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......