Dear May,

You made a heap of assumptions in your last post, all unfounded:

<<If the world recognised the factual reality of "no gods exist" then the Bible and Qur'an wouldn't exist.>>

Nonsense. The obsession with existence is a modern fashion. Existence was never of importance to the ancients.

Further, as I mentioned, the author(s) of the Koran couldn't care less whether gods exist or otherwise - they just wanted to push their political agenda.

<<That means throughout history there would have been a quantum reduction in wars, torture, invasions, killings, domination, sexism, squabbling and fear>>

Wishful thinking!

<<Ancient, superstitious religions have a LOT of "history" regarding these things>>

And what makes you think that these superstitious organisations were in fact religious? That they in fact constituted a religion, rather than boast it superficially?

<<Yes, without religions all those things would still remain in the world, but at a lower level.>>

As far as I can tell from what you write here (excuse me if I'm wrong), you do not even believe that religion exists. If so, then we already have no religions, hence nothing would change!

<<And the necessity for this thread specifically about the Qur'an, wouldn't exist.>>

The Koran probably contains bits and pieces of valuable religious advice (though you probably don't believe so), but overall it is a political text, not a religious one - and the political aspirations of those who wrote it wouldn't disappear in a puff had religion not been there.

<<Therefore "no gods exist" is highly relevant to this topic.>>

Completely naive. Why should Muslims care whether gods exist or not? existence is a modern concern, unknown to those tribes to begin with.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<But you have still given me no reason to accept that your understanding of what constitutes religion is the right one.>>

I already explained that the way myself and most religious people use the word "religion" is the original, hence it is not right to use this word for other purposes, how more so when the new use berates those who still use it in its original sense.

Alien-abductees who are branded "crazy", are at least berated for their own alleged faults, not those of others: they can then defend themselves as they wish, but the only defence left for religious people is: "It's not me!".

<<then you need to qualify what you say with phrases such as , “In my opinion…”, “If you ask me, “The way I see it…”>>

Okay, I understand the need, but as it would not be appropriate to qualify that which is in fact so by "In my opinion", I will try to remember to use the qualifier, "although you are not expected to believe this".

<<What do you mean by “that way”?>>

That religious people do not conceive of 'religion' as a culture, an organisation, a group-thing, a political system or a set of habits, etc. Religious people conceive of 'religion' as a set of methods which brings them closer to God (although you are not expected to believe this).

So long as there is at least one religious person alive, it is therefore incorrect to say that what is 'religion' is universally accepted.

But perhaps you are claiming that there is no religious person alive (in the sense that I use), that it's the empty set... If so, say so!

<<But in your attempts to protect religion from all criticism>>

I wish I could do that, but I can't. All I can is to protect religion from misconceptions, from being criticised for the faults of that which is NOT religion.

One could still, for example, claim that religion is too-hard, almost-impossible, boring and not-fun, for which I may have no answer.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<What relevance do other people’s brains have?>>

The point was that the idea that "the physical stimulation in a particular brain must cause me to have an experience, but not so if the stimulation is of another brain", is an irrational superstition. I could go into it in depth if you want, although it takes us too far away from the topic.

<<Not in my experience. Theist or atheist, I have never had difficulty coming to an agreement on the definition of ‘religion’.>>

First, theism has little to do with religion. It's true that belief in God (or gods) is a common religious technique/method, but it's not the only available method and it suits some people more than others. I dare even say that while many come closer to God by using this method (although you are not expected to believe this), there are some even who are in fact driven away from God by that belief. Thus, there are religious theists; irreligious theists; religious atheists; and irreligious atheists.

Second, yes, there are some within organised religion who have accepted society's "verdict" that 'religion' means theirs and similar organisations/group-identities. This only indicates their shallow understanding of what they were taught and the lack of the intellectual sharpness to follow through the cynical implications of that idea. If indeed religion was akin the belonging to a social club, then their whole referring to God would only be a social game (and in my view, such behaviour does not deserve the title "religion").

In your latest post, you use "religion" and "schmeligion" interchangeably and inconsistently, which makes it hard for me to follow. Please make sure it's in order.

Religion requires sacrifices. Going all the way requires completely sacrificing all attachments to the world, against human-nature. The requirements are well-documented by sages, for those who are willing to follow, but most people are not ready, so they try a bit here and a bit there (which is good), then settle for a routine and those routines eventually decay: not because of religion, but due to human-nature's resistance to follow it.

May May, when I used the term narrow minded I was referring people who won't accept there may be possibilities other than there own. from your posts and now your defensive reaction to my post I can only say "if the shoe fits..."

Also from your posts it is obvious you have a problem with other people choosing to believe in things you don't. You are going out of your way to argue the point your point. We get it!

Why is it a problem for you to allow other's to have their belief, even it's in your mind total wrong? No one here is trying to convert anyone. Why not just live and let live?

You can play devil's advocate or argue with others every other post but you don't have too.

Okay then, Yuyutsu. I’ll try explaining it another way.

<<I already explained that the way myself and most religious people use the word "religion" is the original, hence it is not right to use this word for other purposes, how more so when the new use berates those who still use it in its original sense.>>

The purpose for which one may use the word is entirely beside the point and I’ll show you why…

For some people, “coming closer to God” means harassing women in an already-fragile state of mind with anti-abortion placards; for some, it means teaching their kids to reject science; for others, it means killing one’s children so that they go straight to heaven without the risk of hell; and for some, it means keeping slaves. These are all harmful actions that are worthy of berating (theologically sound, too, mind you). All the people who commit them would consider themselves religious.

According to you, though, they can still call themselves religious, but a non-believer, who was pointing out the bad that religion can inspire, is not allowed to call it religion.

And if your response is to say that they are not coming closer to God, then we’re back to one of my original points: Why are you the one who is right? By what objective standard would you make this claim?

Here are the definitions of religion: http://tinyurl.com/p9okgvt

<<Alien-abductees who are branded "crazy", are at least berated for their own alleged faults, not those of others: they can then defend themselves as they wish, but the only defence left for religious people is: "It's not me!".>>

That’s why I figured you re-define religion.

<<Okay, I understand the need, but as it would not be appropriate to qualify that which is in fact so by "In my opinion", I will try to remember to use the qualifier, "although you are not expected to believe this".>>

You’re still missing the point. It comes across as arrogant and only does your credibility damage if you assert as fact that which cannot be proved.

Continued…

…Continued

<<So long as there is at least one religious person alive, it is therefore incorrect to say that what is 'religion' is universally accepted.>>

Okay, I’ll say “by just about everyone” instead. Foxy’s first quote adheres very much to what myself (as a Christian and atheist) and every other person I’ve known of consider religion to be. It is also considered by theists to be what you say, but I don’t know of anyone (other than yourself) who denies that the bad parts constitute religion too; hence the whole, 'Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus' thing.

<<The point was that the idea that "the physical stimulation in a particular brain must cause me to have an experience, but not so if the stimulation is of another brain", is an irrational superstition. I could go into it in depth if you want, although it takes us too far away from the topic.>>

Sorry, I still don’t see what relevance other people’s brains have to do with what I said. We’re all capable of experiencing the neurological episodes that I described.

<<First, theism has little to do with religion. It's true that belief in God (or gods) is a common religious technique/method, but it's not the only available method and it suits some people more than others.>>

It's like I've been saying...

Here’s the definition of ‘theism’ too: http://tinyurl.com/ot7v7ny

<<...yes, there are some within organised religion who have accepted society's "verdict" that 'religion' means theirs and similar organisations/group-identities.>>

Thank you; what we can now refer to as “schmeligion ”, if you prefer.

<<This only indicates their shallow understanding of what they were taught and the lack of the intellectual sharpness to follow through the cynical implications of that idea.>>

So by what methods have you determined that they are wrong, and you are right?

<<In your latest post, you use "religion" and "schmeligion" interchangeably and inconsistently, which makes it hard for me to follow. Please make sure it's in order.>>

No, it’s certainly in order. Perhaps change “the process of religion” to just “religion”.