This is interesting-

Jordan B Peterson & Sam Harris Debate God

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK5M1BrQeG8

Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson - Vancouver - 1 (CC: Arabic & Spanish)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jey_CzIOfYE

Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson - Vancouver - 2 (CC: Arabic & Spanish)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEf6X-FueMo

Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson & Douglas Murray - Dublin (CC: Arabic)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqpYxD71hJU

As others have said I too am a bit unsure about the integrity of Foxy's rhetorical style. She seems to ask a question then tells you what you should believe rather than trying to understand why you believe what you do and demonstrate her understanding. Others have said 'seek first to understand'.

I would argue that Christianity has pre-emminence in Australia because it is part of British culture- in just the same way that Buddhism is pre-emminant in China and Tibetan Buddhism in Tibet.

Change is always difficult- Marx came to believe that revolution was necessary to change- there is a balance between tradition and change- without tradition society wouldn't exist-

"Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land, doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the only thing that lasts."

The UN believes in it's own preeminence over the entirity of human history and existence in the CCPR and otherwise- in it's attempt to manage power in the world it invalidates it's own- project creep- power justifies more power- but is it justified.

Contemporary thought is to favour the individual over the group- perhaps there should be more of a balance- should the individuals rights trump the traditions of the church? The individual and the church are both entities (for example Legal Entities). Where one entities rights end doesn't start the rights of the other.

The appeal to the individual gives an excuse for enemies to deconstruct traditions. These enemies often show their hand though their inconsistency

The appeal to freedom doesn't work either- the classic "On Liberty" (negative freedom) by John Stuart Mill questions these ideas and seems to acknowledge that "everything affects everyone" and so the idea that "you should be free to do that which doesn't harm others" doesn't hold- because everything you do affects and harms others. Some balancing appears necessary. Aristotle's view of freedom (positive freedom) was more about responsibility.

In a sense everyone has their own "religion" whether it's Christianity, Buddhism, Gayness, 'Scientific' Positivism/ Empiricism, Communism, Existentialism, Islam. Most of them believe in
proselytizing and territorial dominance and expansionism.

The way I see out of this paradox is by soft power- the demonstration that your community is more 'successful' than others- whatever that means. And by keeping your house (and community) clean and staying out of others business.

The British diaspora is the only one in which I want to live

I was reading that (after Alexander the Great) on the Silk road for hundreds of years the ancestors of the Islamic peoples killed our ancestors Roman diplomats who were trying to find a route to China.

Many years later there's a new paradox due to the conflict between oil resources and Middle East self determination- perhaps we in the west need to find an alternative to Middle East oil- but is this just another form of western tyranny in reality or perception.

Is Mise,

I've just read your comment on page 23.
No I did not forget to mention that
people were engaged in a protest. I
didn't think it necessary as Pell's
stance against homosexuality was so well
known. The man was very aggressive in his
stance and he considered homosexuality more
dangerous than smoking.

Perhaps this was a
result of the history of his own personal behaviour
that he was hiding. Who knows.

Dear Banjo,

«Democratic courts of justice settle disputes.»

Unfortunately they can only settle disputes in accordance with the state's law.
Even if they wanted, courts have no ability/skills to determine which acts are religious and which are not.

The criteria you mentioned earlier was: "provided it is not immoral, does not encroach on the freedom of others, and causes no harm"

- following God's instructions [when indeed one does!] cannot be immoral, cannot encroach on the freedom of others and cannot cause any harm.

The problem is that we have no way to tell for sure whether one follows God's instructions as opposed to their own egoistic desires and/or delusions. Churches and like institutions cannot tell us either. Sometimes we can guess with high probability but we cannot tell for sure.

«I do not like labels, but the question often arises, sometimes even in casual conversation, regarding religious belief»

Not a problem: you can always say, "MY beliefs are such-and-such", so you clearly do not label yourself as you talk about your beliefs rather than about yourself.

Better say: "my thoughts are free/independent"
rather than: "I am a freethinker".

Better say: "my views are ordinary"
rather than: "I am an ordinary person".

If you like, you could even say, "My personality is quite ordinary", because this would only be describing your personality rather than label yourself and nail you down as a person.
(mind you, I do not find your personality ordinary...)

«Please be assured I understand your interpretation of the analogy, Yuyutsu. The problem is it is not the only possible interpretation. The interpretation I indicated is also possible.»

Please clarify where can I find your interpretation to the cinema-screen analogy.

In any case, the screen is only a metaphor, nobody in their right mind would state, "God is a cinema-screen". The point was to demonstrate how at times it can be reasonable to have faith in what does not exist, just as it makes sense for a spectator to have faith in the screen despite the fact that it does not exist anywhere in the whole movie.

Hi Josephus,

I dispute whether Buddhism is truly a religion, or a set of earthly principles to live ones life by. The confusion arise as religions also have a set of such earthly principles, generally imposed by the religion itself and not determined by the individual, as in the case of Buddhism. For the monotheistic, henotheistic and polytheistic belief systems, they can truly be identified as religions as they worship a supreme being or beings. Buddhism has no supreme being(s) to pay homage to, Buddha is not recognised as a god, but more or less an imparter of knowledge. Although a Buddhist can embrace religion if one so desires, and one can be an ordinary person like Banjo as well, with or without conflict between the two belief systems. I have gone through the basics of Buddhism and there is nothing there that conflicts with any mainstream religions philosophy of life, although I only have the Christian belief system which I am truly familiar with.

My wife may not be a typical example, but she embraces the principles of Buddha in her daily life without conflict, and has no problem going to the Buddhist temple, and at the same time being a practicing Christian (church every Sunday, also involved in church activities). She also supports the Maori beliefs in deities, a prayer to Tangaroa when one is boarding an aircraft doesn't get astray.

Someone is going to point out that the military junta in Myanmar are Buddhist, sadly like religious adherents, not all Buddhist are good Buddhist.