See Is Mise, you yet again proved you didn't comprehend. My comment about secular decency, democracy and freedom defeating Old style brutal Christianity over a period of several hundred years was clearly and obviously about Christianity as it WAS, not "is". For the past 300 years or so Christianity has maintained that change, luckily.

Yep, you really should give me the name of your English comprehension teacher. I really, really need to have a good talk to her.

Thanks Yuyutsu. For the first time in four years I feel like we’re getting somewhere, and just when I was about to give up.

<<I am happy to take your advice and henceforth call organised-systems-of-belief-related-to-gods-etc, "Schmeligion".>>

Thank you. Going back to what I was alluding to before about there being no meaningful difference between religion and schmeligion, this acceptance is all that is necessary to render your narrowing of the definition of religion futile, and I’ll explain why at the end of my response to you.

<<I am not necessarily right. I rely on scripture and on my limited experience, but there is still the possibility that I misinterpret them.>>

Great! More progress. Your entire tone has changed throughout your last response, which is why I’m not bothering to respond to every line. If that’s all that results from this discussion, then it’s been worth it.

<<Still I take the risk, wagering everything I've got that this guy who laughs when he chops the heads of innocent people, is not a saint!>>

That sounds like the safe bet, but what if God is evil? He certainly was in the Old Testament, and slightly less so in the New Testament: “Slaves obey your masters…”, “I did not come to abolish the law…”.

<<...the second, "a particular system of faith and worship" comes somewhat close, because faith and worship are effective means of coming closer to God.>>

How can you know that? We make determinations about what we don’t know by contrasting it with what we do know (Which is why the probability of May May’s definitive assertion that no gods exist being accurate is more likely than Is Mise’s “There may be no god”), so how could you possibly even arrive at the point of believing this?

Continued…

…Continued

<<I'm trying to protect religion, not my credibility.>>

Once again, I figured that you were at least trying to protect religion. Which is why I’ve mentioned the No True Scotsman Fallacy:

“No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing; this fallacy also applies to defining a term or criteria biasedly as to defend it from counterargument which can be identified as a biased, persuasive, or rhetorical definition. Instead of acknowledging that some members of a group have undesirable characteristics, the fallacy tries to redefine the group to exclude them. Sentences such as "all members of X have desirable trait Y" then become tautologies, because Y becomes a requirement of membership in X.” (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman)

Technically speaking, you have not committed this fallacy because you didn’t change your definition half-way through our discussion. However, you effectively admitted that you define religion narrowly to protect religion, so your reasoning was still fallacious.

<<Schmeligions decay and their teachings can become impure, no longer religion alone, and that's what leads to the bad parts.>>

Then why did the Bible get slightly better (albeit still bad) in the New Testament? How is it that Christianity is so civilised now that secularism has dragged it kicking and screaming into modernity? Are you honestly suggesting that in the days of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, Christian theology (granted Christianity didn’t technically exist at that point) was actually better?!

<<It's probably only remotely relevant now: your very first question was: "how did you rule out any of the above rational explanations for religious experiences?", so I provided an example to deny that the neurological explanation is rational.>>

That’s what I suspected, but didn’t want to presume too much. I don’t think you’ve provided a reason to deny that neurological explanations are not rational.

Continued…

…Continued

<<Common sense: if someone who considers themselves "religious" thinks that 'religion' is about belonging to (/identifying with) an organisation such as theirs, then if they're sharp and honest, they must admit that their worship of God is just a social game, contrary to what their own organisation teaches.>>

The answer to my question (that you are attempting to answer here): By what methods have you determined that they are wrong, and you are right? Would explain why this is supposedly “common-sense”. But you haven’t gone that far, conveniently enough. So my question remains unanswered.

<<I consider myself and my friends religious, not schmeligious: so long as you don't blame us of the faults of schmeligion, we have no problem.>>

The problem is that you do actually share a part of the blame for what the fundies and the extremists do, however small, because of your passive support. All theists do, by sheer virtue of the type of belief that you are promulgating. If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence and sheer ignorance as religion is, you'd resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler; a Mafia wife of the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travellers.

This is another reason why your - I’ll say narrowing - of the definition of religion is futile.

On a final note, you haven’t addressed my point about your god’s inadequacy in explaining to us the best method of coming closer to him. I thought that was quite pertinent.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<your narrowing of the definition of religion>>

I was not narrowing the definition - others were using the word improperly to designate that which is only remotely related - Schmeligions.

Why should I recognise a pig as a swan? Why should I recognise schmeligions as religious?
Schmeligions are a mixed bag. While some are totally corrupt, most in my view, in varying degrees, do more good than evil, promoting more religion than irreligion.

<<but what if God is evil? He certainly was in the Old Testament>>

God cannot be evil because He doesn't even exist!

What idea did those silly guys from the Old Testament have anyway about God? Until the 12th century, at the time of Maimonides, most Jews thought that God has a location and size...

<<so how could you possibly even arrive at the point of believing this?>>

[that "faith-and-worship-are-effective-means-of-coming-closer-to-God"?]

By combining the teachings of sages with my humble little experience of trying to follow them.

<<the No True Scotsman Fallacy ...However, you effectively admitted that you define religion narrowly to protect religion, so your reasoning was still fallacious.>>

I maintain the purity of the term 'religion' and refuse the imposition of impure overlayed definitions. If the judge in court tells me "Mr. Leibovitz, you are accused of murder", it is most reasonable for me to respond: "Your honour, I am not Mr. Leibovitz".

<<Then why did the Bible...New Testament? How is it that Christianity is so civilised now...? Are you honestly suggesting that in the days of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, Christian theology (...) was actually better?!>>

What a mishmash!

I may well have some opinion about the Abrahamic schmeligions, but they aren't my baby. It is my OPINION that Christianity overall promotes religion more than hinders it (which it also does at times). It is also my opinion that Judaism isn't even a schmeligion because it wasn't designed for the furtherance of religion in the first place (although SOME individuals, especially Hasidic, somehow manage successfully to use it anyway to enhance their religion).

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<So my question remains unanswered.>>

By now, I find it hard to try and correctly dig your original questions: would you mind re-stating any old question(s) you still have of me?

<<I don’t think you’ve provided a reason to deny that neurological explanations are not rational.>>

Such explanations assume that just because some stimulation happens in [the so-called] "my" brain, I must have a corresponding experience. This supposed causation is irrational (as it requires the acceptance of certain axioms which cannot be deducted logically) and it's also irrational to assume a unique and exclusive connection between me and this particular brain. Why not the brains of other people for example?

It may be rational for example to assume that some memory-record corresponding with that stimulation will be created in the same brain where the stimulation occurred. It may even be rational to assume that the mouth connected to that brain may say something about it. It is irrational however to assume that I have anything to do with those activities, but not with what happens in other brains.

God cannot be experienced through the brain because the nature of the brain/mind/senses is dualistic, dividing the reality between "me" and otherness, subject and object. This was developed in the course of evolution because it's useful for survival, but it's useless in realising the ontological Truth, which is God, where no such divisions exist.

Thus, the path of religion is of subtraction, not of addition. Not about improving/enhancing perception, but about the removal of obstacles (such as the mind) that obstruct our direct experience of us as God.

(continued...)