Wrong link: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=religion

Dear AJ Philips,

<<No, it’s not: {pointing to Wikipedia's "Philosophic_burden_of_proof"}>>

This is the first time I hear about this. I thought we were talking plain English, but apparently I was wrong, apparently you refer to the rules-of-engagement of some intricate sport I've never heard of till today, called "epistemic dispute" ("The philosophical burden of proof or onus (probandi) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.").

So even according to this Wikipedia entry, for having a burden-of-proof I must first at least be a [willing and knowledgeable] participant/party in this sport, otherwise it's as arbitrary as claiming that I have a burden to brush your shoes.

Well, it would take me time to even read the rules and the terminology of the game, such as "knowledge" and "fact", just as "goal" in football/soccer differs from the common-English meaning of the word. At first glance, however, the arena of this sport of epistemology seems to me designed with bias towards arriving at particular conclusions, specifically favouring the objective and similar Western-"enlightened" ideas: I can't see why I should bother with it.

<<Then you can’t know that what you claim is fact.>>

So? Why should I be interested to know this unless I was playing epistemology?

<<As I alluded to before: it can’t>> [explain how possibly can an unproven claim invalidate another's].

But that was the reason you gave for interfering in my conversation with the two ladies and asking me all those questions, I quote: "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 when it’s shown that you can’t possibly know, you run around like a headless chook>>

If only you explained to me earlier that I couldn't possibly know ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF EPISTEMOLOGY, we could have saved much time: I would have then agreed, but obviously I am not playing that sport.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<But if that's not a goal of yours, then why claim to be defending religion?>>

I defend religion in real life, not in the game of epistemology.

I already pointed out that members of this forum propose to ban religion or otherwise harass and restrict religious people and practices.

While such people are not prone to listen to sophisticated philosophical reasoning, I believe they can understand my extremely simple language:

"Hey people, why are you beating us when it's not us who did it?"

<<In English, the word “religion” has been used to describe a “particular system of faith” since fourteenth century>>

OK, so you found slight misunderstandings of the word that occurred earlier: as faith is indeed a religious practice, some people must have innocently assumed that it is the ONLY practice, but none of it amounts to equating 'religion' with the [possibly corrupt or defunct] institutions which are supposed to teach it.

<<relies upon your assumption that you, and those who think/believe/worship like you, are actually the intellectual property owners.>>

I didn't say that the intellectual property is solely of those who think/believe like me. It is also shared with others who believe in a very generic manner that religion is an actual process which leads closer to God or gods. Among us, we possibly disagree on what 'God' means as well as on the specific method(s) to come closer to Him/them, but not on the fact that religion is a process, directed at coming closer.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<How do I know it’s not the intellectual property of those of other traditions, that are not so savoury, if you can’t demonstrate that you and your ilk are the ones binding with God?>>

The intellectual property is indeed unfortunately common to all those who generically consider 'religion' as a process leading to God. It does exclude however the claim by others who do not even attempt to practice religion, that it could refer to certain creeds/organisations.

Now if you ask how can one separate the sheep from the goats, then this is a different question and the answer is, by any combination of the following:

A. Your own direct experience.
B. Scripture composed by those who experienced God directly.
C. The advice of a living teacher who experienced God directly.

None of those methods, unfortunately for you, is objective or makes any sense within the epistemological game.

Had you been arguing for example that beheading and raping people brings one closer to God, then I could be (similar to Daffy Duck) pathetically trying to drag you, kicking and screaming into one of the above methods, but I don't think you possibly agree with such claims anyway, so what's the problem?

Dear Yuyutsu,

I knew you’d go there...

<<This is the first time I hear about this. I thought we were talking plain English, but apparently I was wrong, apparently you refer to the rules-of-engagement of some intricate sport I've never heard of till today, called "epistemic dispute"("The philosophical burden of proof or onus (probandi) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.").>>

Yes, we’re still speaking plain english:

Epistemic: Relating to knowledge or to the degree of its validation. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/epistemic)

Note the “or” there.

You are making a claim to knowledge, which is why I suggested you state your claims as option to avoid such an obligation. At no point does the article mention anything like this...

<<So even according to this Wikipedia entry, for having a burden-of-proof I must first at least be a [willing and knowledgeable] participant/party in this sport, otherwise it's as arbitrary as claiming that I have a burden to brush your shoes.>>

You’ve just made all that up yourself. My points still stand.

Here’s some more links that describe what I’ve been talking about that don't refer to "epistemic dispute", since the concept seems to confuse you so much:
http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgodexist/a/burdenofproof.htm
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/burden+of+proof

<<So? Why should I be interested to know this unless I was playing epistemology?>>

Wow, you’ve really embraced this new red herring invention of yours. You should be interested because disbelief in what you claim to be fact is justified until you support your claims, thus rendering what you say a waste of breath.

Any further comments based on this non-existent qualifier of yours, regarding “playing epistemology” or "epistemological games", will be ignored due what I pointed out earlier.

<<But that was the reason you gave for interfering in my conversation with the two ladies and asking me all those questions, I quote: "a claim that - had it been true - would have invalidated the criticisms of others and myself…”>>

Yeah, the note the “had it been true” bit.

Continued…

...Continued

[“opinion” above, not “option”]

<<...members of this forum propose to ban religion or otherwise harass and restrict religious people and practices.>>

Then why not present simple logical reasons not to instead? I’ve presented some pretty irrefutable ones in the past. That’s got to be better than making unsupported claims for which the default position of disbelief is justified. You’re not doing your cause any good that way.

<<OK, so you found slight misunderstandings of the word that occurred earlier…>>

Again, you’re assuming there’s actually a ‘right way’ to understand it.

<<... but none of it amounts to equating 'religion' with the [possibly corrupt or defunct] institutions which are supposed to teach it.>>

It doesn’t have to.

<<[The intellectual property] is also shared with others who believe in a very generic manner that religion is an actual process which leads closer to God or gods. Among us, we possibly disagree on what 'God' means as well as on the specific method(s) to come closer to Him/them, but not on the fact that religion is a process, directed at coming closer.>>

So the suicide bomber is entitled to it too, just not those who would speak disparagingly about religion; despite the fact that those who speak disparagingly about religion do so because of what those who have a rightful claim to the word do in its name.

Don’t look down, there’s a big hole in your foot.

<<Had you been arguing for example that beheading and raping people brings one closer to God, then I could be ... pathetically trying to drag you, kicking and screaming into one of the above methods, but I don't think you possibly agree with such claims anyway, so what's the problem?>>

The problem is there is no possible way of *knowing* which way is right, yet you claim to *know* (disrupting nicely-flowing conversations in the process); hence the epistemic dispute.

You claim to “know”, to bolster your claims; but when that saddles you with the burden of proof, you then contradict yourself by claiming to not be trying to convince anyone (when that’s irrelevant anyway).