...Continued

<<I can prove that this intellectual-property is ours: vast amounts of scripture show that we've been using the term 'religion' for thousands of years and that by this we referred to the process we undergo, rather than to any organisation(s), let alone dysfunctional ones.>>

Those vast amounts of scripture also support and guide the actions of the majority, whom (by your admission above) you don’t consider to be truly religious. So you're back to square one in that you need to demonstrate that your understanding of what constitutes religion (and cherry-picking of scripture) is the valid one.

<<Religion (which you claim is only what I believe it to be), does not necessary result in institutions.>>

Firstly, I have not claimed that religion is only what you believe to be. What a bizarre thing to say. Secondly, history and social patterns suggest that you’re wrong.

<<Occasionally [religion] does [result in institutions], which the world then sees, but most of the time it doesn't, which then nobody takes notice.>>

You still have your true-religion/false-religion premise to prove and have not yet successfully absolved yourself of your obligation to do so.

<<More common are organisations which claim to be religious and indeed have been advancing religion in the past, at least to some extent, but decayed over the centuries and are now in poor shape.>>

So, despite the fact that Judaism, Christianity and (to a much lesser extent) Islam have become eminently more civil and tolerant than their barbaric past, you think they’ve decayed? You should be congratulating these institutions for aligning themselves closer to what you believe to be true religion, and thanking secularism for getting them there.

<<I therefore suggested you the word 'creed', but of course, if you are not happy with it, then you are free to choose another word, so long as it is not 'religion' or 'faith'.>>

I will continue to use the words ‘religion’ and ‘faith’ the way they've been used for centuries, until you can demonstrate why I should not. All these posts and you have still not done this.

Another afterthought, Yuyutsu (sorry, I'm making a habit of these)...

If the process of coming closer to God is so subjective that you cannot objectively prove a right way and a wrong way to go about it, then anything goes and you have no right to claim that there is a right way and a wrong way; just as I wouldn't be able to tell you that there is a right way and a wrong way to perceive the taste of your food.

This is why the proverbial flipping-of-the-bird that you give to others, in dodging their requests for evidence with appeals to the subjective, doesn't work.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<If you claim, however, that there is a right way and a wrong way to go about this process, then that is an objective claim>>

I make true claims, not objective claims: objectivity is your baby, not mine. You keep insisting that I follow your protocols, even though I don't insist that you follow mine.

Anyway, I am no longer discussing the details of the process itself, but only its existence and the intellectual-property rights that come with it.

<<Those vast amounts of scripture also support and guide the actions of the majority, whom (by your admission above) you don’t consider to be truly religious.>>

Even while some scriptures are in error, promoting behaviours that are not truly religious, and despite all quarrels in the family, scriptures prove by their language that 'religion' has been used for millennia to describe a process rather than organisations, moreover, a process which is SUPPOSED to bring one closer to God (notwithstanding the occasional differences in the understanding of 'God').

<<I'm sorry, but the common, and dictionary, definition of 'religion' has been in use for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.>>

only 3-4 centuries, since your so-called "enlightenment" (itself a term stolen from Buddhism to mean something completely different), which was seeking to undermine the political power and superstitions of those corrupt organisations that it considered 'religious'.

<<and the change evolved naturally with no sinister intent anyway.>>

Are you claiming that the "enlightenment" movement had no intention to destroy the churches? Emptying the churches of all spiritual contents, using language/dictionaries to deny the processes that the churches were supposed to facilitate (even if they didn't by then, or not much) as if they never existed, thus telling a story that all that ever was there are corrupt organisations seeking money, sex and power - was a clear and sinister strategy.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<You still have your true-religion/false-religion premise to prove and have not yet successfully absolved yourself of your obligation to do so.>>

Simply, there's religion along with other processes that are not religion, but I have no such obligations to prove it. Anyway, do you really need me to prove to you that it's not a good idea to blindly follow the teachings of established churches or Islam? You are old enough to choose for yourself what methods (if any) you want to follow.

<<So, despite the fact that Judaism, Christianity and (to a much lesser extent) Islam have become eminently more civil and tolerant than their barbaric past, you think they’ve decayed?>>

Judaism, sigh, is a special case: it wasn't promoting religion in the first place, it always was nationalism-under-the-guise-of-religion.

I am glad that Christianity (and to a lesser extent Islam) recently became more tolerant, but most of the decay already occurred much earlier and the "enlightenment" was correct to criticise it. However, by using the term 'religion' as a pejorative for Christianity, it threw the baby with the bath-water.

<<You should be congratulating these institutions for aligning themselves closer to what you believe to be true religion, and thanking secularism for getting them there.>>

Indeed I do.

<<I will continue to use the words ‘religion’ and ‘faith’ the way they've been used for centuries>>

More or less the last three.

<<If the process of coming closer to God is so subjective that you cannot objectively prove a right way and a wrong way to go about it, then anything goes and you have no right to claim that there is a right way and a wrong way>>

No right?? What a Chutzpah!

You believe in objectivity, OK, but now you expect everyone else to follow your own protocols - or else what? Are you going to throw me in jail and use water-boarding until I either prove what I say objectively or stop claiming?

- believe what I claim if you like, don't believe it if you don't, but telling me that I have no right to claim?

Dear Yuyutsu,

<<I make true claims, not objective claims…>>

Let’s see what the Oxford dictionary has to say about ‘true’ and ‘objective’ then, shall we?

True: In accordance with fact or reality. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/true)
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing fact. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/objective)

So are you saying that your “facts” are influenced by personal feeling and/or opinions? That’s not a very reliable method of determining fact. Our personal feelings continuously prove themselves to be unreliable.

I could toss a coin to determine facts and I’d be right roughly 50% of the time. But that’s not a reliable method of arriving at the truth. So please tell me how your subjective method of arriving at the truth is any better than a coin toss.

<<...objectivity is your baby, not mine. You keep insisting that I follow your protocols…>>

These are not my protocols, but the protocols of rational discourse and critical thinking. There is a world of science out there to demonstrate this. Anyone with a modicum of critical thinking skills would question the assumptions of the claims they are presented with. For some reason, though, you seem to have a problem with this. Why is that?

<<...even though I don't insist that you follow mine.>>

Okay then, what are your protocols other than just that I sit back and mindlessly accept your claims? Because that’s what your protestations suggest that you insist I do.

<<Even while some scriptures are in error, promoting behaviours that are not truly religious…>>

Another objective claim… sorry… TRUTH-claim-with-no-reliable-method-by-which-to-determine-the-truth-value-of. So, yet again, you’re back to square one: you need to demonstrate this before we can proceed from here. We’ll get to your red herring (another fallacy, by the way) of the enlightenment (that nasty thing that did away with the assumption that disease was the result of sin and that criminality was the result of demon possession) in due course.

Continued…

...Continued

It’s ironic, isn’t it, that you can claim that an evil act such suicide bombing is not coming closer to God, and yet, when humanity was torturing the demons out of “criminals”, we were somehow closer to being on the right track when it comes to religion. Your appeal to history, in order to claim ownership over a word, has led you to the most absurd and contradictory claims.

I can’t resist this next bit, however. It’s too scrumptiously filled with hyperbole for me to ignore it:

<<No right [to claim that there is a right way and a wrong way to be religious]?? What a Chutzpah! … You believe in objectivity, OK, but now you expect everyone else to follow your own protocols - or else what? Are you going to throw me in jail and use water-boarding until I either prove what I say objectively or stop claiming?>>

I liked how you added the little “or else” bit for dramatic effect - as if my tone was threatening. You’re so dishonest in your hysteria.

You can claim whatever you like, but as soon as you claim that what you say is fact, the onus is on you to prove that before we can move on. This is critical thinking 101. I’m sorry you don’t understand that. It’s no wonder you’re in the desperate position that you’re currently in. The fact that you can communicate with me through a device that’s development was reliant on the reliability of such principles demonstrates that you have completely lost touch with reality.

I’ll tell you what, you demonstrate a method of reliably arriving at the truth without evidence and reason, and I’ll walk away now and never come back to OLO again. You can make all the unfounded claims you like then, and not feel the slightest obligation to prove any of them.

How you do that without evidence and reason, too, I’ll be curious to see.