(...continued)

<<your passive support...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.>>

And I've done so several times. But being a member of the original club, I rather expel those pretenders who do not belong there.

However, religion is not a closed club because the situation is not black-and-white. We are all religious to some extent - everything is, even a stone: we are all on our way back to God, some slower, some faster, some consciously, some not. Most of those who are consciously religious fail from time to time and sin, or temporarily stray from the path. Overall however, as long as they make an effort I'd still like to call them "religious".

As for orgnisations that claim to forward religion (schmeligions), while sometimes obvious, it's sometimes difficult to evaluate and come to a verdict: do they, on balance, do more good or more evil? The larger an organisation, it's more likely to find there bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence and sheer ignorance - but it could possibly be doing much good as well, so when possible, including in the case of Islam, I would like to avoid throwing away the baby with the bath-water.

Yuyutsu,

I feel a bit silly responding so late, but I hinted that I would, and want to make good of that since I never got back to you one other time due to being tied up in a time-consuming debate with a self-confessed racist.

I still don’t have much time so I’ll just finish by pointing out that by clinging to an etymological interpretation of a word (i.e. “religion”) and insisting that any new meaning that it has evolved is necessarily invalid, you are committing the Etymological fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy). You, seemingly, try to avoid this accusation by suggesting sinister motives and intent behind the evolution of the word’s meaning, but you haven’t provided any good reason to believe that this really is the case.

<<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?>>

If you’re suggesting (as some do) that there is a mystical side to our consciousness (which is often justified by the fact that consciousness cannot yet be explained, and asserted through a fear of acknowledging a limit of one’s own free will), then this is easily discredited by simply pointing out that everything that makes an individual who they are can be reset: their personality, their memory, their preferences, their desires, their ability to form new memories.

If there was a mystical component to the consciousness - acting through the brain - then there‘s no explanation as to how this could occur. If I’m in an accident and my personality is consequently reset, then what happened to the mystical component to my consciousness? Did it leave? Did it die? Was it replaced? What about split-brain patients where two completely different personalities reside in the same brain? Where does mysticism fit in there?

Dear AJ Philips,

According to Wikipedia, "The etymological fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning."

The difference here is that the original historical meaning is not dead, but still in use by billions of religious people, mainly among themselves.

As modernism denies the existence of religion as an independent and real phenomena, its 'newspeak' made this word to conveniently refer instead to the shadow cast by religion over society - it's especially convenient because now it allows modernism to contemptuously describe 'religion' as the ugly corpses of organisations which once promoted religion (or the decrepit remains of organisations that still partially do so).

This tactic of stealing sacred names, is in a way similar to saying that Jews/blacks/aboriginals are not real people with real feelings.

Lets not introduce this new idea of 'mysticism', being a new can of worms which is hard to define. I rather keep it simple:

I don't know whether or not everything that makes an individual can be reset - while it could make a fascinating discussion, it matters not to this discussion, because ultimately we are not individuals - we are God. Ultimately, even the person(s)/forces conducting the "reset operation" are not separate or external - they too are God, they too are us.

Everything that makes an individual can perhaps be reset, but nothing makes YOU who you are, thus no matter what happens to your individual attributes, YOU are YOU and nothing can change that.

Similarly, other than for curiosity's sake we don't need to answer such questions as "If I’m in an accident and my personality is consequently reset": if that happens, then you would probably no longer be aware, or conscious, of this world. You may then become aware of this world again from another point of view, perhaps from the point of view of another brain (or two) - or you may not: this is the realm of mysticism and speculation, but I can't see how it's relevant here.

Dear Yuyutsu,

<<According to Wikipedia, "The etymological fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning.">>

The article also says: “A variant of the etymological fallacy involves looking for the "true" meaning of words by delving into their etymologies, or claiming that a word should be used in a particular way because it has a particular etymology.”

This is what you do. So again, you are committing the Etymological fallacy, and continue to do so in your very next paragraph...

<<As modernism denies the existence of religion as an independent and real phenomena, its 'newspeak' made this word to conveniently refer instead to the shadow cast by religion over society - it's especially convenient because now it allows modernism to contemptuously describe 'religion' as the ugly corpses of organisations which once promoted religion ...>>

If that is not what you are doing in the above, then, once again, you need to stop asserting in such a matter-of-factly way ideas that suggest that the only valid definition of ‘religion’ is your definition:

"What you describe are social issues - not religious issues." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#197635)
"All I can is to protect religion from misconceptions, from being criticised for the faults of that which is NOT religion." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#197864)

<<This tactic of stealing sacred names, is in a way similar to saying that Jews/blacks/aboriginals are not real people with real feelings.>>

No-one has stolen anything. Theft requires intent.

Your analogy is absurd, too, because such claims can be scientifically and conclusively debunked.

<<I don't know whether or not everything that makes an individual can be reset…>>

Well I do, and so do scientists and medical doctors.

Continued…

...Continued

<<... it matters not to this discussion, because ultimately we are not individuals - we are God.>>

This is merely an assertion. You have not provided any evidence for this and so, in the words of Hitchens: “What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence” (now known as ‘Hitchens’ Razor’).

<<Everything that makes an individual can perhaps be reset, but nothing makes YOU who you are, thus no matter what happens to your individual attributes, YOU are YOU and nothing can change that.>>

Only physically. So are you suggesting that the mystical side to our consciousness is tied to our physical bodies and does nothing for our personality? That’s how it remains? That wouldn't resolve the dilemma for mystics that I put forward. Nor would it help the mystics out there who cling to the belief out of a fear of acknowledging limits to their free will either.

<<... we don't need to answer such questions as "If I’m in an accident and my personality is consequently reset": if that happens, then you would probably no longer be aware, or conscious, of this world. You may then become aware of this world again from another point of view, perhaps from the point of view of another brain (or two) - or you may not: this is the realm of mysticism and speculation, but I can't see how it's relevant here.>>

It became relevant because you seemed to allude to a mystical aspect of our consciousness…

“... it's ... irrational to assume a unique and exclusive connection between me and this particular brain. Why not the brains of other people for example?” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#198146)

You don’t get any more mystical than that.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<No-one has stolen anything. Theft requires intent.>>

Or reckless avoidance of observation of ownership.

All analogies are imperfect and have their limits, which I'm well aware of, but one comes to mind:

Suppose you find a car parked in the street, but you don't know what it does, you don't believe that anything mechanical could take you from A to B, nor do you find a need for that - so what you see is a jumble of metal and plastic which the owner has left there, so you take it away to scrap the metal, then fine the owner for littering the street.

As you find that a number of others have done the same and then complained angrily "what have you done to my car?", you make a word for it and write in your dictionary:

CAR - a large jumble of metal, plastic and glass, usually box-shaped and standing on rubber wheels, often deliberately left in streets.

In other words, one recklessly ignores the view of car-owners that their cars are useful and wanted. As far as they're concerned, going from A to B, which is what the owners claim their cars do, is the most silly idea to begin with, so why would anyone want to do it?

I have no shame in saying that the most valid definition of 'car' should be by those who own and use cars.

And yes, here ends the analogy - I wouldn't and couldn't attempt to prove that a car works to someone who doesn't even perceive a difference between locations A and B.

(continued...)