(...continued)

<<Okay then, what are your protocols other than just that I sit back and mindlessly accept your claims?>>

I have not asked you accept my subsidiary and unproven claims, which were only a result of answering your questions. Use my responses if you like, or ignore them, it's up to you.

<<How is that anything other than a grandiose display of immense ego and selfishness?>>

My personal reputation is unimportant. I am here to defend religion and from now on I will stay on that subject. Once complete, then you may ask me again about the internals of the process of religion, if you still want.

The topic at hand is that those Western-"enlightenment" people and their dictionaries, have taken a term, R, that was commonly used for 1000's of years to denote a personal/subjective process, and used it instead to denote S = certain belief-systems in the supernatural and the [mostly-corrupt] institutions which were promoting those belief-systems.

As a result, all people who undergo and cherish R, are being accused of the crimes of S (including child-molestation, power-grabbing, tax-evasion, beheadings and rape), to the extent that certain OLO members (who represent the general Australian society) propose making R illegal, punishing those who practice it, expelling them from Australia, sending them to re-education camps, taking away their children and all kinds of other hateful suggestions.

For now, that's what it's all about!

Dear Yuyutsu,

This is not an honest representation of the events...

<<...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".>>

Not quite.

What started this is that you claimed that those whom you found distasteful were not truly religious (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#197635), thus implying that there was a right and wrong way to be religious. Granted you gave a lot of explanations for this claim, but each one contained assumptions that the truth value of your claims hinged upon. Claiming that what you were saying was fact, I then asked you to demonstrate these assumptions, and you’ve been evasive ever since with fallacies, hyperbole and sidestepping.

<<Even so, you continue to claim that I have a burden of proof…>>

No, no. I have demonstrated that you have a burden of proof. You have offered nothing to counter this.

<<...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?>>

If you can’t carry the burden, then don’t present your opinions as fact. Once again, you can’t put this back on me. If you claim that your “facts” invalidate what someone else says, then they have the right to defend their ideas by calling on your burden of proof. But no, you want the privilege of attacking others’ ideas without bearing any responsibility for your own claims.

<<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...>>

I have not claimed that you owe me anything. I have simply pointed out your burden of proof and requested evidence thusly.

Oh, the power of emotive language.

<<This is an argumentum ad populum…>>

No, it’s not, because rational discourse relies upon convention and I also offered it’s track record as evidence.

I suggest you look-up what the argumentum as populum is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Continued…

…Continued

<<...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?>>

Whether or not you are interested in rational discourse or critical thought has nothing to do with the reliability of them.

I suggest you look-up what a strawman argument is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

<<I could certainly [tell you how my subjective method of arriving at the truth is any better than a coin toss], but I won't.>>

Yeah, I don’t think anyone’s buying that, because reasoning is utter tosh...

<<This is because I already made this mistake too many times, of answering your unrelated questions…>>

How are the assumptions of your claims unrelated to your claims?

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

So suddenly the protocols of rational discourse and critical thinking change when talking about the supernatural? That’s a little convenient, isn’t it? How did you reliably determine this?

<<I have not asked you accept my subsidiary and unproven claims…>>

No, but the one’s that you have asked me to accept (else why would you absolutely refuse to present them as opinion?) hinge upon these.

<<My personal reputation is unimportant.>>

Then why try to trash someone else’s with lies and distortion?

As for your claims regarding “R” and the Enlightenment, please link me to some evidence and then we can proceed from there. I’ve had a look and can’t find anything.

Not that it would really matter, come to think of it, because language relies purely upon convention and usage. No-one owns words. So it could have only been years since the change in definition, and your claim to it would still be invalid.

So on second thoughts, don’t bother.

Time for my daily clarification and afterthought again, sorry, Yuyutsu.

The point I was, cumulatively, making in that first post (that gets somewhat lost in the chopping up with quotes), is that you are painting a distorted picture of the series of events by depicting yourself as someone who innocently, and through the kindness of their heart, took what precious little time they had, to - with the sincerest of intentions - answer some questions that sounded innocent enough at first. Little did you know, however, that the person asking you the questions had other plans! Yes, he was sitting back, watching… waiting for the moment to strike. When the moment was right, he pounced; pinning you down and mercilessly hounding you for evidence of claims that you had already explained could not, and did not need to be, provided. Despite your cries, he kept at it: viciously attacking you in what could only be described as a shameful abuse of the sincerity and good will displayed by another (somehow leaving the discussion wasn’t an option).

“To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

In reality, however, you had made a claim (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#197635); a claim that - had it been true - would have invalidated the criticisms of others and myself, and any future claims that I may make. Invoking my right to defend my claims, I then asked you to justify yours, and for a while there, you did. But when we got to the foundational assumptions of your claims, you then hid behind their subjectiveness as a way of dodging any further questions. I then pointed out that you have a burden of proof when you make positive claims (explaining why, from multiple different angles) and ever since then, you have tried every trick in the book to wriggle out of it. Every trick, that is, other than to take my advice and not present what are mere opinions as fact.

You want to have it both ways and it just doesn’t work like that.

Dear AJ Philips,

Indeed I lost track long ago of why this discussion is going and all along couldn't understand why you ask me all those questions, yet I did answer them as I answer anyone else's.

You refer to my month-old post to May and Constance regarding Islam.

First it means that whatever claims I made at the time, were not intended for you, which in itself makes ridiculous your claims that I owe you any proofs.

It has never crossed my mind that by communicating with those two ladies I would invalidate your criticisms and claims... including ones you were intending to make in the future (which I was supposed to be aware of...). Anyway, how could my unproven claims possibly invalidate yours, I truly wonder!

Then you claimed that: "Once again, you are committing the No True Scotsman fallacy with your claim that people who commit evil deeds in the name of religion aren’t truly religious."

Once again? this means that the discussion did not start there!

Are you actually trying to say that a priest who sexually-fondles choir-boys in the name of religion is truly religious? Let alone my unproven claims: even if you (wrongly) think of religion as belief in a supernatural deity, would you believe that such a priest actually believes in his church's deity? No, he is a liar and an atheist!

The motive to claim otherwise must be that the "enlightenment" cult seeks to portray religion as an empty shell, devoid of any spiritual process, so it can be destroyed (in order to appease the idol of humanism). This is akin to portraying the long-nosed Jew counting gold-coins under his mattress, then claiming "thus are the Jews", likewise "thus are all religious people, child-molesters and terrorists, etc.".

<<So suddenly the protocols of rational discourse and critical thinking change when talking about the supernatural?>>

Isn't science by definition about the natural and the objective? You are attempting to extend it to where it doesn't belong.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<No, it’s not, because rational discourse relies upon convention>>

So if the majority of people make a convention, then claiming that something is so because they all say it stops being argumentum ad populum? Should it instead be called "argumentum ad placitum"?

<<No, but the one’s that you have asked me to accept (...) hinge upon these.>>

I already acknowledged that all my subsidiary claims (to do with God and how to come closer to Him), were an unnecessary diversion.

All I ask you to accept now is our intellectual-property rights and that it is wrong to treat religious people like scum due to the crimes of others. Do these hinge upon any metaphysical claims?

<<You want to have it both ways and it just doesn’t work like that.>>

Again, you assume that I desire to convince you of anything (other than regarding our intellectual-property rights and that you and your friends should stop accusing innocent people for the crimes of others), which is simply not so. I was answering your questions, and those of others, by telling how things are. If for whatever reason(s) you don't find them credible, then you are free to ignore my answers - I wouldn't be offended.