(...continued)

<<The first is justified... because something here is doing some sort of thinking.>>

What if that "something" is only your mind?

Anyway, why would you even consider justifying an axiom?

<<So why are you still ‘fighting’ if you don’t don’t think you have anything to prove?>>

"Still"? did I ever want to prove anything?

<<Effectiveness in achieving what?>>

Coming closer to God.

(alternately, "effectiveness in losing one's selfishness, or the false primary sense of being limited and separate, cut-off from otherness")

<<Are they? By whom, and on what grounds?>>

Interviews of church-leavers telling that they attended church for various social reasons, beginning with family-coercion, through fear of authorities, through commercial benefits, through meeting friends and romantic lovers, through keeping the peace at home.

<<but with an already-agreed-upon definition of a word that would render the claims of such a person invalid.>>

But this is the whole point: the definition of 'religion' was never accepted by the religious people themselves, but imposed by others without respect.

While it is hard to find out, 300 years later, whether the original people who made this definition were deliberately aware of its potential to harm the religious, I am quite sure that this advantage did not escape their followers. Implicit in this definition is the assertion that "the so-called process which those weirdoes claim to go through, is all nonsense and doesn't exist". How possibly could such a blame be "already-agreed-upon" by those whose whole life is devoted to that process (or even by those who only believe so)?

It is agreed that the existence of this process cannot be demonstrated by any means that is acceptable to you - so what?

Even if one believes that such a process does not exist, it does not justify insulting those who do. Just as you referred to Muslims: "The moderates provide cover and legitimacy to the fundies.", so do the atheist dictionary-authors only need to make derogatory definitions without leaving their armchair, their hands only stained with ink: others will then read their definition and throw tomatoes, to later be followed by stones.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Thanks for answering the first half of my question which, in the context of the question, explains nothing by itself. Never mind.

<<One cannot arrive at the truth through a mental process anyway - the mind is a liar.>>

The mind CAN be a "liar"; even to the extent that it convinces us that a physiological or neurological event was a direct experience of God. The problem with your claim here is that it doesn't account for predictable experiences, which discredit your claim. You confidently claim that you've had a direct experience of God, then as soon as I make a perfectly reasonable comment about determining the truth value of claims, you brush it off with this absurd one that you cannot support.

<<As you seem to assume otherwise...>>

No, I can demonstrate otherwise simply by pointing to the reliability of our senses.

<<...this probably points to some hidden axiomatic/metaphysical assumption.>>

Such as?

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

Whether or not I think it's good or desirable has nothing to do with whether or not I think one can arrive at the truth through a mental process. So if that's the type of hidden axiomatic/metaphysical assumption you're talking about above, then it’s irrelevant.

<<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…>>

You have to know how to determine what is true before you can determine what is good. So, evidently, you are either adding unnecessary axioms, or your are coming to irrational conclusions about what here is more desirable.

Like I was saying… Occam’s Razor.

<<...so here is another difference in axioms.>>

No, that follows my two stated axioms; with quite a few steps in between too.

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

Correct. But you are conflating assumptions and preferences and assuming that preferences must always come first.

Continued…

...Continued

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

Yes, and I’m assuming that assuming is assuming too, and that existence can even be thought about, or that thought is even a thing. Wow, I can just think God into existence.

Seriously, though, you’re happy to claim that you know something, then when I point out that you can’t know, suddenly none of us can really know anything. You’re changing the rules to suit you when you want.

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

They why were you complaining that this discussion is costing you thousands if existence is unimportant? You could jump off a bridge and it wouldn’t make a shred of difference.

<<What if that "something" is only your mind?>>

Then it still exists. And if it doesn’t, then that doesn’t matter because existence is what I directly experience either way, and it’s reliable and consistent.

<<Anyway, why would you even consider justifying an axiom?>>

Because I care about the truth of my beliefs.

<<"Still"? did I ever want to prove anything?>>

No, that was part of my point.

<<Coming closer to God.>>

I thought that’s what you meant; something that cannot be demonstrated. Which only supports what I was saying in that religions legitimacy relies entirely on its mass of followers.

<<Interviews of church-leavers telling that they attended church for various social reasons…>>

And those few represent the billions of moderates, do they?

<<But this is the whole point: the definition of 'religion' was never accepted by the religious people themselves, but imposed by others without respect.>>

You are begging the question here (another fallacy): you are assuming that religious people own the 'religion, word to prove that they own the word.

<<Implicit in this definition is the assertion that "the so-called process which those weirdoes claim to go through, is all nonsense and doesn't exist".>>

How do you come to that conclusion?

Continued…

...Continued

<<How possibly could such a blame be "already-agreed-upon"...>>

I didn’t say that any blame was agreed-upon.

<<It is agreed that the existence of this process cannot be demonstrated by any means that is acceptable to you - so what?>>

I have said nothing about the existence of the process.

<<Even if one believes that such a process does not exist, it does not justify insulting those who do.>>

You’ve got that right.

<<Just as you referred to Muslims: "The moderates provide cover and legitimacy to the fundies.">>

Pointing out something (that you can support, no less) that will offend someone is entirely different to seeking out to insult them.

Just a point that I think got a bit lost in all that, Yuyutsu.

I let you distract from my point about axioms by addressing many of your points that were beside the point. Whether I have two axioms or fifty is a side issue. The point is that I have far less than a theist making room for their God because the theist shares all of mine, but then adds their own additional and sometimes contradictory axioms. Take your axiom that existence is unimportant, for example, this contradicts your axiom that it is; which is apparent in your concern regarding your finances, everyone's liberty, the politics of climate change, the NBN. You cannot get to these from the axiom that existence is unimportant, that axiom only exists to make room for your religion, thus reducing your chances of arriving at the truth and explaining why a lot of what you say actually makes no sense at all.

So my main point, regarding Occam's Razor, still stands.

But even this is all beside the point, because you were happy enough to claim that you knew about God and religion, but as soon as it was shown that you couldn't, out came the obfuscation. None of this demonstrates that you don't have a burden of proof either; nor that words can be owned.

This is one big red herring.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<The mind CAN be a "liar">>

Here I suspect an axiomatic assertion that the mind is sometimes able to convey you the truth.

The mind is ALWAYS a liar, because it interposes between you and the world, so whatever you experience through it, believing to be the reality "out there", is in fact only your mind. I actually doubt, by Occam's razor, the existence of 'mind' as an entity separate from the brain. The brain as we know, is driven or at least influenced by the genes which formed it - and what those genes "want" is that you care for them and assist their competition, which is only possible if you are convinced that you are a body/mind, separate from others.

A condition for experiencing the truth is not to mind. So long as you carry the seeds of selfishness, considering yourself separate from others thus having competing interests, experiencing the truth is out of reach.

<<You confidently claim that you've had a direct experience of God>>

Glimpses only, of directly experiencing myself, then I verified my experiences against scripture and the accounts of others who had similar glimpses. I mentioned that in passing when answering questions.

<<You have to know how to determine what is true before you can determine what is good>>

That's an axiom!

An unnecessary one by Occam, if your aim is to be good.

<<or your are coming to irrational conclusions about what here is more desirable.>>

We are enumerating axioms here, not conclusions.

<<Seriously, though, you’re happy to claim that you know something>>

Like what? That would be uncharacteristic of me.

<<why were you complaining that this discussion is costing you thousands if existence is unimportant?>>

Because it takes a lifetime to discover!

A hidden assumption here that we are rational beings, perhaps? or that mental understanding is equivalent to knowing? Had I been able to feel in reality that having money is unimportant, that a piece of hot coal is of similar value to gold, then I would already been so much closer to God than I'm now.

(continued...)