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!)