(...continued)

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

Please allow me to keep my reservations, yet I don't find it relevant for this discussion.

<<You have not provided any evidence for this>>

This was never my intention, nor can anyone prove objectively what is subjective in nature. The point I raise is that the modern cult of objectivism looks down on those who do not satisfy their internal protocol of demanding an objective proof and consider them a sort of untermenschen who can be trodden over and whose sacred vocabulary can be abused for mockery.

<<So are you suggesting that the mystical side to our consciousness is tied to our physical bodies and does nothing for our personality?>>

I was not suggesting anything about a "mystical side", whatever that means. I keep the question open as to how much of our personality is tied to our physical body. At least some is, no doubt, but then it is our choice whether or not we want to continue having anything to do with that particular body/personality combination - or just to leave it all behind to do its thing without us.

<<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>>

You would have to ask those mystics then, not me: the possibility of having no individual free will doesn't bother me.

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

OK, so it SEEMED, but I didn't even mention consciousness in this context.

<<You don’t get any more mystical than that.>>

As I understand it, mystics make positive statements about "other realms", while all I did in that reference was to criticise the claim that neurological arguments are "rational". If you dig a bit below the surface of appearances, you find that NO argument is ever rational, that down below always rest irrational axiomatic assumptions.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I’m happy to accept your ‘car’ analogy. It somewhat highlights why the Etymological fallacy is fallacious: religious people don’t own the word “religion”, just as car owners don’t own the word “car”.

If some of the car owners in your analogy started using their cars for drug running, then the rest of the car owners don't get to say that what they're calling a "car" is not a 'car'.

Your only way of getting around this is to claim that those who do bad things are not coming closer to God, but until you can demonstrate that this God exists (or in your case, "doesn't exist"), and that there is a way of coming coming closer to it, and that your way of coming closer to it is the right way, your claim regarding the ownership of the word "religion" may be dismissed as nonsense.

Whether it be religion or schmeligion, the essence is still there: a belief in something (in this case, supernatural) without good reason - and that is one of the major reasons as to why so much bad can come from religion. It's not because those who do bad are not coming closer to God, and if you want to claim that it is, then you need to demonstrate the truth of your claims. If, by the very nature of your God and worship, this isn't possible, then that's unfortunate, but the rational thing to do is still to remain sceptical - whether or not what you claim is true.

I know it's not your intention to prove anything to anyone, but when you enter a discussion and effectively claim that everyone criticising religion is attacking a strawman, you bear a burden of proof.

Looked at from a different angle, the car owners in your analogy owned their cars; people who believe that there should be a particular definition of the word "religion", don't own the word.

The problem with the Koran is it is one man in his culture's interpretation of a 16th century political system based in theocratic Rule after listening to Catholic theology and Talmudic Judaic world views and believing he has a message from God. The problem: it is one deluded man's view of a theocratic political system.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<Your only way of getting around this is to claim that those who do bad things are not coming closer to God>>

Indeed they don't!

<<but until you can demonstrate that this God exists (...), and that there is a way of coming coming closer to it, and that your way of coming closer to it is the right way, your claim regarding the ownership of the word "religion" may be dismissed as nonsense.>>

Within religious circles there are indeed ongoing discussions whether or not a particular method or teaching is correct and there are at least attempts (successful or otherwise) to demonstrate-or-refute the validity of specific methods. However, within those circles it is a-priori agreed that some methods bring one closer to God - even when there may be disagreements over which methods do. Among car owners, one could claim: "Yours is not a car, but a piece of junk" and the other could refute it by driving it from A to B. However, this is only possible because both agree that A and B exist as different locations. For anyone else, the statement: "See, I drove it from A to B" would be dismissed as nonsense.

<<the essence is still there: a belief in something (in this case, supernatural) without good reason>>

First, belief is not the essence of religion (perhaps of shmeligion, Oh well), just a religious method, one among many.

Second, there IS a good reason: for many people, belief is a good and effective technique for coming closer to God (regardless whether the content of that belief is correct, incorrect or inaccurate).

<<so much bad can come from religion>>

All examples you or anyone else in this forum ever brought, were about some bad effects of schmeligions, not of religion.

Suppose you say "You Negroes stink!", I deny, asking for examples and all you can tell me is about the smell emanating from three black corpses hanging on the gallows for a week: am I not right in my defence that "these bodies WERE Negroes, but only until a week ago"?

Some of the Koran is sort of interesting. Here is a late verse (they are arranged by length, not by chronology, or any other rational process):

105: The Elephant

105:1 Hast thou not seen how thy Lord dealt with the owners of the Elephant ?
105:2 Did He not bring their stratagem to naught, Allah dealt with the owners of the elephant by sending swarms of "flying creatures".
105:3 And send against them swarms of flying creatures,
105:4 Which pelted them with stones of baked clay,
105:5 And made them like green crops devoured (by cattle) ?

Just take the time to study these words, to gauge what wisdom is encompassed there. Something may have been lost in the original translation from Aramaic or Syriac.

Joe

Dear Yuyutsu,

<<Indeed they don't!>>

Okay, but you need to demonstrate this. I'm happy to run with the idea that only your understanding, of what constitutes true religion, is valid, because it doesn't really detract from my main point unless you can explain how one can objectively determine what does and does not bring one closer to God.

I know you spoke of the subjectiveness of religion earlier, but that would just mean that you have no way of knowing that your understanding of what brings one closer to God is any better or more valid than the Islamic jihadist's. Islamic extremists believe that strapping explosives to themselves and detonating them in public places brings them closer to God. What's to say they're not right?

The best you've done to address this conundrum, so far, is to say:

"Jesus said: "Only God is truly good", so how can coming closer to Him produce any evil?" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#197947)

But so what? Captain Kirk said, "What does God need with a starship?"

What some alleged person (that we have no reliable evidence for the existence of) supposedly said, means absolutely nothing.

<<Among car owners, one could claim: "Yours is not a car, but a piece of junk" and the other could refute it by driving it from A to B. However, this is only possible because both agree that A and B exist as different locations. For anyone else, the statement: "See, I drove it from A to B" would be dismissed as nonsense.>>

I have no problem with this. You seem to be stating the obvious here in saying that religious belief - to a non-believer - is nonsense, and that both parties need to agree that coming closer to God is a valid concept for it to not be nonsense. Going back to what I've been saying, though, can this belief be rationally justified?

Continued…