The problem with that argument, or rather assumption, is that it proves too much.

“religion amounts to worldview in action.”

Everything – every human action – amounts to worldview in action. If you go up the shop to buy some milk, that, according to your definition, is “religion”.

If religion is praxis with a view to “all reality” then it includes all human action without distinction.

This means your theory is wrong. And useless.

Who cares what your religion is and the government shouldn't care enough to put it in the census.

It doesn't matter why you do what you do. It only matters what you do. So long as you abide by the law and do not impinge on another's rights then it is totally irrelevant what goes on in your head.

Religion is just a way of organising your perceptions of reality in your head to try and make some sense of what you see and hear and feel. Those who cannot do this to their own satisfaction take on someone else's way of organising it all. They take on a religion or philosophy but it does not matter how you make sense of it. It only matters when you try and force others into behaving in accord with the way you have perceived the world and made sense of it.

Putting your religion on the census form just tells us that you are incapable of making sense of life and have resorted to some pre-packaged explanation for it all. That is not something you should be sharing with the rest of society.

Labelling "No Religion" as a religion is like calling baldness a hair colour or regarding "not collecting stamps" as a hobby.

Religion is the belief in a supreme deity (or deities) with the addition of a formal organisational hierarchy and a set of common beliefs.

However somebody can have no religion and yet not be called an atheist.

An atheist simply does not believe in a supreme deity but one can accept the existence of an intelligence behind the creation of the universe while rejecting the man-made myths that try to explain it.

In the same way a seagull sitting on the Opera House can't understand what's happening inside, the human mind that cannot fully comprehend eternity or imagine anything beyond three dimensions may not even be capable of comprehending what is labelled as "God".

A collection of pre-Iron Age stories by people who didn't even know what germs were to explain the unknown is now a basis for modern life and an excuse for abberrant behaviour.

Capturing and classifying God in human terms is much the same as prehistoric cave painters who thought painting images of animals bestowed power over them for a successful hunt.

It's not a take-it-or-leave-it situation and a relatively unimportant Census question.

The correct category would be "no conscious religion" as nothing and nobody can exist without religion.

However, as Phanto just mentioned, there is no need to share the fact of one's being conscious or otherwise of their religion with the rest of society - but then we shouldn't have to share any information about ourselves with the rest of society anyway.

BTW, the reason this question is asked in the census is in order to tell government how to split our tax-money among the different churches.

Everyone has a religion, even those with no belief in a deity!

And in which case they have evolution, science or big money, the sun, a flat earth, politics and the party, wall street, the motor car, freedom or control or raw untrammelled power?

Everybody has a religion?
Alan B.

An interesting comment, Mr gear.

<<An overt rationalist such as Hugh Harris could be licking his chops over this new placement of the category.>>

I take it, then, that you would rather tuck it away so that the country appears more religious than it is by people just mindlessly selecting whatever’s on their birth certificate, as has happened in the past?

<<BUT is a person not practising religion if the worldview is identified as rationalism, secularism, capitalism, socialism, atheism or environmentalism?>>

Atheism isn’t a worldview. It’s a rejection of religious claims as unsupported by the evidence, and disbelief is its only tenet. You can bend, stretch, and twist definitions all you like. Hold your tongue a certain way and tilt your head when you read them if you must. But all the sophistry in the world won’t make atheism a religion.

I didn’t bother reading the rest of the article. When you can’t even grasp such basic definitions and concepts, or are dishonest enough to try to fit a square peg in a round hole, then there is no point in continuing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

As rache pointed out, atheism is as much a religion as baldness is a hair colour. Engaging in sophistry to make it seem otherwise is dishonest. It is effectively a way of saying, “Well, our worldviews may be limited by dogma, but so are yours.”

No, they’re not.

so if there was a question which football team do you support? There couldn't be a "don't follow football" box?

I think it's telling really this article, it shows just how deluded some religious can be. The religious have daddy issues and believe everybody else has. Well the fact is many of us don't need a sugar daddy in the sky that's going to make it all better.

And to top it all off you quote mine Richard D.

Richard calls himself an agnostic because it is the only sane position to have. In science it is impossible to "prove" something doesn't exist. So while Richard is in all intents and purposes an Atheist he understand the former position.

A poor argument poorly made, well worthy of a PHD in religious studies.

This article addresses at leat four topics, somehow interrelated but clearly distinct:

1. What is the meaning of “no religion” in the Census forms.
2. What is to be understood by the terms religion and worldview.
3. What does separation of state and religion in Australia mean.
4. What are/should be the consequences of (non-Aboriginal) Australia’s Christian roots.

The answer to 1. is that “no religion” is apparently supposed to mean “none of the above/below”, (including religions the respondent might think belong to the “Other”).

As for 2. I think the problem is much more complicated than could fit into a short article: For instance, my understanding of worldview is as the equivalent of Weltanschauung, one of the most basic terms in any continental philosophy. There are e.g. Christian worldviews, atheist worldviews etc. Besides, there are a legion of isms in addition to secularism, rationalism and atheism, compatible or not with a religion in the traditional meaning of the word, most of them usually representing an extremist adherence to a single idea. So I thin it is more standard to call the worldview of a person with no religious affiliation/preference 'secular humanism', 'secularism' being its extremist (fundamentalist) version, although this is obviously not what Justice Kirby had in mind.

3. and 4. deal with legal questions and interpretations of history respectively, where I am not much at home but I feel they also would need a more balanced approach lest they sound as merely an apology for a Christian point of view, as is testified to by reactions which are actually apologies in the opposite direction.

The author's essay is fatally flawed - rather obviously - by an attempt to define religion in such broad and vague terms that it encapsulates virtually everything. This won't satisfy the religious or the non-religious, so the whole thing quickly degenerates into a pointless exercise in rhetoric. Sad.

Environmentalism and the Loony Green Left are the new religion. It's all based on beliefs and they use the same pejorative language as religious zealots.

the something from nothing brigade are certainly the most irrational believers we have today. And to think many of them are university trained. No wonder they are able to call evil good and good evil even though they claim not to believe in absolutes.

@Peter Lang, worshiping nature was the first religion Peter.

@Runner I believe in absolute zero.

To me it looks like a number of religious denominations are running scared of the result of this question.

I suspect the government will use the probable result of this question to reduce funding of many religious organisations.

From the article, I can see many of the church groups can see the same coming.

As for religion, surely worship is major part of the trapping of any of them. Shouldn't those of us who worship [or bow down to nothing & no one] be entitled to claim no religion?

Dear Hasbeen,

«Shouldn't those of us who worship [or bow down to nothing & no one] be entitled to claim no religion?»

You should certainly be entitled to claim that you are not aware of having any religion.
You should also be entitled to claim that you do not belong to any such organisation which despite calling itself "religious", fails to believe in "Thou shalt not steal" when accepting tax-payer funds.

As an enthusiastic maker of cakes (I just took an Orange Tea Cake out of the oven), I can tentatively suggest that there are indeed cakes which are not fruit cakes, and yet are cakes. My kids will love this one.

Religion is not the only way to believe. One does not have to presuppose a supernatural to believe, and hope for, and work towards, a better world. Just ask Foxy :)

On the other hand, to believe in nothing is to live an empty life. To live a life just for oneself, and bugger anybody else, is a wasted life. We live, we ..... [fill in] and then we die. Mortality is 100 % guaranteed. What will you do between now and then ? Will you leave the world a slightly better place ? Or will your descendants be left arguing over the bits and pieces of your accumulated junk ? There is no god to decide for you, only you can do that.

Even if you are a devout believer, and expect to sit on the right hand of your god, or play around with 72 houris forever, what will you leave down here on earth ? Are you all that matters to you ?

Joe

THOR RULES, OK?

Every Man or Goat is entitled to practice his own religion.

I myself worship Norse Heaven, Valhalla, and deeply resent the lack of "Norse Gods" on the Census Form. May the curse of Fólkvangr be upon the Bureau of Statistics.

As we all know Valhalla is superior to "No Religion" and the Christianity of the Monastry Pagans.

In Norse mythology, Valhalla (from Old Norse Valhöll "hall of the slain" is a majestic, enormous hall located in Asgard, ruled over by the god Odin. Chosen by Odin, half of those who die in combat travel to Valhalla upon death, led by valkyries, while the other half go to the goddess Freyja's field Fólkvangr.

In Valhalla, the dead join the masses of those who have died in combat known as Einherjar, as well as various legendary Germanic heroes and kings, as they prepare to aid Odin during the events of Ragnarök.

Suddenly everybody knows all about religon, including the atheists? Come on!

Cobber reveals that he believes "in zero", explaing why he KNOWS zero.

As for the census, I'll be putting Christian, because you can bet your bottom dollar that Muslims will be putting in Muslim, and there more of them there are, the more the politicians will be sucking up to them for votes. So, all you atheists and "nothings" leave the space blank or write 'none', and slip further down the slope towards being regarded as of no importance to politicians who use the census to see who they need to be interested in to keep their jobs. You bloody fools.

Why do the religious try and define everyone as religious?

While some atheists might be zealous with a religious like fervor, most of us simply don't believe in anything, and don't give a crap what anyone else believes as long as they keep it to themselves.

Religion is like a penis. I don't mind if the owner is proud to possess it as long as he doesn't feel the need to take it out and wave it in my face.

Dear Spencer,

I disagree with your view that several types of 'No religion' are actually religions, and point out the following problems with it:

1. Secularism is by definition belief in the political notion of separation of church and state. The US founding fathers held deist religious beliefs while holding to the political doctrine of secularism. As did the Christian founders of Australia. Thus, secularism cannot be a religion as it refers to religion - it would be self referential in wanting to separate the church and state from the separation of church and state. The concept is incoherent.

2. It's similarly incongrous to claim secularism is at odds with Section 116 of the Constitution - which guarantees secularism.

3. Your argument seems like a transparent attempt to co-opt the views of others into categories which make the Census result look better for Christians. You cannot just arbitrarily decide for others whether they regard themselves as religious or not. That's up to them, not you.

4. Australia laws tend to regard it as involving some sort of supernatural entity. This is how it was defined when Scientology achieved tax free status. This is why ethics and philosophy cannot be taught at the same time as fundamentalist religious instruction in QLD Schools.

5. People are entitled to say they have no religion, they are humanists, they are atheists, they are agnostic or they beleive in flying spaghetti monsters. None of these receive tax free status, they don't receive funding for RI, or for providing irreligious chaplains to schools, exemptions to anti-discrimination law, and nor are they thumping their copy of 'The God Delusion' in demand of these things. Most secular people are united in wanting an end ot the conspicuous privileging of outdated and largely irrelevent Christian religious beliefs in our society.

'No religion' will outstrip Catholicism to become the top denomination in Australia following the Census. The amount of Christians will be outnumbered for the first time. Hopefully, this will shift the balance towards a more religion-neutral understanding of secularism in our country.

//I put two cups of mixed fruit into a saucepan and pour a couple cups of fruit juice over it. Then I sift self-rising flour as I stir it and then put in the oven to bake for a couple of hours.

These are common ingredients for a fruit cake.//

That's your recipe for fruit cake? Gods, who taught you to cook?

//But when it is baked, I don't want to name it for what it is. I call it a non-cake, a furphy cake.//

Well, I can't say I blame you. But I think you should be honest and name it for what it is: a bloody awful mockery of a proper fruit cake.

I read no further. If man can't be arsed to do enough research into actual fruit cake recipes to make his analogy plausible, the rest of the article is bound to be rubbish.

@ttbn well as they say better to seem a fool then to remove doubt...

I refereed to the temperature absolute zero you fool.

Still can't shake the feeling you're related to Runner.

ttbn,

Who are all these people who appear to think they suddenly know all about religion? I don’t see them.

<<Suddenly everybody knows all about religion, including the atheists? Come on!>>

I do hope it’s at least the atheists, though. They do, after all, tend to know more about religion than theists.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2010/09/28/130191248/atheists-and-agnostics-know-more-about-bible-than-religious

<<As for the census, I'll be putting Christian, because you can bet your bottom dollar that Muslims will be putting in Muslim…>>

And how would putting yourself down as ‘Christian’ be any different to marking ‘No religion’, apart from the fact that lobby groups like the ACL will be able to use your claimed affiliation to lobby against important issues such as abortion rights and stem cell research?

Putting ‘No religion’ does not imply an indifference to Islam, or any other religion for that matter.

It appears you fell for the Christian scare campaign last census in which it was claimed that Mosques will spring up everywhere if ‘No religion’ is marked, but this is a non sequitur.

<<You bloody fools.>>

You have not demonstrated that anyone here, apart from yourself, is a fool.

Hi Shadow Minister,

Hey, that solemn ritual sounds like my kind of religion ! How do you do the Benediction ?

Joe

LM.

It sucks.

Attention fruitcakes. Lemmy at that alter wine! Drink Sevenhill Wine and Spirit-uals.

The Sevenhill Centre of Ignatian Spirituality provides a unique setting for prayer and contemplation within the tranquil surroundings of the oldest winery in South Australia's Clare Valley. Established in 1851, Sevenhill is the birthplace of the Jesuits in Australia.

Sevenhill Cellars, St Aloysius' Church and the College building remain today as integral parts of the Jesuit community, with the Sevenhill property regarded as a site of spiritual and historic significance.

More at https://www.sevenhill.com.au/the-jesuits .

Feelin thirsty?

When the census comes to our house the very first question I will answer will be to say I have no religion at all.
This question is long overdue on our census and I am sure it will show the long expected results that our country is now far more secular minded than Christian minded...and will hopefully lead to some welcome changes in our Government's way of thinking.
Especially the far-right loonie-toons...

Susieonline, Cobber, you worship the state. In case you haven't notice, You consider it a moral superbeing, with aims of its own, over and above society, consider it can magically make scarcity disappear, cure the sick, balance the ecology, fine-tune the temperature of the globe to the correct temperature, (to be determined by the State of course, who else?) and believe it legitimises violence.

That's religion. In fact it's the worst religion of all. The violence of the theists is nothing compared to the violence of the statists. Part of the vicious brainwashing of your religion is that you don't recognise violence as violence when the state does it.

Australia is a secular Nation.

The religious micro minority simply cannot accept this.

Personally . I cannot believe , that in this enlighten Age, a few people still believe in fairy tales ..AND .. expect the rest of us to follow suit.

Dear Aspley,

«Australia is a [...] Nation.»

A few people still believe in fairy tales ..AND .. expect the rest of us to follow suit.

Australia is a continent!

JardineKJardine, how clever you are to know exactly how I think, and even going so far as to neatly itemise my thoughts on the Government. You couldn't be more wrong.

The Webster dictionary tells us the definition of religion: "...: the belief in a god or in a group of gods. : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods."
As I don't believe in imaginary gods of any sort, then I don't follow or belong to any religion.
Simple really.

Dear Jardine,

I think that Suse has a valid point: The worship of the devil is not religion!

The New Oxford American Dictionary, (Second Edition) lists THREE different meanings of the word “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 (as in 'the world's great religions');
3. a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion: (as in 'consumerism is the new religion').

Gear writes: "It is 'the quest for the values of the ideal life involving three phases, the ideal, the practices for attaining the values of the ideal, and the theology or world view relating the quest to the environing universe'."

My copy Budget Macquarie Dictionary 3rd. edition 2000 printing
RELIGION: N. Recognition on the part of human beings of a controlling superhuman power entitled to obedience, reverence and worship.

Are the words that comprise the majority of your opening paragraph [and which I quote above] in fact copied verbatim from your dictionary or are they your interpretation of your dictionary's definition?

No matter how you contrive it, the "ingredients" you tout are not to be found in the Macquarie definition. As for your "phases", you conflate "theology" with "world view"
THEOLOGY: N. The science or study of divine things or religious truth, divinity.

It would be obvious, even to the densest of readers, that individual world views comprise a vastly broader spectrum of views than those concerned only with the divine and/or the religious.

Gear writes: "I'm using religion and worldview as essentially equivalent concepts as the dictionary associates religion with worldview and praxis (practice, as opposed to theory). So religion amounts to worldview in action."

It might be interpreted that all theology can be supported as a world view but does it logically follow that all world view is theology? Declaring synonymy between the two is blatant, self-serving balderdash. It is the equivalent of declaring "Airplanes fly in the sky therefore everything that flies in the sky is an airplane", "fish swim in the sea therefore everything that swims in the sea is a fish.".......which is of course, bunkum.

Gear insults our intelligence by composing four pages of unmitigated waffle trying to justify his contention. [Continued]

George,

I take it the third definition (which is the third for a reason) was the one you were wanting to highlight.

While there is nothing wrong with saying that someone does something or follows something “religiously”; or that, colloquially, some may refer to a new or increasingly popular pursuit as a “new religion”, that is very different from branding a pursuit or a cause as an actual religion, or as being on par with an actual religion as though it contained rituals, a dogma, and unprovable beliefs - which is usually what is insinuated in articles like this one, and some of the comments in discussion threads such as these.

As someone who speaks five languages and with English not being your mother tongue, such subtleties may not be as apparent to you.

Colloquially, doing the former is fine. The latter is emotive and dishonest. I think the people at Oxford need to note that their third definition is 'informal' or 'slang'. Nobody, not speaking colloquially, actually refers to anything that does not fit the first two definitions as a religion without the intention to denigrate.

[Continued] As an atheist, I see the Cosmos as an entirely impersonal concept even though we are made of the same stuff as the stars. I am ineluctably led to the logical conclusion that therefore the Cosmos most likely has life in it elsewhere and that, ipso facto, life thrives in other solar systems and in other galaxies. There is nothing theological or religious in this view. I will not debate the substitution of "belief" or allied words for my choices of "logical conclusion" or "most likely"[read "probability"]. The neotheological artifice of Spencer Gear and his ilk have wrought and wrung every thread of credibility to breaking point in their frantic rush to turn atheism into theism, world view into theology, to turn "belief" into anything the theist says it is.

We might profit from examining the motives of theists in promoting such outrageous suggestions.
It seems to me that the theist sees himself as being at a disadvantage, as playing on an uneven field. Does he strive mightily to elevate his own argument with logic and reason in order to draw level with atheism? Is the theist thereby acknowledging atheism's prior superior position then? Or is he striving mightily to reduce atheism so that at theism's level it must bear the same burden of doctrinal constrictions, of dogmatic unreason by being convinced that no religion is really yes religion by another path? But the same question is begged; Is the theist acknowledging atheism's prior superior position then by so arguing?

Is the theist [Spencer Gear in this case] already acknowledging atheism's superiority by adopting from the very outset the stance from which he argues? It looks horribly like it to me.

Posted by runner, Tuesday, 19 July 2016 10:48:27 AM
"the something from nothing brigade are certainly the most irrational believers we have today........."

Hardly! The Uncaused Cause Company have been in the van for yonks now. You Uncaused Causers break us up every time we see you on the road. You guys claim you gotta great big Sumpin' from Nuthin' but we can't have a peece on accounta we's gunner Hell an' He don' like goin' there.....even jus' an iddy biddy peece uv 'Im.


And to think many of them are university trained. No wonder they are able to call evil good and good evil even though they claim not to believe in absolutes."

"Many" of us don't give legitimacy to the concept of "evil". It's a religious word describing something bad and the UCC-ers want us to believe we clean folks 'r gunner get dirty with it all the time, no matter how clean we is. An' it's gunner bring us down cuz we ain't usin' the rite kinda soap. An' sho I don' b'lieve in Abso Lutes! Durn motherf.......got my sistuh pregnant! Guess that makes 'im a sistuhf.......enny 'ows

I believe in belief! And believe me, seeing is believing! Believe if you will, for believing in belief is a fundamental of the belief system, where believers congregate to celebrate believing in belief as believable...believe me!
But..to believe as we do, believing in the belief that believing will actually believe in belief itself,is far-fetched, for belief is intangible!
So..being so intangible, believing in an intangible belief system of disbelief to non believers is, believe it or not, believable; should you believe it? Yes, I suggest you believe, for if you don't believe in belief itself, then all unbelievers will ( again I suggest, and believably), fall into the trap of vacant belief with a believable outcome of misunderstanding....
This I believe, so help me God!

PS...and posters, don't believe for one minute, Ronny Corbett is dead! I refuse to believe it!

AJ Philips,

>>I take it the third definition (which is the third for a reason) was the one you were wanting to highlight.<<

No, it is the one that was missing in Suseonline’s list and which I thought Jardine K. Jardine had in mind. And the author of the article, although he seems to confuse these three different meanings of the word “religion” of which there allegedly exist 300 (please don’t ask me where I got that number from) different definitions by psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers etc..

Anyhow, you are right, English is not my mother tongue but I do not think this is true about (most of) the “people at Oxford” who authored the dictionary.

I have to agree with Spencer that the “No religion” response would better serve the purpose of Question 19 “What is the person’s religion”, by being placed as the last response.

Let me explain why:
The present structure of responses leaves many holes in the religious demographic, hence the validity of data gathered would be questionable.
May I suggest that a more comprehensive set of responses, set out alphabetically and under subtitles would give more credible data.
The subtitles may include but not be limited to Ecumenical, Evangelical, Pentecostal...

Religions that don’t sit under such titles would simply stand on their own, and be located alphabetically in the main list.

For example, under the Ecumenical subtitle would be Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, etc but after the Ecumenical list is exhausted, then further responses could be provided for other Ecumenical options such as:
• Non-church attending believer
• Other : Comments ___________________________________________

These last two options would apply under each subtitle, and could also apply under each religion.

Belief systems such as Agnostic and Atheist would be toward the top of the list by alphabetical order (both of which may require a brief definition in brackets after them as there could be many respondents who may not be clear on what they believe or what the term means).

Such a structure would benefit by the “No religion” response being the last option and if the form is comprehensively structured, may not even be needed.

Posted by Form Designer

Seems to me that Spencer Gear is the fruitcake.

David

Yes, George, I understand that.

<<No, it is the [definition] that was missing in Suseonline’s list and which I thought Jardine K. Jardine had in mind.>>

Which is precisely why I said it would be the definition that you were trying to highlight.

I agree that English would be the mother tongue of most (if not all) of those at Oxford, but no dictionary is perfect, which is why they are being updated all the time. Nor does the fact that English being the mother tongue of those at Oxford negate the points I made.

Take the new Pokémon Go craze, for example. Some may have, colloquially or in jest, labelled it “the new religion”, but no one in their right minds would suggest officially declaring it a religion, nor would they seriously suggest adding it to the new census as a religion to be selected.

Furthermore, take the posts of those here (or on any other thread for that matter) who have labelled non-religious beliefs/interests/pursuits as ‘religions’ for example. In every instance, it has been done to denigrate the person/people that it was directed towards. Hardly a good reason to have the definition of religion expanded to non-religious beliefs/interests/pursuits.

I'm fairly confident that if I was to email the relevant people at Oxford about my suggested alteration (possibly with a link to this thread as as an example) that at least some there would agree with me.

"No religion" is a clear statement of fact.
Religion implies belief in some supernatural being which many people do not.
I can accept that this question could be perceived as necessary to allow for societal needs to be forecast, but why is so much attention being paid to something which should be private and personal, not subject to governance.
Maybe those who believe in some kind of deity would not object to being asked what sporting teams they support, or who are their favourite musicians.
It's about as important.

Dear George,

Sadly, dictionaries are written by people who are not into religion themselves, or perhaps only superficially so, so they only observe and report some superficial side-effects of religion rather than religion itself. It's like a pet mouse defining "human" as "something that drops food", then one day when a fruit falls off a tree, the mouse considers that tree to be human as well.

---

Dear Ponder,

I agree that such questions should not be asked.

I disagree that "Religion implies belief in some supernatural being": belief is just one religious technique among many and is not strictly necessary.

"No religion" is not a clear statement of fact, but rather a clear statement of the responder's ignorance. People can be quite religious without knowing it, so if that question is asked and responded to at all, then people who think that they have no religion should humbly respond: "I am not aware of having any religion".

Some additional thoughts, George.

If the third definition you listed were considered to be as formal or non-slang as the first two definitions, then all that would mean is that, in order to avoid confusion, we would need to find a different word for what people generally understand to be a religion when they are not trying to belittle the beliefs/interests/pursuits of others.

How, for example, would one otherwise clearly convey what it was that they were referring to when using the word ‘religion’, without continuously having to follow it up with a caveat? Language should be more clear and effective than that.

That being said, I think Suseonline was right to object to JardineKJardine’s emotive and derogatory application of the word ‘religion’.

Now that I think about it, ‘Derogatory’ could be another possible sense to describe the third definition that you mentioned.

Finally, (and I may be starting to split hairs here) I would just add that the OED doesn’t list the three definitions as completely separate definitions in their own right. The second two are considered subcategories of the first. This is how it’s actually presented, they are not labelled 1, 2, 3:

1 The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:
(ideas about the relationship between science and religion)

[Indent] 1.1 A particular system of faith and worship: (the world’s great religions)

[Indent] 1.2 A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion: (consumerism is the new religion)

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion
http://tinyurl.com/zkbfmwt (Google ‘Define’ search)

Yuyutsu - you're being driven, like many posters into splitting hairs over this entire topic, trying to micro-define an inherent generality, and being unclear what religion actually is.

I also am unclear - to me it's akin to trying to define love; religion is the same kind of emotive intangible.
But I disagree when you say "No religion" is not a clear statement of fact, but rather a clear statement of the responder's ignorance.

No!

The term "Religion" is an attempt to brand the inexpressible, to put it in some kind of category.
People either follow some kind of religion, or they don't. That's the importance of a "No religion" census option.

Religion tends be group conformism, overlooking that each person has total individual responsibility for their morals and ethics, thus their relationship with others.
Nobody is morally or ethically responsible for their actions to anybody except themselves.

Perhaps the census option should include "Me" as a 'religion'.

Dear Ponder,

Yes, love is a great analogy.

Neither love nor God can be defined, but the strategies that different people take in order to achieve them can often be listed.

If asked, "what is your strategy for having more love in your life", some people's answers could be:
* I'm dating.
* I'm saving money for a good bride.
* I use a deodorant.
* I undergo cosmetic surgery to look beautiful.
* I mix in social circles.
* I attend church to have more friends.
* I diet to be fit and healthy.
* I work on anger-management.
* I take care of my old parents in order to cultivate my emotion of loving.

Etc., Etc.

Now is there someone who doesn't want more love in their life?
- hardly believable!
But are there people who are unaware that they want more love in their life? And among those who are aware, are there not some without a clear strategy on how they expect to get there?
- Yes, won't you agree that both types exist?

Similarly with religion:

Everything that is, comes from God and will eventually return to God. The question "what is your religion" is equivalent to asking "what is your strategy for returning to God sooner?".

Some may answer, "I stick with and conform to the teachings and principles of this-or-that denomination" while others may answer, "I just try to be the best person I can". Obviously there are thousands and millions of different answers to this question which no questionnaire can exhaust.

I can naturally accept that some people are unaware of their innate yearning to return to God - to be conscious of their own eternal, true and blissful original nature.
I can naturally accept that some people have never consciously decided on any particular path/strategy on how they may get there.

- but to say that one doesn't want to return to God, is equivalent to saying that one doesn't want to have more love in their life. Yes, people say both, but only as an expression of their ignorance.

"I can naturally accept that some people are unaware of their innate yearning to return to God - to be conscious of their own eternal, true and blissful original nature."

Oh, how magninimous of you Yuyutsu!

You might sympathize with the Australian school Chaplain who told an anorexic girl she was only hungering for the word of the Lord.

The arrogance and perfect stupidity of evangelists who claim to know the unknowable, and that everyone else is somehow blind to it, is precisely the reason many people will be marking 'No religion'.

There is no discussing this issue rationally with you. Rather than presenting evidence you simply make the blind assertion that you know, and others don't.

Please continue to feel sorry and generous towards those who feel an obligation to accord their beliefs to post-enlightenment notions of evidence and reason.

It's an attitude filled with the pretense of kindness and humility, but one that is actually devoid of either.

AJ Philips,

Here we go again. If you call highlighting my remark that probably this is what a third person had in mind, so be it. I agree that no dictionary is perfect but doubt that you know better than those “people at Oxford” how to compose an authoritative dictionary, what it should or should not contain.

I also agree than some posts here are written “to denigrate the person/people that (they were) directed towards”, be they religious or non-religious, theists or atheists, etc. I tend to ignore offensive posts directed at my worldview, and I think so should you.

Finally, I am not an expert on philosophy of religion, even less on how to summarise in a reasonably concise dictionary how the word "religion" is used in the heaps of literature dealing with it. And, I am afraid, from what you have written neither are you. So I think we should leave it at that - you have your favourite dictionary (dictionaries), I have mine.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I have to agree with Ponder that the Census Form is not an invitation to write a philosophical (psychological etc) essay on some term mentioned in the question, e.g. religion, but to tick off one of the offered alternative answers (or, in exceptional cases, suggest an additional alternative).

It's amazing what an innate fear of death will make normally rational people believe.

It also makes them do some incredibly evil things and provides an ongoing excuse for their personal prejudices.

The only remotely positive thing religion provides is an occasional sense of community and some degree of consolation - otherwise it's poison and because it's based entirely on the salvation of the self - also totally amoral.

In the end it's their own chance at eternal life adherents are working toward - nobody else's.

Science made people fly. Religion made them fly into buildings.

George,

I haven’t claimed that I know better than the people at Oxford. I have, however, clearly outlined, from multiple angles, why it is incorrect to treat the third definition of religion that you listed as equally formal as the first. Which is why I have suggested that Oxford qualify that definition as with ‘Informal’, ‘Slang’, or ‘Derogatory’, just as they describe other definitions of words that have multiple meanings and senses with ‘Noun’, ‘Adjective’, ‘Law’, ‘Slang’, etc. Take the word ‘matter’ for example. It has three additional senses: ‘Printing’, ‘Logic’, and ‘Law’. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/matter)

If you disagree, then please explain to me how the third definition is equally valid to the first when it is only used colloquially, in jest, or in a derogative manner. Why would -isms such as atheism, environmentalism, or secularism not be officially classified as religions by any serious government body if the third definition were equally valid to the first? Appealing to the authority of those at Oxford or questioning my knowledge of the philosophy of religion, without explaining why my reasoning is wrong, is fallacious.

<<I also agree than some posts here are written “to denigrate the person/people that (they were) directed towards”, be they religious or non-religious, theists or atheists, etc.>>

You seem to have missed my point. It’s obvious that some posts here are written to denigrate and belittle others or their beliefs. What I was getting at, however, was that when this is done by labelling other’s beliefs/interests/pursuits as ‘religions’, it demonstrates why the third definition is less formal, and not to be taken as seriously as the first definition.

At the end of the day, a statement from an individual that labels their most hated -ism as a ‘religion’, cannot be taken as seriously as those using the word ‘religion’ to reference actual religions, and I think I have provided ample reasoning as to why this should be reflected in a dictionary definition. Indeed, it already appears that those at Oxford agree with me to at least some extent given the numbering system and layout that they’ve used.

Dear George,

Of course, the census form is not an invitation for anything, but a dictate from the regime, demanding personal information. It is best (and legal) to not answer this particular "religion" question at all and if possible, to avoid filling the census altogether.

Now if you do end up filling the census, then there comes the interesting moral question, whether one is obliged to tell the truth to tyrants (for example, whether it's wrong to tell Pharaoh that the newborn is a girl, so he survives). Without getting into the difficult subject-matter, if your answer is 'No', then indeed you may tick any box, who cares.

If you do however believe in truth-telling, even to a tyrant, then you want to make sure that your answer is correct. Saying "I am not aware of having" is always safer in the sense that it reduces the risk of telling an untruth. Say the question was "Do you have diabetes? If so, which type?", then even if you saw a doctor recently, how can you tell that you didn't just get it in the last 5 minutes? so it's best to tick/write "Not that I'm aware of".

I do understand that some people would not agree with me that nothing can exist which has no religion - fair enough and it might be too philosophical for many, but why not cater for ordinary people who stand fast in their principle of truth-telling and rather say "I don't know" in order to remain on the safe side? What's there to lose? "I don't know" is also a good answer for those who are hesitating and unsure whether and/or which religion they hold.

Politicians unfortunately, being habitual liars, cannot even conceive of the difficulty which truth-telling people face when they have to tick one of several incorrect answers.

Shame really; reading these posts is a bleak walk through a tortured landscape of ruined heritage and culture!
Decadent times give birth to decadent monsters!

Space prevents my answering each one of you but I’m noticing some trends in your responses.

1. Ignoring the extended definitions I gave beyond the 1997 Macquarie Dictionary (large 3rd ed). I included information from eminent NT scholar who has taught at Oxford University, Prof N T Wright and also by Michael Bird and James Anderson.

2. There was a range of logical fallacies committed (this is a limited number of examples):
(a) Appeal to Ridicule (‘Putting your religion on the census form just tells us that you are incapable of making sense of life and have resorted to some pre-packaged explanation for it all’, phanto Tues; (b) Red Herring Fallacy (Plantagenet, Tues, THOR);
(c) Genetic Fallacy (Cobber the hound, Tues ‘A poor argument poorly made, well worthy of a PHD in religious studies’);
(d) Ad hominem Fallacy (Suseonline, Tues, ‘Especially the far-right loonie-toons’). All of these involve fallacious reasoning.

3. Jardine (Tues): ‘Everything – every human action – amounts to worldview in action. If you go up the shop to buy some milk, that, according to your definition, is “religion”…. This means your theory is wrong. And useless’. For you to reach that conclusion, you didn’t carefully read the contents I gave of the meaning of religion and worldview.

4. Shadow Minister (Tues): You say that ‘most of us simply don't believe in anything, and don't give a crap what anyone else believes as long as they keep it to themselves’. If that were the case, you wouldn’t be making your comments here. Your argument is self-defeating.

Many of you disagree with the perspective I have presented. I didn’t expect much support or unanimity, but I thank you for engaging with the content of my article with OLO (contd).

Spencer

This is a continuation of my observations of some of the comments you have made to my article.

1. AJ Philips (Tues), you say, ‘All the sophistry in the world won’t make atheism a religion’ and then you refused to read the rest of the article in which I defined my understanding of religion and worldview. Your refusal to read the article sounds awfully like a closed mind, yet you still interacted with others who had read the article! Andy Bannister disagrees with you. See ‘The Scandanavian Sceptic (or Why Atheism Is a Belief System)’.

2. One of the rules of OLO is ‘Do not flame’. I found several inflammatory comments: ‘I didn’t bother reading the rest of the article. When you can’t even grasp such basic definitions and concepts, or are dishonest enough to try to fit a square peg in a round hole, then there is no point in continuing’; ‘Environmentalism and the Loony Green Left are the new religion’; 'the something from nothing brigade are certainly the most irrational believers we have today'; ‘Religion is like a penis’, and ‘Declaring synonymy between the two is blatant, self-serving balderdash’.

3. I will engage briefly with the more lengthy posts by Rational Razor, Form Designer, and Pogi later, as I have time.

Spencer

RationalRazor,

I refer to your Tues post. You are sounding more like a supporter of Hugh Harris’s promotion of secularism in schools and elsewhere.

1. Since you did not identify your source for a definition of secularism, I am left to conclude it comes out of the mind of RR. Your view differs from that of the Macquarie Dictionary (1997, 3rd ed. s v secularism), which gives the definition as ‘1. secular spirit or tendencies, especially a system of political or social philosophy which rejects all forms of religious faith and worship. 2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of the religious element’. It defines ‘secular’ as ‘1. Of or relating to the world; or to things not religious, sacred, or spiritual; temporal; worldly’. My article is contending that secularism is as religious as, say, humanism, environmentalism, consumerism, socialism, etc. The Rationalist Society of Australia’s ‘10 Point Plan for a Secular Australia’ is as forthright an example of a Statement of Belief as I’ve seen in any church or denomination.

2. It is not incongruous to claim secularism is at odds with Section 116 of the Constitution if one understands secularism is as religious as Christianity. If the Rationalists want to impose a secular 10-point plan on Australia, that would violate Section 116 if secularism is considered to be religion, having a worldview and praxis (see my article).

3. Your #3 point here is trumped up. My point is that I’m raising the issue that ‘No religion’ can be very religious once one understands the dynamics of the religious categories. My article has nothing to do with making Christians look better. It has to do with honesty about the nature of religion. (continued)

Spencer

RationalRazor, (continuation)

4. Please provide the evidence for this point of yours (Tues post) that Australia regards religion as relating to ‘some sort of supernatural entity’. Your statement, ‘This is why ethics and philosophy cannot be taught at the same time as fundamentalist religious instruction in QLD Schools’. There is no ‘fundamentalist religious instruction in Qld schools’(I live in Qld). There is Christian religious instruction, Hindu religious instruction, Muslim religious instruction, etc (depending on the distribution of such students – and availability of instructors). ‘Fundamentalist religious instruction’ is your pejorative imposition.

5. Of course people are entitled to say that they have ‘no religion’ on the Census of 9 August, but I’m raising the issue that it is a misnomer for many of the –isms around, including secularism, atheism, agnosticism, etc. You say, ‘Most secular people are united in wanting an end ot the conspicuous privileging of outdated and largely irrelevent Christian religious beliefs in our society’. This is an example of your promotion of a straw man fallacy against the accurate content of Christianity. I hope you live long enough to meet some people whose lives have been radically changed by an encounter with the living Jesus Christ who is not your anachronistic ‘outdated and largely irrelevant Christian religious beliefs’.

Spencer

AJ Philips,

>> please explain to me how the third definition is equally valid to the first <<

I never claimed such equivalence, and besides, dictionary is about the usage of WORDS, not about various definitions of the same CONCEPT (as I mentioned, there are a heap of definitions of the concept of religion, referring mainly to the first usage of the word, some encapsulating the third one in the list, some not). On the other hand, whatever you understand about the phenomenon religion (first usage), it is obviously not the same as religion in the sense of “denomination” (second usage).

Nevertheless, let me repeat, we should leave it to specialists to decide how to compose an authoritative dictionary.

Also, if somebody who admits adhering to a religion claims you also adhere to some religion he/she might be wrong but it would hardly be derogatory since he/she himself/herself is happy to apply it to himself/herself. On the other hand, calling somebody irrational, superstitious, etc could be seen as derogatory since nobody would like to have these adjectives applied to himself/herself.

As for the article itself, I never stated I identified with the author’s rather confusing for me terminology, and the way he defends his Christian position that I share in principle. [As I pointed out, I consider secularism an extreme version of secular humanism in a similar sense as biblical literalism is an extreme version of (worldviews inspired by) Christianity, or islamism an extreme version of Islam. In all these cases one speaks of worldviews, for me a concept much more basic and less blurred than that of religion, although the latter word is much more in use.]

Dear Yuyutsu,

I am afraid we have different views on what is the purpose of a census or a survey. In my opinion it is to get statistical data about the population (without having the identities of individual respondents disclosed), that can also influence political decision making. More precisely, the authorities will collect information that the respondent wants it to have. If I tick off “Catholic” then my voice will be added to the Catholic weight, if I tick off Buddhist, it will add to the number of Buddhists the authorities think there are, etc.

You are right that there is no legal obligation to tell the truth because an undetectable lie cannot be prosecuted. And as far as moral obligation is concerned this depends on the moral code the particular respondent subscribes to. I would not lie in a census or survey, nor offer an essay instead of a tick (or number) if for no other reason, that my own outlook can benefit from the statistical information offered by a census or survey.

Spencer

Nice pick up - I am Hugh Harris who wrote the Census piece you refer to.

You accuse me of making a straw man while yourself clutching at straws.

1. Secularism is a widely understood term. Finding an odd definition in the Macquarie dictionary (which I cannot check) does not invalidate the general community understanding of its meaning.

Oxford Dictionary on line - Secularism.

"The principle of separation of the state from religious institutions: 'he believes that secularism means no discrimination against anybody in the name of religion'"

Secularism is synonymous with the separation of church and state. It's a political attitude towards the role of religious beliefs in society, and it distinctly political in nature.

Wikipedia:
"Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. One manifestation of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people"

There are many Christian secularists. Victoria premier Daniel Andrews might regard himself as one. The Christian authors of Australia's Constitution containing Section 116 were secularists. By your lights all such people have two religions - Christianity and Secularism. ?

I think the Census should include s separate question to allow Australians, Christian, Atheist or otherwise, to nominate their position on secularism. Previous surveys have shown 70-80% of Australians want religion kept out of politics. (I'll respond to your other concerns later).

This whole discussion is rather pointless unless you agree that the government has a need to know what religion you have or do not have.

Governments should only collect information about citizens because it helps them in the business of governing. Every question on the census form must have a good reason for being asked.

The government should not be making any decisions based on what religion a person aligns with. It should make decisions based on demonstrable need and religion is not a demonstrable need. Religion is an emotional crutch and it is not the business of government to provide assistance to those who rely on religion instead of reason to deal with their emotions. The government might provide medical assistance to help people to deal reasonably with emotional issues but it should not be helping people who by their own admission resort to 'faith' in order to deal with those issues and have no desire to do otherwise.

What constitutes religion is another discussion entirely and I suspect that the author of this article is just using the census question as a way of trying to convince himself that religion is relevant in a wider context. Those who allow themselves to be drawn into it are just providing a platform to help him do that. If he was truly convinced that religion was relevant in a wider context then he would not need to start a discussion about it.

cont
Spencer

2. Secularism is not a religion, as per my previous post, so your objection fails. If you want to dispute that, then provide evidence of leading political, philosophic or religious thinkers, and indeed, secularists who make a case that secularism is a religion.

Section 116 states:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

This is the section of the Constitution secularists refer to in relation to the imposition of religion in the public square. If Secularism was a religion it would be incongruous for Secularists to promote secularism, as Secularists would be effectively making an objection to their own right to make that very objection.

Hi RR,

Yes, 'faith' and 'belief' don't necessarily have to involve anything supernatural. One can have quite passionate belief or faith in socialism, or the free market, or like my grandfather, Callathumpian anarchism.

Of course, such belief or faith can BECOME religious, if - somewhere behind the rhetoric and dogma - some founding principle is given the aura of the divine, to never be criticised or even analysed.

The primary antidote for all beliefs is the ability to constantly criticise, analyse, question, examine, what one believes or has faith in. After all, nothing is perfect in the real, human world. The first step would probably be to admit that one's belief DOES have elements of uncriticisable faith, and to modify or abandon such a belief for something more realistic and realisable.

Even in today's fractured and tortured world, there is plenty to believe in if one wants to stay sane and 'scientific'. We just have to keep looking.

Joe

.

One should have the option to tick the box as a man made gw alarmist (sorry believer).

Hi runner

Yes, 'end of days' apocalyticism takes many forms. Perhaps the global warming scare is one of them. There are many 'end of days' scenarios - exhaustion of resources, Asian invasion, etc.

I have one of my own at the back of my mind: demographic collapse through birth-rates dropping far below replacement rates around the world in the next generation. Even in the Middle East, with very high youth unemployment, birth-rates have tumbled over the last generation, (to barely 1.4 children per women in Iran, for example) meaning that a large generation will start to reach retirement age in a generation or so, which has never had the chance to store up for its old age, and then has to be supported by far smaller, and shrinking, following generations.

After all, even in Australia, without immigration, own population growth would stall by around 2050, and start to decline, perhaps halving by 2100. Thank God for migrants.

Problems often have solutions. Why the drop in birth-rates ? Women gaining education, for one thing, thereby postponing having kids, or marriage, or both, of having no kids either way. Why so few kids ? Perhaps because men are so reluctant to take on equal child-rearing duties. But this is a problem that we must find responses to, and hopefully will.

In other words, we must have a firm belief in human ingenuity.

Cheers,

Joe

Spencer

4. from ABS classification of religious groups:

"Generally, a religion is regarded as a set of beliefs and practices, usually involving acknowledgment of a divine or higher being or power, by which people order the conduct of their lives both practically and in a moral sense. This method of defining religion in terms of a mixture of beliefs, practices, and a Supernatural Being giving form and meaning to existence was used by the High Court of Australia in 1983. The High Court held that "the beliefs, practices and observances of the Church of the New Faith (Scientology) were a religion in Victoria". As part of the ruling, it was stated that:

"For the purposes of the law, the criteria of religion are twofold:

first, belief in a Supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and

second, the acceptance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief, though canons of conduct which offend against the ordinary laws are outside the area of any immunity, privilege or right conferred on the grounds of religion." "

I am a Queenslander also. As per: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/religious-instruction-in-queensland-schools-is-discriminatory-20160311-gngjyd.html
Religious instruction cannot be offered by groups with non religious philosophies because they are not regarded as religious by the QLD education act definition, which involves supernatural beliefs.
QLD schools Definition of religion uses 1983 precedent:
http://education.qld.gov.au/schools/school-operations/ri-definitions.html#faithgroup

So Spencer I trust that satisfies your demand for evidence.

RI in QLD involves a fundamentalist view which suggests to children the Bible is literally true. That's not pejorative, that's accurate. A fundamentalist adherence to the literal truth of scripture is a key element of Connect: "To understand that the Bible is God's word: that it is historically reliable and still relevant today."
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/connect-religious-instruction-says-vampires-fake-but-bible-is-fact-20160627-gpslcs.html

Register a protest against fundamentalist RI teachers by marking 'No religion' on the Census.

Loudmouth:

Why is a drop in birthrates a problem that needs to be solved? If we have the capacity to chose whether or not to breed then how can it be a bad thing if we decide not to do so? Surely it is a part of nature that we have a choice to extinguish ourselves.

Who is going to suffer if there is no one around to suffer? There was a time when there was only a handful of human beings. I doubt that they saw that as a problem that needed to be solved but just the outcome of evolution. Why should it be any different if we dwindle down to just a handful again and eventually become extinct?

OzSpen,

I read the article by that Andy Bannister, but I don't see how it proves that atheism is a belief system. The article switches between the different forms of atheism (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#/media/File%3AAtheismImplicitExplicit3.svg) willy nilly and is riddled with non sequiturs.

A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs, and atheism has but one tenet: disbelief. Thus, while there can be atheistic belief systems, atheism in itself is not and cannot be a belief system, as there is nothing within atheism to necessitate any other belief. Atheism is a response to a proposition, there is nothing within atheism to dictate what must or should follow from there.

George,

I never said that you claimed such an equivalence.

<<I never claimed such equivalence…>>

But your insistence that I must be mistaken does imply that.

I do agree that dictionaries are about the usage of words, which is why I haven’t argued that the definition should be removed, only qualified further.

<<Nevertheless, let me repeat, we should leave it to specialists to decide how to compose an authoritative dictionary.>>

Not necessarily. If, for example, someone like your good self comes out in support of a misleading and derogatory use of a term without any acknowledgment of such fundamental differences in formality and validity, then that suggests that a greater emphasis on the third definition's informality may be required.

Again though, Oxford appear to agree with me, but apparently their numbering system and layout isn’t clear enough. So I’m confident they’d be open to my suggestion.

<<Also, if somebody who admits adhering to a religion claims you also adhere to some religion he/she might be wrong but it would hardly be derogatory since he/she himself/herself is happy to apply it to himself/herself.>>

You would think so, wouldn’t you. But this is not the case in my experience, and runner would be a prime example. I never tire of pointing out the irony of the religious calling atheism a religion in order to insult it.

Hi Phanto,

Because it would be a horrific pathway between now and the oblivion that you seek. Think about it for a second, extend yourself:

* given that there has been an abrupt decline in birth-rates, especially in developed countries but also in the Middle East, one fairly numerous generation (A) will be followed by a much smaller one (B), which in turn will be followed by an even smaller one (C). By the time Generation A reaches middle- to old-age, it will have a much smaller generation (B) to support it. In turn, after having been burdened with subsidising Generation (A), Generation (B) will have an even smaller generation (C) to support IT. And so on, either until we come down to the last younger person supporting the last older person, OR we find ways around that problem.

Alternatively, we could try to manage the decline in such a way that one generation is not heavily burdened by the one earlier, and in turn doesn't burden its own children. For that to happen, population reduction would have to be of the order of hundreds of years, not decades or generations. Can you see that ?

As it happens, speaking of apocalypses, Pascal Bruckner has a new book, The Fanaticism of the Apocalypse, reviewed here:

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2013/06/13/book-review-the-fanaticism-of-the-apocalypse/

in which he canvasses religious and pseudo-religious theories of 'the end of days'. It should be required reading on the pseudo-Left.

Joe

Dear George,

Falsifying the census is in fact a criminal offence which currently carries a fine of $1800. Not being detected doesn't make anything legal, nor moral. What I referred to was the legal right not to respond to questions of religion (section 14(3) of the Census and Statistics Act, 1905). There are also legal loopholes (which I intend to use) that allow you to avoid filling out the census altogether.

While I am a Hindu, I strongly oppose any government-money handed for Hindu temples and educational institutes. It is short-sighted to accept such tainted monies, it will reduce the incentive of your own religious community to tithe and support itself and once you lose your independence, anti-religious legislation will surely follow. They already have laws that severely restrict the presence of cows in temples; the rights of Sikhs to carry their kirpan; the ability of Jews to bring home and keep their imported Etrog (citron fruit); and the ability of Muslims to conduct religious weddings with more than one person - so don't be surprised when the state also prohibits Christian communion on the excuse of "cannibalism" (initially for minors, eventually for the rest).

Loudmouth:

"Because it would be a horrific pathway between now and the oblivion that you seek. Think about it for a second, extend yourself:"

I never said I wanted oblivion. I'm hardly in any position to make it happen anyway. There is also no need to patronise me. You want me to 'extend myself' to your superior level presumably.

None of what you said is an argument for any couple to decide to have a child. People should have a child because they want a close relationship with a child of their own creation. Who would want to be brought into the world in order to keep the species going?

Do you think it would be appropriate to force people to have children?

Dear Yuyutsu,

So you believe that Australia is a Continent.... but not a Nation ?

If this is a clue to the drivel being displayed with your Gods' Religion..... I feel sorry for you !

Dear Aspley,

I feel sorry for you being a victim of secular propaganda, having been brainwashed into the false and violent concept of "nation".

---

Dear Spencer,

Although you seem religious, it appears that you accept the dictionary's secular recipe for "religion", lock stock and barrel.

While we, religious people, undergo a very real and profound process of transformation, the dictionaries grossly and mockingly attempt to present our process as some silly technical recipe with 'belief' as its main ingredient.

Why, for heaven's sake, would you want to go along and further build on their faulty definitions?

AJ Philips,

>>your insistence that I must be mistaken<<

I don’t remember insisting that you must be mistaken. Also, I do not know whether “your god” (just to return the compliment about “my god”) has a need to interfere with what an authoritative dictionary says, but God, as educated Christians see Him, certainly does not. And finally, I cannot answer for runner but from what he writes I do not think he would be offended if you said he adhered to a (Christian version of) religion; hence for him - and other Christians - “havig a religion” is not an invective.

Dear Yuyutsu,

So I misunderstood you, sorry. I was reacting to your “there comes the interesting moral question, whether one is obliged to tell the truth to tyrants … if your answer is 'No', then indeed you may tick any box, who cares.” I interpreted “ticking any box” as admission of a lie. Anyhow, tyrant or not (I do not see Australia as being governed by a tyrant) you are not telling the truth about yourself, only contributing to the collection of statistical data.

Of course, the question on religion does not have to be answered and when evaluating the results “no answer” and “no religion” might or might not be seen as meaning the same thing.

>>I strongly oppose any government-money handed for Hindu temples and educational institutes. <<

This is your personal view and it might be the default position among Hindu in India. In Western countries the situation is more complicated. Governmental financial support for Christian, Jewish or Muslim run schools etc is based on perceived mutual benefits. Should the Government come to the conclusion that this support is not for the good of the general public (that the Parliament is supposed to represent and the Government serve) - as maintained, for instance, by a number of debaters also here - then it will cease.

The census results are only marginally related to the pressure put on religious groups to “politically correctly” conduct their activities.

George,

You need to understand that more can be said and communicated than what is spoken through actual words. There is the explicit, and then there’s the implicit.

<<I don’t remember insisting that you must be mistaken.>>

No, you have not said that I am mistaken, let alone insistently. But the fact that you are still here and have appealed to the authority of those at Oxford (without addressing my reasoning) as a rebuttal to my niggle with your apparent endorsement of the third listed definition suggests otherwise.

<<Also, I do not know whether “your god” (just to return the compliment about “my god”) has a need to interfere with what an authoritative dictionary says, but God, as educated Christians see Him, certainly does not.>>

This statement makes no sense to me whatsoever. When was it that I mentioned your god?

<<And finally, I cannot answer for runner but from what he writes I do not think he would be offended if you said he adhered to a (Christian version of) religion; hence for him - and other Christians - “havig a religion” is not an invective.>>

Of course he wouldn’t be offended, but that’s beside my point. The fact of the matter is that many theists refer to atheism (and other various -isms that so often offend them, like climate change) as a religion in order to vilify it.

Spencer

5.

Re: Your last objection to my post:

"You say, ‘Most secular people are united in wanting an end ot the conspicuous privileging of outdated and largely irrelevent Christian religious beliefs in our society’. This is an example of your promotion of a straw man fallacy against the accurate content of Christianity."

It's not a straw man. It's undeniable that Christianity is given privileges in our society. Prayers in Parliament, RI, Chaplaincy, Government funding, exemptions from anti-discrimination law, tax free status (just for being religious - not tied to charity or public benefit) and so on. These are all privileges granted to Christianity and or religious beliefs in general.

"Accurate content of Christianity"? Please! Whatever could you mean? The unverifiable metaphysical claims? The fact that even Christians can't agree with each other on the basic beliefs. Was Jesus born of a virgin? IS there a Hell? Which discrepant gospel is true?

DOes it not occur to you that the "accurate content" you speak of is founded upon unprovable assertions. As a well known physicist once said - unverifiable claims are "not even wrong."

This article raises fundamental philosophical questions about what is reality? how do we actually measure and thus define it without getting too carried away with semantics.

Our concepts of reality are not defined by what we perceive via our 5 senses here on earth either. After all, "reality" is literally everything. Just ask any qualified astronomer how increasingly complex and bewildering outer space is, and that is only with the current technology we have to observe and test it with..

Take something relatively simple like radio waves, you can't perceive them without the right tool, eg. radio receiver. So it is with our understanding or even acceptance of God or the source of everything in existence, without the right "tool" or "tools" we will never know or begin to know of God or the source. Religion is but one tool.

I'd suggest a visit to www.reasons.org to see some enlightening articles about science and religion.

'DOes it not occur to you that the "accurate content" you speak of is founded upon unprovable assertions'

Sounds very much like secularism RationalRazor. The big bang fantasy, the gw fraud, the feminist dogmas. Yeah I am sure all secularist, scientist and feminist are at one.

runner

"Sounds very much like secularism RationalRazor. "

No it doesn't. Think about it.

If, as it seems, you disbelieve science then you need to come up with good evidence as to why.

Think about those reasons next time you board an aeroplane, get a prescription, or buy a car. Would those reasons suffice then?

Form Designer,

That’s a creative, alphabetical approach to the ‘What is your religion?’ question 19 on the Census form. I cannot imagine the ABS wanting to do your suggested detailed Q 19 for religion as that would require a similar approach to detail in every other question (but surely that is a reasonable request if the ABS is wanting comprehensive Census data).

If the Question remains – as it will be for Census 2016 – who do you think will be completing the ‘No religion’ category? Atheists, agnostics, secularists, environmentalists, socialists, etc.? My point is that the ‘No religion’ category is so poorly defined that the information gained would be essentially useless to decipher, as it tells nothing about those who comprise this group.

There’s the complicating factor that atheists and secularists (for example) wouldn’t like to be included in the broad definition of religion provided by the Macquarie Dictionary.

Ian Royall’s article in the Herald Sun (‘Campaign for “no-religion” census hits advertising block at major shopping centres’, 13 July 2016) admits this: ‘In the 2011 census, 4.7 million, or 22 per cent, chose the “no religion” box or wrote down atheism, agnosticism, humanism or rationalism in the “other, please specify” box’. At least some acknowledged that atheism, agnosticism, humanism and rationalism fit in the category of ‘other religion’. This is the point that I’m raising. They are religions, but are not often seen as such, but need to be exposed for what they are – religious.

The ‘no religion’ campaign for the 2016 Census is promoted by the Atheist Foundation of Australia Ltd, with campaign sponsors, Rationalist Society of Australia and Sydney Atheists (see http://censusnoreligion.org.au/).

Spencer

Pogi (Wed),

Your Budget Macquarie Dictionary (3rd. ed 2000) does not agree with the citation I provided. I cited from my hard copy of the unabridged Macquarie Dictionary (1997 3rd ed. s v religion) as I stated in the article. It was the first definition. I wasn’t lying. You have the audacity to quote from the Budget Macquarie Dictionary 3rd ed 2000 but you didn’t bother to check the edition from which I quoted to demonstrate I quoted the truth from Macquarie.

You have invented what I did not say by using a red herring fallacy. You go to a definition of theology, which I did not provide. That wasn’t my emphasis. I provided the definition of religion as ‘a quest for the values of the ideal life’ that involved 3 practices: (1) The ideal life, (2) the practices for attaining the values of the ideal, and (3) the theology or world view relating to the quest for the environing universe (Macquarie Dictionary (1997 3rd ed. s v religion). I didn’t invent any of this in the article. It was obtained directly from Macquarie. You are inventing a straw man when you try to dissociate religion from world view. This is not ‘self-serving balderdash’ (Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy) but what a dictionary designates.

It is obviously not what you like, but your analogies of things flying and things swimming do not float because I was dealing with a definition of how to pursue ‘the quest for the ideal life’ (Macquarie Dictionary). If you think things flying or swimming are a quest for the ideal life, so be it. I’m not into that kind of fantasy or speculation.

You claim, ‘We are made of the same stuff as the stars’. Are you kidding? With flesh and blood?

Spencer

RationalRazor (Friday),

Your razor is not too sharp today with your presuppositional impositions on Christianity. This kind of statement by you is void of historical and biblical content: '"Accurate content of Christianity"? Please! Whatever could you mean? The unverifiable metaphysical claims? The fact that even Christians can't agree with each other on the basic beliefs. Was Jesus born of a virgin? IS there a Hell? Which discrepant gospel is true? DOes it not occur to you that the "accurate content" you speak of is founded upon unprovable assertions. As a well known physicist once said - unverifiable claims are "not even wrong."’

Eminent Australian historian, Christian, and former teacher of history at Macquarie University, Sydney, Dr Paul W Barnett, begs to differ with you when he investigates "Jesus and the Logic of History" (1997. Leicester, England: Apollos). His assessment is that ‘for us today and for all who have lived beyond the lifespan of Jesus, he can only be the Christ of faith. Nevertheless, that those who lived after the first Easter were people of such faith is itself not a matter of faith but a historical fact… We stand on sure grounds of sound historical method when we reply that the Christ of the early church’s faith was, without discontinuity, the truly historical figure Jesus of Nazareth’ (Barnett 1997:35). I can cite eminent scholars who provide similar historical verification for the Old Testament.

Your presuppositional rationalism and secularism seem to be standing in the way of permitting the historical method to be used to assess details about the historical Jesus.

Spencer

Dear George,

There is nothing new about attempts, often successful, of rulers to tame religions.

It is in the perceived interest of secularists to pay the churches in order to make them docile, so they do not bite the hand that feeds them. In time, their teachings are diluted until eventually they forget God and become a social club.

Regarding the collection of statistical data, for the first time in Australian history, the 2016 census will not discard the identity of those who respond. Though encrypted, it will remain available, be published in 100 years time and if not by future Erdogan-like rulers, it will most likely be broken into by hackers.

Dear RationalRazor (Thurs),

Thank you for identifying that you are the Hugh Harris to whom I referred. I had a hunch you were that person, based on your style of writing and the content of posts.

You don’t like the idea of secularism being identified as a religion. However, it’s way too late to try to convince me otherwise.

Back as far as the late 1930s, there were writers identifying ‘secular religion’. I don’t like using Wikipedia as a source as it is not all that reliable. However its article on ‘secular religion’ is a starter of identification of the ideology of secular religion. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_religion. As World War 2 was approaching, F A Voigt, a British journalist who opposed totalitarianism, identified Marxism and National Socialism (Nazism) as promoters of ‘secular religion’.

Why? It was because of their fundamental beliefs in authoritarianism, messianic and eschatological views.

Paul Vitz has identified self-worship psychology as ‘secular religion’ (Vitz 1977:145).

Emilo Gentile wrote “Politics as Religion” (2006. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press). His first chapter deals with ‘secular religion’. He stated that ‘the sacralization of politics was given a further impetus during the nineteenth century by various cultural and political movements, such as romanticism, idealism, positivism, nationalism, socialism, communism, and racism, which all put forward global concepts of human existence by adopting various aspects of secular religions intent upon replacing traditional religions. These religions could be defined as religions of humanity…. Any human activity from science to history or from entertainment to sport can be invested with “secular sacredness” and become the object of a secular cult, thus constituting a “secular religion”. In politics, however, the term “secular religion” is often adopted as a synonym for civil religion or political religion…. The concept of a secular religion was therefore already in use by the thirties as a definition for the forms in which totalitarian regimes created political cults’ (Gentile 2006:xvi, 1, 2).

Therefore, your views promoted in this thread, and consistent with the Rational Society of Australia’s ‘10 point plan for a secular Australia’, fits succinctly under the rubric of secular religion.

Spencer

'Think about those reasons next time you board an aeroplane, get a prescription, or buy a car. Would those reasons suffice then?'

ok irRationalRazor,. Next time you board a plane or get a prescription realise that it involved engineers and designers. drr! Oh no it just appeared.

Dear Spencer,

Secularism is not a religion because it does not help its practitioners to come closer to God.

AJ Philips,

>>the fact that you … have appealed to the authority of those at Oxford<<

Well, “if appealing to the authority of those at Oxford”, rather than your authority/expertise on these matters you call “insisting that you must be mistaken” then you are right.

>>This statement makes no sense to me whatsoever. When was it that I mentioned your god?<<

My fault, you are right, and I must apologise. I misread your sentence:

“for example, someone like your good self comes out in support of a misleading and derogatory use …”
as
“for example, someone like your god comes out in support of a misleading and derogatory use …”

>>The fact of the matter is that many theists refer to atheism … as a religion in order to vilify it.<<

I can see that you will disagree with such a theist, also that some ardent anti-theists might feel vilified by it, but I cannot see how it could be the theist’s INTENTION to vilify since he is happy to have it applied to himself. Well, I am now repeating myself.

Dear Yuyutsu,

>> It is in the perceived interest of secularists to pay the churches in order to make them docile, so they do not bite the hand that feeds them. In time, their teachings are diluted until eventually they forget God and become a social club. <<

This might be the case, therefore the religion/churches part must be very careful what kind of contract they enter into, “read the small print”, and be ready to get out of it, even at the price of financial loss, as soon as the demands (pressure) get beyond what was originally agreed upon.

>> Though encrypted, it will remain available, be published in 100 years time and if not by future Erdogan-like rulers <<

As I said, you can refuse to answer the question about religion or any other that you think might be used against you. The availability of reliable statistical data is of benefit to all of us, not only to authorities, be they democratic or not.

Yes, George, that’s why I labelled your insistence that I am mistaken as fallacious.

<<Well, “if appealing to the authority of those at Oxford”, rather than your authority/expertise on these matters you call “insisting that you must be mistaken” then you are right.>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Because you haven't actually addressed my reasoning.

<<I can see that you will disagree with such a theist, also that some ardent anti-theists might feel vilified by it, but I cannot see how it could be the theist’s INTENTION to vilify since he is happy to have it applied to himself.>>

I know what you mean. Which is why I said, “You would think so, wouldn’t you”. However, it does happen, and continuously too. Why, runner has even been so kind as to grace us with an example of precisely what I’m talking about, on this very thread:

“One should have the option to tick the box as a man made gw alarmist (sorry believer).” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18387#326272)

Please don’t play dumb with me, George. I don't treat you as an idiot on these forums, so I'd appreciate if you would return the favour. You know this happens all the time. I have fun pointing out the irony of this insult on an almost-weekly basis.

By the way, one would not need to be an “ardent anti-theist” in order to feel vilified by such a claim either. The claim is so utterly wrong that it is downright offensive regardless of the strength on one’s non-theistic position.

AJ Philips,

>>Please don’t play dumb with me, George.<<

I don't remember I did but if you think so, OK, I won't carry on with trying to understand you.

George,

You are welcome to continue trying to understand me. Indeed you are a rare breed of human on this forum that actually possesses a brain (just check out some of my recent posts).

Furthermore, I find you to be one of OLO's more fascinating personalities. The calibre of debate here is quite low, as I'm sure you'd agree. Just don't mistake me for one of those who contribute to this sub-par degree of debate.

I think both of us have earned better treatment from each other than that.

Spencer

‘for us today and for all who have lived beyond the lifespan of Jesus, he can only be the Christ of faith. Nevertheless, that those who lived after the first Easter were people of such faith is itself not a matter of faith but a historical fact… We stand on sure grounds of sound historical method when we reply that the Christ of the early church’s faith was, without discontinuity, the truly historical figure Jesus of Nazareth'

The razor is rationalism, which suggests froming beliefs merited by sufficient evidence.

Surely, you acknowledge that even if one accepts Jesus is a real historical figure, it doesn't prove anything about God or Christianity? I accept that the balance of Biblical scholarship agrees there was a historical figure of Jesus, but they don't agree on much more than his baptism and crucifixion.

The gospels did not form part of the earliest narrative and are wildly discrepant accounts of Jesus life, mostly borrowed from ancient myth.

When you claim the accuracy of Christianity you are making a much grander claim. Does Hell exist? Was Jesus born a virgin? Do we have to follow the 10 Commandments literally? Are God and Jesus made of the same substance? Is the Trinity true?

If Christianity is accurate surely some consensus exists on all of these things. Not only is there no evidence, there is no consensus.

G’day Yuyutsu (your Friday post),

You stated, ‘Secularism is not a religion because it does not help its practitioners to come closer to God’. I provided evidence to demonstrate that secularism was a religion or that there are a number of –isms that have been identified as ‘secular religions’.

Since writing my article for OLO, I have located the National Geographic’s, 'The World's Newest Major Religion: No Religion’ (April 22 2016). Available at: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160422-atheism-agnostic-secular-nones-rising-religion/.

This article states that ‘But nones aren’t inheriting the Earth just yet. In many parts of the world—sub-Saharan Africa in particular—religion is growing so fast that nones’ share of the global population will actually shrink in 25 years as the world turns into what one researcher has described as “the secularizing West and the rapidly growing rest.” (The other highly secular part of the world is China, where the Cultural Revolution tamped down religion for decades, while in some former Communist countries, religion is on the increase.)’

My understanding, as a Christian, is that you seem to have confused religion with relationship. It was Jesus who stated, ‘'My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me' (John 10:27). The way to move closer to God is to be one of his sheep so that one is able to hear his voice, know who He is, and follow Him’. That’s called discipleship – based on a relationship with Jesus – and it is not defined as religion.

The Old Testament gives a similar emphasis: ‘This is what the Lord says: “Don’t let the wise boast in their wisdom, or the powerful boast in their power, or the rich boast in their riches. But those who wish to boast should boast in this alone: that they truly know me and understand that I am the Lord who demonstrates unfailing love and who brings justice and righteousness to the earth, and that I delight in these things. I, the Lord, have spoken!’ (Jeremiah 9:23-24) [continued]

Spencer

Yuyutsu (Friday, continued),

However, the Christian faith does believe in pure religion and distinguishes it from worthless religion. This is how it is described: ‘Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world’ (James 1:26-27).

So the pure, worthy Christian religion proceeds from a relationship with God the Father. It is behavioural and needs to tame the tongue, care for orphans and widows who are distressed, and keeps the person from worldly pollution This worldliness could include secularism, humanism, environmentalism, Communism, consumerism, unhealthy thinking, etc.

It is other-centred in behavour and also cares about godliness in the individual.

Spencer

RationalRazor (Saturday),

You claim ‘the razor is rational’ but then proceed to give a few irrational razors of responses. You suggest ‘beliefs merited by sufficient evidence’. But you violated that immediately with this statement: ‘Surely, you acknowledge that even if one accepts Jesus is a real historical figure, it doesn't prove anything about God or Christianity? I accept that the balance of Biblical scholarship agrees there was a historical figure of Jesus, but they don't agree on much more than his baptism and crucifixion’. You leave out a stack of evidence and then skew the evidence to try to justify your own secular, ‘rational’ reasons. They turn out to be irrational in this example.

Here you have used a faulty generalisation logical fallacy. See: https://logfall.wordpress.com/faulty-generalization/, which gives the meaning of this fallacy, ‘When a conclusion based on induction is unwarranted by the degree of relevant evidence or ignores information that warrants an exception’. So you have engaged in fallacious (erroneous) reasoning because you have not provided one scrap of evidence to demonstrate the reliability or otherwise of the OT and NT documents.

Instead, you have chosen to dump your rationalistic, secular, false views on me, by providing not one piece of evidence to show how documents are found to be historically reliable or unreliable. I have already cited Australian historian, Dr Paul W Barnett’s, views to refute your perceptions here (“Jesus and the Logic of History” 1997). Barnett has refuted your irrational reasoning regarding the NT in his other publications: ‘Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity’ (1999); ‘Is the New Testament history? (2003)’; ‘The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years’(2005); ‘Paul: Missionary of Jesus’ (2008); and ‘Finding the Historical Christ’ (2009).

(continued)

Spencer

Spencer

I'm afraid you're confusing the burden of proof. I've provided several objections to your claim that Christianity is accurate, and your response is to demand I a disprove your claim.

You misunderstand an elementary philosophical point: the universal negative. No-one can disprove universal claims. The onus is on the claim maker to justify the claim. My objection to your claim stands.

Establishing Jesus as a real historical figure doesn't prove Christianity. Nor does the life of Muhammad establish Islam or the existence of Joseph Smith prove Mormonism. Just mentioning someone's book does prove anything. I could mention Richard Carrier's book which estimates the probability of a real Jesus as between 1 in 3 and 1:800 (or higher). Does that disprove Jesus for you? I hope not.

I mentioned several claims of Christianity which aren't established by evidence. Moreover, many Christian sects and theologians have differing views on them. Is there a hell? Jesus - born of a virgin? God and Jesus - same substance? Holy spirit exists? The resurrection? Everlasting damnation? I would have thought you could answer these, given they are the basic claims of Christianity made in the Nicene Creed.

If you are unable to respond to these directly let me know, but I'd be interested in what is the "accurate" Christian view.

RationalRazor (Saturday, continued),

As for the OT, the late Professor Kenneth Kitchen, Personal and Brunner Professor of Egyptology at the School of Archaeology, Classics, and Oriental Studies, University of Liverpool, England, conducted research on the credibility of the OT, writing ‘On the Reliability of the Old Testament’ (2003 Eerdmans). He wrote: ‘We have a consistent level of good, fact-based correlations right through from circa 2000 B.C. (with earlier roots) down to 400 B.C. In terms of general reliability – and much more could have been instanced than there was room for here – the Old Testament comes out remarkably well, so long as its writings and writers are treated fairly and evenhandedly, in line with independent data, open to all’ (Kitchen 2003:500).

You say, ‘The gospels did not form part of the earliest narrative and are wildly discrepant accounts of Jesus life, mostly borrowed from ancient myth’. I agree that the Gospels do not form the earliest narratives of the NT. They belong to the Pauline epistles and historian Paul Barnett acknowledged this as the point of entry into historical assessment of the NT in ‘Jesus and the Logic of History’ (1997:41ff). However, you continue with your faulty generalisation fallacies with description of the NT narrative as ‘wildly discrepant accounts of Jesus life’ and ‘borrowed from ancient myth’. I grant that a Comment section in OLO is not the easiest place to engage in detailed discussion of the historical viability or otherwise for any document from history. But this is not the place for you to dump your irrational presuppositions regarding discrepant, mythical accounts. Therefore, you have demonstrated that RationalRazor can become IrrationalRazor very quickly.

‘Does hell exist?’ And you want to discuss the Trinity. One of the rules of OLO is to stay on topic, thus violating this rule. To discuss whether hell exists is for a time when you are prepared to examine the evidence for the credibility of the OT and NT documents.

‘Not only is there no evidence, there is no consensus’, you say. That’s a red herring fallacy: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html. This is fallacious reasoning.

Spencer

Spencer

You objected to my comment by citing "the accurate content of Christianity".

It's not irrelevant to ask what this "accurate content" is. But it is a red herring to claim its irrelevant because it's uncomfortable ground for you.

I note you like to accuse others of using fallacious reasoning. But you fail to demonstrate the fallacy - you merely assert it as if your opinion is all that's required. Fallacy: assertion without proof.

Your argument is that the historicity of Jesus proves the "accurate content of Christianity". By no means is this true - the existence of a person does not prove a whole catalogue of metaphysical claims even if that person said they were true. It's plainly ridiculous to claim the Christian belief claims based on the Bible as fact. This is fundamentalism. Do you beleive Genesis literally? Is this what your favored author argues? Do you realise that Genesis has actually been disproven by science? Adam and Eve cannot literally have been the two humans that all others descended from, as we could not have developed the necessary level of genetic diversity. The fact that it would take years and years and still not be resolved does not discredit my objections, but rather, your claim for the accurate content of Christianity.

What you should do is define the limits of this accuracy. Ie. You accept so and so claim as literally true but believe others on faith

Dear Spencer,

«I provided evidence to demonstrate that secularism was a religion»

What you demonstrated is that secularism (and some other isms) conform to some dictionary's definition of "religion". In your words: "However, I suggest here that it [Macquarie Dictionary's (1997, 3rd ed) definition] also could embrace other worldviews or religions, including secularism, rationalism and atheism".

Normally when we arrive at absurd conclusions (for example, that the author of a book had to be minus-15 years old when she wrote it), we backtrack and re-check our assumptions, in this case Macquarie's definition.

It is said that once Einstein (my abridged version) was asked to explain "white" to a blind person. So Einstein said, "it's like how a swan looks", but the blind nodded: "what is a swan?", so Einstein bent the blind-person's neck and said: "it's neck is bent just like that". "Ah." exclaimed the blind - "now I understand what 'white' is!".

- That's as much as dictionaries understand "religion"!

«My understanding, as a Christian, is that you seem to have confused religion with relationship.»

We are all related with God, it's impossible otherwise, but only some of us actively and consciously seek to come closer to Him. 'Religion' is the path that we take to approach God: if the path that we are on does not lead to God, then it cannot be called a "religion" - no matter how many dictionaries say otherwise.

«The way to move closer to God is to be one of his sheep so that one is able to hear his voice, know who He is, and follow Him.»

Beautiful, just beautiful!

«James 1:26-27»

The word translated there to English as "religious" is 'thréskos', or "trembling [before God]" and as "religion", 'thrëskeia', which is used in Colossians 2:18 as "worship". Thus indeed, pure and effective worship involves taming the tongue, visiting the widow and the afflicted, keeping out of worldly pollution, etc.

runner,

Where did God come from?

Don't be silly, Poirot, everyone knows that God was born when a giant snake coiled itself around the Cosmic Nothingness.

The question is: where did that bloody snake come from ?

Just trying to help :)

Joe

Indeed, Loudmouth.

As runner points out:

"the something from nothing brigade are certainly the most irrational believers we have today..."

//Where did God come from?//

//The question is: where did that bloody snake come from ?//

Very clever, guys... but it's turtles all the way down.

Hi Toni,

Well, under Burma, yeah, but around what's now Greece, it was snakes and Cosmic Nothingness. What's now Mexico was created by a bird.

In one place in Genesis, the world was just earth, desert (the Arab Option) until the Cosmic Thing created water. In another part (we could call it the Mesopotamian Option), the world was all water until the Cosmic Thing created bits of land. A chacun a son gout.

But of course, we know now that the world is flat, you only have to look at it. Flat as buggery. The sun comes up, the sun goes down: easy. We die from spells. Babies are born under cabbages. Who needs science ?

Cheers,

Joe

Tony Lavis,

There are four elephants to be taken into account as well (named Berilia, Tubul, Great T'Phon, and Jerakeen)

Yeah, Poirot, but under THEM, like Toni says, it's turtles.

“Om?”

“What?”

“The captain just said something odd. He said the world is flat and has an edge.”

“Yes? So what?”

"But, I mean, we know the world is a ball, because . . .

The tortoise blinked.

“No, it's not,” he said. “Who said it's a ball?”

“You did,” said Brutha. Then he added: “According to Book One of the Septateuch, anyway.”

I've never thought like this before, he thought. I'd never have said “anyway.”

“Why'd the captain tell me something like that?” he said. “It's not normal conversation.”

“I told you, I never made the world,” said Om. “Why should I make the world? It was here already. And if I did make a world, I wouldn't make it a ball. People'd fall off. All the sea'd run off the bottom.”

“Not if you told it to stay on.”

“Hah! Will you hark at the man!”

“Besides, the sphere is a perfect shape,” said Brutha. "Because in the Book of-

“Nothing amazing about a sphere,” said the tortoise. “Come to that, a turtle is a perfect shape.”

“A perfect shape for what?”

“Well, the perfect shape for a turtle, to start with,” said Om. “If it was shaped like a ball, it'd be bobbing to the surface the whole time.”

“But it's a heresy to say the world is flat,” said Brutha.

“Maybe, but it's true.”

“And it's really on the back of a giant turtle?”

“That's right.”

“In that case,” said Brutha triumphantly, “what does the turtle stand on?”

The tortoise gave him a blank stare.

“It doesn't stand on anything,” it said. “It's a turtle, for heaven's sake. It swims. That's what turtles are for.”

- Small Gods, Terry Pratchett

Loudmouth,

Notwithstanding that the elephants are integral to the Grand Design....one imagines a Disc-shaped world would slide straight off a giant turtle's shell in the normal course of events.

Thanks, Toni : )

RationalRazor,

You stated: 'Your argument is that the historicity of Jesus proves the "accurate content of Christianity"'.

In which post did I make that statement?

Spencer

Yuyutsu (Sat 23 July),

You stated: <<We are all related with God, it's impossible otherwise, but only some of us actively and consciously seek to come closer to Him. 'Religion' is the path that we take to approach God: if the path that we are on does not lead to God, then it cannot be called a "religion" - no matter how many dictionaries say otherwise.>>

That is not my Christian perspective that we are all related to God. We all are made in ‘the image of God’ (Genesis 1:27) but we are separated from God because of our sin: ‘But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear’ (Isaiah 59:2).

As for the word for ‘religion’ in James 1:26-27, I am well aware of what the Greek NT says as I read and teach NT Greek.

James 1:26 begins, ‘If anyone thinks he is religious’. It uses the adjective, threskos [e=eta], religious. The problem with this word is that this is the only time in the entire NT where the word is used as an adjective. We can’t compare other uses in the Bible because there are none. But when we go outside of the Bible to see its use in Greek, we find some answers.

James 1:26 begins, ‘If anyone thinks he is religious’. It uses the adjective, threskos [e=eta], religious. The problem with this word is that this is the only time in the entire NT where the word is used as an adjective. We can’t compare other uses in the Bible because there are none. But when we go outside of the Bible to see its use in secular Greek, we find some answers.

In the next verse, James 1:27, it speaks about ‘religion that is pure and undefiled before God’. What is pure and undefiled? So ‘religion’ can be either worthless or worthy.

• In v. 27 the noun - threskeia [first e=eta] - related to the adjective from verse 26 is used. We find the noun in …
(continued)

Spencer

Yuyutsu (Sat 23 July),
(continued)

We also find the noun in …

• In v. 27 the noun - threskeia [first e=eta]- related to the adjective from verse 26 is used. We also find the noun in …
• Acts 26:5 where Paul states that ‘according to the strictest party of our religion I lived as a Pharisee’ (ESV). What factors caused the Pharisees to be proud about their religion? The Pharisees were very influential at the time of Jesus and Paul. Pharisees meant ‘the separated ones, separatists’. John 9:16 helps us to see what kind of religion they were promoting, ‘Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.” But others said, “How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?” And there was a division among them’. What did they require Jesus to do on the Sabbath? ‘There were 39 prohibited groups of activities on the sabbath’ for the Pharisees and they stressed the law that ‘contained 613 commandments (248 positive, 365 negative’. So what kind of religion is it from Acts 26:5 that Paul used to practise? It was external religion and that is the negative kind that James is talking about. It’s religion by external appearances.

Thayer's Greek lexicon gives the meaning of threskeia [first e=eta] as 'primarily fear of the gods; religious worship, especially external, that which consists in ceremonies', while the noun, threskos [e=eta] refers to 'fearing or worshipping God; religious (apparently from trew; to tremble; hence properly trembling, fearful)'.[3] So it is possible to perform external religious ceremonies from a correct motive. But I’m jumping ahead of myself.

There’s one other verse that uses this word for ‘religion’ in the NT:
• Colossians 2:18 states, ‘Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels’. There’s that word again, threskeia [first e=eta], ‘worship’. Here, worship of angels, which is talking about worthless religion.

James 1:26-27 uses 'religious' and 'religion' (adjective and noun) from the same root. James is careful to show the difference between worthy and worthless religion.

Spencer

Spencer,

With respect, you are being obtuse.

You ask, "In which post did I make that statement?", that: ['...the historicity of Jesus proves the "accurate content of Christianity"'.]

Well, in your answer's to my specific criticism of your claim on the "accurate content of Christianity".

Here: "Posted by OzSpen, Friday, 22 July 2016 12:17:48 PM"

Spencer: "Your presuppositional rationalism and secularism seem to be standing in the way of permitting the historical method to be used to assess details about the historical Jesus."

Hmm. "historical method" and historical Jesus" - seems pretty clear to me! Then you go further and claim the historicity of the NT.

Spencer: "I have already cited Australian historian, Dr Paul W Barnett’s, views to refute your perceptions here (“Jesus and the Logic of History” 1997). Barnett has refuted your irrational reasoning regarding the NT in his other publications"
Posted by OzSpen, Saturday, 23 July 2016 12:23:06 PM

In same post, you accuse me of "providing not one piece of evidence to show how documents are found to be historically reliable or unreliable".

So along with confusing the burden of proof, you clearly based your original cliam on the historicy of Jesus and then extended it to the full NT by citing Barnett's books.

Rather than trying to wriggle out of making the claim why dont you clearly articulate your argument. As I've suggested, the claim is so preposterous you'd be better advised to settle for something more modest.

Spencer

I didnt notice your post: OzSpen, Friday, 22 July 2016 2:09:38 PM

You say:

"You don’t like the idea of secularism being identified as a religion. However, it’s way too late to try to convince me otherwise.
Back as far as the late 1930s, there were writers identifying ‘secular religion’"

You then betwray a fundamental confusion by going on to provide some opinions on poential secular religions from Wikipedia: communism, Sport, psychology etc.

That doesn't demonstrate "Secular- ISM" is a religion! Straw man.

Secular religions (even if granted) are not the same thing as Secularism. Please try to debate the argument rather than a straw man.

In addition, these contrived religious apoligist arguments that everything is a religion force Christians to admit to practising multiple religions.

They also mean that every belief system is a religion. This denies religion any distinction in meaning. If religion is really no different from politics or sport or pyschology then what distinguishes it?

RationalRazor,

It is you who stated that this information came from me: 'the historicity of Jesus proves the "accurate content of Christianity"'. I do not believe that; I did not state that; you have invented that about my views.

You are the one being obtuse by inventing something I did not say. So you have created a straw man fallacy about my views by creating a view I do not promote.

We have no basis to continue a rational conversation when you use the fallacious reasoning of a straw man fallacy in regard to what I wrote.

Spencer

Dear Spencer,

«That is not my Christian perspective that we are all related to God. We all are made in ‘the image of God’ (Genesis 1:27) but we are separated from God because of our sin»

How could anything stand independently even one moment without God?
Yes, we currently seem to be separated from God by our sin, but this separation is only temporary. Different religions offer different paths and methods to remove our state of sin: while you may doubt the authenticity of this path or another, I don't think that you or any serious person, nor even its own followers, includes secularism and its variants as competent paths that can help anyone to wash away their sins.

Clearly there are forms of worship and rituals which do not lead to God. Moreover, the same external rituals may or may not lead to God, depending on the practitioner's spirit and intention. This is indeed the subject of chapter 17 of the Bhagavad-Gita, ending with:

28.
Whatever is done without faith;
Whether it is sacrifice, charity, austerity,
Or any other act; is called Asat.
It has no value here or hereafter, O Arjuna.

http://www.santosha.com/philosophy/gita-chapter17.html

Religion-by-external-appearances is not religion, but a semblance of religion - it cannot bind its practitioner to God just like Fata Morgana cannot assuage one's thirst.

Spencer

I completely understand you not wanting to continue the conversation. You've painted yourself into a corner not even Michelangelo could paint himself out of.

I'll leave it to others to determine if I "invented a straw man" of your argument, in as much as it could be described an argument.

If you did not defend your asssertion on the accuracy of Christianity by citing Australian historian, Dr Paul W Barnett’s, books on the histority of Jesus and the NT (as per the plain english interpretation of your remarks), then I'm mystified as to what on earth you were talking about.

Perhaps others can enlighten me on what I've missed.

Perhaps you have some fool proof defeater hidden in there which renders all my objections mute, but I, along with everyone else has just been too dense to see it?

I note you at first tried to claim my challenge irrelevent. When that didn;t work you claimed I'm misrepresenting your argument.

This is the informal fallacy of moving the goalposts - but you take to to a new level! You fail to clarify what your argument is. This becomes moving the goal posts plus taking one's bat and ball and going home.

I find it disappointing, but not surprising, you can't atleast acknowledge that it's ridiculous and incongruous to claim secularism is a religion, but perhaps you'll be more cautious before making the claim next time.

Nevermind - there's the old saying that beliefs formed without reason are unlikely to be moved by it: notwithstanding the ability to google logical fallacies.

In response to; Posted by OzSpen, Friday, 22 July 2016 11:51:07 AM [Fri]:
Greetings Spencer,
When reduced to its essence your issue seems devoted to the cause of reducing or elevating the position of "no religion" to "yes religion". Having been deeply involved in fora such as this since 1995 I have seen various sincere and not so sincere efforts to substantiate such a case with evidence. It has been done before in this forum with no significant success, especially no major break-through by either contending party.
Your dictionary does not treat the concepts of "world view" and "religion" as synonyms.

You write; "In following the Macquarie Dictionary, I'm using religion and worldview as essentially equivalent concepts as the dictionary associates religion with worldview and praxis (practice, as opposed to theory). So religion amounts to worldview in action."

And I advise you that no such position is legitimately established simply because you wish it to be so. An "association" of the two concepts by a dictionary is hardly sufficient reason to render inconsequential two millennia of theological deliberations that sought to divorce religious faith from the mundane and the profane, from worldly things.

Have you sought further authority from other dictionaries in support of your contention? Do you not see some irony in using an essentially secular source as support for a religious argument? [cont........]

[cont........]It is worth iterating; There may be some legitimate points as to religious faith forming someone's world view and that world view being comprised entirely of religious faith. But saying that extends no legitimacy whatsoever to your contention that every individual world view is wholly theological, one comprised entirely of religious faith. It does not follow logically and never will in spite of your interpretation of the Macquarie Dictionary. The ridiculing of my analogies demonstrates their effectiveness.

A.J.Phillips p18 wrote how theists brand atheism as a religion in order to vilify it. Rational Razor observed similarly that when theists found need of denigrating those repudiating religious faith they insult the repudiators by branding them as religious.
I think theist motives, when logically examined, are unintentionally acknowledging that the baggage that accompanies religious faith limits resort to logic, hinders rational reasoning and thus is disadvantageous to those so encumbered. Apparently martyrdom doesn't always satisfy.

You claim, ‘We are made of the same stuff as the stars’. Are you kidding? With flesh and blood?

You must realise, all that exists is chemistry, is comprised of chemicals. If you wish to look frther I recommend <http://www.livescience.com/3505-chemistry-life-human-body.html>. The subject of abiogenesis is outside the purview of this topic.

Hi Pogi,

Maybe it might help to use Venn diagrams: overlapping circles indicating:

* religion
* world-view
* football
* reasonable dislike of Victoria

So, yes some world-views verge on religion; some don't. Some people frame their lives around football, some don't. Amongst those who do, some regard football with the fervour of zealots, and some don't. And of course, most sensible people have at least a disparagement of Victorians, of course. But it's not a matter of 'only A = B, and only B".

Just putting my oar in :)

Joe

greetings Loudmouth: Your opinions are so often refreshing and to the point. I'm sure a number of us was expecting something better from Spencer.

On p2 he writes: "I ask: why secularism has to be democratic as in the 10-point plan? Why can't it be totalitarian under Stalin or Mao? The fundamental in any worldview is: Who or what decides the content of human rights?"

I reply: Secularism as a feature of totalitarianism is a non-sequitur. Freedom of and from religion by definition allows and accords value to every world view held by individual humankind. Stalin and Mao, each in their own way, held messianic totalitarian world views. Stalin could not make an ally of the Russian Church and so took every opportunity to extirpate it. Mao sought no allies in religion. He was brutally efficient in opposing Tibetan Buddhism and drew some satisfaction from destroying the Roman Catholic church in his own country. Neither leader was tolerant of individual human rights or any other expressions of individualism.

It is very difficult to find relevance and meaning in Spencer's questions quoted above.

Hi Pogi,

You do me proud :)

I suppose that both secular AND religion-based regimes can be totalitarian, as you point out. But the secular values of equality for all before the law, freedoms of expression, speech, and worship, are the cornerstones of any democratic system, even if it - socially - is oriented towards a particular religion. In that sense, all democratic societies depend on secular political and legal systems.

But to reiterate, and get ahead of complainers, this is not to say that all secular systems are democratic - as you point out. But clearly, religious systems can get in the way of any development towards democracy: any reliance on the supposed word of god or gods weakens the dependence of a democracy on the will of the people by posing another spurious authority, ultimately over and above the state, which should operate only on the will of the people, mediated by elected politicians and public services.

Of course, western democracies indirectly derive the evolution of their systems of values from Christianity, often in opposition to its popes and bishops. So far, no society has developed a system superior to democracy. As an ex-Marxist, I would say that includes 'socialism' which has everywhere degenerated into cliquism, semi- and full-blown fascism, and something like the Mafia (imagine Putin as Tony Soprano, but without the charm).

Any improvements in democracy will be based on such secular values, available to all, regardless of religious orientation.

Cheers,

Joe

Greetings Loudmouth. You write: "I suppose that both secular AND religion-based regimes can be totalitarian, as you point out...." I feel I must offer a profound apology for failing to express my opinion unmistakeably and clearly. I was hoping to demonstrate that a totalitarian secularism [adhering strictly to a dictionary definition of "secular"] is a contradiction in terms, that an undemocratic secularism, as suggested by Spencer, nurtured by a Stalin or a Mao makes no sense.

Secularism at its very foundations is built upon mutual respect and tolerance for individual opinion, an unhindered freedom of and from religious thought. This leads inescapably to the conclusion of strict separation between church and state.

Neither Stalin nor Mao were messianic atheists in the same way they were messianic totalitarian leaders. To them, religion was an anachronism that supported privileged and aristocratic regimes which were anathema to social equality [basically, a sharing of wealth with a former proletariat in a soon to develop strata-less society.] In a way, atheism attached itself to their regimes rather than it becoming a new "religion" to replace the old. If anything, they sought to make the state the new church. The submersion of the individual within the state thoroughly excludes any considerations of secularism.

Actually, I'm uncomfortable accrediting Stalin with so much historical forsight. That credit really belongs to Lenin, imho.

Anyhow, let me apologise again for not making myself clear. And I confess to some trepidation in disserting on elements of Marxism in the presence of an ex-Marxist. Please feel free to correct any misperceptions on my part.

That's like saying baldness is a hairstyle and abstinence is a sexual position. The dictionary defines religion as belief in deities. Non religious people do not believe in deities. Of all the mysteries ever solved throughout history none have ever been found to be magic. Religion has as much supportive evidence as the flat earth theory or horoscopes. Any other nonsense belief system making such unsubstantiated wild claims would be dismissed as a scam and its leaders locked up. Atheists are the only sane people on earth. Please do not try to lump us in with the crazy people who believe in mythology for no rational reason. http://www.AustralianAtheists.com

Pogi,

You wrote: <<I think theist motives, when logically examined, are unintentionally acknowledging that the baggage that accompanies religious faith limits resort to logic, hinders rational reasoning and thus is disadvantageous to those so encumbered. Apparently martyrdom doesn't always satisfy.>>

You have confirmed what a Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley for 30 years, Phillip E Johnson, concluded: 'One who claims to be a skeptic of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs' (1998).

You are sceptical of the views I wrote because or your own contrary set of beliefs.

Spencer

Dear AA,

«The dictionary defines religion as belief in deities»

Yes, but the dictionary is wrong.

It seems that these "enlightened" dictionaries were purposely written in order to denigrate and ridicule religion and the religious, whose values differ from the authors'.

Firstly, the term "believe in" is very vague.
Many atheists (and sadly some theists too) seem to consider "believe in X" as equivalent to "believe that X exists": this is probably due to their prejudice of valuing existence, paying it so much importance, even basing their life-decisions on whether certain things exist or not.

This is neither necessary nor rational, it's just a specific value-system.

There can be many other interpretations for "believe in" and so it is quite possible for people to believe in deities, yet not that they exist. If this doesn't make sense to you, then it is only because you, having been brainwashed from the cradle by the European "enlightenment" philosophy, are so fixated on existence as the be-all-and-end-all unit of measurement.

Now suppose you fixed this dictionary definition, now claiming "religion is the belief in the existence of deities".

False: some religious people (such as myself) do not believe in the existence of deities (of which some do not even incorporate deities in their life), while others who are not religious (paedophile priests for example) do believe in the existence of deities.

Sadly, after being bombarded for a few centuries by the ideas of the European "enlightenment" movement, some religious people too buy those faulty dictionary-definitions.

Yuyutsu,

You don't like the idea that religion is defined as 'belief in deities'. In fact, you state it is a wrong definition.

'Believe in' is a legitimate way to describe what one does in relation to God or other deities. We see an example of this in the NT Book of Acts, chapter 16. The context involved the prisoners, the apostle Paul, his friend Silas and the other prisoners in Philippi. While Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God around midnight and the other prisoners were listening, there was a great earthquake that shook the foundation of the prison, the doors were opened and prisoner bonds were broken.

When the prison jailer (person in charge of the jail) woke to see this, he was so distraught that he drew his sword and was about to commit suicide. Paul shouted, 'Do not harm yourself, for we are all here'. The jailer's response was to call for lights and he fell down trembling at the feet of Paul and Silas. He exclaimed, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?'

Their response was, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household' (Acts 16:31). 'Believe in' is the Greek, pisteuson peri, meaning, 'believe upon/in'. It could have been pisteuson eis (i.e. believe into). The meaning of 'to believe' in NT terms means to put all of a person's trust and confidence in the Lord Jesus. By this kind of trust of the inner being (the heart) of a person, he or she throws the personality into Jesus' arms for deliverance from sin and to receive eternal salvation.

Epi, the preposition, is used to indicate this trust is to rest on Jesus. This is what the jailer had to 'do' to be saved.

Thus, 'believe in' God is a legitimate way of describing one's commitment to God.

Spencer

Yuyutsu,

We already sorted all this out at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579&page=0#200237.

<<It seems that these "enlightened" dictionaries were purposely written in order to denigrate and ridicule religion and the religious, whose values differ from the authors'.>>

And as soon as I pointed out that many of the Enlightenment thinkers were Christians themselves, you dropped this claim faster than one could say "mental gymnastics".

A discredited claim does not grow its validity back over time. Your claim still remains discredited.

As I pointed out to you in the discussion linked to above, words do not have intrinsic meaning, words have usages and we apply meanings to them.

Dear Spencer,

I certainly agree.

In the sense you described, "believe in God" is quite different and superior to the atheist notion, perhaps even caricature, of faith, which they understand as "think of the predicate 'God exists' as true".

While we may still differ regarding the idea that God is a deity as well as whether believing in God (as in "pisteuson peri") is the ONLY way for salvation, nevertheless I agree with you that it is the BEST, safest and easiest way.

Yuyutsu

I made an error in giving the wrong preposition when I quoted, 'pisteuson peri'. It should have been 'pisteuson epi' to agree with the presupposition, epi, to which I later referred in my post.

However, the point is valid that to 'believe in/upon' a deity is a legitimate way to designate one's commitment to and dependence on that God. For me, that is the Lord God Almighty through Jesus Christ.

Spencer

OzSpen, Saturday, 30 July 2016 12:14:57 PM

'One who claims to be a skeptic of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs' (1998).

Both you and Johnson are wrong.

I am not skeptical of gods, ghosts and demons. My position is that you cannot present positive and compelling scientific evidence of their existence. Christians have had 2000 years to find some evidence as described and their efforts have been singularly unsuccessful. When you do find some I'll give it due consideration. I am adopting a cordial demeanour out of politeness and a secular respect Please restrain your eagerness to turn the meaning of my reply above into something it isn't.

Having so advised, I also advise that you and Phillip E.Johnson are falling into the very trap that I outlined in my previous post. The words are slightly different but the claim remains as I wrote it. It opens your own post!

In a desperate effort to burden atheism with doctrine and dogma, with concordances and commentaries, with rituals and observances you [and Johnson] are peddling that threadbare tale of atheism being a set of beliefs. There is a motive for this strategem and it is not an altogether honest one......you are trying to make it much more difficult for atheism to appeal to rationality, reason and logic for support.

Quite simply, you [and Johnson] are declaring in no uncertain terms that your theism holds an inferior position in credibility and you [and Johnson] are trying to infect atheism's credibility thus, by deceitful artifice, reducing atheism to theism's level. Cont......

Cont.......It is revealed with ineluctable logic that the faithful who argue as you [and Johnson] do that each of you is secretly convinced that atheism does indeed occupy a superior position and at all costs must be reduced commensurately in order that theism may compete.

In order for this to be the case you need to change the definition of RELIGION that every dictionary of the English language agrees on. Isn't the martyrdom of inadequacy sufficient for you lot any more? What presumption! You theists should rejoice in the gift of martyrdom from your loving god.

May I quote a much-admired but humanly flawed man universally admired by all humans of goodwill?: "There is nothing more dangerous in the world than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." M.L.K jr.

Oh, and may I offer the following from an intellect deserving of much wider admiration?
"You cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into". Jonathan Swift.

Dear Pogi,

Overall I agree with you: atheism does not deserve to be called "religion".

«I am not skeptical of gods, ghosts and demons. My position is that you cannot present positive and compelling scientific evidence of their existence.» ... «When you do find some I'll give it due consideration.»

And at that very moment I'll stop giving it any consideration because anything that can be evidenced is merely material. I do not worship evidence.

«Christians have had 2000 years to find some evidence as described and their efforts have been singularly unsuccessful.»

Yes, this was their attempt at idolatry and they have thus tried to undermine religion. Fortunately they were unsuccessful.

Ozspen
<<<<In the sense you described, "believe in God" is quite different and superior to the atheist notion, perhaps even caricature, of faith, which they understand as "think of the predicate 'God exists' as true".>>>>

Trust in God fails as a viable distinction because it relies on God existing. No point trusting anything that doesn't exist. No point trusting our power with air travel prior to the 20th century.

YuYutsu <<<<<And at that very moment I'll stop giving it any consideration because anything that can be evidenced is merely material. I do not worship evidence.>>>>>

Another misconception. Evidence (Oxford): "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Evidence captures all means of knowing whether a deity such as God exists, or in fact knowing anything.

As per the children's classice, "We're going on a Bear Hunt" - there's no tip toeing around evidence, tunneling under it, or floating serenly above it. The only way you're going to know something is by the available facts or information pertaining to it.

This challenge I give: Any means by which you claim to know the existence of God counts as evidence.

Dear Razor,

I explained that I do not worship evidence and in reply you wrote:
«Another misconception. Evidence (Oxford): "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."»

And this, in your view, is a valid reason to worship it?

I collect neither propositions nor Pokémons. Religion is about coming closer to God, not about asserting beliefs and propositions.

Now I have no idea why you addressed the following to me:
«Evidence captures all means of knowing whether a deity such as God exists, or in fact knowing anything.»

1. I just wrote (to Spencer, top of page 22) that I disagree with the conception of God as a deity.
2. I have explained before why "God exists" is a logical contradiction.
3. I didn't speak about wanting to know anything.

«The only way you're going to know something is by the available facts or information pertaining to it.»

Perhaps, but God is not a something.

«This challenge I give: Any means by which you claim to know the existence of God counts as evidence.»

Look, existence is your cup of tea - not mine. You already demonstrated your own prejudice and narrow-minded addiction to it when writing to Spencer, «No point trusting anything that doesn't exist».

<<<<And this, in your view, is a valid reason to worship it?>>>>
nope, your projection.

<<<<<Religion is about coming closer to God, not about asserting beliefs and propositions>>>>

Relies on God existing. I don't care what mystical, evidence resistant, non-real world, invisible, non-existent notion of God you have. If there is not entity such as God then you're talking about nothing. IF God is epistemologically equivalent to things that don't exists then there's no point in trusting in it.

If you want to define belief in God as trust in God then you still have to wrangle with the question of what is God.

<<<<<I have explained before why "God exists" is a logical contradiction.>>>>>

Not, that I've seen.

Before seeking to redefine the views of others it'd be advisable to develop a coherent theory of your own.

It seems like you are seeking to define God as somehow outside of the bounds of existence. That's incoherent.

Dear Razor,

I have been offering my views on OLO for many years now, especially about God and religion.

«If there is not entity such as God then you're talking about nothing.»

Indeed, I am not talking about a thing. Things come and go, things are affected by time, things change as they interact with each other, but you cannot say the same about God. You cannot for example even say that "He is the creator of this world", because then, He would have been modified by that action from being a potential-creator to being an actual-creator.

It would be foolish of me to attempt to define God as my betters for 1000's of years have already explained why this is not possible. They did however explain that one, especially intellectually-oriented people, can approach God by a process of elimination, looking at different objects in turn, contemplating them, then discarding them saying "Nay, God is not this", "Nay, God is not that". You may learn more about this process here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neti_neti

Sure Yuyutsu

I'm familiar with the "not this" and "not that" process of elimination.

That's great.

But they end up with a something, not a nothing. Some say its the Absolute.

No matter what form of woo-woo you invoke, you cannot claim that nothing actually amounts to something while remaining nothing.

RationalRazor,

Yuyutsu will happily speak about his god as though it exists, while simultaneously claiming that it doesn't exist so that you cannot get a toehold on what he's talking about.

His tactic is designed to frustrate you with responses like, "But God is not a thing", "But God is not a concept", "But God is not a God", so that you cannot get to the next logical step in your argument, and he doesn't have to think.

Dear Razor,

«But they end up with a something, not a nothing. Some say its the Absolute.»

The word 'with' implies duality - as if they and God, the Absolute, were ever different. In turn, that would render both themselves and God as things because only things can be different from each other.

Though the process cannot truly be adequately described, it can be better described as subtraction rather than addition and it is more accurate to say that they end up WITHOUT something(s) - without their impurities. One is still who they were, one is still what they were, one "has" nothing new, but now one has shed their excess baggage, one has let go of feeling as if they were what they are not, one is now free because they no longer hold that burden.

«No matter what form of woo-woo you invoke, you cannot claim that nothing actually amounts to something while remaining nothing.»

We have reached the limit of language here. Language can only describe things, but while you can realise through the process of elimination that you are not a thing, does not-being-a-thing mean that you are in fact, nothing? While one can deny that they are this-or-that, no matter what evidence, proofs, punishments or rewards you are presented with, could you ever deny that you are? False notions about yourself can and should be eliminated, but your true self is not a thing and cannot be eliminated - you are God, the Absolute.

Yuyutsu
<<<<<Though the process cannot truly be adequately described, it can be better described as subtraction rather than addition and it is more accurate to say that they end up WITHOUT something(s) - without their impurities>>>>>>

OK, so maybe we've come full circle and we could describe your belief as belief in nothing, and your religion as no religion?

<<<<<<False notions about yourself can and should be eliminated, but your true self is not a thing and cannot be eliminated - you are God, the Absolute.>>>>>>

No, that's an assertion without proof.

Indeed, there's considerable reason to believe it's untue. It's well established we are primates, hominins from the species homo sapien sapiens. We've lived 250,000 years as a species and contemporaneuously with several other human (hominid) species such as Denisovans, Neanderthals, Flores Man and others. We even interbred with them.

There is no consensus about a "true self" our an innate "human nature". Some experts doubt the concept of human nature or essential nature.

All of the above, including your claims, are information. There are informed by evidence which contains the information pertaining to them. No thing, or nothing escapes this concept. Every claim you make about the world is susceptible to evidence.

Dear Razor,

«OK, so maybe we've come full circle and we could describe your belief as belief in nothing, and your religion as no religion?»

Beliefs are beliefs and religion is religion - they are two different things.

If we have come a full circle, then the topic was the census, which has no such question as "what do you believe in?".

To judge my religion as "no religion" is gravely severe. Some fundamentalist Muslims and Christians might claim so, e.g. that I will be damned in hell for eternity without any recourse to God, but you are one of those I least expected to hear such harsh words from. I never made such horrible judgement about your own religion.

«No, that's an assertion without proof»

This is a grand statement (Mahavakya), not an assertion.
The absence of a proof does not imply the incorrectness of a statement.

«It's well established we are primates»

It is merely well established that our bodies are primate-bodies.

«Some experts doubt the concept of human nature or essential nature»

I too disagree with the concept of "human nature".
As for "essential nature", it is merely an attempt to point at the direction, going where language and the mind cannot follow. This direction can also be described as: "drop everything that is unessential. What is left?".

«No thing, or nothing escapes this concept»

Okay, but I was not discussing any thing.

«Every claim you make about the world is susceptible to evidence.»

True, but in this specific instance I was not making any claim about the world.

<<<<True, but in this specific instance I was not making any claim about the world.>>>>

Ah, It occured to me after I posted you would respond in this way.

Replace with:

Every claim you make is susceptible to evidence.

<<<<<This is a grand statement (Mahavakya), not an assertion.>>>>

It's a assertion without proof, no matter how grand or who made it.

<<<<The absence of a proof does not imply the incorrectness of a statement.>>>>

Agree. But, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

<<<<To judge my religion as "no religion" is gravely severe. I never made such horrible judgement about your own religion.>>>>

You just did.

<<<Okay, but I was not discussing any thing.>>>>
in response to :"nothing escapes this concept"

OK. Here we are at your deliberate impasse, which you appear to think allows you to claim divine knowledge or otherworldly nothingness realms or whatever it is you are claiming, san evidence.

Please describe what escapes this concept.

If you cannot describe what escapes this concept your religion is invalid.

If you intend to claim that language limits you then your religion (which relies on langauage to communicate its beliefs and practices) must be similarly limited in explaining what it claims to understand. It is thereby invalid, and an unreliable communicator of divine knowledge.

What you are offering are excuses to believe in things that cannot be known. Its the Kierkegaards paradox. http://public.wsu.edu/~kimander/briellepap.htm

Dear Razor,

«You just did [judge your religion as "no religion"]»

Heaven forbid!

I do not know you personally and I do not entertain the slightest thought or feeling as if your religion is deficient merely because you cannot name it. Who am I to tell - you could even possibly be more religious than me.

«Every claim you make is susceptible to evidence»

So here is a semantic question: if you say something that has nothing to do with the world, is it still a "claim"?

I don't know the answer, so here is what dictionaries say for 'claim' (this doesn't necessarily mean that they can be trusted):
"an assertion that something is true"
"an assertion of something as a fact"
"a statement saying that something happened a certain way or will happen a certain way"

They all boil down to things, thus by all those dictionaries, a claim needs to be about the world.

«Agree. But, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.»

Sure, but why would you want to do that?

(completely besides, if you really wanted, then you could dismiss any assertion even WITH evidence)

«then your religion (...) must be similarly limited in explaining what it claims to understand»

I humbly accept, but who said that the purpose of religion is to explain anything?

You may receive inspiring pointers, lots of advice, guidelines, encouragement, good company and great techniques, but ultimately you must travel the journey yourself.

«It is thereby invalid, and an unreliable communicator of divine knowledge»

Divine knowledge cannot be communicated, but why should this render my religion invalid?

«What you are offering are excuses to believe in things that cannot be known»

Things? Like what?

Kierkegaards paradox: "Climacus’ absolute paradox is that man is absolutely different than God"

Thus both must be objects and all sorts of logical difficulties arise. Contrary to that, Advaita Vedanta states that You and God are absolutely the same.

//Contrary to that, Advaita Vedanta states that You and God are absolutely the same.//

No we're not. God is made from spaghetti and he can fly under his own power, neither of which apply to me.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You mention Advaita Vedanta and the “sameness” of Atman and Brahman. [In my layman’s opinion, for Christians this corresponds to God’s Grace in the Self, - “God within” if you like - and God without, the former being a projection of the latter (rather than the same as in Advaita Vedanta)].

The Hindu physicist Varadaraja V. Raman (http://broom02.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Varadaraja%20V.%20Raman&item_type=topic) writes in a way more comprehensible to the Western man who prefers to think in scientific categories (e.g. http://www.metanexus.net/essay/descriptive-view-religion) even when explaining Hindu philosopy.

Do you know him and about his relation to the Advaita version of Vedanta? From what I read I do not remember him mentioning this philosophical school explicitly.

Dear George,

I was not previously familiar with Varadaraja V. Raman.

Having now read his Wikipedia entry, the article you referred to (the site of the first link rejected my browser) and his youtube clip, "The Hindu Gods", my first impression is that Raman, undoubtedly an expert in both physics and Hindu culture, is a person still struggling to reconcile science and religion, who is still at an intermediate state like an unfinished stone, who not yet had sufficient time to digest all the vast information that he acquired. From hints within his video-clip, I have the impression that he follows the VishishtAdvaita (qualified monism) school.

Your own description of «God’s Grace in the Self, - “God within” if you like - and God without, the former being a projection of the latter», also corresponds well with the Vishishtadvaita school of Vedanta.

Note that no school of philosophy is more "correct" or better than the others, since the Reality itself cannot be expressed in words anyway: the different schools simply suit different people or sometimes even the same person at different stages. It is like climbing the same mountain from different directions.

<<<<<<Divine knowledge cannot be communicated, but why should this render my religion invalid?>>>>>

Because this is what every religion claims.

«Every claim you make is susceptible to evidence»
<<<<They all boil down to things, thus by all those dictionaries, a claim needs to be about the world.>>>>

Ah ha. I've got you. What, pray tell, are the claims of your religion about? (ans. not the world)

So you are stuck. If your religion makes no claims outside of the world, or it makes no claims.

Every claim you make is susceptible to evidence. You cannot defeat it.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Thanks for the info. I think https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-Dvaita-Advaita-and-Visishtadvaita explains the difference between the three schools. I would not dare to argue which one is closest to the Christian religion which, after all, is also compatible with all sorts of philosophies: I am not only ignorant about Vedanta schools but neither am I a Christian theologian.

I certainly agree that no school of philosophy is more "correct" or better than the other in representing reality (by verbal or other models). Even when you restrict yourself to the features of reality that science, notably physics, has access to, the question about what is the “correct” theory is becoming more and more blurred, and you have e.g. Stephen Hawking’s “model dependent realism” (c.f.my article http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14464).

I would not want to pass judgement on V. V. Raman who has proved that he understands what modern physics, as developed in the West, is all about, and hence - to my mind - is better suited than many others to make also the Hindu wisdom accessible to an open Western mind.

You’d think so, wouldn’t you RationalRazor.

<<Ah ha. I've got you.>>

But, as sure as day turns night, Yuyutsu will have some sort of sophistry ready to respond with.

I’ve been through all this with him/her/it (I say, “him/her/it”, because Yuyutsu believes that he/she/it exists on a higher and more-enlightened plane to the rest of us and must, therefore, remain genderless, as he/she/it has supposedly risen above "meaningless" statuses such as gender) at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579&page=0.

Eventually, It will get very angry at you and demand that you compensate It for the many hours that you’ve cost It during the debate (It hates society but is happy become exceedingly wealthy from it).

Eventually, It will pretend that you don’t exist anymore.

Which has its pros and cons, I suppose.

Dear Razor,

«Because this is what every religion claims»

Please be more precise: shall I take it that by "this" you mean that "Divine knowledge cannot be communicated"?

This is bizarre: say an Olympic weight-lifter admits that they cannot play chess, does it make them an invalid weight-lifter?

An invalid weight-lifter is a person who cannot lift weights.
An invalid religion is a system of practices which does not help its follower(s) to come closer to God.

Nevertheless, lets assume for a moment that every religion claimed that divine knowledge cannot be communicated. Aren't you saying the same yourself? Are you perchance of the view that divine knowledge CAN be communicated? Does otherwise make you invalid?

«What, pray tell, are the claims of your religion about?»

You seem to confuse religion with philosophy: religions are not there to make claims - philosophies do that (usually). Religions are there to help people come closer to God.

While there often is some symbiosis between religions and philosophies, that is not required. Particular philosophies for example could include statements such as "this-or-that religion is valid" (explaining why), while particular religions may include a teaching to study this-or-that philosophy (since it will accelerate your progress towards God).

If you have been following my discussion with George, I just explained how three different philosophies can support the same religion - not only that, but those very same philosophies can support Hinduism, Christianity and many other religions.

«Every claim you make is susceptible to evidence»

Nevertheless, not every statement is a claim.

---

Dear George,

«I would not dare to argue which one is closest to the Christian religion»

All three schools of Vedanta encourage religion and support the teachings of Christ. Whichever of them encourages and supports its follower the most effectively to become Christ-like, is the "closest". As people in general and Christians in particular are quite different in temperament and inclinations, which school is most appropriate can be different for different individuals.

//Advaita Vedanta states that You and God are absolutely the same.//

//Religions are there to help people come closer to God.//

Yuyutsu, if we are absolutely the same as God then it is impossible to get any closer: we're already as close as we can possibly be.

If God does not exist, your other favourite claim, then it is once again impossible to get any closer: there is nothing to get closer to.

Your re-definition of religion doesn't make any sense in light of your other beliefs.

Although I guess that doesn't matter, since you only use it as a sleight-of-hand that allows you arbitrarily dismiss bona fide religions and annoy the irreligious by insisting that they are religious. It's not a very good trick, Yuyutsu, and it's not fooling anybody. I'd find a new one if I were you.

Hi Toni,

If God is in everything, then we are all God.

And if God doesn't exist, neither do we. Nothing does. I'm not typing this and you're not reading it. Nothing exists.

Isn't it fun to fart around with bare and trivial ideas, without any need for reliance on evidence in the slightest. In fact, evidence is just so de rigueur, only for shallow thinkers. Some of us are just too sophisticated to worry about evidence.

What a total waste of time and space.

Joe

<<<<<<Divine knowledge cannot be communicated, but why should this render my religion invalid?>>>>>

<<<Because this is what every religion claims.>>>

If you cannot communicate divine knowledge then there is no point of your religion, as communicating divine knowledge is what a religion is.

It assumes:

1. to know Divine knowledge.
2. To be able to discuss and act in a way consistent with that knowledge

When you talk about getting closer to God it assumes you have some idea where and what God is. ie. You must have some divine knowledge. And the exponents of your religion can communicate what that it.

Since, you claim the opposite then your religion must be invalid.

«Every claim you make is susceptible to evidence»
Nevertheless, not every statement is a claim.

OK, give me an example a statement which is not a claim as it relates to your religious beliefs.

//And if God doesn't exist, neither do we. Nothing does. I'm not typing this and you're not reading it. Nothing exists.//

Cogito ergo sum, Joe. I definitely exist even if you're all figments of my imagination. Although I don't think you are.

//Some of us are just too sophisticated to worry about evidence.//

That's a shame. I just found some incontrovertible video evidence of God's existence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL7FcvEydqg

See? So much for Yuyutsu's claims of non-existence. And he definitely isn't me (or you, or Yuyutsu): we're not that noodly.

Hi Tony,

Maybe we would be all figments of each other's imaginations, IF there was an 'other'.

And if we are all of God, then we ARE each other. i.e. we are each a figment of our own imagination ?

All very time-absorbing. Collecting number plate numbers can be fun too.

Joe

//All very time-absorbing. Collecting number plate numbers can be fun too.//

I prefer trainspotting.

Dear Razor,

«If you cannot communicate divine knowledge then there is no point of your religion, as communicating divine knowledge is what a religion is.»

Now we may have possibly got to the bottom of this misunderstanding - unrealistic expectations.

Why should one expect religion to communicate divine knowledge? Visit a psychic charlatan if that's what you are after... Next you may expect religion to fix your tap... why not call a plumber instead if that's what you are after?

«It assumes:»...«When you talk about getting closer to God it assumes you have some idea...»

Who is "it"?

«some idea where and what God is»

Impossible!

To have an idea about anything, the object of your thoughts must be limited.

«Since, you claim the opposite then your religion must be invalid.»

I cannot even fix your washing-machine, I don't even know in detail how it works. So?

«OK, give me an example a statement which is not a claim as it relates to your religious beliefs.»

You are God.

(this is not a claim because claims, according to the dictionaries, are always about things, whereas you are not a thing and God is not a thing)

Dear Tony,

«if we are absolutely the same as God then it is impossible to get any closer: we're already as close as we can possibly be»

However, this currently is not your experience: strive to make it your direct everyday experience rather than a mere cerebral theory.

«If God does not exist, your other favourite claim, then it is once again impossible to get any closer: there is nothing to get closer to.»

It is possible to remove the obstacles that give you the illusion of being separate from God.

«you arbitrarily dismiss bona fide religions»

For example?

«and annoy the irreligious by insisting that they are religious»

I do not insist that you are particularly religious, any more than others. While technically-speaking even the atoms in your body have a sort of a religion, this could perhaps be as weak and insignificant as the gravitational pull of a feather in a galaxy 10-billion light years away, not anything like a black-hole in the neighbour's yard where you are about to fall there before you managed to have enough fun.

So have fun for now, taste all the pleasures of this world - as well as the pains that follow. Once you are weary and had enough, then religion is there to help you find your way out, to wake up from this nightmare of yours, but till then you don't need to wake up any time soon unless you want to.

//However, this currently is not your experience//

Well, no. For one thing, there's the lack of noodly appendages.

//strive to make it your direct everyday experience rather than a mere cerebral theory.//

By making myself more noodly? How do I achieve that, Yuyutsu? Flinging myself into a black hole won't work: 'spaghettification' is just physics jargon for the effects of extreme gravitational fields on matter; it won't actually make me more noodly.

//It is possible to remove the obstacles that give you the illusion of being separate from God.//

Yes, if I abused the right hallucinogens I might well be able to imagine that I have noodly appendages and can fly. But drugs like that are bad for your mental health, and your mental health is important.

//While technically-speaking even the atoms in your body have a sort of a religion//

No they bloody don't.

//not anything like a black-hole in the neighbour's yard where you are about to fall there before you managed to have enough fun.//

There are no black holes in any of my neighbour's yards.

//So have fun for now, taste all the pleasures of this world - as well as the pains that follow.//

There are no pains that follow this world. Once you're dead, that's it. Enjoy it while you can.

Hi Toni,

As you say, " ... Once you're dead, that's it. Enjoy it while you can."

And what do you do in the meantime to make it a better place for others ? Many religious people, to their credit, focus on that inevitable aspect. But many seem to be far too self-absorbed to give it a thought.

Was it Schopenhauer who said that, if he could persuade a believer that there wasn't a heaven, that person would become an atheist in twenty minutes.

So whether there is or isn't a god or gods, we should all just get on with it, and do something useful.

Cheers,

Joe

Yuyutsu

<<<<<You are God. (this is not a claim because claims, according to the dictionaries, are always about things, whereas you are not a thing and God is not a thing)>>

<<you are not a thing>> is a claim. Assertion without proof.
<<God is not a thing>> is also a claim. Assertion without proof.

You cannot make these claims without knowing something of "humans" and "God". To assert what they are not, you must have some idea of what they are in order to exclude the quality of being a "thing".

If you claim you know they are not a "thing", you must demonstrate how you know. Tell me what evidence you have. How do you know these things? You don't.

Simply assertion is not enough

Dear Razor,

Let me know if you are unhappy with the dictionary definitions of 'claim'. Otherwise we shall continue to use the existing ones which state that claims can only be made about things.

When you state that "<<you are not a thing>> is a claim", you pre-assume that you are a thing.

However, you cannot locate yourself and you cannot point to anything that is you.

When you state that "<<God is not a thing>> is a claim", you pre-assume that God is a thing.

However, you cannot locate God and you cannot point to anything that is God. In fact, I think that we agree that He doesn't exist, so what is the argument about?

«You cannot make these claims without knowing something of "humans" and "God"»

Humans? How did they enter this discussion? Regardless, we do know quite a bit about them, so your out-of-the-blue condition is satisfied anyway.

As for God, I made no claims.

«To assert what they are not, you must have some idea of what they are in order to exclude the quality of being a "thing"»

First, humans are a thing, so lets get them out of the way.

Second, while having ideas regarding what something is could possibly help telling what it is not, this is not a necessary condition.

As for God, had He been a thing, then He would be limited, thus not God. Oops... why should we worship a thing, a mere limited object? In any case, don't you agree with me that no such thing called 'God' exists?

«If you claim you know they are not a "thing", you must demonstrate how you know.»

That you are not a thing does not depend on whether (and if so how) I know it.
If you are unsure what you are, then try locating yourself, try looking for things that are you - you will find that every attempt crumbles.

Yuyutsu

No, you are pretty much talking past all of my points by semantic evasions. If I cannot get you to even acknoweldge that you understand what I'm saying then there's no point.

<<<<When you state that "<<you are not a thing>> is a claim", you pre-assume that you are a thing.>>>>

No I dont. I make so such assumption. The burden is on you to justify the grand claim you're making. I dont even actually know what you mean. It's pretty clear you are distinguising between "You" and "humans" given your apparent failure to understand my point.

TO justify your claim you need to define "You", and explain why "you" is not a thing. And to do so you must provide some positive qualities about what "you" is. (This same point applies to your God assertions)

<<<<However, you cannot locate yourself and you cannot point to anything that is you.>>>

Woo woo. What do you mean? Where is your evidence for this claim? Have you been reading too much Deepak Chopra?

<<<<As for God, I made no claims.>>>>
You claimed God is not a thing!

<<<<As for God, had He been a thing, then He would be limited, thus not God. Oops... why should we worship a thing, a mere limited object?>>>>>

Right. Your opinion depends on a definition of God. You need to define God and explain what it means and what evidence you have that your explanation is true. It's also a puerile semantic evasion to say you are not talking about "things": thereby you have no obligation of proof. Otherwise you would clearly state what you are talking about beyond "things".

<<<<<In any case, don't you agree with me that no such thing called 'God' exists?>>>>>

You miss the point entirely. There's no evidence that a thing with a standard defintiion of God, a Creator deity, exists.

This does not mean that its a fact, beyond reproach, that no God exists - and expect everyone including billions of Christians and Muslims to agree with you

Dear Razor,

You give me undue honour by attributing the grand statements of the ancient seers of the Upanishads to me.

You call those "claims", though they were never intended as such and were not uttered in that spirit to begin with.

Sages for thousands of years have declared that the Ultimate Reality, which is also called 'God', the unqualified Absolute which is truly what you are, which is truly what I am, which is truly what everything is, cannot be defined, understood or proven - yet you expect me to do just that...

The Tao Te Ching begins:

"The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name"

«I dont even actually know what you mean»

For this [if you want] you will need to know yourself; and this you do not by adding but by subtracting, by peeling off all previously-held false notions of yourself, including the "human" feature that you introduced in your previous post.

«There's no evidence that a thing with a standard definition of God, a Creator deity, exists»

Of course: such existence could be easily demonstrated to be a logical contradiction. However, the cruellest and last thing I would ever want to do is to inflict this understanding on everyone, including billions of Christians and Muslims, for whom this precious belief works so well.

//So whether there is or isn't a god or gods, we should all just get on with it, and do something useful.//

Like trainspotting?

//However, you cannot locate yourself and you cannot point to anything that is you.//

Yes I can. I'm sitting right here, and like G.E. Moore I can point to my own non-noodly appendages.

//In fact, I think that we agree that He doesn't exist, so what is the argument about?//

Because a moment ago, you were claiming the exact opposite. And you will again. Show some courage in your convictions, and stop trying to have it both ways.

God either does or does not exist.

//If you are unsure what you are//

I may or may not be, but just because I'm sure I'm not God, it does not necessarily follow that I am unsure of what I am. It follows that I am sane - anybody who is sure that they are God is suffering from a textbook case of grandiose delusions.

//then try locating yourself//

Sorted. As I said, I'm sitting right here. I misplace stuff all the time, but I've never managed to misplace myself.

//try looking for things that are you//

Sorted. I'm me. These aren't very hard problems, Yuyutsu. Do you have anything more challenging?

//you will find that every attempt crumbles.//

You lie.

Pogi,

<<I am not skeptical of gods, ghosts and demons. My position is that you cannot present positive and compelling scientific evidence of their existence.>>

This is your reductionism in action. All the evidence available to you, me and others in the universe is not all 'scientific evidence'. There's a stack of evidence in our universe that is outside of that associated with the data of 'scientific evidence'. What about historical evidence? How about cosmological evidence that does not involve experimental repeatability?

Seems to me that you are engaged in a begging the question fallacy. Of course you will not want other than scientific evidence from me because that is your premise before you began.

Your view is very myopic.

Spencer

Yuyutsu

<<<<You give me undue honour>>>
I did no such thing

I'm not interested in the Upanishads, and quoting them gives your view neither more nor less authority. Below is a sample woo-woo quote. A string of flowery sounding assertions without proof.

“God is, in truth, the whole universe: what was, what is and what beyond shall ever be. He is the God of life immortal and of all life that lives by food. His hands and feet are everywhere. He has heads and mouths everywhere. He sees all, He hears all. He is in all, and He Is.”
&#8213; Anonymous, The Upanishads

<<<<<<which is truly what everything is, cannot be defined, understood or proven - yet you expect me to do just that...>>>>>

No - I'm saying that , by definition, you can't provide it. I just want you to realise the inherent contradiction in your philosophy. You cannot know the unknowable. (This is not a virtue)

Spencer

To the contrary, your view is myopic. You fail to comprehend the notion of sufficient evidence. You offer up a vague assertion - "what about historical evidence?"- Without providing any.

As all of us know, if there was sufficient evidence of "gods, ghosts and demons" they would be considered knowledge, and not belief. To get on asserting the opposite is delusional.

Dear Razor,

«<<<<You give me undue honour>>>
I did no such thing»

You wrote: "The burden is on you to justify the grand claim you're making."

I assumed that this was in response to my mentioning the Grand Statements (Mahavakyas) of the Upanishads. Just as Newton said: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants", I do not consider myself or my own statements (which you call "claims") as grand.

«No - I'm saying that , by definition, you can't provide it»

Yes, by definition I cannot provide you definitions, understanding or proofs, but I never claimed that I can. If you were after those, then why didn't you ask from the start?

«You cannot know the unknowable»

But you can know what is almost unknowable, what is most difficult to know - provided that you make sufficient and sincere efforts. In the least, you can make progress toward removing the obstacles which prevent you from knowing.

Knowing yourself (and God and others for that matter) is no ordinary knowledge. There is no way to know yourself because ways always lead between two different points, A and B. Via such ways, A may be able to see B, to go to B, to touch B, to learn about B, to understand B, etc., but no way leads from A to A, where the knower and the known are one and the same. To know yourself, you must relinquish all ways of perception (such as looking, listening, thinking, remembering, etc.), as all ways only lead you away from yourself. This is very hard work because it requires us to break our habits of looking outside of ourselves. Nobody can do this work for another.

OzSpen, Monday, 8 August 2016 10:14:10 PM: "There's a stack of evidence in our universe that is outside of that associated with the data of 'scientific evidence'. What about historical evidence? How about cosmological evidence that does not involve experimental repeatability?"

Historical evidence: Such as hearsay, third-party communication, archeology, deduction [Jesus must have existed so let's cobble together anything that might seem to support such a claim]?

Where shall we find this attention-gripping "evidence"? Archeology is heavily reliant on the sciences so how do we overcome the deeply questionable doubt as to the value of other historical evidence?

Cosmological evidence that does not involve experimental repeatability: Like the red shift and the expanding universe, like black holes, like super-novae, like galaxy formation, like the anthropic principle?

Repeatability is not a feature of any of the cosmological phenomena listed. No repeatability is involved, but direct observation is. So how do these support your contention for the existence of a supernatural realm? Perhaps you are referring to the last on the list; the anthropic principle? Is it your claim that the entire Universe was created by a god for Homo sapiens sapiens to play in with a reciprocal subservient worship as part of the deal?

I would have replied earlier to your post as it is my wont that such courtesies shall be observed. A computer malfunction had rendered me incommunicado for three and a half days.

OzSpen, Monday, 8 August 2016 10:14:10 PM

"Seems to me that you are engaged in a begging the question fallacy. Of course you will not want other than scientific evidence from me because that is your premise before you began. Your view is very myopic."

No, not myopic....simply highly discriminating.

In its search for the truth, science has established that its goal is highly elusive. In fact it has settled for what is most probable with a proviso that weight of probability is changeable. Some might say that this position is a far cry from the truth.......and they may be right! But it is the best that the human intellect can accomplish. However unsatisfactory this may seem, it is a far nobler question-to-answer struggle than surrendering to an early iron-age script, no original of which exists but was written by heretofore illiterates inspired by a supernatural spirit and within which the ultimate and inviolable truth resides.

I confess that such a surrender insults humankind and denigrates the courage and tenacity it has exhibited in surviving "nature red in tooth and claw"* to today. If humans from roughly 200,000 years ago have endured, limited by their physical resources, relying on their intellectual resources and courage, then that legacy is worthy of the highest respect for it has been eminently successful in spite of the nihilism of religious subservience.

I have no hesitation in demanding that evidence be put through the mill of the scientific method. No assertion or claim of undeniable truth will ever be given credibility, for perfect truth, ineluctable and inviolable, is a pie-in-the-sky concept that can never be attained. It was stated before by RationalRazor, Thursday, 4 August 2016 4:55:39 PM "That which can be claimed without evidence, equally, can be dismissed without evidence." PROOF of anything is confined to mathematics and logic. Science is not in the business of proving anything, science relies on the weight of probability.

*Alfred Lord Tennyson - In Memoriam A.H.H.

Greetings Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 2 August 2016 6:24:46 PM

You write: "Overall I agree with you: atheism does not deserve to be called "religion".

And as far as one can be undeserving of gratuitous pejorative and dishonest characterisation, I find myself able to reciprocate.

"And at that very moment I'll stop giving it any consideration because anything that can be evidenced is merely material. I do not worship evidence."

I neither worship nor revere anything. EVIDENCE describes something that can occupy either extremes of credibility and all positions between. Theists have exploited this realm of variability for thousands of years and by so doing have created a body of doctrine and dogma of stupefying impenetrability. When I contemplate the number of magnificent trees that have been destroyed in order to perpetrate this twaddle my hackles rise and a curse upon perfidious humankind escapes my lips.

I hasten to add that this does not reveal a reverse side in atheism of universal agreement and fraternal love. Atheists though, rely on their innate common sense and follow the path of the scientific method to winnow the wheat from the chaff [to mix a metaphor]. Theists consult a 2000-year-old book written originally by goatherds, fishermen, etc when a sky spirit, which had fallen asleep while watching its flock, awoke and needed to look busy. So it gave these putative authors a crash-course in literacy and presented its flock with a book of rules to live by for eternity, or until the hero returned to Earth, whichever came first.

"Yes, this was their attempt at idolatry and they have thus tried to undermine religion. Fortunately they were unsuccessful."

If roughly 1.5 billion followers of christianity in a total population of roughly 6.5 billion is deemed "unsuccessful" then you had better present a damned good argument why not. Of course, it's easy to see that you expect an awe-struck reader to presume your own theology was the rightful heir to their allegiance. You should have a higher regard for your readers .

Dear Pogi,

Once again we seem to be largely in agreement. Our remaining differences are probably not differences in facts, but differences in values.

Just as it is foolish to argue which perfume smells better, let the readers decide themselves what they like. If one is after the smell of the earth, then I recommend that they turn to evidence and science rather than to gods, ghosts and demons. If however, they become tired of the earth and prefer the smell of heaven then I humbly present them with the ancient wisdom of Vedanta that can quench their thirst beyond all their dreams.

Yuyutsu,

I'm happy to agree that looking inside oneself and genuinely seeking to understand ourselves might be the most useful form of religion.

I hope in turn you'll be able to acknowledge the epistemological limits of religion, including yours, which consistently claim understanding of where there can be none. In your last post you at first deny claiming any such knowledge before going on to claim it.

<<<<Yes, by definition I cannot provide you definitions, understanding or proofs, but I never claimed that I can. If you were after those, then why didn't you ask from the start?>>>>

I did.

«You cannot know the unknowable»
<<<<But you can know what is almost unknowable, what is most difficult to know >>>>

You seem to be attempting to bridge the divide, but there is no relevance to "almost" or "nearly". The absolute is either unknowable or knowable.

<<<Knowing yourself (and God and others for that matter) is no ordinary knowledge.>>>

Here you go. Knowing God? You just admitted you cannot provide understandings or proofs. But now you claim to know something about the type of knowledge this is. It' unknowable by your own admission.

<<<<There is no way to know yourself because ways always lead between two different points, A and B.>>>>

Now there is no way. Which is it? Do you know or not?

Since you admit all of this is unknowable then you must be logic admit that there is no possible point in trying to bridge some sort of pathway towards it. It's not nearly knowable. It's not possible to point in its general direction. IT's not possible to know anything at all about it. It's unknowable.

(What do I mean when I say it? The absolute, everything the Upanishads beleive, the inner self, anything posited to outside of the natural realm)

Unknowable. All of IT.

Dear Razor,

We may have uncovered a gross misunderstanding, perhaps a cultural difference:

Knowledge and understanding are two very different things.
One may know but not understand - and one may understand but not really know.

Understanding is knowledge that has been processed by the mind. As such it is indirect: one doesn't really know the actual object of their knowledge, only what their mind tells them about it.

English has no word for knowledge that is without means, without the via of any faculty. The word for it in Sanskrit is 'Anubhava' and the nearest attempt to translate it into English that I know, is 'direct experience'. In other words, in anubhava one knowing the object of knowledge itself, rather than about it.

While the Absolute is knowable (though with great difficulty) in the sense that it can be directly experienced, there is absolutely no way to understand it or to otherwise know it through any other via. Even if others might claim to understand God, I don't and this is certainly not the way of Hinduism or Vedanta.

As for pointing in the direction, it is done through practical advice of things to do and things to avoid in order to increase your chances of anubhava. Nobody can give it to you, nobody can show it to you, but those who have already been there can advise you on getting there yourself, saving your time and helping you to avoid dead-ends.

«I'm happy to agree that looking inside oneself and genuinely seeking to understand ourselves might be the most useful form of religion.»

Strictly speaking you cannot understand yourself and even if you did, this would not be a direct experience as it would involve your mind. However, you can to a large extent understand your body and your mind and this can help you in the process of eliminating false identities.

Is this the most useful form of religion? As we have different predispositions, strengths and weaknesses, for some of us it is the most useful method while different methods are more suited for others.

Yuyutsu

You simply move the goal posts to and fro as you struggle for answers. It's an interesting insight into the superstitious mind.

You previously claimed God or the absolute is unknowable and now you claim they're knowable but not understandable.

The concept you're talking about is the Sensus divinitatis: well known in Christian theology. No-one in philosophy takes it seriously.

Anything that can be known even be direct sensory perception can be demonstrated by evidence. If you disagree name an exception (besides a deity or Absolute). It's a case of special pleading to allow for belief in unverifiable claims.

<<<< In any case, don't you agree with me that no such thing called 'God' exists?>>>>

You don't appear to know whether you believe in God or not.

You are like a blind mind looking for a black cat in a dark room which isn't there, and finding it.

I bid you good day.

Dear Razor,

Can you kindly show me where have I ever claimed that one can understand or otherwise perceive God?

Can you kindly show me where have I ever claimed that God is unknowable?

Not being a Christian, the first time I've ever heard about "Sensus divinitatis" is tonight, from you.

«Anything that can be known even be direct sensory perception»

"direct sensory perception"? Just like a "carnivorous vegetarian", this is an impossible contradiction: if something is perceived VIA senses, then it is not direct!

Yuyutsu

<<<<<Can you kindly show me where have I ever claimed that one can understand or otherwise perceive God?>>>>

Are you serious? In your last post:

<<<<While the Absolute is knowable (though with great difficulty) in the sense that it can be directly experienced>>>>

Did you forget that?

<<<<Not being a Christian, the first time I've ever heard about "Sensus divinitatis" is tonight, from you.>>>

So? Look it up.

<<<<if something is perceived VIA senses, then it is not direct!>>>>

Please do tell me this new type of perception you've invented. Sounds like magic to me.

Are you perceiving my skepticism?

My direct perception is that you'll respond by missing the point entirely, and spouting forth more mystical sounding woo-woo to rationalize your beliefs.

Dear Razor,

«In your last post:

<<<<While the Absolute is knowable (though with great difficulty) in the sense that it can be directly experienced>>>>

Did you forget that?»

Perceivable - No.
Understood - No.
Knowable - Yes.

«So? Look it up.»

OK, I looked up in brief "sensus divinitatis".

To do Calvin justice, I would need to study his words in much more depth, as well as the different interpretations. At first glance however, and I could well be wrong about it, I read: "God himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of his divine majesty". Now even if this is so, Calvin speaks of understanding rather than of direct experience and he speaks not of God, but of His divine majesty. Then, continues Calvin, "Ever renewing its memory, he repeatedly sheds fresh drops" - so this again is indirect, here again human memory is used as a via. I reserve my judgement of Calvin's claim, but it seems that what he speaks of is other than direct-experience (Anubhava).

«Please do tell me this new type of perception you've invented.»

I was not speaking of perception. Perception is by definition indirect.

«Are you perceiving my skepticism?»

Via my eyes, via my brain, via my past experience, via my study of English, via my computer and yours, via the internet, via a hard-disk on the OLO server and several routers on the way - I suppose that your skepticism is there, but my knowledge of it is not completely reliable.

Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 10 August 2016 8:45:53 PM

"Just as it is foolish to argue which perfume smells better, let the readers decide themselves what they like".

Not when you insist on equality of value between science and the pathological iniquity of religious faith. Yes, it may be foolish to argue the merits of different aromas. But presuming an equality of validity between perfumes and religious faith/no religious faith controversy is not a legitimate approach to take in this context. The aromas emanate from a single category of things, all closely related by sharing many characteristics....perfumes. The "no religion" = "new religion" entities share nothing by definition, for one is a unequivocal denial of the other's legitimacy and credibility.

Your approach here is characteristic of the teaching of creationism as an equal of science and letting the student decide which is acceptable. This striving is motivated by a desire to deceive. Your perfume analogy is illegitimate and you know it.

"If one is after the smell of the earth, then I recommend that they turn to evidence and science rather than to gods, ghosts and demons. If however, they become tired of the earth and prefer the smell of heaven then I humbly present them with the ancient wisdom of Vedanta........." where they encounter the gods, ghosts and demons you warn of.

While I will defend unto death your right to fill your mind with nonsense, I will equally defend my right to oppose your spreading that nonsense to others.

Meanwhile, I admonish you to treat the planet that is our mother and father, that gave rise to humankind and sustained us to maturity [such as it is] with the respect it deserves by capitalising its name. It is an entity with a name as a ship is, as a city is, as a country is. Names are capitalised as a courtesy.

<The theory seems to be that as long as a man is a failure he is one of God's children, but that as soon as he succeeds he is taken over by the Devil. H. L. Mencken>

Yuyutsu

Your philosophy can be simply dismissed by Hitchens Razor - "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

<<<While the Absolute is knowable....can be directly experienced>>>

No it can't.

I assert the following:

"I have direct experience there is no Absolute or God"

Prove me wrong. I hazard you'll start trying to present evidence, perceptions, understandings; you'll claim it's impossible for me to know but I'll respond that I have direct experience that it is possible for me to know, and so on.

Indeed whatever you say in your next post is false because I have direct experience that it's false.

Dear Pogi,

I do not claim equality of values, only equal respect for people's choice of values: science is there to support human life, human life is there to support religion and religion is there to support our reunion with God. However, each to their own and let those who love the smell of chicken-manure work with chicken.

Religion often includes faith, but not necessarily. If faith is not for you then other religious techniques are available.

Back to the census, I already agreed that this question should not have been asked and should not be answered (and off-topic, the same can be said about the census as a whole). Though everyone has religion, knowingly or otherwise, people in general (including church-goers) cannot name their religion anyway. The question that government actually means to ask is, "To which church or similar organisation shall we send your tax-money? Which clergy shall we try to bribe?". The answer to this should be: "Nowhere and no-one, please: if I want to donate to a church then I can do so directly".

«treat the planet that is our mother and father, that gave rise to humankind and sustained us to maturity»

I am yet to see this maturity in you and in our other siblings, sister.
Till then, Mother Prithvi sighs and agonises under the weight of our irreligion.

---

Dear Razor,

When there is distance/difference between the observer and the observed, a via is required to bridge the gap so observation can occur. Direct experience on the other hand, can only occur when there is no difference. In other words, you can experience directly nothing but yourself (what allows you to experience God and others directly is that you and God are not different).

Now if you say that you have direct experience that "there is no Absolute or God", the above being an assertion (even if true), by your claim of directness, you are in fact confessing that you are an assertion.

Hello, Assertion!

//(what allows you to experience God and others directly is that you and God are not different).//

Yuyutsu, I have already addressed this point - a week ago:

1. God is made of spaghetti and can fly.
2. I am not made of spaghetti and cannot fly.
Therefore: I am different to God.

You seem to have a short memory. Or maybe you're just hoping that we all do.

Yuyutsu, Sunday, 14 August 2016 5:34:55 PM

"I am yet to see this maturity in you and in our other siblings, sister. Till then, Mother Prithvi sighs and agonises under the weight of our irreligion."

I'm not surprised that you make a play to conflate "maturity" with the palsy of religious adherence. For this reason you will never observe your deceitful brand of "maturity" in me. I have no illusions about life and the Cosmos. You have hundreds of them.

"I do not claim equality of values,......."

You did so directly and unequivocally. Lying about it now, equivocating and couching your illegitimate tactics in high-sounding hyperbole will avail you nothing.

"..........only equal respect for people's choice of values:".

I wrote that I would defend to the death your right to fill your head with whatever you choose. I gave no such undertaking with regard to "equality of respect" for your choice.

"Once again we seem to be largely in agreement. Our remaining differences are probably not differences in facts, but differences in values."

Our differences are fundamental, inescapable and implacable. If you cannot differentiate between equally shared rights and unequally shared/earned respect then you are a very mediocre representative of your faith.

Kindly refrain from addressing me as "sister" or even "brother"[much closer to the mark]. I can assure you I would not miss whatever life experiences we might share were they to disappear.

Dear Yuyutsu,

There is a WESTERN wisdom contained in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18154#322473 .

Perhaps more to the point of what you seem to be after is an ERASTERN Wisdom:

“Yes, “ said Confucius, “that is it! If you can do this you will be able to go among (Western) men in their world without upsetting them. You will not enter into conflict with thier ideal image of themselves. If they will listen , sing them a song. If not keep quiet. Don’t try to break down their door. Don't try out new medicines on them. Just be there among them, because there is nothing else for you to be but one of them. Then you may have success.
...
"Look at this window: it is nothing but a hole in the wall, but because of it the whole room is full of light. So when the faculties are empty the heart id full of light. Being full of lightit becomes and influence by which other are secretly transformed."
————————————————– ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––[From the KFasting of Heart”, iv.i, by Chuanf Tzu (399-295 B.C).]

Yuyutsu, Sunday, 14 August 2016 5:34:55 PM

"I am yet to see this maturity in you and in our other siblings, sister.
Till then, Mother Prithvi sighs and agonises under the weight of our irreligion."

I'm not surprised that you make a play to conflate "maturity" with the palsy of religious adherence. For this reason you will never observe your deceitful brand of "maturity" in me. I have no illusions about life and the Cosmos. You have hundreds of them.

"I do not claim equality of values,......."

You did so directly and unequivocally. Lying about it now, equivocating and couching your illegitimate tactics in high-sounding hyperbole will avail you nothing.

"..........only equal respect for people's choice of values:".

I wrote that I would defend to the death your right to fill your head with whatever you choose. I gave no such undertaking with regard to "equality of respect" for your choice.

"Once again we seem to be largely in agreement. Our remaining differences are probably not differences in facts, but differences in values."

Our differences are fundamental, inescapable and implacable. If you cannot differentiate between equally shared rights and unequally shared/earned respect then you are a very mediocre representative of your faith.

Kindly refrain from addressing me as "sister" or even "brother"[much closer to the mark]. I can assure you I would never yearn after whatever life experiences we might have shared were they to disappear.

"The correct category would be "no conscious religion" as nothing and nobody can exist without religion."

Your assertion is nothing more than the mumblings of an immature mind and in the absence of supportive evidence may be dismissed without evidence. Carl Sagan observed that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If no evidence is your best effort, if self-contradictory procrastination is your best tool, then you have been misled by your teachers. Claiming that every activity of the human mind and body is based in religion is a preposterous self-serving notion propagated by thoughtless windbags