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.