Sorry, Yuyutsu. We should probably just accept that these afterthoughts are gonna keep happening.

I was just thinking, though, that you describe religion as being a strive to eliminate the ego and selfishness. Yet here you are, making the most offensive and unjustified claims about what I'm saying and why. You're attempting to trash someone else's reputation in order to save your own pride. How is that anything other than a grandiose display of immense ego and selfishness?

First you compare something I've said to insulting negros, then you accuse me of the Nuremberg defence, now I'm apparently forcing you, in a threatening manner, to adhere to a demonstrably reliable protocol that you try to paint as being arbitrary and uniquely mine.

Ever heard of the strawman fallacy? That's another one you can add to the list.

Yuyutsu/A.J.Phillips,

" ..... religion as being a striving to eliminate the ego and selfishness."

If one of the main reasons for being religious is a belief in an afterlife, not necessarily accompanied by good works, but a lot of praying, then isn't that about as selfish as it gets ?

Of course, not all religions promise an afterlife, or at least not until Armageddon. But one wonders if, if believers in such a myth could be persuaded that there wasn't one, how quickly might they become unbelievers ? Schopenhauer says twenty minutes.

And what then ? Would these new unbelievers adopt the notion that everything is permissible, there are no restraints on doing whatever you like ? Or are people better than that ?

Joe

Both good points, Joe. However, Yuyutsu doesn't believe in an afterlife, and believes that most of those who do aren't even religious, so I haven't bothered going there.

Just a clarification, Yuyutsu.

Regarding the coin tosses; of course, I'd only be right about the result of the coin toss 50% of the time. If I were to use it for determining other facts, I'd be wrong the vast majority of the time.

Hence the philosophic burden of proof.

Dear Joe,

<<If one of the main reasons for being religious is a belief in an afterlife, not necessarily accompanied by good works, but a lot of praying, then isn't that about as selfish as it gets?>>

Great question!

Where we start the journey is one thing and where we end is another.
We ARE selfish to begin with, it wouldn't help to deny and pretend otherwise - If we had no selfishness to begin with, then we would almost be there anyway, then there would be no reason for the world to exist, yet it does.

While the journey back to God is universal and ageless, the conscious endeavour to reach God is unique to humans (or whatever other species may exist with a similar capability of abstract thinking). The Bhagavad-Gita mentions four different types of people who seek God consciously:

"Four types of people seek Me – the distressed, the seekers of Knowledge, those desirous of good and the men of wisdom."
- http://auromere.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/gita-chapter-7-vers-16/

P.S., if what you are after is an afterlife (a good one, that is), rather than God, then the scriptures prescribe good works, not prayer.

<<Of course, not all religions promise an afterlife, or at least not until Armageddon.>>

Most creeds believe (and I think they are correct on this point) that more often than not, the afterlife is a painful experience that is better avoided.

<<But one wonders if, if believers in such a myth could be persuaded that there wasn't one, how quickly might they become unbelievers ? Schopenhauer says twenty minutes.>>

Belief in God is only one religious technique. There are religious people who do not believe in God and non-religious people who do.

Belief could perhaps change in 20 minutes, but not one's basic character.

<<And what then? Would these new unbelievers adopt the notion that everything is permissible, there are no restraints on doing whatever you like?>>

A minority would, but they probably weren't religious to begin with.

Speaking for myself, had AJ Philips convinced me that there is no afterlife, it wouldn't make a difference at all.

Okay, so Yuyutsu DOES believe in an afterlife, he/she just thinks that it should be avoided. Got it.

This is one of the problems with refusing to provide a rational justification for one’s claims: they can start to appear to others as a random assortment of disjointed thoughts cobbled together with no logical thought patterns or reasoning with which to connect them or make sense of them; and usually that's what they are, hence the refusal.

We all implicitly have a burden of proof when we make a positive claim. This is true whether or not the other person expects us to provide it; and it’s true whether or not we expect others to believe what we say. Our burden of proof remains even if we don’t have any intention of convincing others of the truth of our claims.

In fact, this, in itself, is a positive claim in which I have fulfilled my burden of proof. To then portray what is an almost universally accepted and demonstrably reliable technique of rational discourse and critical thinking as just someone’s arbitrary standard (almost pretending not to have heard of it before), is both unfair and dishonest. It’s the ad hominem fallacy.

There’s another one to add to the list.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<Okay, so Yuyutsu DOES believe in an afterlife, he/she just thinks that it should be avoided. Got it.>>

Surprise, Surprise: you never asked me about it before.

But you did ask me lots of other questions and I patiently answer them one by one as best I can, but then you also ask me to prove my answers, to which I responded "forget it - I can't". Even so, you continue to claim that I have a burden of proof, a burden which I already told you I cannot carry - so what could one deduce from that, other than you are trying to break my back?

You keep telling me that I owe you a proof, but I do not owe you anything: not only am I not being paid for this, but I even lose thousands of dollars for not doing my paid job instead.

<<To then portray what is an almost universally accepted and demonstrably reliable technique of rational discourse and critical thinking as just someone’s arbitrary standard... It’s the ad hominem fallacy>>

This is an argumentum ad populum, as well as a strawman: even if this was a reliable technique of rational discourse, who ever decided that I was interested in carrying such a discourse with you about whatever issue you happen to ask me about?

<<So please tell me how your subjective method of arriving at the truth is any better than a coin toss.>>

I could certainly do that, but I won't. This is because I already made this mistake too many times, of answering your unrelated questions and all I got in return was a rain of more unrelated questions that cause the original topic to be forgotten.

<<There is a world of science out there...For some reason, though, you seem to have a problem with this. Why is that?>>

Yes, and science is meant for studying the material/objective world: we are not discussing chemistry or astronomy at the moment.

(continued...)