I much prefer the analysis of the origins of the now world-wide phenomenon of terrorism given in the essay:
The Savage Vision Driving a Terror-Ridden (driven) World featured on the Empire Burlesque website.

This site also provides comprehensive resources on the never-ending phenomenon of Western (Christian) terrorism
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com
The phenomenon of systematic Western Christian terrorism described on the above essay and website has of course been going on for 1700 years, ever since the early Christian movement was co-opted by the Roman State - Christian-ISM then became the world-dominant religion via the business end of Constantine's famous SWORD.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/cruelty.html
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel13.html

The Western Christian imperial project continues, unabated.

Many who have kept an eye on news sources other than the Western mainstream media realise that the recent increased violence by Muslims has been largely due to covert support of radical groups by Western powers, particularly the US to fight proxy wars on their behalf. Also, the military industrial complex needs to create new supposed enemies to justify its continued existence and financial backing after the demise of communism. . Have seen reported that there are no known Shia terrorist groups and the main ones are from the Wahhabi sect of Sunnis, backed by Saudi Arabia. It seems something like a Muslim version of the supposedly Christian based Ku Klux Klan which most other Christians strongly dissociate from.

Then note how unscrupulous Zionists have been caught out supporting Muslim extremists to further their own agendas. eg Providing medical treatment for ISIS fighters wounded in Syria. Israel would like to reduce opposition to its own expansion by helping encourage breakup of neighbouring Muslim countries into small - and failed states with different Muslim groups busy fighting each other. Even note how this has been happening in Syria. Including a recent battle with CIA supported terrorists and Pentagon supported terrorists fighting each other instead of forces of the legitimate Syrian government.

It is the efforts of western powers to destabilise governments that do not pander to their own interests and try to have puppets and stooges installed by military force that has created the refugee problem Largely innocent people who are desperate to get away from the fighting, especially after their homes and communities suffer major destruction.

There is plenty of doubt that most Muslims in Australia "just want to get on with with life".

There will always be doubt. We know nothing about "moderate" Muslims and what they think; they play their cards close to their chest and say little about the violence of their religion. All religion is based on scripture, and Muslims adhere to the violent scripture of Islam or they are not Muslims. Muslims have not "integrated". They should never have been allowed into the West, including Australia. It is not too late to stop all Muslim immigration to Australia; Muslim immigration should stop now. Muslim immigration is the main vehicle for a take over of the West.

It's too broad a brush depiction of Islam; and to the point of, I believe, islamophobia?

And not corrected by the last somewhat inclusive statement pertaining to Australian Muslims, who like all other religions are peppered with diverse opinions and viewpoints, some of which, all too clearly sympathises with the ISIS position, however horrible or barbaric!?

And indeed, behooves us to make far better use of space age technology, if only to avoid recent events in our streets and that cafe!

Sure removing all the visible threats, [ultra simplistic gun control that disarms the civilian population,] might help, but just allow the invisible ones (illegal guns) to remain, as before, undetected until brought out and used with (preventable) lethal consequences!

Incidently, 50 tons of trucked ammonium nitrate was alone supposed to have exploded and destroyed an essential inland bridge some time ago, in Queensland.

Now, to be sure, ammonium nitrate is but one component of a mining explosive (anso) and needs other ingredients mixed thoroughly in to make an actual explosive mix, that even so, still needs a sympathetic concussion, like a priming cap in ammunition, to create said explosion!

[The fact that our authorities seem t have bought the highly dubious explanation and lock stock and barrel, says plenty about our level of, head in the sand, security!]

The busted bridge could have just been a trial run to test capability?
Imagine something that could turn a two lane reinforced concrete bridge into virtual matchwood turning up near/under a busy office block or centre of commercial activity and while a celebrity or celebrities were inside?

Left up to me, I would want to re interview all participants connected to the destruction of said bridge, with the aid of covertly deployed unbeatable space age technology!

And couple that to covertly deployed ethnic profiling, which given any revealed suspicious behaviour, could be complemented with interviews assisted by covertly deployed space age technology.

If we would beat ISIS, time to get real about security.
Rhrosty.

Rod Mc Garvie: Islam is a religion with a violent political agenda.

Yes, yes, We all ready know that.

Goodness only knows they say it enough. The moslim aim is to inflict the world with Islam & those that can't accept that will be killed.

It's that simple. Anyone not killed will be their slaves to buy & sell as they see fit & the women, as young as 7 years old, will be there for them to have sex with whenever they feel the urge, which is, apparently, quite often.

"Islam is a religion with a violent political agenda."

That's a conflict of terms: religion leads one toward God while violence leads one away from God - so if, or to the extent that, Islam has a violent political agenda, then it is not a religion.

I'm bemused that someone can be so ignorant of his own religions history and on going behavior.
Terrorism is the tool of the week. We have seen all religious groups used terrorism to try and achieve their goals, it is not unique to Islam. Christian, Jews, Hindu's and Islam have all used terror in the last 100 years to achieve political objectives.

Terror acts like suicide bombers get the head lines, but how about the children staving to death because the church blocks family planning groups from operating in third world... hint it's killed far more.

I see by the authors Bio that he has spent some time in the third world, so I can only come to the conclusion that the level of ignorance displayed is willful.

Add that the the family first connection and you have the full picture of a religious nut.

SAUDI SWORD FLAG?

Well it is a truth that the Muslim Government the West most admires, trades with, and is dependent on, is Saudi Arabia.

Has anyone noticed the prominent Sword on the Saudi flag? see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Saudi_Arabia

It is a subtle warning to infidels from the women respecting Saudis.

The Saudis 1938-1973 flag was even more revealing as to their intent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Saudi_Arabia#/media/File:Flag_of_Saudi_Arabia_(1938-1973).svg

Secularist carve up millions of unborn each year. That explains their excuses for Islam and hatred of Christ. Both secularism and Islam are death cults. they have the same father.

Even I am surprised at the rate at which Europe is now collapsing under Muslim immigration. 10 years ago, those of us who predicted that Europe would fall to Islam were openly scoffed at, but the writing on the wall is much clearer now.

Future generations of historians will marvel over how an advanced and intelligent people could be so blind and apathetic that they would willingly import millions of people who are adherents of a political and religious ideology that demands the host's countries people's own conversion or eradication.

Every time I think of Europe, I think back at the stupidities which created the fall of Singapore in WW2. Exactly the same denial of reality, the same inability to implement obvious solutions, and the same need for some people to place their own careers and organisations self interest before the very survival of their people. Add to that the same apathy by the British civilian population who went about their business shopping, going to dances, visiting the theatre, confident in their own leaders predictions that there was nothing to worry about, and that their leaders had everything under control.

The most mindless manifestation of incredible stupidity was that image of western women after the Cologne attacks, walking around Cologne embracing Muslim men and kissing them. Love and tolerance have their places, but so does recognising a clear and present danger, and doing whatever is necessary to survive. I don't think Jewish women kissing SS guards would have done anything to save themselves or their children's lives.

The author of this article is absolutely right. The very first thing our politicians must do is to prevent any more Muslim immigration for any reason. It is screamingly obvious that The greater the number of Muslims in any population, the greater the danger from Islamic terrorism, and the greater the social dysfunction. Freedom of religion is a noble concept, but it can not apply to a religion that demands your societies extermination through violence. Of course the Muslims in Australia will scream and threaten violence, but that was always going to happen.

Hi Pete,

But you gotta love their Gay version:

ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Saudi_Arabia#/media/File:Flag_of_Saudi_Arabia_(in_order_of_writing,_later_over).svg

Loudmouth: ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Saudi_Arabia#/media/File:Flag_of_Saudi_Arabia_(in_order_of_writing,_later_over).svg

Hey, I just love the little stickman with the Afro in the lower right hand corner of the Royal Sovereign.

Mox,
Arabs can't create and maintain stable societies without European or Asian support, they just can't.
Did you realise that even ISIS pays it's Western born and educated fighters more than the locals?
Without their European troops, engineers, arms manufacturers and bureaucrats the Arabic sheikhs and caliphs of old were useless and Europeans have had a more than 1000 to one kill ratio against Muslim armies since the days of Napoleon.
If the Anglo Saxon powers wanted to take the middle East by force of arms, drive all the Arabs back to the Arabian peninsula and return it to it's rightful owners, the European Christians and Jews they could do so in a few short years but they clearly don't want that.

Yuyutsu writes: "......religion leads one toward God while violence leads one away from God - so if, or to the extent that, Islam has a violent political agenda, then it is not a religion."

By the same token then, roman catholicism during the Dark and Middle Ages could not have been a religion either given the wars and social conflicts it fomented. Religions are power-bases built upon human superstition and fueled by self-interest. That is why it has been a political tool used extensively by those who seek power over others since time immemorial. Even in the 21st century this scenario holds true. In preferring to believe in fairies and goblins humans reach the heights of intellectual cowardice, they are incapable of relying on their own intellect and grotesquely contrive via ecstatic declamation to turn such cowardice into highest virtue. Cont.....

....cont.
Religion: [1] The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
[2] A particular system of faith and worship.
[3] A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

Nowhere will you find a definition of the word that supports your contention. In fact it surprises me that you ascribed any logical sense at all to your idea. Christian scripture drips with exhortations to violence and bloody conflict. Such exhortations were Holy Writ and were observed with meticulous attention to detail particularly during the Dark and Middle Ages when heresy, witchcraft and misogyny were rife and human superstition at its zenith.

A famous and harrowing example of christian extremism is to be found in the massacre of heretical cathars and devout roman catholics at the town of Bezieres in the Languedoc region of southern France in 1209. Papal Legate and Abbot of Citeaux, Arnaud Amalric, commander of the army sent to enforce conversions or exterminate the heretical sect, was asked how to discriminate between cathar and catholic. He replied “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius - Kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His” (2 Tim. ii. 19) and so a reported 20,000 men women and children in that town were massacred.

George Santayana's famously observed; "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." It is intellectual cowardice that has sustained the great truth in this statement.

Yuyutsu,

For Christ's sake, religion IS ideology. And sometimes ideologies are treated as religions - many Marxists and Trots seem to follow that principle, even after a comb9ined hundreds of years of experience of how practice does not follow theory.

Pogi,

Isn't it fun to go back eight hundred years and sink the boot in ? I've always had a soft spot for the Albigensians, they seemed like my kind of Christian.

But why stop there ? I'm fuming at the way the Roman destroyed the civilization of the Etruscans, 2500 years ago. Utter bastards ! Etruscans seemed like such nice people. And how the Hurrians and Mitanni were crushed a thousand years before by the Hittites. And how the Upper Egyptians were conquered -- so brutally - by the lower Egyptians, or the other way around, a thousand years before that. And so on, back as far as you like. It all makes you weep, doesn't it ?

We have to oppose evil and brutality when and where we find it: today, it is at the hands of Islamists, followers - to the letter - of the Koran, a book which can never be questioned, changed, modified or in any way denied. Now. In 2016. If the Hittites, or the medieval Catholic Church, or the Romans, were to somehow rise up and do what they did all those years ago, we would have to oppose them appropriately.

But they aren't the ones carrying out atrocities today, in 2016. The Islamists are. So leave the old decrepit Catholic church alone and focus on the Islamists. We have to understand whether or not Islamo-fascism, an ideology, flows directly from Islam, a religion. I think it does, and that it is, and will remain, a very dire threat to the rest of the world long after I'm gone. We can argue about the dastardly crimes against the Cathars over a few beers on a Friday night if you like.

Joe

Dear Pogi,

<<By the same token then, roman catholicism during the Dark and Middle Ages could not have been a religion either>>

I am inclined to agree.

<<In preferring to believe in fairies and goblins humans reach the heights of intellectual cowardice>>

Only if one's allegiance is given to the intellect.

(it is common for example to call an enemy "coward" even when they fight well)

<<Religion: [1] The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
[2] A particular system of faith and worship.
[3] A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.>>

According to the story of the Blind Men and an Elephant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant),

Elephant: [1] a pillar
[2] a rope
[3] a tree branch
[4] a hand fan
[5] a wall
[6] a solid pipe

Those without understanding of religion and its purpose, instead hang onto particular religious techniques as if they were in essence religion itself.

Religion is the process of coming closer to God. If particular beliefs, faith, worship, ideology, pursuits or interests help us to come closer to God, then they are religious - otherwise they are not.

<<Nowhere will you find a definition of the word that supports your contention.>>

Ahimsa (non-violence) is referred to as the first and foremost religious practice (Yama) in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Yoga, without which no real spiritual progress is possible.

<<Christian scripture drips with exhortations to violence>>

What makes such scripture "Christian"? Just because the authors claim to follow Christ? I don't think that Jesus would approve!

Greetings YUyutsu,
You write: "Only if one's allegiance is given to the intellect." To disregard one's intellect, to ignore it, to disrespect it is to abuse oneself, to trample one's humanity, to declare a serious deficiency in self-esteem. It is to live one's life as if in thrall to a superior authority, where one strives to be good for fear of disfavour. A totalitarian regime.

"Religion is the process of coming closer to God."
Religion is the attempted legitimisation of intolerance, suspicion and exclusion and turns them into virtues for the seeker with low self-esteem. It provides him with a throng that he can feel superior to. It caters to his pet prejudices and if he's lucky he gets to feel smug about it.

"What makes such scripture "Christian"? Just because the authors claim to follow Christ? I don't think that Jesus would approve!"

And those faithful who venture to advise that they speak for their god and know his moods have convinced themselves [an advanced and inoperable affliction] that not only is smugness a virtue it is an essential acquisition for a "chosen" spokesperson. But then, if I, with only my intellect and experience to guide me, received a call and was elevated to some celestial peerage, I suppose I'd feel pretty damned smug about it myself!

I'm only an imperfect human after all. I have a spine better suited to an animal that walks on four legs, eyes with blind spots, extra teeth that our smaller mouths accommodate with great difficulty reflecting our simian origins and a few other things that speak of an indifferent if not malevolent "designer"

Dear Pogi,

We could discuss ad nauseum the atrocities of those who claim to be religious and the folly of their statements. Rather, I was commenting about religion - not about the impostors (or the deluded) who only claim to be religious.

Regarding intellect, it's a great servant and a poor master. It does us good so long as we keep it in its subordinate position, but as Jesus said: "If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away": I say the same for the intellect.

My self-esteem does not depend on my intellect because the intellect and indeed the whole human body and brain, are merely some property that I have for a short while - nor "my self". My humanity too belongs to that body and will be gone with it. Yes, our humans are imperfect, that's why we only wear them for a while and once they are no longer useful for us, we discard them.

An atheist is not someone who doesn't believe in some God out there, but as Swami Vivekananda states: "He is an atheist who does not believe in himself."

Secularism is a death cult Runner?

Which religion eagerly looks forward to the apocalyptic end of all life on earth, celebrates the violent death by torture of it's representative and thus believes that redemption is only possible by human sacrifice?

Even it's iconic symbol is an execution device and has a history of extreme violence, conquest and bloodshed.

It's always been obsessed with death and martyrdom and it's initial recognition by Constantine was historically based on the need to stop violent infighting between its own competing rival sects plus the ceaseless persecution of Jews.

Death cult indeed!

Hi Rache,

Death cult indeed, yes. And compared to Islam ? As an atheist, my limited understanding is that, for Christians, the death of Christ means that, if one believes, then bodily death is not the end, that one can have everlasting life, forever, 24/7, surrounding by bloody harp-playing cherubs and singing angels praising god.

For Islamists, the alternatives seem to be a bit more drastic: believe, or be exterminated, here and now - a sort of evil, psychotic twin to Christ's dying for others. In Islamism, it seems that one dies for oneself, straight off to Paradise and 72 voluptuous virgins, no matter how many other poor bastards one destroys to get there.

Perspective, Rache - after all, a belief from two thousand years ago of someone dying for others, compared to a current notion of somebody dying only for his own lust and selfishness, no matter what the cost to others might be, sounds immeasurably superior to me. Islamism is obviously a dreadfully backward step compared to the mythical teachings - and example - of Christ hundreds of years earlier.

If I were ever turn to religion - and it's getting a bit late for that - it would probably be Christianity, maybe Quakerism, rather than the crazed and ghastly psychosis of Islamism. One promises building and caring, the other destroying (e.g. Yazidis) and exterminating (e.g. Palmyra).

Joe

Greetings Yuyutsu,
You write: "We could discuss ad nauseum the atrocities of those who claim to be religious and the folly of their statements. Rather, I was commenting about religion - not about the impostors (or the deluded) who only claim to be religious."

And you are erudite in the matter of imposters? Of course you are! How else can you tippytoe your way through a discussion and emerge triumphant? And those faithful who advise that they speak for their god and know his moods have convinced themselves [an advanced and inoperable affliction] that not only is smugness a virtue it is an essential acquisition for a "chosen" spokesperson. Your claim to special privilege is dismissed. Such specious declamation is more likely the device of an imposter than otherwise. You don't get to stack the stage only with players that you approve of. You know nought of the minds of Arnaud Amalric, the papal legate to the Cathar crusade, of the bishop of Bezieres, Renaud de Montpeyroux, of pope Innocent lll and of all other participants. Whatever and whenever the event, your claim to "special" insight is dismissed.

Kindly refrain from filtering your opinion through the, "What would Jesus approve of" gauze. This one among hundreds of messiahs that the Jews hoped would free them of the Roman yoke was a last gasp seizing of a fast dwindling opportunity. Of the hundreds that sought historic immortality it's not surprising that out of desperation the Jews finally chose one. Previous imposters had clearly demonstrated that the messiah job had limited prospects for advancement. Elevation to an eternal aristocracy when it supports a crumbling argument is still practised today with the fast-tracked beatification of that grotesque devotee of suffering Agnes Bojaxhiu by Wojtyla, pope JP2.

Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable and especially those who have an obvious bias, a not-so-hidden agendum, who would swear to anything to find favour among their peers. Nor were scribes uninfluenced by the fervour of the events taking place, they too, strove mightily to impress and leave their mark on history. Cont.....

Dear Pogi,

I do not understand where you are trying to get: are you trying to refute the principle of Ahimsa (or its Western version, the Golden Rule; or the biblical commandment "Love thine fellow as thyself") by claiming that one could be both violent AND religious at the same time?

There is no need to be erudite in matters of Christian or Jewish history to notice the obvious:

If you see someone claiming that they are a mathematician and that 2+2=5, then you have seen an impostor.
If you see someone claiming that they are a scientist and that the earth is flat, then you have seen an impostor.
If you see someone claiming that they are religious yet preach violence, then you have seen an impostor - and I don't even care if their name is Jesus or how many millions consider them a "Messiah".

Yuyutsu,

As you suggest, "If you see someone claiming that they are religious yet preach violence, then you have seen an impostor .... "

Of course, very likely, but that wouldn't stop them from using religion, and claiming to go exactly by the book of their religion - which ISIS does.

There probably isn't a religion in the world which hasn't been misused by 'imposters' who stick to the letter of their sacred texts. Currently that's ISIS and the Koran we're talking about.

So the question should be: to the extent that ISIS adheres to the Koran, is it possible for Islam to be inherently a violent religion ? i.e. that violence is built into Islam, as exemplified by the instructions throughout the Koran ?

Joe

Good question, Joe,

True, there probably isn't a religion in the world which hasn't been misused by impostors who stick to the letter of their sacred texts. You may be interested to learn that Buddha himself predicted that 500 years after his death this will start happening to his own new religion. I also visited the rock on the northern shore of the sea of Galilee where Jesus told Peter: "on this rock I will build my church". Well, nearly two millennia later of wear, tear and earthquakes including a 7.6 magnitude in the year 1202, I saw with mine own eyes that this rock is cracked. It is natural, it has to happen.

On the face of it, Islam seems to be a violent ideology and certainly parts of the Koran call for violence.

But is "Islam" really Islam?

'Islam' means surrender to God. In Hinduism and Yoga, this is an important principle which is referred to as the observance (Niyama) of "Ishvara Pranidhana". How wonderful indeed it is to give up one's own selfish will, submitting to God instead.

But is it indeed the will of God to harm others? Do Muslims actually kill, rape and torture others only for the love of God? No selfish motive there?

My answer is 'No'. Those who do it are not true Muslims, even if it be Muhammad himself (though I believe that, peace be upon him, he was framed by later generations of tribal hooligans and didn't really do any of the bad things ascribed to him in the Hadith, nor was he the author of the Koran). Even the desire to enjoy heaven with 72 beautiful virgins is selfish. Even if it was correct that killing infidels produces this result, one who surrenders to God will even surrender their desire for heaven, saying "Thy will be done, not mine".

Greetings Yuyutsu,
You write: "I do not understand where you are trying to get: are you trying to refute the principle of Ahimsa (or its Western version, the Golden Rule; or the biblical commandment "Love thine fellow as thyself") by claiming that one could be both violent AND religious at the same time?"

You have formed an opinion of religion to suit your own world view. And while you have a right to do so you must simultaneously assume an obligation to defend it. You are claiming that your opinion of what comprises religion is inviolate and that it follows inexorably and inevitably that you have an inviolable right to direct and stack the scenario as you see fit. Though it might strike at the very heart of your religious faith, nevertheless, those who live outside of religion, who rightly can claim an objectivity that is denied to you, have equally well-founded and compellingly defensible claims that stand in direct opposition to your views.

The mathematician, the scientist and the violence preacher represent a resort to analogy only. If this is your best "evidence" then you have no evidence at all. Analogy has no power to distinguish between truth and falsity. You are attempting to imbue analogy with your faith-based conviction and hoping no one will notice. I was impressed by the mock-heroic denouement referring to Jesus and messiah. Nice touch if you want to divert attention but otherwise irrelevant. If you can't do better then the contention that religion is comprised ONLY of goodness, truth and righteousness is in tatters. Cont......

Below is a post written by me on 19th March 2005 to one Ballested Moth when Microsoft discussion groups were at the zenith of their popularity and power. I was known as Biggles then.

[2] Arnold de Amaury [Arnaud Amalric], Bishop of Citeaux and papal legate to the French crusade against the heretical Albigensians [Cathars] was a devout christian. It was he who, when asked how the crusaders should distinguish between good catholics and heretics, cried, "Kill them all, for god knows his own!" 20,000 men women and children, many of them christians, were slaughtered in one terrible night in the town of Albi [Bezieres] by an army of devout christians.

[3] Hypatia of Alexandria was a woman, a mathematician, astronomer, philosopher and a pagan. In 415 CE she was attacked in a street of Alexandria by a group of christian monks, beaten and killed. Her body was dragged to a church where her remains were mutilated with sharp-edged tiles and later burned. St.Cyril, christian bishop of Alexandria explained that it was because she was an iniquitous female who had presumed, against god's commandments, to teach men.

[4] The chronicler, Raymond of Aguilers, described the scene when a band of crusaders massacred Muslims, Christians and Jews in Jerusalem in 1099 in the last year of the first crusade.
"Wonderful things were to be seen. Numbers of the Saracens were beheaded. Others were shot with arrows, or forced to jump from towers. Others were tortured for several days, then burned with flames. In the streets were seen piles of heads and hands and feet. One rode about everywhere amid the corpses of men and horses. In the Temple of Solomon, the horses waded in blood up to their knees, nay up to the bridle. It was a just and marvellous judgement of God, that this place should be filled with the blood of unbelievers."
     Nicetas Choniates, the Byzantine chronicler wrote, "Even the Saracens were merciful and kind compared to those men who bear the cross of Christ on their shoulders."      
     Para [4] is copied from THE DARK SIDE OF CHRISTIAN HISTORY by Helen Ellerbe.
 
Cont......

Cont.....Greetings Yuyutsu,
I should advise that the absent [1] in the numbers above held the tale of Rev.Jim Jones. I decided to omit him as such an extreme character is unnecessary to my argument.

You write: "Rather, I was commenting about religion - not about the impostors (or the deluded) who only claim to be religious."

Indeed, the religious are deluded, self-deluded in fact. And I was talking about religion too, as well as the religious. So many of the religious today glibly belittle and/or patronise dismissively the degree of devotion, the choice of dogma etc of their forbears. I find that brand of hypocrisy to be contemptible. I'm close to being convinced that you follow a similar path.

Often I hear from the media, “terrorism is not caused by the Muslim religion”.

My argument is that terrorism is not directly caused by the religious extremism, yet, people who are influenced by religion, feeling good about religion having undergone some previous long felt degrading emotion, having felt religions better felt environment experiences, are turned on by extreme religions.

After people feel rewarded by new reborn again purpose in life and or long term from childhood believers in religion, any person that creates the same feel good environments as preferred religions. Mixing religious ceremonies and religious wording with violent extremism phrases. Phrases religions put out to religious believers are not that much different than violent extremism phrases adding god's name into the phrases. Christian religion use bible short phrases to influences believers towards certain goals.

Religious believers find new more extreme emotional gratification in being part of a group quoting god's name as they move towards they're ultimate purpose.

In order to further understand my conclusions an attached PDF file has some startling theories I believe are worth every moment of reading.

https://www.pdfhost.net/index.php?Action=Download&File=c3c448557994423ca8bdab9a14cb64ee

To understand many things, read from the beginning. Within a few pages I believe truly intelligent readers will continue to read all the way to the end.

Readers may accuse me of telling people how to manipulate people using religion. My purpose is to force awareness onto media statements to inform people how bad influenced human behaviours are brought on by bad education, that parents should be aware what bad education does to young children.

Greetings Yuyutsu cont.....
Less than admirable also is; "Regarding intellect, it's a great servant and a poor master" When one considers the consequences that flow from such a naive assertion it becomes apparent that it springs from a mind ill-suited to disciplined rational thought. No amount of searching reveals an original source for this bon mot. What was revealed was the plethora of religious/spiritual sites that made use of it. This immediately aroused the skeptic in me. Einstein expressed a similar sentiment when he wrote to the affect that the intellect has powerful muscles but no personality. In my estimation he trumps a millennium of attempts by the faithful to not only describe intellect but find a description that will simultaneously disparage it. Einstein is correct. Pursuit of explanation, of knowledge, adhering rigidly to the scientific method, each of these can countenance no human idiosyncracy or frailty, no arbitrariness or personal preference. Rather, the intellect is a necessary component or expression of the human mind. Atheists give no thought to its separate existence as a servant or master. The intellect is there for use when required. Science has the same view. Is inspirational inference an expression of intellect? Great scientific minds seem to be particularly susceptible to it, Newton, Bohr, Hawking, Einstein, Feynman, Kraus, Maxwell, Darwin and a host of others all drank from its waters.

"An atheist is not someone who doesn't believe in some God out there, but as Swami Vivekananda states: 'He is an atheist who does not believe in himself.'"

Your worthy swami should confine his observations to fatuous remarks about Krishna etc for he does not know the meaning of the word ATHEIST. If he rejoices in testing the equanimity of atheists, perhaps he would not be so averse to my pleasurable testing of his..........

Dear Pogi,

I stated that religion and violence are mutually exclusive.
You want to oppose my view? OK, then state an alternate view.
The opposite to my view is that religion and violence can co-exist,
so I asked you whether you subscribe to this opposite view - if so, then say so, but I got no direct answer.
Instead, you presented a further list of impostors, of violent people who claimed to be religious.

It's like, how would you feel if being a grandmother, a murderer rang your neighbour's doorbell, your neighbour asked "who is it?", was answered "your grandmother", so they opened the door and were killed, then the next day all sensational media headlines reported: "All grandmothers are murderers!".

Next you write: "Indeed, the religious are deluded, self-deluded in fact" - such a generalised statement, yet you never even mentioned what, in your view, are they deluded about.

That there are people who believe themselves to be religious but in fact are not, well of course, this is even quite common - but that is not what you stated. If you think that I am one of them, then by all means I will be grateful if you point my errors so I can correct them and turn to God - this is what good friends do.

Yutsie: I stated that religion and violence are mutually exclusive.

I think they are mutually inclusive, at all points in history two things are common to violence, Women & Religion.

Yutsie: Next you write: "Indeed, the religious are deluded, self-deluded in fact" - such a generalised statement, yet you never even mentioned what, in your view, are they deluded about.

That's easy. Just about everything they believe.

BAD NEWS for MacGarvie and other supporters of ISIS

"Young Arabs' support for Islamic State sliding: survey"

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/young-arabs-support-for-islamic-state-sliding-survey-20160412-go4dbd.html#ixzz45c8fNDhH

GOOD NEWS for those working for peace: "A Common Word" http://www.acommonword.com/

..and the REVIVAL OF TRADITIONAL ISLAM as the Muslims seek out the truth about their religion:

Muhammad al-Yaqoubi "Refuting ISIS, Khawarij Wahabi Salafi Ideology"
https://archive.org/details/RefutingISIS

"There is a plethora of proofs to destroy the allegations of ISIS and expose their manipulation of the Shariah (Islamic law), but knowledge of these proofs is confined to the classical texts and is generally inaccessible to the average Muslim reader. From recognizing this void sprung forth the idea of writing this book—to offer a handbook that clarifies the position of Sunni Islam towards ISIS and its atrocities. It is also the first attempt to intellectually defy ISIS, not only by offering a decisive rebuttal to their feeble narrative but also by defining the theological standing of the group and the legal status of their self-declared caliphate. This book proceeds through a series of carefully constructed arguments, proving that the so-called "Islamic State" is neither Islamic nor a state, but rather a deviant group of gangsters driven by anger, hatred, and a thirst for power, using Islam as a pretense to reach their goals."

...."Refuting ISIS is aimed at five different groups: (i) Muslim youth who are being influenced by the propaganda of ISIS, with no alternative rejoinders (2) Common Muslims who are seeking answers to the new theological and legal challenges brought by ISIS (3) New recruits within ISIS, to help them defect by proving to them that ISIS has strayed from Islam and that the oath of allegiance to its leader is void (4) The fighters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) in Syria, the Muslim pilots from the alliances against ISIS, and their families, as many of them are wondering about the legitimacy of war against their "Muslim brothers" and whether they die as martyrs for a just cause. …cont

Cont….Some FSA brigades were hesitating in their fight against ISIS, but after it was explained to them some of what has been included in this book, they became firmly convinced that fighting ISIS is a religious obligation. This group benefitted from the Arabic version of the book. (5) The western audience, academics, journalists, politicians, and the public, the majority of whom have always admired Islam as a set of tenets and a religion of peace and civility, but when faced with the practices of ISIS, took pause as they wondered where the Muslim scholars are and why they are silent. Many in the West have heard Muslim figures in the media disassociating true Islam from the actions of ISIS, however for intellectuals that in itself was not convincing enough; the voice of an expert and scholar was required in order to dig out the treasures of the Islamic legal system and present proofs which undeniably refute the allegations of ISIS and demonstrate its fallacies. "
..
“ISIS, on the other hand, rebels against all of the schools of Islamic law, and against most Salafi interpretations, while adhering to Ibn Taymiyya in his theological views. This lack of an authority in legislation, coupled with the absence of a major reference or manual of law in the hands of ISIS' judges and Shariah personnel, has led almost every fighter placed in charge of a situation to present a contrived legal ruling based on his own understanding of the Quran and Tradition, most often selecting the quotes which seemingly validate their vengeful ill will. The brutality, savagery, and barbarity we have witnessed from this group is a testimony to the inherent danger of giving ignorant fanatics the authority to do the job of the great independent legal authorities (mujtahids), a status which even great figures such as al Ghazali and al-Nawawi could not claim. Therefore, we should concede that the extreme practices of ISIS are a direct result of the breaking of the undeclared authority of the Sunni doctors of law. ...cont

cont...
"The movement which interrupted their authority has developed for well over a century and has been strengthened by two factors. First, the marginalization of traditional Islam at the hands of secular governments in most parts of the Islamic world (with Morocco being an exception due to the Islamic authority its monarchs assumed over the centuries). Second, the rise of political Islamic movements, which often adopted a Salafist approach in the course of their rebellion against the authority of the 'Ulama (scholars) whom they consider an obstacle to the establishment of their own Islamic state and the classical institutions of Sunni Islam, such as al-Azhar.”

Muhammad al-Yaqoubi "Refuting ISIS, Khawarij Wahabi Salafi Ideology"
https://archive.org/details/RefutingISIS

Thank-you McGarvie for your part in the ongoing revival of true Islam as more Muslims are spurred on by inflammatory articles, like your own, to learn the truth about their religion. Probably not what you were planning or hoping for.

You have pampered your prejudices with a false narrative about Islam presuming Muslims would find that narrative to be a reality. But your narrative is far from the truth and Allah is the best of planners (just a reminder).

God willing you'll realise the error of your ways before being tempted further along the path of your forefathers' tradition of intolerance:

-"Was Luther anti-Semitic?" (Chrisitan Histoy)
http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-39/was-luther-anti-semitic.html

Young Arabs' support for Islamic State sliding: survey

"Washington: Two years after proclaiming a new "caliphate" for Muslims in the Middle East, the Islamic State is seeing a steep slide in support among the young Arab men and women it most wants to attract, a new poll shows.

Overwhelming majorities of Arab teens and young adults now strongly oppose the terrorist group, the survey suggests, with nearly 80 per cent ruling out any possibility of supporting the Islamic State, even if it were to renounce its brutal tactics."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/young-arabs-support-for-islamic-state-sliding-survey-20160412-go4dbd.html#ixzz45cNRa6i

grateful: they wondered where the Muslim scholars are and why they are silent.

Yes, I agree. There is a reason for this. The Jihadi threaten anyone who don't go along with the Laws calling for the death of ALL who aren't Muslim, as written in the Koran. There are many.

grateful: Many in the West have heard Muslim figures in the media disassociating true Islam from the actions of ISIS,

I have only heard one & it was a mild rebuke at that. That person doesn't want to end up being gunned down by one of the faithful. I'm sure. I suspect the reason he hasn't been gunned down is his Statements to the Media are Contrived to lull Australians into a false sense of security.

I have never heard or seen anyone of the Muslim faith stand up & denounce with any sort of real conviction the many, many Imams & Groups, as seen on TV & uTube. The ones training children in Jihad, denigrating women as being nothing more than chattels to be abused as they see fit or calling for the death of anyone who isn't Muslim.

When I see, on TV or uTube many, all Muslim leaders vehemently denouncing these people with any sort of conviction, I may start to believe Islam is a Religion of Peace. Until then, I can not.

Greetings Yuyutsu:
You write: "I stated that religion and violence are mutually exclusive.
You want to oppose my view? OK, then state an alternate view."

If my intentions were unclear then I am truly eager to dispel whatever confusions may have arisen.
Stated plainly, my view is that religion, like all other constructs of the human intellect, is an imperfect construct. It has ideals that are aspirations entirely beyond the ability of humans to achieve and therein lies its pernicious deceit. Every experience in the life of the individual is assigned a value in religion's hierarchy of values. NOTHING escapes this religious categorisation. By this device also, as a convenient benefit, human's are held separate from the Natural World. Both the hierarchy and the separation pander to the natural conceit of all humans, particularly [1] those with low self-esteem and [2] those chafing under the injustices created by gross inequalities of weath distribution. There is no clear distinction between the two, they overlap and intermingle. Note that I stated "particularly" because natural conceit permeates every stratum of society. The phenomenon of religion thrives under conditions of [1] and [2] and ensures their continuity through doctrine and dogma. Natural conceit, in and of itself, is sufficient force for the other more privileged strata of society to believe that the previously-mentioned ideals and aspirations are not beyond achievement. Healthy and over-developed egoes are more often found in these strata.

I contend therefore that for the history referenced in my previous posts and for the above stated logical and rational reasons, religion and violence are inseparable. No definition of religion anywhere attributes the property of non-violence to it, not even dictionaries compiled by religious organisations. So, even the self-deluded know better than to claim as you do.

Ref your assertion: "I stated that religion and violence are mutually exclusive." And you presented not one skerrick of evidence in support of your view. Read my lips....ANALOGIES ARE NOT EVIDENCE.

Cont to Yuyutsu:
"....you never even mentioned what, in your view, are they deluded about." They are deluded about much of the natural world , how romanticised and sanitised it has become so we become less fearful of "Nature, red in tooth and claw" [Alfred Lord Tennyson, In Memoriam A.H.H], so that a vast indifferent Cosmos becomes the habitat of a loving spirit who protects us.

"If you think that I am one of them [an impostor], then by all means I will be grateful if you point my errors so I can correct them and turn to God - this is what good friends do." I confess to being touched by your preparedness to be grateful for guidance Yuyutsu. I hold no remit in spiritual guidance and withdraw from any pretense to such if I implied so. Because I think you are wrong I marshalled a case in support of my view and presented it with forthright argument. I execrate what religion has done to people throughout history, yet the religious consciously choose to ignore the indisputable record and blithely adhere to subservience however embarrassing that choice may be. I fail every time I try to reconcile the choice with common sense or rational reasoning. Yet I am not so hide-bound and self-obsessed that I feel compelled to metaphorically destroy my opponent utterly. Atheists are not like that. I am happy to be a friend but reserve the right to be equally implacable in opposition as I have been here. I'm quoting Galileo here but may not have him word-perfect.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same god who gave us sense, reason and intellect should expect us to forgo their use."

cont.....

copy to Yuyutsu......At this jucture I'd like to illustrate a point that may be informative by quoting Robert Green Ingersoll.

"Few nations have been so poor as to have but one god. Gods were made so easily, and the raw material cost so little, that generally the god market was fairly glutted and heaven crammed with these phantoms."

While I'm uncomfortable with his frequent resort to metaphor, I find much to admire in his sentiments. And the point?
I believe there is just one god less than what you believe. We are both convinced that we are on the correct path to the truth. Because of the chasm between us do you feel hatred toward me, does your conscience compel you to destroy me? I am utterly convinced that neither you nor I feel this way. We can live together and accommodate each other's convictions without it perturbing our daily routines. But in a congregation of the faithful a latent agendum rises to prominence. It has two features [1] A striving to appear to be the most devout in the group which gives rise to [2] A striving to NOT appear to be the least devout in the group. When a congregation is given an opportunity to release pent up emotions aroused by a spirited or a deeply moving sermon voice is given to a mild collective hysteria. Such scenarios are found among the ostentatiously evangelical sects in particular. In medi-eval times the hysteria was fueled by the fact that the christian church held authority over every aspect of peoples'lives and moulded the societies they lived within. Those who rebelled against such tyranny rarely survived religious wrath.
Consolidated religion contains within its own DNA the code for violence. Though my history is essentially of the christian religion, what I have learned of Islam is in concordance with christianity's growth, spread and its iniquitous compulsion to control.

I have amassed sufficient evidence to satisfy my strict criteria for truth. This does not, however, lead me into complacency. It is possible that contrary evidence may emerge, no matter how unlikely that seems.

Dear Pogi,

Religion is no more a construct of the human intellect than light, energy, space, time, etc., existing whether or not humans try to conceptualise it with their imperfect intellect.

Categorising, conceit, hierarchy and violence are natural human traits and the devious human mind can abuse and turn anything, including religion, upside-down to serve those traits (which reminds me of the saying, "Just as King Midas turned everything he touched into gold, so does the mind turn everything it touches into s-h-i-t").

Thus, the history that you mentioned, while correct, is the history of man and his society rather than the history of religion. Within this history, at times violence was present while at other times, religion was present (but it's the former that usually gets the headlines). The agendum and group-dynamics one finds in the congregation of the faithful are the same agendum and group-dynamics one finds in any tight congregation of people.

Religion is defined as any process or practice that brings one closer to God: both the Latin 'Re-ligare' and the Sanskrit 'Yoga' mean "to join/reunite [with God]".

While not in the definition itself, scripture tells us that so long as one engages in violence, they can practically forget about any chance of approaching God.

Contemporary dictionaries define religion differently only because they do not see the full picture, only fragments (and even religious people often fail to see the full picture). For example they observe that religious people often believe in deities. What they fail to understand is that such beliefs are only religious techniques rather than religion itself (nor are they an attempt to describe/understand the natural/physical world). Different religious techniques suit different people, so there are religious people who don't use this particular technique, who hold no particular beliefs - you could perhaps even be one of them, and OTOH, there are people whose belief in deities actually hampers their spiritual progress. It's very individual.

Re Galileo, one should make good use of their reason and intellect - but it has to be a GOOD use, otherwise better not have them.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<Because of the chasm between us do you feel hatred toward me>>

No way! If you are a good person and a seeker of truth as seems, then I find you no less religious, no less on your best path to God, than many who parrot the view that God exists.

<<I execrate what religion has done to people throughout history>>

Yes, I can identify with your anger, but those things were done by people, some of them truly despicable, not by religion.
Between the two of us, I am the one who should be hurt most by their actions because they bring religion to ill-repute.

<<I fail every time I try to reconcile the choice [of subservience] with common sense or rational reasoning.>>

I think I could help you to reconcile this, but right now I think you could be too upset for a rational explanation.

<<Consolidated religion contains within its own DNA the code for violence>>

Oh yes, religion is a living thing: coagulated religion is hardly still a religion.

<<I believe there is just one god less than what you believe>>

I am a Hindu, so this still leaves plenty :)

Yuyutsu and Pogi,

I would appreciate you both taking the time by considering the content mentioned below, perhaps this may explain confusion related to Christian religious belief today, any comments appreciated.

YouTube video linked below, you can skip the start and just watch the section (part I of the video between minutes 4.28 to 31.55).
http://youtu.be/pTbIu8Zeqp0

Hi Yuyutsu,

You suggest that " .... Religion is no more a construct of the human intellect than light, energy, space, time, etc., existing whether or not humans try to conceptualise it with their imperfect intellect."

Still trying to get my head around that. Do you mean that, if religion is a construct, so are light, energy, time, etc. ? That Isaac Walton invented gravity, and if he hadn't, nobody would be dying falling over cliffs etc.? Bastard ! That Kopernik and Galileo invented the heliocentric system, and before that, there was a terracentric system ? That time started the instant somebody tried to measure it, with no time passing ever before that ? So if any of us stopped thinking about time, it would stop ?

In other words, the world is as we think it is. If we think something different, the world thereby becomes different. I think they call that idealism in philosophy, or Berkeleian idealism. The power of the mind, I suppose.

So I could wander along the top of a cliff with no fear, as long as I denied the 'existence' of Walton's so-called gravity ? Vice versa, there is a heaven because I wish there to be one ? Along with its 72 virgins at my beck and call ? Sweet.

Fascinating garbage :)

Joe

Dear Joe,

If this is what you understood from my last post, then I may have a serious problem in expressing myself in English.

What I meant, and please help me to correct my grammar if what I wrote did not mean that, is that light, energy, space, time AND religion, all pre-exist regardless whether humans try to conceptualise them.

---

Dear Geoff,

I watched the video. While I think that some of it has a grain of truth, the dishonesty of those who prepared the movie strikes me, whose eagerness to prove what they want outweighs decent enquiry.

Only few among us are experts in ancient/Egyptian mythology and astrology, making it easy for anyone to tell us whatever they like about it, which we may agree to out of ignorance. While my knowledge of the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans approaches zero, I do know my bible and the scriptures on Shri Krishna.

Joseph had 11 brothers - not 12 as the movie states.
Krishna was not resurrected and his mother, Devaki, was not a virgin, in fact he was her eighth son.

The logic of the producers is also wanting in honesty. It is one thing to suggest how the stories about Jesus came about, yet another to conclude, without evidence, that it was a pre-meditated operation with the intention of controlling the masses (even if it ended up that way).

As I see it, on the balance of probabilities, Jesus was the natural son of the carpenter Yoseph and his wife Miriam. He was born around June or October (the Jewish festivals of Pentecost and Tabernacles). He was a great enlightened reformer and spiritual reviver, born among the Jews to save them from the horrible degeneration and corruption of their religion. He was not a descendant of King David, thus he could not be a Jewish Messiah.

It is quite possible that as the years went by, cultural/astrological elements kept ornamenting the story of Jesus until the original information became obscured by the sheer mass of irrelevant ornaments.

Hi Yuyusu,

Sorry, I misunderstood you, I think. You say, " .... light, energy, space, time AND religion, all pre-exist regardless whether humans try to conceptualise them."

Do you mean that religion exists, like light, energy, time, space, regardless of whether or not there are humans to experience it ? Doesn't that presuppose the existence of a god or gods ? i.e. you're begging the question ?

Or does religion have its 'natural' laws just as light and space and time do ? Like F = ma ? Or E = mc2 ? Does heaven have mass ? Does God have mass ? So are they subject to gravity or are there heavenly anti-gravitational laws ? Does heaven orbit the earth ? What did God do before he invented time ? i.e. from everlasting up to the present ? So God has an enormous capacity for utter boredom ? As well as an inordinate love of beetles (Haldane) ? And blow-flies ? And microscopic parasites ?

Truly, the ways of God are unknowable.

Joe

Greetings Yuyutsu.
You write: "Religion is no more a construct of the human intellect than light, energy, space, time, etc., existing whether or not humans try to conceptualise it with their imperfect intellect."

Like Loudmouth, I have serious doubts about your assertion. The scientific theory of the Big Bang is emerging not so much like a thunderclap next to one's ear but more like a flower opening before one's eyes at a dimensionless point. Have you listened to the sound of a flower opening? Actually, the title Big Bang is an assinine journalistic alliteration that has no basis in fact. That there was some kind of sound is not known but there is an almost isotropic relic radiation that permeates every part of "empty space" between the stars, galaxies etc. This relic is called the Cosmic Microwave Background or CMB. US radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered it in 1964 and were awarded a Nobel Prize in 1978 for its discovery. It is accepted as a relic of the event of "creation". It is accepted that light, energy, space, time and the four fundamental forces of nature, gravity, the electromagetic force, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force all came into being at or very shortly after the BB occurred.

The dissertation above is necessarily brief and accurate enough for my purpose.

So, to the very best of human knowledge whatever there was prior to the BB is at present beyond our comprehension because our Universe's time began with the BB. That you suggest religion was "created" at the same time and is a measurable component of our universe and as fundamental to the universe as the previously mentioned features, seems, not to put too fine a criticismm, just a whisker self-serving and pompous. Now you may protest, "That does not mean........etc, etc." But please be advised that no emotional special pleading or special revelation will convince this atheist that you and your ilk have special insight that confounds the discoveries so far as they have been established by our technology.

cont.......

cont.....
Greetings Yuyutsu.
You do have a right to make the case for your beliefs, but now you must face the likelihood that such case will not only suffer criticism but also ridicule.

You write: "Thus, the history that you mentioned, while correct, is the history of man and his society rather than the history of religion."

Though my patience wears thin, so has my tolerance of religious faith's froth and bubble. Yet I continue to counsel myself in the art of patience when faced with another wilfull denial of reality so that a mind may find ease and solace in fantasy. So, in the interest of brotherly understanding I will prevail upon you to present a short history of religion, whence it originated and whence its originator originated. I confess in advance to a frisson of displeasure and frustration if your tale ends with turtles all the way down.

You write: "Religion is defined as any process or practice that brings one closer to God: both the Latin 'Re-ligare' and the Sanskrit 'Yoga' mean "to join/reunite [with God]".

While your purpose might find approval among your bretheren hindu, you will sufer censure if you resort to perverting the truth. From <dictioary.com> Latin - religion [stem of religio] conscientiousness, piety, equivalent to relig[are] to tie, fasten [re + ligare, to bind, tie; cf. ligament]. Nothing expressly holy or divine. As for the word "yoga"; The meaning of the word "Yoga" is "union". It is derived from the Sanskrit root "yuj," (pron. "yug") meaning "to join", "to unite" but also "to subjugate", with the meaning also "to control" and "to disciplinate". The English word "yoke" is also derived from the same Sanskrit (Indo-European) root. Copied from <quora.com>

You write: "Contemporary dictionaries define religion differently only because they do not see the full picture, only fragments (and even religious people often fail to see the full picture)."

Please spare us the special pleading and the resort to infantile esoteric insight that is denied to the vast majority of the human race. Every religion makes claims of the type you present.

cont.....

You write: "Different religious techniques suit different people, so there are religious people who don't use this particular technique, who hold no particular beliefs - you could perhaps even be one of them,....."

I urge you to divest yourself of any notion that I am religious, even by your standards. I regard your temerity to categorise me according to your faith as presumptuous and grossly disrespectfull.

You write: "Re Galileo, one should make good use of their reason and intellect - but it has to be a GOOD use, otherwise better not have them."

You presume to lecture Galileo on the proper use of sense, reason and intellect? Your religious dogma contributes more to humankind than Galileo's genius? So, if one's scientific discoveries arouse the ire of one's peers prompting threats of torture and death, one should keep silent and suffocate one's curiosity. Religion's pernicious influence laid bare.

You write: "<<I fail every time I try to reconcile the choice [of subservience] with common sense or rational reasoning.>>

I think I could help you to reconcile this, but right now I think you could be too upset for a rational explanation.

Divest yourself of such thoughts as these also and then abandon the pretense of diagnosing my emotional vulnerability. I'm detecting an immature precociousness in your attitude. It will require more than the patronising words of one so religiously afflicted as you to arouse me to a state of upset. It is indeed a pity that you have proven to be so like so many of the faithful that I have engaged with over the years.

I was unaware that you are a hindu until your declaration here. There are not that many engaged in discussion groups by comparison with christians. But it turns out you're all alike.

Dear Pogi,

First let us clear a couple of misunderstandings;

1. I suggested that you COULD PERHAPS be religious, not that you necessarily are.
My point simply was that belief of any kind is not a requisite for religion.

2. I was not referring to Galileo the person - only to that particular statement of his which you presented, regardless of who said it. Don't you agree with me that one should only make good use of their intellect and reason, or else better not have them? Would you approve it for example had the Nazis been successful in using their intellect and reason to build a nuclear bomb?

I have no idea why you presented this account about the BB. How is this relevant?

I have no problem sitting patiently to answer your questions in detail, such as about the history of religion or the efficacy of subservience, but in your own words, "my patience wears thin, so has my tolerance of religious faith's froth and bubble", so what's the use? what good could come out of it? I have never set out to make you angry, but merely responded to your questions, which by now have strayed quite a bit from the original topic.

It all started from a small comment that I made on this topic: "if, or to the extent that, Islam has a violent political agenda, then it is not a religion". My argument is thus with Christians and others who at least believe in religion - not with you.

Do you believe that Islam, though violent, can lead people closer to God? From your posts so far, I have the impression that you do not believe that ANYTHING can lead people closer to God. In other words, you believe that religion does not exist. That's fine with me if you so believe, but in that case you should agree that as nobody can be religious, it logically follows that nobody can be religious AND violent simultaneously.

Hi Yuyutsu,

You sometimes make quite outrageous stagtements:

"It all started from a small comment that I made on this topic: "if, or to the extent that, Islam has a violent political agenda, then it is not a religion". My argument is thus with Christians and others who at least believe in religion - not with you."

So .... only believers can comment on your assertions ? Not 'outsiders' ? Sometimes it is precisely outsiders who CAN perceive what insiders have always taken for granted. That's the gist of books titled 'The Outsider', such as Colin Wilson's, or those by Camus or Richard Wright, and so many others. Probably everybody who has immersed themselves in an exotic environment has been struck by the paradox that they can see something that insiders can't.

Of course, you assertion that religion and violence can't coexist, or that one can't actually define the other, is quite absurd: certainly, there are adherents every religion who have an interpretation of it which forswears violence, but many religions have been, after all, founded on violence, Islam being only the most obvious.

In fact, one wonders what would happen if all the 'tribal' verses in the Koran which demanded violence - the odd hand off here or leg off there, or women raped and enslaved, children beheaded, that sort of thing - was removed, what would be left of it ? In other words, if the Koran could ever be a book for a religion of peace, what would it look like ? Apart from being much slimmer, of course ?

Hmmm .... I'd like to see that !

[TBC]

[continued]

As for your slide: " you do not believe that ANYTHING can lead people closer to God. In other words, you believe that religion does not exist...."

All intelligent people know that there are no gods, but there are plenty of religions. Surely, even for a believer in one religion, the 'false' belief of others in other gods must suggest that, false or not, it is still a belief ?

In other words, there must be religious doctrines and injunctions supporting those beliefs, and these would form a religion ? All cock-eyed from an atheist's point of view, but religions for all that ?

Perhaps you need to save that false logic - that if somebody doesn't believe in a god, then they don't believe that a religion can exist -for small children. Ask yourself, as a Hindu, 'Do some people believe in Allah, i.e. the Islamists' god, even though I know that he/she/it doesn't exist ?' Of course, they do, but just because you don't believe in it, doesn't mean that you can't perceive Islam as a religion. Or Buddhism, or Orthodox Christianity, or Moonie-ism.

Yes, you may say, all those others are not the one true religion, they're worshipping false gods, but they would say the same about yours - and both of you would be right.

Oh well, that's enough offending for one day :)

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Joe,

I have no exclusive club so you are welcome to comment, it's just that we seem to be in agreement anyway.

My claim was simple: Islam, at least in its violent form as we know it today, is not a religion because it doesn't lead its followers towards God. It could be many other things such as perhaps a nationality, a social movement, a tribe, a cult, a belief-system or many other options - just not a religion.

If you believe that nothing can bring us closer to [a non-existent] God, then you should have no difficulty to agree.

The above goes for any movement that is found on violence, not just Islam. Calling themselves a "religion" is fraudulent - they could just the same told you that they are your grand-grand-grand-mother. Why should you believe them?

<<Surely, even for a believer in one religion, the 'false' belief of others in other gods must suggest that, false or not, it is still a belief?>>

Of course, a belief is undeniably a belief. Whether it is a religious belief is an open question.

Any belief can be:
1. Religious and true.
2. Religious and false.
3. True but non-religious.
4. False and non-religious.

Religion is only concerned with the question: does a given belief help its believer to come closer to God. Whether that belief is true or otherwise is rather a scientific question, so it should be left for those who are interested in science.

Moreover, the SAME belief could be religious for one person and non-religious for another.

<<In other words, there must be religious doctrines and injunctions supporting those beliefs, and these would form a religion?>>

These doctrines and injunctions MAY (not "would") form a religion. The test is in whether or not they help people to come closer to God.

I may not personally believe in Allah, but I think that believing in Him, while leading Muslim fanatics astray, does help millions of moderate, non-violent, Muslims to come closer to God. For the latter, Islam is a religion.

(P.S. No offence taken!)

Greetings Yuyutsu:
You write: "My point simply was that belief of any kind is not a requisite for religion."

Disabuse your readership then; Of what is religion comprised, if it can exist without any kind of belief as a component?
You believe in a god, so your religion has a god as an ingredient. I believe I love the woman I live with. According to your divine doctrine am I a religious person? It is a prospect that I find quite risible and requires "special pleading" which in rational argument disqualifies the pleader from participating.

First, you define religion; "Religion is defined as any process or practice that brings one closer to God...."

The word "definition" in this context means that every property, every nuance, every interpretation of religion is reflected in that definition of yours. To add to it or detract from it would render that definition useless.

If you define religion as "any process or practice", then cleaving strictly to context and the sense in which you are relying we face the question of an arbitrator or an existing set of rules or an intuitive revelation that distinguishes between those processes or practices that bring one closer to god and those that lead us elsewhere. How are we informed that we chose the correct process or practice? Are we guided by a sacred telepathy with no voluntary input or are we guided by a set of rote-learned doctrinal beliefs?

I challenge anyone to examine the immediately past one hour of his or her life, identify and count the number of times their mind resorted to "belief" and in the next hour use their minds without resorting to any "belief" whatsoever. It becomes immediately apparent we cannot perform processes or practices without using a multitude of beliefs. A BELIEF IN GOD is a must for the processes and practices to have any sense and meaning.

THEREFORE, ERGO AND IPSO FACTO, your statement; ".....belief of any kind is not a requisite for religion." contradicts the "definition" of religion that you presented in the first place. Cont......

Greetings Yuyutsu cont......

You wrote: "I have no idea why you presented this account about the BB. How is this relevant?"

It was a compliment that I extended to you. I was affording you the opportunity to make a case for religion to be the fifth fundamental force in the Universe. Should there be a GUT [Grand Unifying Theory] many scientists hold that a fifth force is required. It would have been interesting to say the least to see you rise to the challenge.

I hope my dissertation was not entirely wasted and that others were aware of what I was doing.

You write: "I have no problem sitting patiently to answer your questions in detail, such as about the history of religion or the efficacy of subservience,....."

Despite any forbodings I might have, I earnestly request that you do so. In fact it should not have been necessary that you be asked. It is fundamental to your case and will severely limit the credibility your readers will afford you if you neglect this request. So, with my most previous post in mind please give it a go.

You write: "My argument is thus with Christians and others who at least believe in religion - not with you."

Had you stated this in your first post, then I may have had second thoughts. However, I confess to being sorely tempted any time I see a "special plea" being offered in support of religious faith accompanied by re-definitions of words and analogy and non-sequiturs being presented as rational evidence. I suffer the same deficiency that Oscar Wilde revealed when he declared that he could resist everything but temptation.

You write: "From your posts so far, I have the impression [a]that you do not believe that ANYTHING can lead people closer to God. [b]In other words, you believe that religion does not exist. Cont......

Yutsie: According to the story of the Blind Men and an Elephant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant),

I just loved that poem ever since I read in the old "Arthur Mees Encyclopaedia" many, many years ago. Very true.

Geoff of Perth: http://youtu.be/pTbIu8Zeqp0

Thanks for that link. I had noted those similarities myself many years ago. The Doco is obviously flawed in places, as Yutsie pointed out, but then again, so are most Doco's I ever seen. The Producer adds things to make the argument or script flow more fluidly, or, in the case of Religious Doco's, to bend the truth to suit their own particular sect. Particularly if they are TV Evangelists or Southern Baptists. I remember one claiming that Jesus was actually American.

Last night I watched "The Clash of the Titans" an old movie. A quote from the Movie, "Humans are lucky when they die. They go to a better place. The Gods only go on to oblivion." Very poignant.

After the Battle is over & the Old Gods had been killed or died There was a couple of very interesting scenes. One when Perseus comes to find the "Navigator," The Navigator is the Human Son of a God. Who, strangely, looks like Jesus. He points to his Carer, who is bandaging his foot (note) & introduces her as "Miriam." Jesus is sometimes known as "The Navigator" in Legend. A Hint at the coming of a new age. The age of Christianity.

Then, the final scene takes place on a mountain top. Perseus, the Son of Zeus tells his son that his time is over & offers his son his sword. The son reaches up & takes the sword & it is extremely heavy & almost drops it, but he does raise the sword to the heavens. Hinting at the coming of Islam.

cont.

I have been a legend & Myth reader all my life. Mostly in Ignorance of their deeper meanings. I have found that most are Allegories & have two or more stories or meanings woven into them. The Story of King Arthur, The Three Musketeers, Don Quixote, The Inferno, even the Bible. A common theme runs through them all. The quest for the triumph of Good over Evil. Usually meaning War because of what each of us believe to be "Good" or "Evil."

The writer of these scripts, from thousands of years ago to now certainly knew how to put things into words.

I had some lovely JH's ladies come to my door one day They asked me if I knew what caused all the Misery & Suffering in the World. I told them that I just happened to know the answer to that. "Women & Religion." They didn't stay.

Greetigs Yuyutsu cont.......

As for [a]: gods, demons, ghosts, goblins etc, etc are pathologies of the mind and exist only in the minds of the afflicted. My earliest memories of religion are of Sunday School at around age 6 or 7 years, being confronted by tales that seemed obvious fairy-type stories that I remembered from kindergarten about animals that talked, people who lived 700 years, Adam and Eve being the first humans yet their kids married people from another place and being very much negatively impressed with the adults that were telling me this piffle. My mother gave up after a year or two and by age 12 I was an atheist, I knew why and I knew what that meant. I was and am still convinced gods do not exist except in the imaginations of some people. On the Dawkins scale I am a 7

As for [b]: Your assertion is patently wrong and pretty silly as well. It's perfectly obvious that religions exist. They try to insinuate themselves into every stratum of society plagiarising ancient wisdom and mixing it with some of the most ridiculous superstition ever to emerge from ancient historical sources. It forever seeks political influence but hysterically denies accountability. How you could possibly preface your assertion with; "In other words...." astonishes me. To even imply that [b] follows logically from [a] is arrant nonsense

You write: "you should agree that as nobody can be religious, it logically follows that nobody can be religious AND violent simultaneously."

I have never said that no one can be religious. Please provide a reference or quote in context that supports your allegation. What you say logically follows might follow hindu logic, but has nought to do with mainstream logic. I have noted your proclivity for the non-sequitur and hasten to advise that it does your overall case no good whatsoever.

Dear Pogi,

As defined, religion is comprised of all acts or omissions, made consciously or otherwise, which brings one closer to God. All that matters for this particular discussion is that violence is not among those acts (in fact violence takes one away from God, but if you believe it impossible for one to come either closer or further from God, then that's OK too).

Belief in gods or God can be a powerful religious technique, but it is not the only one and it does not suit everyone.

A famous example of an unconscious religious act is described in http://blog.onlineprasad.com/stories-of-shiva-purana-lord-shiva-and-the-hunter, fuller version in http://duleshwarmahadev.org/history.html - this hunter was ignorant, he didn't believe in anything except that he had to feed his family, but unknowingly he performed religious acts of the highest order which united him with God.

I never claimed that determining one's level of religiosity is easy, but scripture provides some basic indicators and is clear about the fact that violence is incompatible. You say that you love the woman you live with: while I cannot tell for sure, this is quite possibly a religious act (but if instead you were to beat her, then I could quite confidently say that it is not).

Regarding the BB, thanks for the compliment, but as Jesus said: "Render unto Caesar what is his", I leave such questions about the natural world and the forces that drive it for science. However, science is for making a living, not for living by.

<<It is fundamental to your case and will severely limit the credibility your readers will afford you if you neglect this request>>

I will honour your request when I have more time, but my only case here is the incompatibility between violence and religion. Do any readers dispute it?

<<It's perfectly obvious that religions exist>>

It's perfectly obvious that claimants-for-religion exist.

<<I have never said that no one can be religious>>

Have you then, despite your Sunday-school experience and the notion-of-God they taught there which you abhor, changed your mind and now consider it possible to come closer to God?

Greetings Yuyutsu: I think you must agree that when a protagonist is presented by his opponent with powerful evidence of charlatanry and deeply religious disrespect for the truth said protagonist should re-examine said evidence and attempt a genuine response.I re-present a series of questions that should have elicited said genuine response from you. You however seem to see our exchanges in a different light. Please note that these questions arose out of statements you have made about religion. When quoted, your statements are enclosed in inverted commas.

[A] 1/ "My point simply was that belief of any kind is not a requisite for religion."
2/ "Religion is defined as any process or practice that brings one closer to God...."
3/ "I have the impression [a]that you do not believe that ANYTHING can lead people closer to God. [b]In other words, you believe that religion does not exist."

Using logic as our guide it becomes quite obvious that unless your first statement is wrong and belief in god is a requisite for religion then your definition of religion being about bringing one closer to god is untrue. A belief in god is required if you work toward a closer relationship with him/her/it, if it is a religion you are defining. Reasoning leads us to an axiomatic conclusion, one that is inexorably inevitable.
In 3/ you compound your contradiction by admitting that god is essentially an ingredient of religion. If I believe that nothing can lead people closer to god then it follows inevitably that religion does not exist according to you.

The question: will you ignore the contradiction, claim there is no contradiction but neglect to explain why, or will you provide an honest attempt at an answer that is designed to satisfy an atheist inquiry? Cont.....

Greetings Yuyutsu. Cont.....
[B] This is a c&p of a question already asked by me and ignored by you:
<If you define religion as "any process or practice", then cleaving strictly to context and the sense in which you are relying we face the question of an arbitrator or an existing set of rules or an intuitive revelation that distinguishes between those processes or practices that bring one closer to god and those that lead us elsewhere. How are we informed that we chose the correct process or practice? Are we guided by a sacred telepathy with no voluntary input or are we guided by a set of rote-learned doctrinal beliefs?>

Let me put it in words of humbler origins; How do you know any particular process or practice will bring you closer to god?
How are you incontrovertibly convinced that you know? Theist attempts to answer questions like this convincingly frequently have elicited paroxysms of laughter from atheists

Hi Yuyutsu,

I'm puzzled: to be counted as a religion, a set of beliefs cannot advocate violence - yet religion is 'comprised of all acts or omissions, made consciously or otherwise, which brings one closer to God.

So, what if the set of beliefs that a group constructs requires a violent god, Kali for example, or human sacrifice, or violent conquest in the name of that god, Islam for example ? Or encourages 'all acts .... made consciously or otherwise, which brings one closer to' such a violent god ?

Let's be honest here: Islam - as set out in it 'unchangeable' book - encourages, demands violence, and has done so since the 620s, fourteen hundred years now - that's precisely how it built an empire from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and from Korea to Poland, precisely through violence. And it is certainly a religion, with 1.7 billion followers.

How can Islam somehow become less violent - in today's jargon, less 'offensive' ? Perhaps by purging the Koran of its violent passages ? Perhaps by allowing believers to debate and question and refine the remaining passages, no matter how few they may be ?

Atheists may indeed laugh at such childish and simultaneously dangerous notions as violent gods, but we must always be ready to extend the benefits of common sense and rationality to our less fortunate brethren.

Joe

Dear Pogi,

<<I think you must agree that when a protagonist is presented by his opponent with...>>

Protagonist? Opponent? why should I think of you this way?

A potential opponent for me in this context could be someone who stated something like: "Wrong: God likes violence, He loves it when you kill the infidel and rape his wife, the more the better...", but you said nothing of the sort.

So you choose not to use this particular religious technique of believing in gods, or you believe in one less god - what's the big deal? You do love the woman you live with and you don't beat her, so that's all good.

<<Let me put it in words of humbler origins; How do you know any particular process or practice will bring you closer to god?
How are you incontrovertibly convinced that you know?>>

Well, we don't know, at least not until we try.

Suppose you want to become rich. A good strategy to increase your chances is to stick around the company of others who also want to be rich, better still those who are rich already, then share experiences with them, learn from them and also tell them what worked for you and what didn't. Also read the biographies of those who became super-rich, learn from them how they did it, then try it too.

---

Dear Joe,

If a set of beliefs requires you to do unto others what you would hate being done to yourself, then that set of beliefs is not a religion. The underlying reason is that in truth both you and they are God. If you are closer to God thus aware of this truth, would you do the same to yourself?

The earliest versions of the Koran, BTW, appeared around the 790s, not the 620s.

There's this movement called 'Islam' which contains some great religious elements, but it also contains significant anti-religious elements, making it undeserving to be crowned as a religion.

The worship of Mother Kali does not involve human sacrifices. Yes she is destructive, but not violent (think "demolition").

Greetings Yuyutsu:
You write: "Protagonist? Opponent? why should I think of you this way?"
Perish the thought that I would instruct you on your opinion of me. So calm your feigned airs and graces. Your smiling deceit will do you no good service with me. The precise reverse should be obvious to any and all whose minds are not afflicted with a palsy that holds deceit in high regard. I was telling you what I thought of you. No more, no less.
I have a fairly well-reasoned idea of what you think of me but that is immaterial and too distant from the original topic to be relevant.
Your purpose from the beginning here has been to sell the ridiculous notion that all religion disavows violence, is wholly separate from it, holding the concept of religion as unalloyed, pure and inviolate, dealing only in what is good. You have arbitrarily declared that human affairs and actions are totally divorced from religion, only those affairs and actions deemed good will boast religion's imprimatur. By this device you believe you are immune from arguments from those who disagree with your philosophical construct.
Artifice, if nothing else, creates the artificial and that is what you have done. It has been the artifice of religions since their inception that as vulnerabilities appeared in religion artifice created a concept that plugged the hole. Such artifice of course was so drenched in holy and sacred revelation that the smugness and cerebral torpitude of the faithful remained undisturbed.

You write: "So you choose not to use this particular religious technique of believing in gods, or you believe in one less god -"
I wrote "....one less god...." because your definition of religion allows for only one god. Being a Hindu you have a plethora, a multitude , of gods to believe in. So herein we perceive another attempt by you to deceive and sow confusion, another artifice to shore up religion's vulnerability, another device for wriggle-room and dissembling.
Cont.....

Greetings Yuyutsu: Cont.....
You write: "A potential opponent for me in this context could be someone who stated something like: "Wrong: God likes violence, He loves it when you kill the infidel and rape his wife, the more the better...", but you said nothing of the sort."

Let me make myself crystal clear with you then. Your fantasies about religion are wrong. Your god, like every other god, exults in violence and encourages his faithful to wage war, to rape, pillage and lay waste. It's all OK if the "right people" are doing it for the "right reasons". I cavil at "the more the better", as I abhor physical violence and might be forced to consider myself an accessory to said violence if I didn't. It mystifies me mightily that you failed to get the picture from my previous posts. So, while I repudiate gods, suggestions of gods in fact anything spiritual and supernatural, I acknowledge that these fantasies have some sort of existence in the minds of the especially vulnerable, the weak and the cowardly.

Now, does my being your opponent give you an excuse to ignore the questions in my two posts atop page 11? Will you choose to be a martyr to your cause or will you take an uncharacteristically courageous stance? Will you be a theistic high-flyer Yuyutsu or will you be a low-flyer held aloft by occasional gusts of wind? [with acknowledgments to the tv series YES MINISTER].

you write: <<Pogi's question: How are you incontrovertibly convinced that you know?>>

"Well, we don't know, at least not until we try."

And after you try, how do you know then? I'll wager you are a champion at Snakes and Ladders and Ludo....children's games.Be aware, the needle on my risibility meter is on the move upwards. Cont......

Cont.....
Greetings Yuyutsu:
".....Also read the biographies of those who became super-rich, learn from them how they did it, then try it too."

You're not in a pulpit here, so get it out of your mind that your infantile analogies carry any weight. You may be a lay preacher or an apprenticed hindu mystic. But wherever your proclivities lie you still have a lot to learn.

Several posts back I advised that on the Dawkins Scale of Belief I counted myself as a 7. Because it required rather brutal advice to convince you on where I stood as an atheist, I believe its significance may have escaped you, that is, even if you understood it. I present the address of the site where you will find enlightenment: <http://bigthink.com/think-tank/atheism-easter-atheister>.

We have been arguing here about religion and the existence of god. IMHO in fact we could be arguing the existence of an infinite number of things. From Bobby Henderson's Flying Spaghetti Monster thru Bertrand Russell's china teapot orbiting the sun to as many "things" as the human mind can imagine given that 108 billion human imaginations have lived on Earth since they first appeared several hundred thousand years ago.

Infinity is a concept we have to deal with. The sequence of counting numbers is infinite. therefore not only is there no beginning and no end, there is no middle or half-way. Here alone is an infinity of "things" for us to contemplate. add a teapot to each numberand as a group of two "things" we have an infinte sequence of groups of two. One question I have asked myself is why is the existence of a god given such a meaningless priority when it is only one "thing" in an infinity of things. Take the counting sequence to be a straight vertical line. At right angle to that vertical line at every number on that line we can have an infinite sequence as well. The only number that would remain the same, vertical or horizontal, would be zero.

I get dizzy thinking about it.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Yes, thanks, the first compilation of competing bits and pieces to put into the Koran occurred long after the mythical death of Muhammad, much as the Bible was put together long after the mythical death of Jesus. Sometimes man-made constructions take time :)

Your definition of religion, "If a set of beliefs requires you to do unto others what you would hate being done to yourself, then that set of beliefs is not a religion...." is perhaps a bit arbitrary, since many not all religions have, at some time, applied precisely this yardstick. And after all, it is written into the Koran in hundreds of verses.

Almost by definition, adherents to one religion regard NON-adherents as mistaken, liars, persecutors, murderers and rapists, servants of the Evil One (whoever he/she/it may be in that particular religion) and/or sub-human, not fit to enter whatever notion of heaven the adherents believe in - and easy targets for persecution or extermination. That's religion for you - 'leading' just the chosen few 'to god'.

I suppose we can define anything any way we like, but if we want anybody else to take any notice, we have to cleave to common definitions.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth: Almost by definition, adherents to one religion regard NON-adherents as mistaken, liars, persecutors, murderers and rapists, servants of the Evil One (whoever he/she/it may be in that particular religion) and/or sub-human, not fit to enter whatever notion of heaven the adherents believe in.

That reminded me of a Dinner I was invited to once. I was on my own at the time & any offer of a free dinner was welcome. The event was a talk by a retired Minister.

His big prop was a toy Platypus & how God had put this animal together with leftover parts he had from making all the other animals. Now his big spiel was on being in the right Religious Sect. His was Charismatic Southern Baptist Evangelist. The dinner was great & free. By his reckoning anyone who wasn't Charismatic Southern Baptist Evangelic was "Doomed to an end in the fiery furnace of Hell."

Anyone who wasn't a CSBE was < mistaken, liars, persecutors, murderers and rapists, servants of the Evil One (whoever he/she/it may be in that particular religion) and/or sub-human,> you left out thieves & druggies. The only way to Salvation was to become a CSBE.

I spoke to him later & said that I couldn't join his church because I had never done any of those things. I was wheeled away from him very quickly. Apparently they had paid a lot of money to hear him speak.

I found out later that as a young man he was all those things. Then he found God.

His entire Ministry was in "Kings Cross, Sydney". He was also the Minister for the NSW Police. I guess he thought that all the people in the World were like those in "Kings Cross" as that was his entirely Worldly experience.

Dear Pogi,

Yes, we have been discussing religion, but it's strange to hear that we have been arguing about the existence of God. Not me anyway, as this nonsensical question of existence doesn't interest me.

You think yourself an atheist, but you do have gods - existence is one, which seems very important to you like Allah is for Muslims: just as they are troubled when other people's concept of God doesn't conform to theirs, so are you troubled when others believe in gods that do not exist (which for me is a non-issue). Now out of the blue you write an essay in praise of infinity: is this another god of yours?

<<Your god, like every other god, exults in violence and encourages his faithful to wage war, to rape, pillage and lay waste>>

Any evidence?
I thought not!

You just produced this silly idea out of thin air in an attempt to incite me so I consider you an opponent.

How could God possibly exult in violence when there's nothing and no-one but God? Whom could this violence be against? Himself?

<<as I abhor physical violence and might be forced to consider myself an accessory to said violence if I didn't.>>

And so do I, I'm glad we agree.

However, not everything that is passed willy-nilly for religion (Islam for example), is in fact so.

<<Your purpose from the beginning here has been to sell the ridiculous notion that all religion disavows violence>>

Only people can disavow anything. Religion is simply out there, take it or leave it, the same for violence. One can embrace either, but not simultaneously both.

<<And after you try, how do you know then?>>

Once united with God there are no more questions or a need to know anything. Prior to that, there are indicators for progress: having reduced your level of violence is one; having chipped away your lust, greed, pride, desires, attachments to life, the world and your body, etc., finding peace and contentment instead. The essence of all these is the elimination of selfishness.

Excerpts from http://www.chennaimath.org/vedanta-kesari-november-2013-issue-7223 ,pages 8-11:

(continued...)

(...continued)

"Being unselfish, thus, is what determines how much spiritual one is. This is the best way to know one's spiritual progress--progressively unselfish."

"Whether one is Christian, or Jew, or Gentile, it does not matter. Are you unselfish? That is the question. If you are, you will be perfect without reading a single religious book, without going into a single church or temple."

---

Dear Joe,

<<Almost by definition, adherents to one religion regard NON-adherents as mistaken, liars, persecutors, murderers and rapists, servants of the Evil One...>>

Well by now you would be aware that I do not share that view. Hindus in general do not share that view.

<<I suppose we can define anything any way we like, but if we want anybody else to take any notice, we have to cleave to common definitions.>>

I use 'religion' in its original sense rather than the sarcastic meaning that was attached to it in the last centuries.

According to the contemporary prevailing use of the word, anyone can profess a belief in some God/god/something-similar, then claim that this god or their messenger(s) told them such-and-such - and hop, there you have a religion... "The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster"? why not, all goes...

This derogatory use of the word implies as if there is no common thread that runs between all genuine religions, in fact that there is nothing genuine in them at all. This, in turn, can provide the secular with an excuse to persecute the religious, saying "there's nothing in it anyway". If religion has no essence, no truth, no real purpose, if it's just an arbitrary belief, then that would allow one to call its people non-people, its land "Terra Nulla", then take control over them by the force of their secular state.

As the religious person which I hope I am, being thus slandered, the onus falls on me to cleanse the stables, point out the commonality in all genuine religions and reject those who do not share this common thread, such as those who preach violence.

This will probably result in my door being kicked down in the middle of the night and my family being hogtied by border force, ASIO or whatever other black ops don't like my opinion but that's the price we currently face for our blessed freedom :)

Islam is a religion with a violent political agenda is like saying all religions with Christ as a central theme have all members who are good people.

There are a lot of religions inside of the overall religion of Islam. There are sunni, shite, hanifi, sufi's ... its a very long list.

Of the majority of Muslims (billions of members) there can be no doubt that they are generally peaceful law abiding and not evil.

Even in regard to ISIS we only see what the western media and politicians want us to see. We rely on second hand, third hand, uncorroborated stories.

I don't oppose ISIS nor do I support ISIS. I have no first hand knowledge of the group and given that it would be illegal to attempt to get that knowledge I must necessarily remain neutral on the subject.

An extreme lack of information is as dangerous as a prejudice or extremist view against a group or population especially when your taxes go to funding military action against that group or population in the pitch black of our security services secrecy on all information relating to those groups.

I vote not true to the suggestion in the topic. Too broad a brush.

danielrmc: I vote not true to the suggestion in the topic. Too broad a brush.

Haaaaa, haaaaa, haaaa..... I got a good laugh out of that. "You see what you want to see & you hear what you want to hear," Said the Rock Man to little Oblio, & promptly went back to sleep.