Yuyutsu

the likes of AJ pretend that somehow their enlightened rationalism is rational. You actually find their beliefs dogmas are more a moral issue than intellectual. They just dress it up in irrational pseudo science.

I understand this, Yuyustu.

<<I am using 'religion' in its original meaning: 're-ligare' to bind with God.>>

The problem is that you think this negates anything I say when I talk about what everyone else calls religion, and in doing so, you commit the No True Scotsman fallacy.

<<Myself and many others believe that this is a very real process, which while we all go through it regardless whether we know it or not, can be accelerated by using certain methods consciously.>>

A lot of people believe they’ve been abducted by aliens. You have still not provided any reason for anyone to take what you say any more seriously than what they say, yet you speak as if everything you said was self-evident.

<<If you believe that we are wrong, or hallucinating or have a problem with our temporal lobe, then the honest thing for you to say is "religion does not exist".>>

There is nothing dishonest about using the word ‘religion’ in its universally agreed upon context. You still haven’t demonstrated that your understanding of what constitutes religion is the right understanding. It is arrogant of you to simply press on with your own definition when its validity has been challenged and you have made no attempt to justify it. Not to mention that fact that you treat your definition of ‘religion’ as so self-evident that you are willing to imply that I’m being dishonest by not using it. That takes some real chutzpah.

Going back to my last post, though, how did you rule out any of the above rational explanations for religious experiences?

<<Once you make that statement, then we can begin discussing scripture, my own experiences, other people's experiences, neurology, physics, etc., disputing whether religion exists or not.>>

I’ll say that I don’t believe that what you refer to as “religion” has any validity. But I’ll still use the term in its universally accepted context when necessary.

Continued…

…Continued

<<However, for someone who does not believe the very existence of religion, looking at the culture of those who do believe in religion, observing their customs - what they wear, what they eat, what and how they celebrate, what and how they mourn, what they say, what they believe, whom and what they respect and whom and what they despise, etc. etc. and then calling it "religion", is dishonest plagiarism.>>

Again, it's not dishonest when it adheres to everyone else’s agreed upon definition of religion. And even if everyone else was wrong, it wouldn’t constitute plagiarism since it’s not deliberate. You would also need to demonstrate that your understanding of what religion is, is the only valid one - something you still haven’t done.

<<…if you don't believe in the whole process [of coming closer to God] to begin with, then you have nothing to say about it except that it doesn't exist.>>

Well, if someone enters a discussion and disrupts the flow of it by creating confusion with their own unique definition of a word that everyone else thought they already agreed upon; then implies that what others have been saying is not valid because of the way they have been using that word, then requesting a rational justification for the claims of that person is something else that could be said.

Which is what I‘m doing now.

TomW... I'm suggesting those who are blindly supporting an open door policy for Muslim refugees, those who protest the arrest of terrorists in Australia, those who are stating ISIS terrorists is no worse than the American Government, and those who say Islam is a religion of peace that is no more threatening than Christianity, to read the Koran, or enough of it to get the gist.

Christianity has evolved with the times in many ways such as including women clerics, gay rights, as well as seeking to do benevolent charities and the Red Cross. Buddhism teaches the practice of being ever present, in the Here and Now; accepting what is rather than desiring what isn't. Buddhism is a journey toward discovering the infinite within, and does not require following a dogma.

Islam is all about dogma, strict rules to live by just about every hour of the day. Those rules were laid down almost 1500 years ago for Arab nomads, and they haven't changed.

Islam by its very nature is stuck, it cannot evolve or change because doing so would be going against Allah's instructions, as revealed by Mohammed. Islam is 'the religion' and Muslims are its followers.

Dear Conservative Hippie,

Perhaps the following link may provide
some food for thought:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/26/tolerance-is-bigotrys-counterpart-in-keeping-muslims-divided

Worth a read.

Dear ConservativeHippie,

I am not a religious person but I appreciated the majesty of the King James Bible. Its eloquence, its poetry, its narratives, especially in the so called 'Old Testament' still blow me away. My favorite book is Job, something I hold belongs in the top 20 pieces of English literature.

The KJB was written at the time of Shakespeare and the richness of the language is the loving fruit of devoted, gifted and inspired scholars who created a work that has stood the test of time.

I have it on reliable authority that the Koran similarly is imbued with 'loving fruit of devoted, gifted and inspired scholars'. There was a time post the rise of a jealous and strident Christianity that saw many of the West's literary works held safe by those Islamic scholars who appreciated their worth.

I also have it on good authority that when read in Arabic the Koran is a most sublime and beautiful poetic work. It is something I am unlikely to experience and that knowledge does sadden me.

Just as for the first 3 decades of my life I wrongly accepted the general wisdom that the Old Testament was not worth any effort I'm afraid I am unable to place much credence in your opinion of the Koran.

Perhaps a slightly more qualified appraisal might be more judicious in the future.