> >> Russell is correct here in that David made a statement which is 
> >> un-provable  and there for religious in it's own right: 
> While Russell 
> >> can not (please  don't try? Please?) prove that religions 
> DO provide 
> >> real goods, David also  can not possibly prove that they do NOT 
> >> provide real goods.
> 
> Straw man.
> Wrong question.
> Now, if you want to start on "God is not real", it's a 
> different discussion :-) THAT's the one you want to (and 
> have) banned here.
> 
> Let's not even START on "Psychiatrists, Psychologists, 
> Psychotherapists, Psychopaths, Homeopaths, ... provide nothing real"
> 
> The Moot:    "Religions provide nothing real".
> 
> Debate that in any serious forum and the proposer dies big time.
> The question is not about proving GOD real, an entirely 
> different matter, but about religions.
> 
> Start with the Salvation Army as they are easy common ground, 
> I imagine.
> 
> Q: is the SA a religion.
> A: For the purposes of this discussion, yes. They are in fact 
> a subset of Christianity.
> 
> Q:    Do the SA provide nothing real?
> A:    Are you mad ?????????????
> 
> Q.E.D.


But that's really 'define religion'.

Replace SA with AA.  Still Q.E.D.?

Personally, I'll sign up to $religion if said $deity comes around and makes
me a decent cup of tea.  And by decent I mean the best ever cup of tea.
Just a minor miracle, I don't want to too much of a bother.

I notice Nigella Lawson is flogging tea at the moment (well, Oz TV anyway),
and if your $deity happens to look like her, all the better.  Better than
old blokes with long beards.  (No offence to old blokes with long beards,
btw, I'm sure you're all lovely chaps.)  

She's pushing Tetleys 'English Breakfast' though, and that's a bit on the
ordinary side.  No miracle there.

Tony

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist