(...continued)

For example, if one picks a microphone and says "1-2-3, 1-2-3", there is no logical justification for choosing those particular numbers, yet it is perfectly legitimate (by any definition) to say them in order to check whether the microphone works and its volume.

<<The moderates provide cover and legitimacy to the fundies.>>

Perhaps, but fundamentalists are most often irreligious and moderates too are suspected of only attending church/mosque for social rather than religious reasons.

<<No, because no-one owns words.>>

If no one (and no group) owns any words, then any outsider can make up (without retribution) their own distortive meaning to a group's internal terminology in order to condemn them of things they didn't do. What if I claimed for example that 'atheism' means "falling in love with the at-sign (@)", thus all atheists should be sent to a psychiatric institute for that abnormal desire...?

<<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.>>

I have no expectation to be able to demonstrate to you that this process exists, nor do I need to because suffice that the term has been used this way for millennia as well as that contemporary billions still use this terminology: if you believe that there is no such thing, then your logical conclusion should be that there is no such thing as religion and no religious people.

This however is inconsistent with the wish to forbid the practice of religion or to restrict and condemn (non-existent) religious people.

Dear Yuyutsu,

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

No, I obviously I didn’t know then. And I don’t appreciate you suggesting that I’m being disingenuous when there is obviously then no way that I could have known why you’re still here.

<<Can you please focus your question more?>>

I meant here on OLO.

<<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…>>

So if you believe you can support them, then you must see yourself as an advanced soul yourself then, right?

How you think like that while ridding yourself of your ego must be some trick. I’m not sure what this has to do with this discussion, though. Are you saying that this is why you’re still here? If so, then no, I certainly didn’t know that; nor could I have.

<<...even such assumptions are based on earlier axiomatic/metaphysical assumptions.>>

Correct.

To avoid an impossible infinite regression of reasonings (i.e. this proves this, proves this, proves this...), or circular reasoning (e.g. reason proves reason) we must adopt a set of axioms. The religious like to take advantage of this, however, by plonking their god in as an axiom to protect their belief in it from criticism, or make out as if it is then justified (“Hey, it’s an axiom; whatcha gonna do, Mr. Atheist?”). But selecting our axioms based on what we want to be true is hardly a reliable way of improving our chances of arriving at the truth when assessing the truth value of a claim. One way of ensuring that we base our epistemology on that which is most likely true is to select our axioms such that we avoid violating Occam’s Razor. Therefore, I have but two axioms:

1) I exist;
2) The universe exists.

The first is justified (even to a solipsist like yourself) because something here is doing some sort of thinking.

Continued…

...Continued

The second is justified because, whatever it is here that is doing the thinking, is RELIABLY sensing the world around it.

I would like to see how you justify your axioms to support your “anything goes” attitude towards belief in general.

<<...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.>>

So why are you still ‘fighting’ if you don’t don’t think you have anything to prove? You’ve had plenty of time to calm down from the purely physiological (and non-rational) decision to fight or flee.

<<The first definition is not under contention.>>

Then why commit the equivocation fallacy? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation) Why say something like that then, unless you simply want to plant a seed of doubt in your readers’ minds as to my intentions?

<<As for the second, it's biased because you guys wrote the dictionaries.>>

Dictionary definitions depend on common use, which evolves slowly and naturally. There is no conspiracy.

<<I for example prefer to use 'legitimate' as a near-synonym to 'moral', but you haven't included this definition...>>

That’s because you’ve made that up yourself.

<<...the statement ["Religious belief relies entirely on the masses for its legitimacy"] is nonsensical because you were referring to the verbal CONTENTS of such beliefs, which were never meant to be logical in the first place…>>

No, I was referring to the concept of religion as a whole.

<<...instead they're meant to work and measured not by their logic but by their effectiveness!>>

Effectiveness in achieving what?

<<...fundamentalists are most often irreligious…>>

You haven’t demonstrated this yet.

<<...and moderates too are suspected of only attending church/mosque for social rather than religious reasons.>>

Are they? By whom, and on what grounds?

<<If no one (and no group) owns any words, then any outsider can make up (without retribution) their own distortive meaning to a group's internal terminology in order to condemn them of things they didn't do.>>

They could, but word ownership wouldn’t prevent that and this doesn’t prove that words can be owned.

Continued...

...Continued

<<What if I claimed for example that 'atheism' means "falling in love with the at-sign (@)", thus all atheists should be sent to a psychiatric institute for that abnormal desire...?>>

You’d need to demonstrate that first. That’s the beauty of the burden of proof, but I don’t expect that you would appreciate that. And if you were a dictator, then word ownership wouldn’t stop you anyway.

<<...nor do I need to [demonstrate to you that this process exists] to because suffice that the term has been used this way for millennia…>>

“Suffice” for what then?

<<...if you believe that there is no such thing, then your logical conclusion should be that there is no such thing as religion and no religious people.>>

You haven’t demonstrated this yet.

<<This however is inconsistent with the wish to forbid the practice of religion or to restrict and condemn (non-existent) religious people.>>

Since when have I expressed such a wish? I even mentioned earlier that I’ve argued against such suggestions.

Sorry, Yuyutsu, I don't think I answered this adequately...

<<If no one (and no group) owns any words, then any outsider can make up (without retribution) their own distortive meaning to a group's internal terminology in order to condemn them of things they didn't do.>>

The reason they can't do that now has nothing to do with word ownership and everything to do with the fact that we don’t get to just make up our own definitions of words. The altering of definitions happens naturally and slowly, and often unconsciously, over time and relies upon common acceptance of the change.

The fact that an outsider could expect retribution in such circumstances has nothing to do with word ownership either, but with an already-agreed-upon definition of a word that would render the claims of such a person invalid. If the word "religion" has developed a meaning that is not valid, then demonstrate that it is not valid and perhaps it will change back eventually (especially if many of you do this). You won't (and can't) do this, though, because that would entail demonstrating that coming closer to God is indeed a very real thing and that there are right ways and wrong ways of going about it. So instead, you just sit back and cry 'foul' and 'conspiracy', and invent the concept of 'word ownership' that doesn't enjoy the common acceptance that it would need to in order to be valid - as all rules of language do (so that's not an argumentum ad populum, just so you know).

This concept of word theft, that you have invented, couldn't occur if the validity of your ideas could be objectively defined and demonstrated in order to set boundaries on what can be considered religion. No natural evolution of the word's definition, to a false idea of what it is, would occur.

If the definition of religion has evolved to include false ideas of what it is, then it is the fault of religion itself, not anyone else.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<I meant here on OLO.>>
("How do you determine what needs to be supported and what doesn’t?")

I support everyone's individual freedoms to the maximum, because I believe that since it is nearly impossible to determine which actions are religiously-motivated and which aren't, how less so by ignorant secular authorities, then the only way to safeguard religious freedoms is to indiscriminately allow ALL freedoms.

<<So if you believe you can support them, then you must see yourself as an advanced soul yourself then, right?>>

Occasionally, but then I find myself doing things that make me feel like an utter beginner.
(but in both cases I'm mistaken, because these are only my beliefs and my feelings, both indirect thus distorted)

<<...is hardly a reliable way of improving our chances of arriving at the truth>>

One cannot arrive at the truth through a mental process anyway - the mind is a liar. As you seem to assume otherwise, this probably points to some hidden axiomatic/metaphysical assumption.

<<One way of ensuring that we base our epistemology on that which is most likely true...>>

There's another hidden axiom... that it's good thus desirable to obtain intellectual knowledge.

<<One way of ensuring that we base our epistemology on that which is most likely true>>

I rather select my epistemology based on that which is most likely to be good, rather than that which is more likely to be true: I rather arrive at wrong ideas than at evil ideas, so here is another difference in axioms.

<<is to select our axioms such that we avoid violating Occam’s Razor.>>

Occam's Razor doesn't mean the least number of words, only to hide behind a galaxy of assumptions and definitions.

<<I have but two axioms:

1) I exist;
2) The universe exists.

>>

Wow, both axioms are about existence, which indicates that you find existence very important. This is one huge underlying assumption!

(since I don't consider existence important as you do, my own axiomatic assumptions are not related to what exists or doesn't exist)

(continued...)