomy at the moment.>>

So suddenly the protocols of rational discourse and critical thinking change when talking about the supernatural? That’s a little convenient, isn’t it? How did you reliably determine this?

<<I have not asked you accept my subsidiary and unproven claims…>>

No, but the one’s that you have asked me to accept (else why would you absolutely refuse to present them as opinion?) hinge upon these.

<<My personal reputation is unimportant.>>

Then why try to trash someone else’s with lies and distortion?

As for your claims regarding “R” and the Enlightenment, please link me to some evidence and then we can proceed from there. I’ve had a look and can’t find anything.

Not that it would really matter, come to think of it, because language relies purely upon convention and usage. No-one owns words. So it could have only been years since the change in definition, and your claim to it would still be invalid.

So on second thoughts, don’t bother.

Time for my daily clarification and afterthought again, sorry, Yuyutsu.

The point I was, cumulatively, making in that first post (that gets somewhat lost in the chopping up with quotes), is that you are painting a distorted picture of the series of events by depicting yourself as someone who innocently, and through the kindness of their heart, took what precious little time they had, to - with the sincerest of intentions - answer some questions that sounded innocent enough at first. Little did you know, however, that the person asking you the questions had other plans! Yes, he was sitting back, watching… waiting for the moment to strike. When the moment was right, he pounced; pinning you down and mercilessly hounding you for evidence of claims that you had already explained could not, and did not need to be, provided. Despite your cries, he kept at it: viciously attacking you in what could only be described as a shameful abuse of the sincerity and good will displayed by another (somehow leaving the discussion wasn’t an option).

“To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

In reality, however, you had made a claim (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#197635); a claim that - had it been true - would have invalidated the criticisms of others and myself, and any future claims that I may make. Invoking my right to defend my claims, I then asked you to justify yours, and for a while there, you did. But when we got to the foundational assumptions of your claims, you then hid behind their subjectiveness as a way of dodging any further questions. I then pointed out that you have a burden of proof when you make positive claims (explaining why, from multiple different angles) and ever since then, you have tried every trick in the book to wriggle out of it. Every trick, that is, other than to take my advice and not present what are mere opinions as fact.

You want to have it both ways and it just doesn’t work like that.

Dear AJ Philips,

Indeed I lost track long ago of why this discussion is going and all along couldn't understand why you ask me all those questions, yet I did answer them as I answer anyone else's.

You refer to my month-old post to May and Constance regarding Islam.

First it means that whatever claims I made at the time, were not intended for you, which in itself makes ridiculous your claims that I owe you any proofs.

It has never crossed my mind that by communicating with those two ladies I would invalidate your criticisms and claims... including ones you were intending to make in the future (which I was supposed to be aware of...). Anyway, how could my unproven claims possibly invalidate yours, I truly wonder!

Then you claimed that: "Once again, you are committing the No True Scotsman fallacy with your claim that people who commit evil deeds in the name of religion aren’t truly religious."

Once again? this means that the discussion did not start there!

Are you actually trying to say that a priest who sexually-fondles choir-boys in the name of religion is truly religious? Let alone my unproven claims: even if you (wrongly) think of religion as belief in a supernatural deity, would you believe that such a priest actually believes in his church's deity? No, he is a liar and an atheist!

The motive to claim otherwise must be that the "enlightenment" cult seeks to portray religion as an empty shell, devoid of any spiritual process, so it can be destroyed (in order to appease the idol of humanism). This is akin to portraying the long-nosed Jew counting gold-coins under his mattress, then claiming "thus are the Jews", likewise "thus are all religious people, child-molesters and terrorists, etc.".

<<So suddenly the protocols of rational discourse and critical thinking change when talking about the supernatural?>>

Isn't science by definition about the natural and the objective? You are attempting to extend it to where it doesn't belong.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<No, it’s not, because rational discourse relies upon convention>>

So if the majority of people make a convention, then claiming that something is so because they all say it stops being argumentum ad populum? Should it instead be called "argumentum ad placitum"?

<<No, but the one’s that you have asked me to accept (...) hinge upon these.>>

I already acknowledged that all my subsidiary claims (to do with God and how to come closer to Him), were an unnecessary diversion.

All I ask you to accept now is our intellectual-property rights and that it is wrong to treat religious people like scum due to the crimes of others. Do these hinge upon any metaphysical claims?

<<You want to have it both ways and it just doesn’t work like that.>>

Again, you assume that I desire to convince you of anything (other than regarding our intellectual-property rights and that you and your friends should stop accusing innocent people for the crimes of others), which is simply not so. I was answering your questions, and those of others, by telling how things are. If for whatever reason(s) you don't find them credible, then you are free to ignore my answers - I wouldn't be offended.

Dear Yuyutsu,

<<First it means that whatever claims I made at the time, were not intended for you...>>

Who they were intended for is irrelevant. It’s still a claim.

<<...which in itself makes ridiculous your claims that I owe you any proofs.>>

You have made many claims to me since then. Nice try, though.

<<It has never crossed my mind that by communicating with those two ladies I would invalidate your criticisms and claims…>>

You didn’t. That’s my whole point here. You WERE attempting to invalidate May May’s claim, however, and there is no rule stating that something must be directed towards an individual before they can question it.

<<Once again? this means that the discussion did not start there!>>

Not necessarily. It just means that you’ve made the same claims in other threads.

<<Are you actually trying to say that a priest who sexually-fondles choir-boys in the name of religion is truly religious?>>

I don’t know of any having done it “in the name of religion”, but if he sees himself as a member of a religion, then yes. The molestation is irrelevant to the question.

<<...would you believe that such a priest actually believes in his church's deity?>>

Yes, the Christian God is contradictory enough in his scripture to endorse all sorts of acts, and even condoned rape (e.g. Lot). You’re also forgetting about the moral neutralisation that priests employ: “The devil made me do it”, “I was exorcising my demons.” This is how they manage to simultaneously condemn the behaviour and commit it. It’s not all black and white (e.g. either they believe or they don’t).

<<No, he is a liar and an atheist!>>

Theism and atheism address belief in a gods. Nothing else.

I have no idea what the relevance of your rant on the Enlightenment was, but I see that you inserted another Nazi/racism/antisemitic analogy. Your analogies would be offensive to Jews and victims of racism.

<<Isn't science by definition about the natural and the objective? You are attempting to extend it to where it doesn't belong.>>

You’re right, it is, and it doesn’t.

Continued…

...Continued

But that doesn’t mean we get to make stuff up. And it certainly doesn’t mean we then get to state as fact that which we have made-up ourselves regarding the supernatural. It doesn’t then become reasonable to believe whatever we want when it comes to the supernatural. It just means that the only reasonable position for us to take is one of scepticism.

<<So if the majority of people make a convention, then claiming that something is so because they all say it stops being argumentum ad populum?>>

If what it is, by its very nature, relies upon wide agreement, then yes. Handshakes are friendly because the majority agree that they are. If they didn't agree, then they'd cease to be friendly.

<<I already acknowledged that all my subsidiary claims (to do with God and how to come closer to Him), were an unnecessary diversion.>>

And I already explained that they weren’t.

You claimed that coming closer to (or binding with) God is what true religion is (and not those other bad things); the assumption here is that God exists (or in your case, “doesn’t exist”), and that it is possible to come closer to this God. These are not subsidiary claims but foundational assumptions that your initial claim hinges upon.

<<All I ask you to accept now is our intellectual-property rights and that it is wrong to treat religious people like scum due to the crimes of others.>>

And I’ve already explained why your claim to intellectual property rights is invalid. No-one owns words and languages evolve naturally.

<<Again, you assume that I desire to convince you of anything ... which is simply not so.>>

And again, you assume that the burden of proof has anything to do with whether or not one party is trying to convince another.

<<I was answering your questions, and those of others, by telling how things are.>>

While refusing to acknowledge that this may just be how you believe them to be, and therein lies your burden of proof.

Oh, I just thought. You might have been referring to the burden of proof (and not rational discourse) when discussing the argumentum ad populum.

If that’s the case, then no, I never claimed that majority rules there. I haven’t needed to. I’ve objectively demonstrated why the burden of proof exists. Rational discourse came into it because you tried to portray my claims, regarding the burden of proof, as arbitrary and unique to me:

“To then portray what is an almost universally accepted and demonstrably reliable technique of rational discourse and critical thinking as just someone’s arbitrary standard…” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#199540)

Did you miss all that stuff about the legal and philosophic burden of proof?

Dear AJ Philips,

<<because you tried to portray my claims, regarding the burden of proof, as arbitrary and unique to me:>>

Arbitrary indeed - you could just as well tell me that I have the burden to brush your shoes.

Seriously, whether I am conversing with other people or answering your questions, this doesn't oblige me to do your bidding.

(plus in this case, to do the impossible...)

<<Did you miss all that stuff about the legal and philosophic burden of proof?>>

No Australian law states that I must prove what I claim. In fact it's not even within the OLO forum-rules and the philosophical burden of proof is confined to philosophical debates, voluntarily entered.

Since I live in Australia and since it was never my intention to enter a philosophical debate (supposedly for the sake of convincing you of anything), nothing obliges me to prove anything of what I say, how less so to provide an objective proof as you demand.

<<Who they were intended for is irrelevant. It’s still a claim.>>

You still haven't explained how possibly can such an unproven claim invalidate yours.

<<I don’t know of any having done it “in the name of religion”>>

After all, it's very effective in obtaining one's perverse desires.

<<Theism and atheism address belief in a gods. Nothing else.>>

Would someone who believes they would be punished eternally by an almighty, all-seeing god, still commit the act? The simplest explanation is that they don't really believe, only say that they are in order to achieve their sinister goals.

<<You claimed that coming closer...>>

I answered your questions, that's all. I thought you would leave it at that (even if you disagree), but you didn't.

When I'm asked about something I know, I answer what I know. When I don't know, I say that I don't and when I'm unsure, I say "I think" or "I believe" (for example about the afterlife).

<<No-one owns words and languages evolve naturally.>>

Were you ever told that all lawyers end up in hell?
Those with a sense of natural justice wouldn't become lawyers!

Dear Yuyutsu,

<<Arbitrary indeed - you could just as well tell me that I have the burden to brush your shoes.>>

Not quite, because that WOULD have been arbitrary, impossible to demonstrate and unrelated to the situation.

<<Seriously, whether I am conversing with other people or answering your questions, this doesn't oblige me to do your bidding.>>

No, it certainly doesn’t. Whether or not you actually have a burden of proof remains separate from whether or not you choose to provide proof. You are well within your rights to not fulfill your obligation. However, you have argued that you don’t even have such an obligation in the first place. That’s rather different.

<<(plus in this case, to do the impossible...)>>

Then you can’t know that what you claim is fact.

<<No Australian law states that I must prove what I claim.>>

I never said that it did. Appeals to the legal burden of proof are often made as a way of getting others to think about the burden of proof in general. It's not necessarily an appeal to the law.

<<... and the philosophical burden of proof is confined to philosophical debates, voluntarily entered.>>

No, it’s not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

You just made that up.

<<You still haven't explained how possibly can such an unproven claim invalidate yours.>>

As I alluded to before: it can’t. The person making the claim can use to in an attempt to do so, though. But if that's not a goal of yours, then why claim to be defending religion?

<<Would someone who believes they would be punished eternally by an almighty, all-seeing god, still commit the act?>>

Yes, the Christian God is very all-forgiving. Theists also have a knack for moral disengagement techniques, as do others.

<<The simplest explanation is that they don't really believe, only say that they are in order to achieve their sinister goals.>>

Yes, I'm sure they'd live such highly irregular lives to touch the occasional kid. Get real.

Continued…

...Continued

<<When I'm asked about something I know, I answer what I know.>>

And when it’s shown that you can’t possibly know, you run around like a headless chook and start contradicting yourself, while trying to distract from that by instituting sinister motives on the behalf of others.

<<When I don't know, I say that I don't and when I'm unsure, I say "I think" or "I believe"...>>

Not always, apparently.

<<Those with a sense of natural justice wouldn't become lawyers!>>

Speaking of this...

I’ve been doing a bit of investigating, and it seems that I’ve been taking your word for it a little too much regarding who’s used the word ”religion” in what way, and for how long. I took your word for it because it didn’t help your argument either way. Anyway...

In English, the word “religion” has been used to describe a “particular system of faith” since fourteenth century - a while before the Enlightenment (so you can drop your red herring now and stop reminiscing about the days of witch burnings and demon possession). At no point does it appear that “religion” ever meant the same as just one of the words that it - out of many possibilities - MIGHT HAVE evolved from (i.e. Religare: "to bind fast", via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods").

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=faith
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Etymology

Again, though, even if you were right, it still wouldn’t matter; because your claim to the word - via intellectual property rights - relies upon your assumption that you, and those who think/believe/worship like you, are actually the intellectual property owners. How do I know it’s not the intellectual property of those of other traditions, that are not so savoury, if you can’t demonstrate that you and your ilk are the ones binding with God?

Wrong link: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=religion

Dear AJ Philips,

<<No, it’s not: {pointing to Wikipedia's "Philosophic_burden_of_proof"}>>

This is the first time I hear about this. I thought we were talking plain English, but apparently I was wrong, apparently you refer to the rules-of-engagement of some intricate sport I've never heard of till today, called "epistemic dispute" ("The philosophical burden of proof or onus (probandi) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.").

So even according to this Wikipedia entry, for having a burden-of-proof I must first at least be a [willing and knowledgeable] participant/party in this sport, otherwise it's as arbitrary as claiming that I have a burden to brush your shoes.

Well, it would take me time to even read the rules and the terminology of the game, such as "knowledge" and "fact", just as "goal" in football/soccer differs from the common-English meaning of the word. At first glance, however, the arena of this sport of epistemology seems to me designed with bias towards arriving at particular conclusions, specifically favouring the objective and similar Western-"enlightened" ideas: I can't see why I should bother with it.

<<Then you can’t know that what you claim is fact.>>

So? Why should I be interested to know this unless I was playing epistemology?

<<As I alluded to before: it can’t>> [explain how possibly can an unproven claim invalidate another's].

But that was the reason you gave for interfering in my conversation with the two ladies and asking me all those questions, I quote: "a claim that - had it been true - would have invalidated the criticisms of others and myself, and any future claims that I may make. Invoking my right to defend my claims, I then asked you to justify yours,".

<<And when it’s shown that you can’t possibly know, you run around like a headless chook>>

If only you explained to me earlier that I couldn't possibly know ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF EPISTEMOLOGY, we could have saved much time: I would have then agreed, but obviously I am not playing that sport.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<But if that's not a goal of yours, then why claim to be defending religion?>>

I defend religion in real life, not in the game of epistemology.

I already pointed out that members of this forum propose to ban religion or otherwise harass and restrict religious people and practices.

While such people are not prone to listen to sophisticated philosophical reasoning, I believe they can understand my extremely simple language:

"Hey people, why are you beating us when it's not us who did it?"

<<In English, the word “religion” has been used to describe a “particular system of faith” since fourteenth century>>

OK, so you found slight misunderstandings of the word that occurred earlier: as faith is indeed a religious practice, some people must have innocently assumed that it is the ONLY practice, but none of it amounts to equating 'religion' with the [possibly corrupt or defunct] institutions which are supposed to teach it.

<<relies upon your assumption that you, and those who think/believe/worship like you, are actually the intellectual property owners.>>

I didn't say that the intellectual property is solely of those who think/believe like me. It is also shared with others who believe in a very generic manner that religion is an actual process which leads closer to God or gods. Among us, we possibly disagree on what 'God' means as well as on the specific method(s) to come closer to Him/them, but not on the fact that religion is a process, directed at coming closer.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<How do I know it’s not the intellectual property of those of other traditions, that are not so savoury, if you can’t demonstrate that you and your ilk are the ones binding with God?>>

The intellectual property is indeed unfortunately common to all those who generically consider 'religion' as a process leading to God. It does exclude however the claim by others who do not even attempt to practice religion, that it could refer to certain creeds/organisations.

Now if you ask how can one separate the sheep from the goats, then this is a different question and the answer is, by any combination of the following:

A. Your own direct experience.
B. Scripture composed by those who experienced God directly.
C. The advice of a living teacher who experienced God directly.

None of those methods, unfortunately for you, is objective or makes any sense within the epistemological game.

Had you been arguing for example that beheading and raping people brings one closer to God, then I could be (similar to Daffy Duck) pathetically trying to drag you, kicking and screaming into one of the above methods, but I don't think you possibly agree with such claims anyway, so what's the problem?

Dear Yuyutsu,

I knew you’d go there...

<<This is the first time I hear about this. I thought we were talking plain English, but apparently I was wrong, apparently you refer to the rules-of-engagement of some intricate sport I've never heard of till today, called "epistemic dispute"("The philosophical burden of proof or onus (probandi) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.").>>

Yes, we’re still speaking plain english:

Epistemic: Relating to knowledge or to the degree of its validation. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/epistemic)

Note the “or” there.

You are making a claim to knowledge, which is why I suggested you state your claims as option to avoid such an obligation. At no point does the article mention anything like this...

<<So even according to this Wikipedia entry, for having a burden-of-proof I must first at least be a [willing and knowledgeable] participant/party in this sport, otherwise it's as arbitrary as claiming that I have a burden to brush your shoes.>>

You’ve just made all that up yourself. My points still stand.

Here’s some more links that describe what I’ve been talking about that don't refer to "epistemic dispute", since the concept seems to confuse you so much:
http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgodexist/a/burdenofproof.htm
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/burden+of+proof

<<So? Why should I be interested to know this unless I was playing epistemology?>>

Wow, you’ve really embraced this new red herring invention of yours. You should be interested because disbelief in what you claim to be fact is justified until you support your claims, thus rendering what you say a waste of breath.

Any further comments based on this non-existent qualifier of yours, regarding “playing epistemology” or "epistemological games", will be ignored due what I pointed out earlier.

<<But that was the reason you gave for interfering in my conversation with the two ladies and asking me all those questions, I quote: "a claim that - had it been true - would have invalidated the criticisms of others and myself…”>>

Yeah, the note the “had it been true” bit.

Continued…

...Continued

[“opinion” above, not “option”]

<<...members of this forum propose to ban religion or otherwise harass and restrict religious people and practices.>>

Then why not present simple logical reasons not to instead? I’ve presented some pretty irrefutable ones in the past. That’s got to be better than making unsupported claims for which the default position of disbelief is justified. You’re not doing your cause any good that way.

<<OK, so you found slight misunderstandings of the word that occurred earlier…>>

Again, you’re assuming there’s actually a ‘right way’ to understand it.

<<... but none of it amounts to equating 'religion' with the [possibly corrupt or defunct] institutions which are supposed to teach it.>>

It doesn’t have to.

<<[The intellectual property] is also shared with others who believe in a very generic manner that religion is an actual process which leads closer to God or gods. Among us, we possibly disagree on what 'God' means as well as on the specific method(s) to come closer to Him/them, but not on the fact that religion is a process, directed at coming closer.>>

So the suicide bomber is entitled to it too, just not those who would speak disparagingly about religion; despite the fact that those who speak disparagingly about religion do so because of what those who have a rightful claim to the word do in its name.

Don’t look down, there’s a big hole in your foot.

<<Had you been arguing for example that beheading and raping people brings one closer to God, then I could be ... pathetically trying to drag you, kicking and screaming into one of the above methods, but I don't think you possibly agree with such claims anyway, so what's the problem?>>

The problem is there is no possible way of *knowing* which way is right, yet you claim to *know* (disrupting nicely-flowing conversations in the process); hence the epistemic dispute.

You claim to “know”, to bolster your claims; but when that saddles you with the burden of proof, you then contradict yourself by claiming to not be trying to convince anyone (when that’s irrelevant anyway).

Dear AJ Philips,

<<Epistemic: Relating to knowledge or to the degree of its validation.>>

And "Football" relates to balls or to the degree of kicking them accurately, yet it has stringent and restrictive rules and hardly covers all that one can do with a ball.

<<You are making a claim to knowledge>>

That's your mistake. You have repeated this several times in your last couple of posts, but I am simply telling others what I know. What could perhaps be of value are the contents of what I say/write, not whether I know it or not and I really don't care in the least whether you believe that I know or not, nor even whether you believe that I made it all up. You see, I am not playing your game of 'knowledge' of which I only heard yesterday.

<<You should be interested because disbelief in what you claim to be fact is justified until you support your claims>>

And did I ask you to believe me? What is it to me whether you believe me or not? If you consider what I say a waste of breath, then I wonder why you keep asking me.

(continued...)

(...continued)
<<Then why not present simple logical reasons not to instead?>>

You could be different, but most people who hate religion and want to persecute the religious, don't do so for logical reasons, hence a logical approach won't do much.

<<I’ve presented some pretty irrefutable ones in the past.>>

I'm sure you heard before about the wolf and the lamb - http://www.taleswithmorals.com/aesop-fable-the-wolf-and-the-lamb.htm
Anything can be refuted if one really wants to refute it. If you really made up your mind, then there is no way I could even prove to you that I'm not a camel! You assume that others play by the rules [of epistemology], but the reality is that very few do (and I for example didn't even hear about those rules till yesterday).

So I appeal not to those who have made up their mind to do harm: I only appeal to those who could be open to some education and seeing some new perspectives which they haven't considered before.

<<The problem is there is no possible way of *knowing* which way is right>>

Indeed, not according the rules of the "epistemic dispute" game and I understand that you perceive this as a problem (while I don't).
But other than a rational mind, would you not agree that you also have for example a conscience? I think that this conscience knows that beheading innocent people and raping their daughters is not right.

<<So the suicide bomber is entitled to it too, just not those who would speak disparagingly about religion; despite the fact that those who speak disparagingly about religion do so because of what those who have a rightful claim to the word do in its name.>>

I believe that the suicide bomber is not entitled to be called 'religious', that although they believe themselves to be religious - that their violent actions bring them closer to God, this is not in fact the case. However, they at least use the word correctly.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Bad analogy...

<<...yet it has stringent and restrictive rules and hardly covers all that one can do with a ball.>>

In this “game” there is only one rule, if you make a positive claim to knowledge, then you bear a burden of proof. Hardly an intricate game in which both parties must agree upon the fact, be knowledgeable of the fact, or be philosophers in epistemology.

<<You have repeated this several times in your last couple of posts, but I am simply telling others what I know.>>

And therein lies your claim to knowledge.

<<What could perhaps be of value are the contents of what I say/write, not whether I know it or not and I really don't care in the least whether you believe that I know or not, nor even whether you believe that I made it all up.>>

Then portraying what you say as opinion, instead of fact, shouldn’t be an issue for you, and yet it is. This is my point that you keep ignoring.

You wouldn’t be lying by portraying what you believe to be knowledge as opinion. It’s still an opinion either way.

The fact that you insist on conveying your ideas as knowledge suggests a desire to lend weight to your claims. So to then say that you don’t care, is disingenuous. And if you’re only ‘not going to care’ when someone requests support for your claims, then thats a cop-out and demonstrates a lack of earnesty on your part.

<<You see, I am not playing your game of 'knowledge' of which I only heard yesterday.>>

Apparently you are. And there was never any “game” either. I already explained this yesterday. Stop being so dishonest.

<<And did I ask you to believe me?>>

No. But given all that I’ve said above, that’s hardly the point.

<<What is it to me whether you believe me or not?>>

The fact that your main purpose, of defending religion, is all in vain if the default position of disbelief (regarding your claims) is justified.

This is not about 'me' specifically.

Continued…

...Continued

<<If you consider what I say a waste of breath, then I wonder why you keep asking me.>>

Because for years you’ve created the illusion of knocking the wind out of the perfectly reasonable arguments of others, by confusing them with your unsupported claims, since they’re not always sure how to respond despite the fact that they were still right to say what they did. I, on the other hand, DO know how to respond, so I’m standing up for those ideas and any future one’s that you will inevitably respond to with the same nonsense.

<<...but most people who hate religion and want to persecute the religious, don't do so for logical reasons, hence a logical approach won't do much.>>

So, instead, you're going to make claims for which the default position of disbelief is justified? Slick move.

<<So … I only appeal to those who could be open to some education and seeing some new perspectives which they haven't considered before.>>

So then they should be fine with logical arguments after all.

<<I think that this conscience knows that beheading innocent people and raping their daughters is not right.>>

Yes, but what’s to say there's even a wrong way? You have no way to know that. There are many assumptions that you claim to know, so this doesn't get you around the conundrum that I've been pointing out.

<<I believe that the suicide bomber is not entitled to be called 'religious', that although they believe themselves to be religious - that their violent actions bring them closer to God, this is not in fact the case. However, they at least use the word correctly.>>

So you're no longer sticking to the ‘intellectual property’ line so strictly anymore, and will go back to basing your claim, regarding the definition of religion, on the claims for which your inability to support the assumptions of lead you to the ‘intellectual property’ argument in the first place.

Ten points for persistence.

You started off well, at least, with the "I believe" but then slipped in the "in fact" later on.

Sneaky.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<In this “game” there is only one rule>>

So many cross-referenced Wikipedia pages, so many references, so much volume, so many assumptions, to describe just one rule?

Just like saying "There is only one rule: do as I tell you".

<<And therein lies your claim to knowledge.>>

What claim? I was telling you WHAT I know (if I know), not THAT I know - the rest is your imagination. Or perhaps you meant that my "claim to knowledge" lies within your repeating that claim a sufficient number of times (Argumentum ad nauseam)?

<<You wouldn’t be lying by portraying what you believe to be knowledge as opinion>>

But I wouldn't be telling the whole truth either.

When asked for the time, answering "I think it's 5 o'clock" means less than "5 o'clock". Perhaps unlike yourself, the poor fellow wanted to know the time, not whether I know the time!

<<And if you’re only ‘not going to care’ when someone requests support for your claims, then thats a cop-out and demonstrates a lack of earnesty on your part.>>

If the 'someone' I'm talking with has already decided that I'm a camel no matter what I'll say (and perhaps even already betted $100000 on it with his friends), yet I still care to convince them, then that would be neurotic!

<<The fact that your main purpose, of defending religion, is all in vain if the default position of disbelief (regarding your claims) is justified.>>

Yes, on you it's all lost anyway, but you are not the only one who reads this.

<<Because for years you’ve created the illusion of knocking the wind out of the perfectly reasonable arguments of others, by confusing them with your unsupported claims>>

Are you accusing me of intentionally and systematically confusing others?

I then suggest that you take it with Graham Young - perhaps you could convince him to make a rule against unsupported claims on OLO (or claims that cannot be supported according to your particular own doctrine). If you succeed, then I can promise to go by the new rules.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<I, on the other hand, DO know how to respond>>

You know how to harass, as taught in the manual-pages of atheism.about.com.

<<so I’m standing up for those ideas and any future one’s that you will inevitably respond to with the same nonsense.>>

As the forum's self-appointed epistemic police.
(it reminds me bit of Runner; fortunately we don't have a resident Shariah-policeman here)

So having admitted that you used me (unknowingly) as your guinea teaching-aid for your OLO students, I think you should compensate me for my time.

<<so this doesn't get you around the conundrum that I've been pointing out.>>

I see no conundrum in rejecting arbitrary beheadings and rapes as wrong, then fighting the perpetrators. If you see any conundrum there, please state it clearly.

<<So you're no longer sticking to the ‘intellectual property’ line so strictly anymore>>

Why? what's wrong with sharing intellectual property rights with others who do not agree with you about everything else?

Both religious people and those who consider themselves to be religious (probably also those who claim to be religious but know that they are not), agree on the ancient and correct use of the word 'religion'. I believe that there was a time when everyone used the word 'religion' this way - religious and irreligious alike, but what's more important is that until the so-called "enlightenment", 'religion' was used to describe a process rather than organisation(s).

This is so important because when someone claims: "Those Muslims kill/rape because of their religion", it implies that myself and my religious friends are also potential murderers/rapists.

[Certain] Muslims kill/rape due to their Arab culture and creed, not due to their religion!

Dear Yuyutsu,

<<So many cross-referenced Wikipedia pages, so many references, so much volume, so many assumptions, to describe just one rule?>>

Yes, being thorough prevents confusion and guards against dishonest attempts to skew what's being said. Notice how quickly yours fell through.

<<What claim? I was telling you WHAT I know (if I know), not THAT I know...>>

Yes, and in doing so, you were implicitly claiming THAT you knew. So, like I was saying...

From the article I linked you to that you thought, for a moment there, had brought you all your Christmases at once:
"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof)

Funny that you didn't refer to the article to support this claim.

<<But I wouldn't be telling the whole truth either.>>

Not telling the whole truth is only a problem when it is done to deliberately deceive. Claiming that you know something, that you couldn’t possibly know, *is* actually being dishonest, however. Even if just with yourself.

<<If the 'someone' I'm talking with has already decided that I'm a camel no matter what I'll say ... yet I still care to convince them, then that would be neurotic!>>

Your ‘camel’ analogy is inaccurate and offensive because your use of it assumes that I’ve made up my mind, and implies that I’m unwilling to change my mind when you haven’t even provided anything to remotely suggest the truth of your claims.

<<Yes, on you it's all lost anyway, but you are not the only one who reads this.>>

So you’re hoping that some of the people out there reading this are gullible then? Because most people seem to understand simple concepts such as the burden of proof and the fact that disbelief is the default position until support for a claim has been provided. Your playing dumb, in this regard, is not very convincing, I must say.

<<Are you accusing me of intentionally and systematically confusing others?>>

Continued…

...Continued

Not in that instance. You do do it with your semantic games, though (i.e. “But God does not exist”, “but God is not a thing”, “You are not you, you are YOU”). It’s like George Carlin once said: “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.”

<<I then suggest that you take it with Graham Young - perhaps you could convince him to make a rule against unsupported claims on OLO…>>

That has nothing to do with anything I’ve said. You’re being melodramatic.

<<You know how to harass, as taught in the manual-pages of atheism.about.com.>>

You don’t have to be here. Why should I be the first to leave? So you can feel like you've won? I suggest you work on that if you want to rid yourself of your ego.

<<As the forum's self-appointed epistemic police.>>

Snippy. I’m entitled to defend what I like.

<<I see no conundrum in rejecting arbitrary beheadings and rapes as wrong, then fighting the perpetrators.>>

That’s not what I was talking about and you know it. Try again.

<<Why? what's wrong with sharing intellectual property rights with others who do not agree with you about everything else?>>

Because, like I said, if those who have the rights to the word ‘religion’ do bad things in its name, then others are entitled to speak of religion disparagingly.

<<This is so important because when someone claims: "Those Muslims kill/rape because of their religion", it implies that myself and my religious friends are also potential murderers/rapists.>>

I don't think it does. Like every other religious person, however, you do share a part of the blame (however small) by passively supporting them. It’s their billions of fellow travellers that help provide them with a sense of legitimacy. Religion allows sane people, in the millions, to believe what only a crazy person could believe on their own.

<<[Certain] Muslims kill/rape due to their Arab culture and creed, not due to their religion!>>

There’s certainly an element of culture, but how do you know it’s not due to their religion?

Dear AJ Philips,

<<Yes, and in doing so, you were implicitly claiming THAT you knew.>>

So you assume that if you claim this enough times then it will become true...

<<Funny that you didn't refer to the article to support this claim.>>

What claim?

Now If I don't play your game, then I don't play your game - I don't just play it when convenient. I don't make epistemic claims either, I consider it all stupid.

<<Claiming that you know something, that you couldn’t possibly know, *is* actually being dishonest>>

Here again you claim that I claimed to know - I stopped counting how many times you did it, but it seems that you still attempt argumentum ad nauseam.

But since you touched on the point of the ability to know, it is my position that nothing but the direct experience can give you knowledge, that whatever one perceives through one's senses and mind, is untrue.

<<your use of it assumes that I’ve made up my mind>>

And your previous post confirms that you have done so ("so I’m standing up for those ideas and any future one’s that you will inevitably respond to with the same nonsense").

<<So you’re hoping that some of the people out there reading this are gullible then?>>

Open to listen to other perspectives, that is, rather than being brainwashed by the theory of epistemology.

<<Because most people seem to understand simple concepts such as the burden of proof>>

Understanding the rules of a game is different from wanting to take part in it.

<<and the fact that disbelief is the default position until support for a claim has been provided>>

Belief or disbelief are personal choices. Even if one supports their claim, it doesn't oblige anyone else to believe in it (unless they play epistemology) and even if a claim is unsupported, it doesn't oblige anyone not to believe in it.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<You don’t have to be here.>>

Strawman: I didn't claim that you're forcing me to stay.

<<Why should I be the first to leave?>>

Another strawman: I didn't ask you to leave.

<<That’s not what I was talking about and you know it.>>

No, I have no clue what conundrum you refer to.

<<Because, like I said, if those who have the rights to the word ‘religion’ do bad things in its name, then others are entitled to speak of religion disparagingly.>>

Having a right to the use of a name does not automatically entitle you to claim that it applies to you.

As I understand your epistemic game, those who play it require evidence first (that the perpetrator is indeed religious), which of course they wouldn't find. Those who don't, I can at least try to convince.

<<Like every other religious person, however, you do share a part of the blame>>

Suppose one knocks on your door and says "Police, open!", then when you open the door they pull a gun and rob you": are all policemen to blame?

Anyway, in this case, either you insist on your definition of 'religion' (which violates our intellectual property) or you are contradicting yourself, since if you claim that there is no such process as coming closer to God, then you must also conclude that no-one is religious.

<<but how do you know it’s not due to their religion?>>

Didn't I write that "I believe that the suicide bomber is not entitled to be called 'religious'"?

Dear Yuyutsu,

<<So you assume that if you claim this enough times then it will become true...>>

No. That’s why I provide reasoning every time I make a claim. Your decision to ignore that every time you respond does not change that.

<<What claim?>>

Your suggestion that the burden of proof only applies if you explicitly claim to know something and not just mention it in passing.

<<Now If I don't play your game, then I don't play your game...>>

For the fourth time now, it's not a game.

If you don't think you should have to provide support for your claims, then fine. But by insisting that you don’t have to provide support, you suggest that you do in fact think that you should. It’s a self-defeating claim. This in turn suggests that you simply drop this standard (that everyone else adheres to as well) when it’s convenient, once again demonstrating that it’s a cop-out, and not the noble defence of your rights that you portray it to be.

<<Here again you claim that I claimed to know...>>

Indeed, and I demonstrated that you did too. So it’s not an argumentum ad nauseum. Ironically, though, your insistence on repeating this, without addressing my reasoning, renders your claim an argumentum ad nauseum.

Ooops...

<<Open to listen to other perspectives, that is…>>

So am I. But there’s a difference between being open to other perspectives and just gullibly accepting them without anything to support the claim. So my point, regarding you hope for gullibility, still stands.

<<Understanding the rules of a game is different from wanting to take part in it.>>

For the fifth time now, it’s not a game. And if you understand the burden of proof, then why provide incorrect assumptions about it in order to wriggle out of your obligation?

<<Belief or disbelief are personal choices. Even if one supports their claim, it doesn't oblige anyone else to believe in it (unless they play epistemology) and even if a claim is unsupported, it doesn't oblige anyone not to believe in it.>>

Continued…

...Continued

Absolutely. And not even if they play this "game of epistemology" that you’ve invented.

This has nothing to do with my point about the default position being disbelief, though. You have addressed nothing.

<<Strawman: I didn't claim that you're forcing me to stay.>>

I never said that you claimed that; it was a rhetorical question. So the only strawman here is yours.

<<Another strawman: I didn't ask you to leave.>>

As above. Best you look up what a strawman is, eh? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

<<No, I have no clue what conundrum you refer to.>>

The conundrum for you is that fact that your claims, regarding the definition of religion, are based on unsupported assumptions, so the default position (regarding them) is disbelief.

<<Having a right to the use of a name does not automatically entitle you to claim that it applies to you.>>

So now there's rights to words, and the right to apply it to oneself - and they're separate. You're just making this up as you go, aren't you?

Can we add goal-post-shifting to your extensive list of fallacies?

<<As I understand your epistemic game…>>

It’s not a game and it’s not mine. You have no shame.

<<Suppose one knocks on your door and says "Police, open!", then when you open the door they pull a gun and rob you": are all policemen to blame?>>

No. The reasoning behind police work can be justified without the masses; religious belief can't be. Religious belief relies entirely on the masses for its legitimacy.

Religion allows, in the millions...

<<either you insist on your definition of 'religion' (which violates our intellectual property)...>>

You see? I didn't even need to go there. You haven't demonstrated that there are any such rights though; let alone that they've been violated. No-one owns words.

<<Didn't I write that "I believe that the suicide bomber is not entitled to be called 'religious'"?>>

Your belief is not a reason to believe that they're not; nor is it evidence of it.

By the way, Yuyutsu. I find it ironic that you continuously claim that you are not playing a “game” of “epistemology” (as if it had any relevance), and yet you’re the only one so far who has questioned the nature of knowledge...

<<But since you touched on the point of the ability to know, it is my position that nothing but the direct experience can give you knowledge, that whatever one perceives through one's senses and mind, is untrue.>>

Now THAT is full-blown epistemology, my friend. What I speak of, is only in regards to that which is epistemic by nature.

Your entire position in this discussion is so flawed, right down to its very core, that you contradict yourself at least once every time you respond. And when it’s pointed out to you, you then invent a new rule or qualifier to cover your tracks. Not having any rational or logical thought patterns by which to formulate your arbitrary views, this becomes more and more unmanageable for you with every response you post, and it's showing. You need to keep track of every individual claim you’ve made because there’s very little reason or logic underpinning any of them.

[While I'm on a roll...]

Ironically, too, half the time you accuse me of a fallacy, you commit the exact same fallacy in the process. The strawman (through your setting up of one in order to accuse me of it) and the argumentum as nauseum (through your unjustified repetition of the accusation) are two that immediately come to mind.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<Your suggestion that the burden of proof only applies if you explicitly claim to know something and not just mention it in passing.>>

Incorrect. The whole idea about "a burden of proof" is yours, not mine. If one wants to prove something, then they may - it should not be a burden.

<<it's not a game.>>

Making heaps of assumptions about what is or isn't knowledge (nay, even that knowledge is desirable in the first place) and what are the valid ways to achieve it and to use it, is like stating that one may not throw the ball with their hands or that one must use a dice of 6 sides rather than 20 (what a winner in monopoly or backgammon that would be!).

But if it isn't a game, then it's a deliberate scheme, designed by atheists for atheists to distort people's minds at the service of atheism, then the vast material about epistemology is not a game-manual, but akin to a bible.

<<But there’s a difference between being open to other perspectives and just gullibly accepting them without anything to support the claim>>

But who is expecting you to believe or accept my claims? Read it (if you like), then draw your own conclusion.

<<in order to wriggle out of your obligation?>>

Have you spoken to Graham Young yet? As far as I can tell, the rules of this forum haven't changed.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<The conundrum for you is that fact that your claims, regarding the definition of religion, are based on unsupported assumptions,>>

Big deal - nobody's assumptions are supported anyway, everyone adopts one set of axioms or another.

<<so the default position (regarding them) is disbelief.>>

That's not a conundrum to me because I'm not hostile to disbelief.

<<So now there's rights to words, and the right to apply it to oneself...>>

You took my words out of context: read again and try again.

<<Religious belief relies entirely on the masses for its legitimacy.>>

There you go, suggesting that religious belief may not be legitimate: What's next? using lie-detectors to arrest those who believe? or are you unable to do so only due to the massive number of believers?

Alternately, perhaps you think of "legitimate" as being consistent with the epistemic definition of "fact" or the like, but as I explained more than once, religious belief is not measured by the correctness of its literal content but by the effectiveness of the act of believing in bringing the believer closer to God.

Alternately again, perhaps you think that religion is illegitimate because it allows criminals to hide in the crowd, but then so many other activities, including concerts and atheist conventions wouldn't be legitimate, nor would breathing because it deprives others of a little bit of oxygen.

<<No-one owns words>>

So in the 1950's one could arrest Christians as Communists because they take communion? Or worse, for incest because the whole family took communion together?

<<Your belief is not a reason to believe that they're not; nor is it evidence of it.>>

I was simply answering your question - you are bursting into an open door.

Dear Yuyutsu,

<<The whole idea about "a burden of proof" is yours, not mine.>>

Your actions suggest otherwise.

<<If one wants to prove something, then they may - it should not be a burden.>>

On a practical level, absolutely. On philosophical level, it still is. When on a mission to defend an idea, yes - unless you’re happy to waste your time, or are only targeting the gullible.

But if you don’t feel like you have an obligation to support your claims, then why are you still here trying to prove that you don’t? You continuously fail to see the irony here, don’t you. There is a glaring inconsistency between what you say, and how you act. Apparently you’re quite happy to play this “game”, but only when it suits you. Here’s a question for you:

How do you determine what needs to be supported and what doesn’t?

<<Making heaps of assumptions about what is or isn't knowledge…>>

You seemed to assume enough to claim that you knew something. Now suddenly I’m assuming too much? I suspect you are simply engaging in obfuscation.

<<But if it isn't a game, then it's a deliberate scheme, designed by atheists for atheists to distort people's minds at the service of atheism...>>

Yes, distort with that which is conducive to productive discussion rather than arbitrary claims about an alleged process of coming closer to something that doesn't exist.

I see your concern.

<<But who is expecting you to believe or accept my claims?>>

I didn’t suggest anyone was. I was talking about people in general. You keep making this about me.

<<Read [my claims] (if you like), then draw your own conclusion.>>

Oh, I will. I’m still within my rights to point out the problems with them, though. Likewise, how about you read my pointing out of the problems in your claims and then just draw your own conclusion?

Didn’t think so.

Continued...

...Continued

<<Big deal - nobody's assumptions are supported anyway, everyone adopts one set of axioms or another.>>

There are plenty of assumptions that can be supported, and many that prove themselves everyday to be reliable. That's how we're able to get by on a daily basis. You're just making excuses for claiming whatever nonsense you like.

<<That's not a conundrum to me because I'm not hostile to disbelief.>>

Maybe not. But you do want to defend religion.

<<You took my words out of context: read again...>>

No, I didn’t.

"Having a right to the use of a name does not automatically entitle you to claim that it applies to you." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#199799)

You’re getting sloppy.

<<There you go, suggesting that religious belief may not be legitimate: What's next? using lie-detectors to arrest those who believe? or are you unable to do so only due to the massive number of believers?>>

Ah, the equivocation fallacy.

Legitimate:
-conforming to the law or to rules, or;
-able to be defended with logic or justification; valid.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/legitimate

<<Alternately, perhaps you think of "legitimate" as being consistent with the epistemic definition of "fact" or the like…>>

No, see above.

<<...as I explained more than once, religious belief is not measured by the correctness of its literal content but by the effectiveness of the act of believing in bringing the believer closer to God.>>

I’ve never suggested that you thought otherwise.

This assertion of yours is flawed, though, because it assumes that there is such a thing as “bringing the believer closer to God”, or that it is possible to be brought closer to that which does not exist.

<<...perhaps you think that religion is illegitimate because it allows criminals to hide in the crowd>>

No, but that is one of its downsides. The moderates provide cover and legitimacy to the fundies.

<<So in the 1950's one could arrest Christians as Communists because they take communion? Or worse, for incest because the whole family took communion together?>>

No, because no-one owns words. But if you want to compare yourself with such people, then be my guest...

Dear AJ Philips,

<<then why are you still here trying to prove that you don’t?>>

That's not why I'm here and you know it.

<<How do you determine what needs to be supported and what doesn’t?>>

Can you please focus your question more? Do you mean here on OLO, or politically or environmentally or within my family, or regarding charities, it's not clear.

One thing that's most important for me to support, is the ability of advanced souls to practice the last segments of their religious path without interruption from the state or other societal influences (I don't really need to worry too much for those in the earlier steps of religion, because they already have the big churches to look after them).

<<There are plenty of assumptions that can be supported, and many that prove themselves everyday to be reliable.>>

An assumption could take the form of "for everyday purposes it's OK to assume that...". Nevertheless, even such assumptions are based on earlier axiomatic/metaphysical assumptions.

Also, there is a world of difference between 'reliable' and 'good'.

<<But you do want to defend religion.>>

As I mentioned earlier, only when it's feasible. If someone already made up their mind to hurt religion, then the only defence left is physical fight-or-flight.

<<Legitimate:
-conforming to the law or to rules, or;
-able to be defended with logic or justification; valid.>>

The first definition is not under contention.
As for the second, it's biased because you guys wrote the dictionaries.
I for example prefer to use 'legitimate' as a near-synonym to 'moral', but you haven't included this definition nor several others.

Anyway, going back to your statement, "Religious belief relies entirely on the masses for its legitimacy" and applying your own strange 2nd-definition, the statement is nonsensical because you were referring to the verbal CONTENTS of such beliefs, which were never meant to be logical in the first place (in fact, it can usually be easily shown that they are not) - instead they're meant to work and measured not by their logic but by their effectiveness!

(continued...)

(...continued)

For example, if one picks a microphone and says "1-2-3, 1-2-3", there is no logical justification for choosing those particular numbers, yet it is perfectly legitimate (by any definition) to say them in order to check whether the microphone works and its volume.

<<The moderates provide cover and legitimacy to the fundies.>>

Perhaps, but fundamentalists are most often irreligious and moderates too are suspected of only attending church/mosque for social rather than religious reasons.

<<No, because no-one owns words.>>

If no one (and no group) owns any words, then any outsider can make up (without retribution) their own distortive meaning to a group's internal terminology in order to condemn them of things they didn't do. What if I claimed for example that 'atheism' means "falling in love with the at-sign (@)", thus all atheists should be sent to a psychiatric institute for that abnormal desire...?

<<because it assumes that there is such a thing as “bringing the believer closer to God”, or that it is possible to be brought closer to that which does not exist.>>

I have no expectation to be able to demonstrate to you that this process exists, nor do I need to because suffice that the term has been used this way for millennia as well as that contemporary billions still use this terminology: if you believe that there is no such thing, then your logical conclusion should be that there is no such thing as religion and no religious people.

This however is inconsistent with the wish to forbid the practice of religion or to restrict and condemn (non-existent) religious people.

Dear Yuyutsu,

<<That's not why I'm here and you know it.>>

No, I obviously I didn’t know then. And I don’t appreciate you suggesting that I’m being disingenuous when there is obviously then no way that I could have known why you’re still here.

<<Can you please focus your question more?>>

I meant here on OLO.

<<One thing that's most important for me to support, is the ability of advanced souls to practice the last segments of their religious path without interruption from the state or other societal influences…>>

So if you believe you can support them, then you must see yourself as an advanced soul yourself then, right?

How you think like that while ridding yourself of your ego must be some trick. I’m not sure what this has to do with this discussion, though. Are you saying that this is why you’re still here? If so, then no, I certainly didn’t know that; nor could I have.

<<...even such assumptions are based on earlier axiomatic/metaphysical assumptions.>>

Correct.

To avoid an impossible infinite regression of reasonings (i.e. this proves this, proves this, proves this...), or circular reasoning (e.g. reason proves reason) we must adopt a set of axioms. The religious like to take advantage of this, however, by plonking their god in as an axiom to protect their belief in it from criticism, or make out as if it is then justified (“Hey, it’s an axiom; whatcha gonna do, Mr. Atheist?”). But selecting our axioms based on what we want to be true is hardly a reliable way of improving our chances of arriving at the truth when assessing the truth value of a claim. One way of ensuring that we base our epistemology on that which is most likely true is to select our axioms such that we avoid violating Occam’s Razor. Therefore, I have but two axioms:

1) I exist;
2) The universe exists.

The first is justified (even to a solipsist like yourself) because something here is doing some sort of thinking.

Continued…

...Continued

The second is justified because, whatever it is here that is doing the thinking, is RELIABLY sensing the world around it.

I would like to see how you justify your axioms to support your “anything goes” attitude towards belief in general.

<<...only when it's feasible. If someone already made up their mind to hurt religion, then the only defence left is physical fight-or-flight.>>

So why are you still ‘fighting’ if you don’t don’t think you have anything to prove? You’ve had plenty of time to calm down from the purely physiological (and non-rational) decision to fight or flee.

<<The first definition is not under contention.>>

Then why commit the equivocation fallacy? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation) Why say something like that then, unless you simply want to plant a seed of doubt in your readers’ minds as to my intentions?

<<As for the second, it's biased because you guys wrote the dictionaries.>>

Dictionary definitions depend on common use, which evolves slowly and naturally. There is no conspiracy.

<<I for example prefer to use 'legitimate' as a near-synonym to 'moral', but you haven't included this definition...>>

That’s because you’ve made that up yourself.

<<...the statement ["Religious belief relies entirely on the masses for its legitimacy"] is nonsensical because you were referring to the verbal CONTENTS of such beliefs, which were never meant to be logical in the first place…>>

No, I was referring to the concept of religion as a whole.

<<...instead they're meant to work and measured not by their logic but by their effectiveness!>>

Effectiveness in achieving what?

<<...fundamentalists are most often irreligious…>>

You haven’t demonstrated this yet.

<<...and moderates too are suspected of only attending church/mosque for social rather than religious reasons.>>

Are they? By whom, and on what grounds?

<<If no one (and no group) owns any words, then any outsider can make up (without retribution) their own distortive meaning to a group's internal terminology in order to condemn them of things they didn't do.>>

They could, but word ownership wouldn’t prevent that and this doesn’t prove that words can be owned.

Continued...

...Continued

<<What if I claimed for example that 'atheism' means "falling in love with the at-sign (@)", thus all atheists should be sent to a psychiatric institute for that abnormal desire...?>>

You’d need to demonstrate that first. That’s the beauty of the burden of proof, but I don’t expect that you would appreciate that. And if you were a dictator, then word ownership wouldn’t stop you anyway.

<<...nor do I need to [demonstrate to you that this process exists] to because suffice that the term has been used this way for millennia…>>

“Suffice” for what then?

<<...if you believe that there is no such thing, then your logical conclusion should be that there is no such thing as religion and no religious people.>>

You haven’t demonstrated this yet.

<<This however is inconsistent with the wish to forbid the practice of religion or to restrict and condemn (non-existent) religious people.>>

Since when have I expressed such a wish? I even mentioned earlier that I’ve argued against such suggestions.

Sorry, Yuyutsu, I don't think I answered this adequately...

<<If no one (and no group) owns any words, then any outsider can make up (without retribution) their own distortive meaning to a group's internal terminology in order to condemn them of things they didn't do.>>

The reason they can't do that now has nothing to do with word ownership and everything to do with the fact that we don’t get to just make up our own definitions of words. The altering of definitions happens naturally and slowly, and often unconsciously, over time and relies upon common acceptance of the change.

The fact that an outsider could expect retribution in such circumstances has nothing to do with word ownership either, but with an already-agreed-upon definition of a word that would render the claims of such a person invalid. If the word "religion" has developed a meaning that is not valid, then demonstrate that it is not valid and perhaps it will change back eventually (especially if many of you do this). You won't (and can't) do this, though, because that would entail demonstrating that coming closer to God is indeed a very real thing and that there are right ways and wrong ways of going about it. So instead, you just sit back and cry 'foul' and 'conspiracy', and invent the concept of 'word ownership' that doesn't enjoy the common acceptance that it would need to in order to be valid - as all rules of language do (so that's not an argumentum ad populum, just so you know).

This concept of word theft, that you have invented, couldn't occur if the validity of your ideas could be objectively defined and demonstrated in order to set boundaries on what can be considered religion. No natural evolution of the word's definition, to a false idea of what it is, would occur.

If the definition of religion has evolved to include false ideas of what it is, then it is the fault of religion itself, not anyone else.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<I meant here on OLO.>>
("How do you determine what needs to be supported and what doesn’t?")

I support everyone's individual freedoms to the maximum, because I believe that since it is nearly impossible to determine which actions are religiously-motivated and which aren't, how less so by ignorant secular authorities, then the only way to safeguard religious freedoms is to indiscriminately allow ALL freedoms.

<<So if you believe you can support them, then you must see yourself as an advanced soul yourself then, right?>>

Occasionally, but then I find myself doing things that make me feel like an utter beginner.
(but in both cases I'm mistaken, because these are only my beliefs and my feelings, both indirect thus distorted)

<<...is hardly a reliable way of improving our chances of arriving at the truth>>

One cannot arrive at the truth through a mental process anyway - the mind is a liar. As you seem to assume otherwise, this probably points to some hidden axiomatic/metaphysical assumption.

<<One way of ensuring that we base our epistemology on that which is most likely true...>>

There's another hidden axiom... that it's good thus desirable to obtain intellectual knowledge.

<<One way of ensuring that we base our epistemology on that which is most likely true>>

I rather select my epistemology based on that which is most likely to be good, rather than that which is more likely to be true: I rather arrive at wrong ideas than at evil ideas, so here is another difference in axioms.

<<is to select our axioms such that we avoid violating Occam’s Razor.>>

Occam's Razor doesn't mean the least number of words, only to hide behind a galaxy of assumptions and definitions.

<<I have but two axioms:

1) I exist;
2) The universe exists.

>>

Wow, both axioms are about existence, which indicates that you find existence very important. This is one huge underlying assumption!

(since I don't consider existence important as you do, my own axiomatic assumptions are not related to what exists or doesn't exist)

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<The first is justified... because something here is doing some sort of thinking.>>

What if that "something" is only your mind?

Anyway, why would you even consider justifying an axiom?

<<So why are you still ‘fighting’ if you don’t don’t think you have anything to prove?>>

"Still"? did I ever want to prove anything?

<<Effectiveness in achieving what?>>

Coming closer to God.

(alternately, "effectiveness in losing one's selfishness, or the false primary sense of being limited and separate, cut-off from otherness")

<<Are they? By whom, and on what grounds?>>

Interviews of church-leavers telling that they attended church for various social reasons, beginning with family-coercion, through fear of authorities, through commercial benefits, through meeting friends and romantic lovers, through keeping the peace at home.

<<but with an already-agreed-upon definition of a word that would render the claims of such a person invalid.>>

But this is the whole point: the definition of 'religion' was never accepted by the religious people themselves, but imposed by others without respect.

While it is hard to find out, 300 years later, whether the original people who made this definition were deliberately aware of its potential to harm the religious, I am quite sure that this advantage did not escape their followers. Implicit in this definition is the assertion that "the so-called process which those weirdoes claim to go through, is all nonsense and doesn't exist". How possibly could such a blame be "already-agreed-upon" by those whose whole life is devoted to that process (or even by those who only believe so)?

It is agreed that the existence of this process cannot be demonstrated by any means that is acceptable to you - so what?

Even if one believes that such a process does not exist, it does not justify insulting those who do. Just as you referred to Muslims: "The moderates provide cover and legitimacy to the fundies.", so do the atheist dictionary-authors only need to make derogatory definitions without leaving their armchair, their hands only stained with ink: others will then read their definition and throw tomatoes, to later be followed by stones.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Thanks for answering the first half of my question which, in the context of the question, explains nothing by itself. Never mind.

<<One cannot arrive at the truth through a mental process anyway - the mind is a liar.>>

The mind CAN be a "liar"; even to the extent that it convinces us that a physiological or neurological event was a direct experience of God. The problem with your claim here is that it doesn't account for predictable experiences, which discredit your claim. You confidently claim that you've had a direct experience of God, then as soon as I make a perfectly reasonable comment about determining the truth value of claims, you brush it off with this absurd one that you cannot support.

<<As you seem to assume otherwise...>>

No, I can demonstrate otherwise simply by pointing to the reliability of our senses.

<<...this probably points to some hidden axiomatic/metaphysical assumption.>>

Such as?

<<There's another hidden axiom... that it's good thus desirable to obtain intellectual knowledge.>>

Whether or not I think it's good or desirable has nothing to do with whether or not I think one can arrive at the truth through a mental process. So if that's the type of hidden axiomatic/metaphysical assumption you're talking about above, then it’s irrelevant.

<<I rather select my epistemology based on that which is most likely to be good, rather than that which is more likely to be true: I rather arrive at wrong ideas than at evil ideas…>>

You have to know how to determine what is true before you can determine what is good. So, evidently, you are either adding unnecessary axioms, or your are coming to irrational conclusions about what here is more desirable.

Like I was saying… Occam’s Razor.

<<...so here is another difference in axioms.>>

No, that follows my two stated axioms; with quite a few steps in between too.

<<Occam's Razor doesn't mean the least number of words, only to hide behind a galaxy of assumptions and definitions.>>

Correct. But you are conflating assumptions and preferences and assuming that preferences must always come first.

Continued…

...Continued

<<Wow, both axioms are about existence, which indicates that you find existence very important. This is one huge underlying assumption!>>

Yes, and I’m assuming that assuming is assuming too, and that existence can even be thought about, or that thought is even a thing. Wow, I can just think God into existence.

Seriously, though, you’re happy to claim that you know something, then when I point out that you can’t know, suddenly none of us can really know anything. You’re changing the rules to suit you when you want.

<<(since I don't consider existence important as you do, my own axiomatic assumptions are not related to what exists or doesn't exist)>>

They why were you complaining that this discussion is costing you thousands if existence is unimportant? You could jump off a bridge and it wouldn’t make a shred of difference.

<<What if that "something" is only your mind?>>

Then it still exists. And if it doesn’t, then that doesn’t matter because existence is what I directly experience either way, and it’s reliable and consistent.

<<Anyway, why would you even consider justifying an axiom?>>

Because I care about the truth of my beliefs.

<<"Still"? did I ever want to prove anything?>>

No, that was part of my point.

<<Coming closer to God.>>

I thought that’s what you meant; something that cannot be demonstrated. Which only supports what I was saying in that religions legitimacy relies entirely on its mass of followers.

<<Interviews of church-leavers telling that they attended church for various social reasons…>>

And those few represent the billions of moderates, do they?

<<But this is the whole point: the definition of 'religion' was never accepted by the religious people themselves, but imposed by others without respect.>>

You are begging the question here (another fallacy): you are assuming that religious people own the 'religion, word to prove that they own the word.

<<Implicit in this definition is the assertion that "the so-called process which those weirdoes claim to go through, is all nonsense and doesn't exist".>>

How do you come to that conclusion?

Continued…

...Continued

<<How possibly could such a blame be "already-agreed-upon"...>>

I didn’t say that any blame was agreed-upon.

<<It is agreed that the existence of this process cannot be demonstrated by any means that is acceptable to you - so what?>>

I have said nothing about the existence of the process.

<<Even if one believes that such a process does not exist, it does not justify insulting those who do.>>

You’ve got that right.

<<Just as you referred to Muslims: "The moderates provide cover and legitimacy to the fundies.">>

Pointing out something (that you can support, no less) that will offend someone is entirely different to seeking out to insult them.

Just a point that I think got a bit lost in all that, Yuyutsu.

I let you distract from my point about axioms by addressing many of your points that were beside the point. Whether I have two axioms or fifty is a side issue. The point is that I have far less than a theist making room for their God because the theist shares all of mine, but then adds their own additional and sometimes contradictory axioms. Take your axiom that existence is unimportant, for example, this contradicts your axiom that it is; which is apparent in your concern regarding your finances, everyone's liberty, the politics of climate change, the NBN. You cannot get to these from the axiom that existence is unimportant, that axiom only exists to make room for your religion, thus reducing your chances of arriving at the truth and explaining why a lot of what you say actually makes no sense at all.

So my main point, regarding Occam's Razor, still stands.

But even this is all beside the point, because you were happy enough to claim that you knew about God and religion, but as soon as it was shown that you couldn't, out came the obfuscation. None of this demonstrates that you don't have a burden of proof either; nor that words can be owned.

This is one big red herring.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<The mind CAN be a "liar">>

Here I suspect an axiomatic assertion that the mind is sometimes able to convey you the truth.

The mind is ALWAYS a liar, because it interposes between you and the world, so whatever you experience through it, believing to be the reality "out there", is in fact only your mind. I actually doubt, by Occam's razor, the existence of 'mind' as an entity separate from the brain. The brain as we know, is driven or at least influenced by the genes which formed it - and what those genes "want" is that you care for them and assist their competition, which is only possible if you are convinced that you are a body/mind, separate from others.

A condition for experiencing the truth is not to mind. So long as you carry the seeds of selfishness, considering yourself separate from others thus having competing interests, experiencing the truth is out of reach.

<<You confidently claim that you've had a direct experience of God>>

Glimpses only, of directly experiencing myself, then I verified my experiences against scripture and the accounts of others who had similar glimpses. I mentioned that in passing when answering questions.

<<You have to know how to determine what is true before you can determine what is good>>

That's an axiom!

An unnecessary one by Occam, if your aim is to be good.

<<or your are coming to irrational conclusions about what here is more desirable.>>

We are enumerating axioms here, not conclusions.

<<Seriously, though, you’re happy to claim that you know something>>

Like what? That would be uncharacteristic of me.

<<why were you complaining that this discussion is costing you thousands if existence is unimportant?>>

Because it takes a lifetime to discover!

A hidden assumption here that we are rational beings, perhaps? or that mental understanding is equivalent to knowing? Had I been able to feel in reality that having money is unimportant, that a piece of hot coal is of similar value to gold, then I would already been so much closer to God than I'm now.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<Then it still exists.>>

Your mind, that is. Fine, but your assertion was "I exist", not "my mind exists".

<<And if it doesn’t, then that doesn’t matter because existence is what I directly experience either way, and it’s reliable and consistent.>>

EXCELLENT! WONDERFUL!

So you also have or had direct experience(s), thereby you know yourself, independent of your mind.

Now since God cannot be described positively and no words can convey what God is anyway, you have selected the word "existence" to name your experience, which is good as any if it works for you (except that I would use it with a capital-E). If this name inspires you best on your religious path, than all that's left for me is to congratulate you for it.

<<I thought that’s what you meant; something that cannot be demonstrated.>>

But you just did!

Then it seems that there is no need to take this discussion any further.

Dear Yuyutsu,

<<Here I suspect an axiomatic assertion that the mind is sometimes able to convey you the truth.>>

No, that can be demonstrated without circular reasoning, and the use of more fundamental assumptions.

<<The mind is ALWAYS a liar, because it interposes between you and the world...>>

This assumes that the mind necessarily distorts what it perceives. If that were the case, then no two people would be able to communicate unless they were experiencing the same lie, in which case, how could you even tell it was a lie?

<<I actually doubt, by Occam's razor, the existence of 'mind' as an entity separate from the brain.

Occam's Razor is about making as fewer assumptions as possible, not doubt. You are actually violating Occam's Razor here by making an assumption one way or the other.

<<...what those genes "want" is that you care for them and assist their competition, which is only possible if you are convinced that you are a body/mind, separate from others.>>

It's also possible if that's actually the case.

<<A condition for experiencing the truth is not to mind. So long as you carry the seeds of selfishness, considering yourself separate from others thus having competing interests, experiencing the truth is out of reach.>>

You need to demonstrate this. Nothing you said prior to this makes it a logical conclusion.

<<Glimpses only, of directly experiencing myself, then I verified my experiences against scripture and the accounts of others who had similar glimpses.>>

Doesn’t sound like a very reliable method. What’s an example of a similar account?

<<That's an axiom!>>

No, it can be demonstrated without resorting to circular reasoning, and the use of more fundamental assumptions.

<<An unnecessary one by Occam, if your aim is to be good.>>

No, it's unavoidable, I'm afraid. You cannot know what good is without knowing what is true first. How can you determine what is good in a world that appears completely random to you?

<<That would be uncharacteristic of me.>>

So suddenly we've forgotten about all those claims regarding what you supposedly know about religion?

Continued…

...Continued

<<A hidden assumption here that we are rational beings, perhaps? or that mental understanding is equivalent to knowing?>>

No, those can be demonstrated without resorting to circular reasoning, and the use of more fundamental assumptions.

It sounds like 'axiomatic assumptions' are the new 'game of epistemology'.

<<Fine, but your assertion was "I exist", not "my mind exists".>>

You’re assuming they're separate. Whether or not they're separate is something that may be determined later. 'I' can be all-encompassing.

<<So you also have or had direct experience(s), thereby you know yourself, independent of your mind.>>

To put it in other words, all I did was explain that (for example) it doesn’t matter if I’m a brain in a vat, because that’s not what I directly experience. The same goes for whether or not anything exists. But if you say so...

<<Now since God cannot be described positively and no words can convey what God is anyway…>>

How do you know this?

<<...you have selected the word "existence" to name your experience…>>

As I’m sure most would. How do you justify calling it “God”.

<<If this name inspires you best on your religious path, than all that's left for me is to congratulate you for it.>>

How is this religious path any different from any other self-help course? And if it’s not, why are you referring to it as a “religious path”? And if it’s just one method, then how do you justify the additional spiritual layer/claim?

<<But you just did [demonstrate coming closer to God]!>>

I demonstrated that I acknowledge that what I directly experience is ultimately all that matters. Whether or not coming closer to God is a valid concept, or whether or not one can come closer to that which does not exist is yet to be demonstrated.

<<Then it seems that there is no need to take this discussion any further.>>

So you’re conceding your denial of the burden of proof and claims regarding the definition of “religion”?

Didn’t think so.

Sorry, Yuyutsu, but I suspect we’ll be here for a good few months yet.

By the way, Yuyutsu, that was the equivocation fallacy again.

Demonstrate:
1. clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence.
2. give a practical exhibition and explanation of (how a machine, skill, or craft works or is performed).
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/demonstrate

This is what happens when you play semantical games. If you really were as enlightened as you make out, then you would not have to commit fallacy after fallacy to defend your views. Your continual fallacies and contradictions are not indicative of someone who has discovered, or is on any reliable pathway to discovering, the truth of anything. They are only indicative of someone who has invented their own version of reality and will go to any length to defend it.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<If that were the case, then no two people would be able to communicate unless they were experiencing the same lie, in which case, how could you even tell it was a lie?>>

If going through their minds, then both experience not the same, but each their own mind.

<<You cannot know what good is without knowing what is true first.>>

I wrote, "if your aim is to be good", not "if you want to know what is good".

<<So suddenly we've forgotten about all those claims regarding what you supposedly know about religion?>>

Where did I write, "I know that"?

While you may not like either statement, there's still a difference between:
1) "I know that my redeemer liveth"
and
2) "My redeemer liveth".

The first type of statement would be out of character for me because I don't consider what I know or don't know to be important.

<<No, those can be demonstrated without resorting to circular reasoning>>

You complicate things unnecessarily. Let me restate in plain English:
I neither act rationally (when wanting to earn money), nor is the fact that I UNDERSTAND that existence is unimportant amount to actually KNOWING it every moment of my life.

<<You’re assuming they're separate. Whether or not they're separate is something that may be determined later.>>

You are speaking of yourself as "they"?

<<it doesn’t matter if I’m a brain in a vat, because that’s not what I directly experience.>>

Finally! Finally your subjective experience carries some weight and not just brainy assumptions.

<<How do you know this?>>

Suppose I don't know, what business of yours is it? do you believe otherwise (that God can in fact be described positively)? Otherwise, why this time-wasting red herring?

<<How do you justify calling it “God”.>>

At the time of having a direct glimpse of myself, I know (I don't mean right now, now I only remember) that I have no limitations, that all is me, that there is nothing but myself. What other word fits better?

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<How is this religious path any different from any other self-help course?>>

It's the best among them (but don't expect any proof from me).

<<And if it’s just one method, then how do you justify the additional spiritual layer/claim?>>

The path is the same but the methods vary according to individual circumstances (but don't expect any proof from me).

<<I demonstrated that I acknowledge that what I directly experience is ultimately all that matters>>

That's wonderful then, and so true.

<<Whether or not coming closer to God is a valid concept, or whether or not one can come closer to that which does not exist is yet to be demonstrated.>>

If you wish to demonstrate the validity of concepts, then good luck. Similarly, if you wish to demonstrate anything, I leave those tasks to you.

<<So you’re conceding your denial of the burden of proof and claims regarding the definition of “religion”?>>

Regarding the definition of religion, I already made my point and I am not interested in proving to you that you behave like a pig.

Those handicapped people who have no direct experience, need to use their minds instead, but as you claimed that you have a direct experience which is in your own words "reliable and consistent" - then use it! Go ahead, you don't need to waste your time and mine on mind-stuff!

Dear Yuyutsu,

<<If going through their minds, then both experience not the same, but each their own mind.>>

Not the same what? You have left this open-ended and ambiguous by cutting out the all-important “lie” that we were talking about and constructing the sentence so that implies a switch to [...not the same] “mind”.

<<I wrote, "if your aim is to be good", not "if you want to know what is good".>>

You have to know what is good before you can aim to be it. You are playing semantics again.

<<Where did I write, "I know that"?>>

Again, you didn’t have to. You implicitly claimed THAT you knew by stating what you thought you knew and refusing to portray it as anything other than knowledge.

"I was telling you WHAT I know (if I know), not THAT I know..." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#199779)

As for your “redeemer liveth” example, knowledge is still implied because ‘2’ is stated as fact.

<<You are speaking of yourself as "they"?>>

No, I’m not. More semantical games.

<<Finally your subjective experience carries some weight and not just brainy assumptions.>>

What do you mean “finally”? To me it does. It doesn’t mean anything to anyone else and nor am I presenting it as a way of escaping a burden of proof.

<<Suppose I don't know, what business of yours is it?>>

Because you made the claim, and I want to assess the truth of it. That’s the nature of a rational mind. It’s not a red herring and nor does it necessitate a belief otherwise.

Again, do you expect that I just sit back, drool, and mindlessly absorb what you say? You are stating these things as fact. Furthermore, someone may read this and not think to question what you’re saying; by requesting support for your claims, I am providing you with an opportunity to demonstrate them, or highlighting the fact that you don’t in fact know any of this and are probably just making it up.

Continued…

...Continued

<<At the time of having a direct glimpse of myself, I know (I don't mean right now, now I only remember) that I have no limitations, that all is me, that there is nothing but myself.>>

How did you know that?

<<What other word fits better?>>

We make assessments of claims by contrasting them with what we already know. So I’m not sure. Temporal lobe epilepsy maybe..? Schizophrenia..?

<<If you wish to demonstrate the validity of concepts, then good luck...>>

I am not the one making the claims. The burden of proof is on you (even if just on a philosophical level). If you don’t want to fulfill that obligation, or state that you can’t or won’t provide support for your claims, then that’s fine; but it only makes you come across as dishonest (even if just with yourself), so you’re not doing yourself any favours there.

<<Regarding the definition of religion, I already made my point…>>

No, you didn’t. You begged the question by assuming that religious people own the word 'religion' in order to prove that they owned the word.

<<...and I am not interested in proving to you that you behave like a pig.>>

Well that was uncalled for. Now we have the ad hominem fallacy.

I have been quite polite and patient given the semantical games, false allegations, equivocation, red herrings and strawmen that I’ve had to deal with. I have shown you the courtesy of being completely upfront without any attempts to baffle. You speak of me wasting your time, and yet I’m continuously correcting ambiguously or deceitfully worded claims and statements from you. Like this...

<<...but as you claimed that you have a direct experience…>>

Yes, everyone does. At no point have I suggested anything mystical or religious, or that it was “a” direct experience. This was your invention in yesterday's attempt to shut the debate down prematurely. You would sooner be dishonest than to just walk away from a debate? You see, this is what the ego can do. Not behaviour I would expect from an “advanced soul”.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<You have left this open-ended and ambiguous>>

Here we go again. You asked me a question, so I answered. I had absolutely no other intent than to tick it off and get it over and done with, so ambiguous it will remain.

<<You have to know what is good before you can aim to be it.>>

I do not agree.

<<As for your “redeemer liveth” example, knowledge is still implied because ‘2’ is stated as fact.>>

Implied by whom? by you? then suit yourself.

(this is equivalent to someone telling you that they are sick and you implying that they are about to die)

<<To me it does. It doesn’t mean anything to anyone else>>

Why, to me it also does - it tells me that you are not just a robot.

<<Because you made the claim, and I want to assess the truth of it.>>

Then go ahead and assess it, but please don't involve me in that.

<<That’s the nature of a rational mind.>>

So why should I care to feed your rational mind? You are not even compensating me for my time!

<<Again, do you expect that I just sit back, drool, and mindlessly absorb what you say?>>

I don't. As far as I am concerned, you don't need to believe a word I wrote or absorb any of it.

<<I am providing you with an opportunity to demonstrate them, or highlighting the fact that you don’t in fact know any of this and are probably just making it up.>>

Thank you, but I am not interested in either at the moment.

<<How did you know that?>>

At this time I don't know.

<<We make assessments of claims by contrasting them with what we already know>>

First, speak for yourself rather on behalf of "We". Not everyone does that. Second, this is assuming that we want to assess those claims to begin with.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<If you don’t want to fulfill that obligation, or state that you can’t or won’t provide support for your claims, then that’s fine>>

Not that I agree that I have such obligations, but apparently it was not fine with you until now, because I said just that perhaps 100 times and you keep harassing me about it anyway.

<<but it only makes you come across as dishonest>>

That's OK, then I would be in the good company of many saints.

<<No, you didn’t. You begged the question by assuming that religious people own the word 'religion' in order to prove that they owned the word.>>

And then you addressed me as a sleek lawyer - OK, the law is on your side, but justice is not.

<<Well that was uncalled for. Now we have the ad hominem fallacy.>>

I thought you would say so, yet it relates to this particular behaviour of yours rather than to yourself: your use of the word 'religion' hurts religious people and makes it easier for others to justify violence against the religious. Technically or legally, you are not liable, but being aware of the damage yet being so insensitive about contributing to it, is commonly considered how pigs behave (not that those sweet pinky animals actually do it).

<<Yes, everyone does [have a direct experience].>>

No, for example I don't, not at this very moment. Most people, most of the time, experience whatever they experience indirectly through their mind and senses.

But I can understand that you can arrive at this conclusion due to the clumsiness of language. English unfortunately has no word to refer to what I am forced to translate as "direct experience", which involves no via between the experiencer and the experience and is only therefore possible because "both" are in fact the same. The original Sanskrit word is 'Anubhava', http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O101-Anubhava.html

Jesus, you fellas, get a room.

Dear Yuyutsu,

<<You asked me a question, so I answered. I had absolutely no other intent than to tick it off and get it over and done with, so ambiguous it will remain.>>

So why can’t you just say what you meant if you weren’t trying to obfuscate?

<<I do not agree [that you have to know what is good before you can aim to be it].>>

Please share how this works?

<<Implied by whom? by you?>>

No, Implied by the person who says it.

<<(this is equivalent to someone telling you that they are sick and you implying that they are about to die)>>

No, because that would be drawing something from what they said, that wasn’t necessarily implied. This is the argument from analogy fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy).

When we state something as fact, however, it is assumed (for the sake of brevity) that the person making the statement claims to know it. Otherwise, we add qualifiers such “In my opinion...”.

<<Then go ahead and assess it, but please don't involve me in that.>>

To assess it without further information would be foolish. If you make the claim, then only you can provide more information.

<<So why should I care to feed your rational mind?>>

You shouldn’t. But if you don’t want to appear dishonest, then you should provide support for your claims.

<<You are not even compensating me for my time!>>

I am also not forcing you to be here.

<<I don't. As far as I am concerned, you don't need to believe a word I wrote or absorb any of it.>>

So you expect that others just sit back, drool, and mindlessly absorb what you say then?

<<At this time I don't know.>>

So you did ‘know’ at the time, but you don’t ‘know’ now? If you don’t know anymore, then you must have, by necessity, come to the conclusion that you didn’t actually know at the time either. So why claim that you did?

<<First, speak for yourself rather on behalf of "We". Not everyone does that.>>

Well clearly.

Continued…

...Continued

You probably wouldn’t be in the position you’re in now if you did.

<<Second, this is assuming that we want to assess those claims to begin with.>>

What do you mean by “those claims”? I’m talking about claims in general.

<<Not that I agree that I have such obligations, but apparently it was not fine with you until now, because I said just that perhaps 100 times and you keep harassing me about it anyway.

I’ve said that it was fine several times, and as I told you the last time, you are not arguing that you shouldn’t have to, but that you don’t have to (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#199643); as you have done again here too. Please try to keep up.

<<And then you addressed me as a sleek lawyer - OK, the law is on your side, but justice is not.>>

If the religious process, by its very nature, cannot be demonstrated, then you have no right to claim that an injustice has occurred.

<<...your use of the word 'religion' hurts religious people and makes it easier for others to justify violence against the religious.>>

I am only using the dictionary definition; the definition that you have not provided any rational reason as to why it, and the use of it, is wrong.

<<...being aware of the damage yet being so insensitive about contributing to it, is commonly considered how pigs behave...>>

This is why I'm careful to back my claims with agreed-upon definitions, and reason and evidence. Feel free to send me packing by returning in kind instead of appealing to emotion.

<<No, for example I don't [have a direct experience], not at this very moment. Most people, most of the time, experience whatever they experience indirectly through their mind and senses.>>

That’s what I meant by “directly experience”; as opposed to actually being, say, a brain in a vat.

<<English unfortunately has no word to refer to what I am forced to translate as "direct experience"...>>

Then why assume that that’s what *I* would have meant when *I* said it, and carried on as such?

More equivocation...

Dear AJ Philips,

<<So why can’t you just say what you meant if you weren’t trying to obfuscate?>>

Because it would take me too long and use up too many words.

<<Please share how this works?>>

There are many possibilities, for example:
* One could remember what is good, even though they don't know it any more.
* One could believe another about what is good.
* One may take hints, even if unsure.
* One could take a chance, then use trial-and-error.
* One could pray for guidance, then follow their inner voice or intuition.
* One may actually know what is good, but not through a method that you would approve of.

This list is far from exhaustive.

<<No, Implied by the person who says it.>>

I don't imply such things. I usually talk about the topic, not about myself.

<<No, because that would be drawing something from what they said, that wasn’t necessarily implied.>>

Exactly, that's what you do when you draw a conclusion that "I implied to know".

<<it is assumed (for the sake of brevity) that the person making the statement claims to know it.>>

That could be a wrong assumption.

<<Otherwise, we add qualifiers such “In my opinion...”.>>

You can add what you like, but I rather stay on the subject.

<<If you make the claim, then only you can provide more information.>>

The claim that I make is what I write, nothing less, nothing more. You are welcome if you want to investigate that claim and use whatever scientific and/or other tools you have to do so, but instead you tend to digress and investigate my knowledge and motivation etc., which are irrelevant.

<<But if you don’t want to appear dishonest, then you should...>>

I am happy to risk appearing dishonest then.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<I am also not forcing you to be here.>>

Not exactly, because you implied retribution otherwise, in the form of systematically interfering with my conversations with others ("I, on the other hand, DO know how to respond, so I’m standing up for those ideas and any future one’s that you will inevitably respond to with the same nonsense"): this forces me to be and remain here under duress. Believe me, I have many better things to do!

<<So you expect that others just sit back, drool, and mindlessly absorb what you say then?>>

No, I expect nothing, though the last bit could be beneficial for some.

<<So you did... that you did?>>

Question makes no sense, clarify if you want an answer.

<<“those claims”? I’m talking about claims in general.>>

Me too. I meant "the claims in question". Not everyone makes a hobby of assessing claims.

<<If the religious process, by its very nature, cannot be demonstrated, then you have no right to claim that an injustice has occurred.>>

That's inhumane legal-speak, thus [wrongly] attributed to pigs.

<<I am only using the dictionary definition>>

Are you asking me to repeat the Nuremberg argument? I thought no.

<<I'm careful to back my claims with agreed-upon definitions,>>

Agreed among?

Your kind of people of course, not mine.

<<That’s what I meant by “directly experience”>>

Then what makes it "direct", as opposed to just any other experience?

Dear Yuyutsu,

<<…it would take me too long and use up too many words.>>

Let’s see what you said then:
“If going through their minds, then both experience not the same, but each their own mind.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#200097)

We were talking about “the same lie”, now you’re telling me that you were referring to “the same [thing that takes too long to explain]”?

You’ve been sprung. Wear it.

<<There are many possibilities…>>

None of those negate what I was saying. We were talking about more fundamental truths (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#200084); truths that would need to be established to even understand the possibilities you mentioned.

<<I usually talk about the topic, not about myself.>>

Yeah, that’s where implications come in.

<<…that's what you do when you draw a conclusion that "I implied to know".>>

No, it's not. Once again, when you state something as fact, you imply that you know it.

Knowledge:
1. facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/knowledge

<<You can add what you like, but I rather stay on the subject.>>

That would not be straying from the subject.

<<The claim that I make is what I write, nothing less, nothing more.>>

"I was telling you WHAT I know (if I know), not THAT I know - the rest is your imagination." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#199779)

Apparently even more is “is my imagination” now. Where will you run next?

<<...but instead you tend to digress and investigate my knowledge and motivation etc., which are irrelevant.>>

You motivation is irrelevant; the rest isn’t when you bear the burden of proof.

<<I am happy to risk appearing dishonest then.>>

That makes no sense if you want to defend religion. Unless, again, you’re just targeting the gullible.

<<…you implied retribution otherwise, in the form of systematically interfering with my conversations with others ("I, on the other hand, DO know how to respond, so I’m standing up for those ideas and any future one’s that you will inevitably respond to with the same nonsense")…>>

Continued…