By the way, Yuyutsu. I find it ironic that you continuously claim that you are not playing a “game” of “epistemology” (as if it had any relevance), and yet you’re the only one so far who has questioned the nature of knowledge...

<<But since you touched on the point of the ability to know, it is my position that nothing but the direct experience can give you knowledge, that whatever one perceives through one's senses and mind, is untrue.>>

Now THAT is full-blown epistemology, my friend. What I speak of, is only in regards to that which is epistemic by nature.

Your entire position in this discussion is so flawed, right down to its very core, that you contradict yourself at least once every time you respond. And when it’s pointed out to you, you then invent a new rule or qualifier to cover your tracks. Not having any rational or logical thought patterns by which to formulate your arbitrary views, this becomes more and more unmanageable for you with every response you post, and it's showing. You need to keep track of every individual claim you’ve made because there’s very little reason or logic underpinning any of them.

[While I'm on a roll...]

Ironically, too, half the time you accuse me of a fallacy, you commit the exact same fallacy in the process. The strawman (through your setting up of one in order to accuse me of it) and the argumentum as nauseum (through your unjustified repetition of the accusation) are two that immediately come to mind.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<Your suggestion that the burden of proof only applies if you explicitly claim to know something and not just mention it in passing.>>

Incorrect. The whole idea about "a burden of proof" is yours, not mine. If one wants to prove something, then they may - it should not be a burden.

<<it's not a game.>>

Making heaps of assumptions about what is or isn't knowledge (nay, even that knowledge is desirable in the first place) and what are the valid ways to achieve it and to use it, is like stating that one may not throw the ball with their hands or that one must use a dice of 6 sides rather than 20 (what a winner in monopoly or backgammon that would be!).

But if it isn't a game, then it's a deliberate scheme, designed by atheists for atheists to distort people's minds at the service of atheism, then the vast material about epistemology is not a game-manual, but akin to a bible.

<<But there’s a difference between being open to other perspectives and just gullibly accepting them without anything to support the claim>>

But who is expecting you to believe or accept my claims? Read it (if you like), then draw your own conclusion.

<<in order to wriggle out of your obligation?>>

Have you spoken to Graham Young yet? As far as I can tell, the rules of this forum haven't changed.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<The conundrum for you is that fact that your claims, regarding the definition of religion, are based on unsupported assumptions,>>

Big deal - nobody's assumptions are supported anyway, everyone adopts one set of axioms or another.

<<so the default position (regarding them) is disbelief.>>

That's not a conundrum to me because I'm not hostile to disbelief.

<<So now there's rights to words, and the right to apply it to oneself...>>

You took my words out of context: read again and try again.

<<Religious belief relies entirely on the masses for its legitimacy.>>

There you go, suggesting that religious belief may not be legitimate: What's next? using lie-detectors to arrest those who believe? or are you unable to do so only due to the massive number of believers?

Alternately, perhaps you think of "legitimate" as being consistent with the epistemic definition of "fact" or the like, but as I explained more than once, religious belief is not measured by the correctness of its literal content but by the effectiveness of the act of believing in bringing the believer closer to God.

Alternately again, perhaps you think that religion is illegitimate because it allows criminals to hide in the crowd, but then so many other activities, including concerts and atheist conventions wouldn't be legitimate, nor would breathing because it deprives others of a little bit of oxygen.

<<No-one owns words>>

So in the 1950's one could arrest Christians as Communists because they take communion? Or worse, for incest because the whole family took communion together?

<<Your belief is not a reason to believe that they're not; nor is it evidence of it.>>

I was simply answering your question - you are bursting into an open door.

Dear Yuyutsu,

<<The whole idea about "a burden of proof" is yours, not mine.>>

Your actions suggest otherwise.

<<If one wants to prove something, then they may - it should not be a burden.>>

On a practical level, absolutely. On philosophical level, it still is. When on a mission to defend an idea, yes - unless you’re happy to waste your time, or are only targeting the gullible.

But if you don’t feel like you have an obligation to support your claims, then why are you still here trying to prove that you don’t? You continuously fail to see the irony here, don’t you. There is a glaring inconsistency between what you say, and how you act. Apparently you’re quite happy to play this “game”, but only when it suits you. Here’s a question for you:

How do you determine what needs to be supported and what doesn’t?

<<Making heaps of assumptions about what is or isn't knowledge…>>

You seemed to assume enough to claim that you knew something. Now suddenly I’m assuming too much? I suspect you are simply engaging in obfuscation.

<<But if it isn't a game, then it's a deliberate scheme, designed by atheists for atheists to distort people's minds at the service of atheism...>>

Yes, distort with that which is conducive to productive discussion rather than arbitrary claims about an alleged process of coming closer to something that doesn't exist.

I see your concern.

<<But who is expecting you to believe or accept my claims?>>

I didn’t suggest anyone was. I was talking about people in general. You keep making this about me.

<<Read [my claims] (if you like), then draw your own conclusion.>>

Oh, I will. I’m still within my rights to point out the problems with them, though. Likewise, how about you read my pointing out of the problems in your claims and then just draw your own conclusion?

Didn’t think so.

Continued...

...Continued

<<Big deal - nobody's assumptions are supported anyway, everyone adopts one set of axioms or another.>>

There are plenty of assumptions that can be supported, and many that prove themselves everyday to be reliable. That's how we're able to get by on a daily basis. You're just making excuses for claiming whatever nonsense you like.

<<That's not a conundrum to me because I'm not hostile to disbelief.>>

Maybe not. But you do want to defend religion.

<<You took my words out of context: read again...>>

No, I didn’t.

"Having a right to the use of a name does not automatically entitle you to claim that it applies to you." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#199799)

You’re getting sloppy.

<<There you go, suggesting that religious belief may not be legitimate: What's next? using lie-detectors to arrest those who believe? or are you unable to do so only due to the massive number of believers?>>

Ah, the equivocation fallacy.

Legitimate:
-conforming to the law or to rules, or;
-able to be defended with logic or justification; valid.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/legitimate

<<Alternately, perhaps you think of "legitimate" as being consistent with the epistemic definition of "fact" or the like…>>

No, see above.

<<...as I explained more than once, religious belief is not measured by the correctness of its literal content but by the effectiveness of the act of believing in bringing the believer closer to God.>>

I’ve never suggested that you thought otherwise.

This assertion of yours is flawed, though, because it assumes that there is such a thing as “bringing the believer closer to God”, or that it is possible to be brought closer to that which does not exist.

<<...perhaps you think that religion is illegitimate because it allows criminals to hide in the crowd>>

No, but that is one of its downsides. The moderates provide cover and legitimacy to the fundies.

<<So in the 1950's one could arrest Christians as Communists because they take communion? Or worse, for incest because the whole family took communion together?>>

No, because no-one owns words. But if you want to compare yourself with such people, then be my guest...

Dear AJ Philips,

<<then why are you still here trying to prove that you don’t?>>

That's not why I'm here and you know it.

<<How do you determine what needs to be supported and what doesn’t?>>

Can you please focus your question more? Do you mean here on OLO, or politically or environmentally or within my family, or regarding charities, it's not clear.

One thing that's most important for me to support, is the ability of advanced souls to practice the last segments of their religious path without interruption from the state or other societal influences (I don't really need to worry too much for those in the earlier steps of religion, because they already have the big churches to look after them).

<<There are plenty of assumptions that can be supported, and many that prove themselves everyday to be reliable.>>

An assumption could take the form of "for everyday purposes it's OK to assume that...". Nevertheless, even such assumptions are based on earlier axiomatic/metaphysical assumptions.

Also, there is a world of difference between 'reliable' and 'good'.

<<But you do want to defend religion.>>

As I mentioned earlier, only when it's feasible. If someone already made up their mind to hurt religion, then the only defence left is physical fight-or-flight.

<<Legitimate:
-conforming to the law or to rules, or;
-able to be defended with logic or justification; valid.>>

The first definition is not under contention.
As for the second, it's biased because you guys wrote the dictionaries.
I for example prefer to use 'legitimate' as a near-synonym to 'moral', but you haven't included this definition nor several others.

Anyway, going back to your statement, "Religious belief relies entirely on the masses for its legitimacy" and applying your own strange 2nd-definition, the statement is nonsensical because you were referring to the verbal CONTENTS of such beliefs, which were never meant to be logical in the first place (in fact, it can usually be easily shown that they are not) - instead they're meant to work and measured not by their logic but by their effectiveness!

(continued...)