Dear Banjo,

Thank you for telling us about your glorious life journey.

Apparently you grew up in an environment where belief in "a¹ God (or Gods)" was expected. You searched far and wide for an object (or creature) that could fit the common description of "God", found none and finally concluded that there is no such thing.

I actually agree with you that there is no such thing: God is not a thing.

We are however, discussing here the protection of religion and so, the first question to arise is whether religion exists, for otherwise there is nothing to protect: Is there a path for everyone (not necessarily the same for each), a sequence, hopefully a pattern, of behaviours (including, but not limited to, thoughts and beliefs) by which one can approach and ultimately unite with God?

I previously brought the cinema-screen analogy to demonstrate that the existence of religion does not depend on the existence of God, hence I suggest that the latter be shelved and perhaps be kept for other discussions.

It could be that you believe that religion does not exist, in other words that it is impossible to approach and unite with God. Should that be the case, then it does not matter how we behave - for the result would be the same: death, total oblivion, and the eventual loss of everything we thrived for.

But if there is any positive probability that religion exists, small as it may be (0 < p <= 1), then the rational statistical approach is to guard it as the most precious thing, more precious than our lives even, because the statistical expectation in guarding religion is p*Infinity, whereas the statistical expectation in abandoning religion is (1-p)*0

Since we have no formula, no easy way to tell what behaviours, by a particular person in particular circumstances, are religious, I advocate that we err on the safe side by trying to protect all behaviours.

---
¹ The particle "a" (or "an") indicates that the following word is an object and that it is in singular: only objects can be enumerated.

Josephus,

Statistics aren't always accurate we already know that
many people who are raped or suffer from incest or
other difficulties don't always report their
incidents. Besides I can give you a link from the
Pro Choice Movement in America that points to the
hypocrisy of your pro-life stance.

They state that it's pretty hard to call yourself
"Pro Life" when for example the Republican Party is
working hard to:

1) Tear babies away from their parents and lock them in cages
with no plan to re-unite them.
2) Imprison or execute women who access safe abortion
care.
3) Silence doctors and strip reproductive health care away
from millions of low-income people.
4) Stand by while the maternal mortality rates sky rocket amd
women - especially Black women die in childbirth.
5) Deny affordable healthcare coverage to people with
pre-existing conditions.
6) Cut programs that feed hungry kids.
7) Block access to HIV testing and treatment.
8) Incite far-right violence with lies about abortion.

We could keep going on like this for a long time.
I however would appreciate your not addressing posts
to me any longer.

You are entitled to your views. As I am to rejecting them.
I have no wish to continue this discussion with you.
Such as it is.

cont'd ...

Josephus,

If you want to continue discussing abortion -
start your own discussion on the topic.
Kindly don't divert mine.

So we cannot critique your religion and things you hold as values. Conclusion - it is wrong to criticize someone's. in your view YES!.

Josephus,

Criticize my religion all you want.

I do.

But I don't force my beliefs onto other people.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

That's all very interesting, Yuyutsu, but you did not reply to my question at the end of my previous post on page 29 of this thread.

Here it is again :

« What about you, Yuyutsu ? How did you come to believe in God ? How do you know what He wants ? »

.