Dear SPQR,

Non-violence is the foundation of morality and morality is the foundation of religious practice. Therefore those who resort to violence are obviously not religious.

Dear Ojnab,

Sadly, it seems that there are some who call themselves "religious" and "Christian", but have forgotten the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Yes, a saint would probably not ask others to terminate his/her life even if s/he had terminal bowel-cancer; but a religious person aspires to become a saint, not order others to behave LIKE saints.

Dear AJ Philips,

So one cannot win: if I write as much as my quota allows, then I better not, but then I would be like Grateful who sadly disappeared and "gone to ground".

I really came here to ask him some questions about Islam and I'm disappointed he never replied. It was never my intention to enter a full discussion with you, how less so to prove anything, yet you insist.

My time is limited. As you ask me questions, I answer as much as my word-limit allows, but I really don't owe you proofs - I'm not being paid for that and the time it takes adversely affects my other duties in life.

Essentially, because I am religious you treat me as a criminal, the enemy of society - guilty until proven innocent. You are asking me to guess what out of a heap of old posts are your "more pertinent points", then you can criticise me if I didn't guess correctly. You relentlessly place me in the same basket as your stereotype religious person ("bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence and sheer ignorance"), then others ask me why I deny them the right to abort or euthanase, which I never did.

So let me tell you straight: I have not come here to this world to either work with you or against you. It is you who are upset that I'm not interested in the same issues that interest you, such as building society and prosperity (that link didn't work).

So-long until Sunday, when I can address your points in order, one-by-one if you still wish.

Addressing euthanasia.

Jurisdictions where euthanasia or assisted suicide is legal include Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Washington, Oregon, Estonia, Albania and Montana (wiki)

The problem of euthanasia is that it can be abused. With a high % of elderly abused, it would be easy for family members to coerce them to adopt euthanasia. This would be tragic.

Australia does have the Living Will, NFR, and Palliative Care; the latter any person can access who is having treatment for serious illnesses. Additionally, doctors will-up pain killers for those suffering, even when this means that it hastens death.

When an elderly relative had dementia and suffered from bladder infections, the person who held his Medical Power of Attorney was contacted and asked whether he should be sent to hospital for treatment or put into palliative care. In palliative care the condition is not "treated", but the patient is made comfortable with all necessary medication until death ensues. The medication itself can hasten death quite considerably.

Re Nitschke, one of his "patients" had surgery for stomach cancer and experiencing the same symptoms as previously, opted for assisted suicide. The post-mortem revealed that there was no cancer, but scars (easy fixed) which caused the pain.

The fact that Nitschke is able to open a clinic indicates that those who want to go this route, are permitted to.

Personally, I do not believe involving others in suicide, but firmly believe in diy. Plenty successfully do so.

Whilst suicide may be regarded problematically by the religious, suicide as a crime comes down through common law - a suicide deprives the crown of a subject.

Perhaps what is really needed is for ethical debate as what constitutes "treatment", as opposed to "prolonging the dying process".

I am not a Christian, but have neighbours that are. They are average good people, they don't try to convert me, nor condemn me, nor in any way adversely affect me ... nor the wider community. Why should I condemn them, why should I try and rationalise them out of their beliefs? What will that achieve?

Is the subtext of this discussion, that all people who believe in a religion are morons, stupid and dangerous?

Those who seek Dawkins site, or are open to debate about religion, are those who are already doubting their beliefs.

Some years ago, a close friend who had been raised in a religion, but had deserted it very early on, came to me with the revelation that they had returned to the religion of their birth. After having had a turbulent life, with periods of therapy, this person was now serene and one could say, happy. As they were in the very early stages, I am sure that I could have rationalised them out of this new found faith. I seriously thought about it. However, realised that I could not offer anything better in its place. I had seen them as an atheist and unhappy. I let them discuss it without my making any judgement - which took a monumental lot of patience on my part. Recently they died and died happy, however misguided, in my opinion, they may have been.

For many ordinary people of good-will, religion serves a purpose.

Yes, extremists of any religion, indeed any ideology, any philosophy, are a menace. They should be confronted and their practices and belief systems laid bare.

But equally, we have to be sensitive to those gentle people who are not extremists, but benefit from their beliefs.

Not at all, Yuyutsu.

<<So one cannot win: if I write as much as my quota allows, then I better not, but then I would be like Grateful who sadly disappeared...>>

You simply attempt to address the most pertinent points first, before your word count is up, and don't conclude as if you've covered everything: "But that is not specific to religion..."

Please don't play dumb. Your response was not an earnest attempt to cram in what you could, but a deceptive blowing-off of what I had said by making out as if your rebuttal encompassed the entirety of my argument. You've been caught out. Wear it.

<<It was never my intention to enter a full discussion with you, how less so to prove anything, yet you insist.>>

If you are going to make extraordinary claims, then it is only common sense that you support them with some evidence and/or reasoning. Why would you not want to dignify your opinions with justifications?

<<I really don't owe you proofs...>>

If all you want to do is simply give me your take on things, then great. I'll duly note it. But if you offer it as if corrects what I've said, or as though I’m missing some vital piece of information, then yes, you do. Otherwise, I suggest that you start your responses with openers such as, "In my opinion...", "If you ask me...", "The way I see it...", in future rather than speaking in such a direct and matter-of-factly way.

<<Essentially, because I am religious you treat me as a criminal, the enemy of society guilty until proven innocent.>>

Please don't play the wounded deer. I have done nothing of the sort (although, you do at least bear the burden of proof at this point in time). If you are going to make such accusations, then it would be polite to back them up with something.

<<You are asking me to guess what out of a heap of old posts are your "more pertinent points", then you can criticise me if I didn't guess correctly.>>

Continued…

…Continued

Oh, come now. You had no troubles picking out the less pertinent and indirect consequences of religious belief when it suited you. Now suddenly it's all a mystery? Please...

<<You relentlessly place me in the same basket as your stereotype religious person ("bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence and sheer ignorance")...>>

On the contrary, I have taken great pains not to. Those words were regarding religion in general, not you (however, your only response is the No-true-Scotsman fallacy).

<<...then others ask me why I deny them the right to abort or euthanase, which I never did.>>

Are you seriously blaming me for what others accuse you of?

<<It is you who are upset that I'm not interested in the same issues that interest you...>>

What gives you the impression that I'm upset? It was you who started the society-building talk. I was only talking about not wrecking it. I think it’s telling that theists (and theism’s defenders apparently) always see anger and upset in the tone of those with whom they disagree.

Here's that link: http://www.pri.org/stories/2013-12-12/ethiopian-village-has-gained-wealth-has-bred-hostility

<<…I can address your points in order, one-by-one if you still wish.>>

Sure, but please avoid fallacies, misrepresentations and wild, unsubstantiated claims.

Danielle,

Why do you have to put words in the mouths of others and assume the worst? You are clearly taking great pains to not understand those with whom you disagree.

<<Why should I condemn them, why should I try and rationalise them out of their beliefs?>>

You shouldn’t. That would be rude and pushy. This, however, is a debating sight.

<<Is the subtext of this discussion, that all people who believe in a religion are morons, stupid and dangerous?>>

No. Irrationality is not necessarily synonymous with stupidity. Not all religious people are dangerous either, but there are still negative effects.

Regarding your friend, I can only repeat what I said in one of the posts I linked you to: “If people can't find happiness without false promises and imaginary father figures, then that indicates a sickness in our societies, and masking it with make-believe doesn’t help anyone in the long run.”

Danielle,

>> Is the subtext of this discussion, that all people who believe in a religion are morons, stupid and dangerous? <<

This is obviously only a rhetoric question, however let me assure you that it is precisely because of tolerant atheists like you, that I - a Christian accused here of things like mental gymnastics by those who could not understand my position - occasionally follow or even take part in these discussions.

Perhaps it is not by accident that in your earlier post you referred to Roger Penrose, another tolerant atheist from whom I learned a lot. The Penrose-Hameroff Orch-OR theory of consciousness that you mention is indeed relevant since it is exactly in the nature of consciousness (which we still cannot understand) that the question of the spiritual dimension of reality (actual or imagined) enters.