Religion, what's the point?

[frostbite]

I've been born and brought up in an eastern religion in a massively devoted environment that revolves completely around spirituality and that's just as pointless and meaningless as anything written in abrahamic religions. As I said above fine if fantasies like those help you to overcome some kind of existential vacuum but it has as much right to be a part of a public community and defining any kind of morals as any other texts - which is zero.

I agree with you in many ways.

I still question the bolded part. Is it really "fine if fantasies like those help you to overcome some kind of existential vacuum"?

I honestly don't know.

It is true that people need a purpose in their lives. It is true that science does not offer a purpose, on the contrary all scientific evidence suggests there is no purpose. It is also true that religion offers a purpose. The "purpose" and the "community" are two main compelling reasons for religion today.

On the other hand, if people accept purpose based on lies and irrational faith and fantasies, this opens the door for all kinds of problems, including that they can easily be manipulated by con artists for their own purposes. For example, Putin has also created a cult of personality, with messianic undertones. And then he decided to start a war. His cult still believes in him and they will argue that he is a paragon of peace.

 

[nimic]

So a con artist is someone who is born into wealth. Will be leader at some point anyway. But forgoes that wealth and power to live a life of poverty and persecution?

A life of poverty and persecution? As a warlord conquering an empire?

 

[Moby]

It is true that people need a purpose in their lives. It is true that science does not offer a purpose, on the contrary all scientific evidence suggests there is no purpose.

Yeah that's correct but some can't cope with that reality and need such made up philosophies to sleep at night.

 

[calodo2003]

Trump is not religious end of story.

But he is the leader of a cult.

 

[frostbite]

So a con artist is someone who is born into wealth. Will be leader at some point anyway. But forgoes that wealth and power to live a life of poverty and persecution?

A con artist can be someone born in wealth, can be poor, can be educated, can be illiterate. Shamans have existed for many thousand years, and they could see the future and talk to the gods. They were all con artists.

 

[Roane]

A life of poverty and persecution? As a warlord conquering an empire?

I'd be interested to know why you think he was a warlord conquering an empire.

And yes a life of poverty and persecution. I don't know if it's denial, ignorance or just lack of effort but people seem to make a lot of comments/allegations towards the life of Muhammad without seemingly knowing certain facts.

So for example his tribe was the quraysh. They were in charge of certain aspects of the markets in Mecca. His father was the elder of that tribe. His grandfather bought him up. His uncles included Ali father and Abu Lahab the enemy of Islam.

He married a wealthy woman at the age of 25. Ran her businesses for her. Started on the path of Islam at 40 and gave up his wealth and titles. Suffered tremendously at the hands of some family. Had two teeth knocked out by stones throw at him. His children suffered greatly at hands of his family and others. Spent time in isolation and people couldn't trade with him and give him food etc. Early Muslims had to on migrate to Abyssinia but he remained. Had to run away to Medina overnight.

Once he came back to Mecca he refused zakat for himself and his family. Didn't take money from baytulmaal. Didn't have food regularly. Died without any wealth.

 

[Gehrman]

But he is the leader of a cult.

Perhaps the thread title should change to "Cult, what's the point?".

 

[Roane]

A con artist can be someone born in wealth, can be poor, can be educated, can be illiterate. Shamans have existed for many thousand years, and they could see the future and talk to the gods. They were all con artists.

Maybe so. But see above

 

[Gehrman]

I'd be interested to know why you think he was a warlord conquering an empire.

And yes a life of poverty and persecution. I don't know if it's denial, ignorance or just lack of effort but people seem to make a lot of comments/allegations towards the life of Muhammad without seemingly knowing certain facts.

So for example his tribe was the quraysh. They were in charge of certain aspects of the markets in Mecca. His father was the elder of that tribe. His grandfather bought him up. His uncles included Ali father and Abu Lahab the enemy of Islam.

He married a wealthy woman at the age of 25. Ran her businesses for her. Started on the path of Islam at 40 and gave up his wealth and titles. Suffered tremendously at the hands of some family. Had two teeth knocked out by stones throw at him. His children suffered greatly at hands of his family and others. Spent time in isolation and people couldn't trade with him and give him food etc. Early Muslims had to on migrate to Abyssinia but he remained. Had to run away to Medina overnight.

Once he came back to Mecca he refused zakat for himself and his family. Didn't take money from baytulmaal. Didn't have food regularly. Died without any wealth.

He had 12 wives at the same time and took 1/5 of the loot of raids and war for himself. And had slaves.

Source: The sealed Nectar.

 

[Roane]

He had 12 wives at the same time and took 1/5 of the loot of raids and war for himself. And had slaves.

Source: The sealed Nectar.

He married 12 times. 11 according to some sources. Not all at the same time. So Khadijah was his only wife until she died.

1/5 th of the loot is ordered to be for the govt/leader and to be distributed to the orphans and the poor. Muhammad kept pretty much nothing. The other 4/5 is distributed amongst the fighters and the people.

He had no slaves when he died. He did buy slaves. But usually freed them. So he "bought" or Abu Bakr did as he had wealth, Belal but he became his companion as a free man.


Just as a general.point the wealth issue is something that is misunderstood today. Certain individuals have conditions attached to their wealth. So the leader having 1/5th isn't his as such. It has to be used for certain things.

Similarly a male child getting 2/3rds of his father's wealth and a female getting a third is not as unfair as some think when you look at the conditions attached to each. The male child has to use the wealth for living relatives and other things where as the female has no such obligations.

 

[Gehrman]

He married 12 times. 11 according to some sources. Not all at the same time. So Khadijah was his only wife until she died.

1/5 th of the loot is ordered to be for the govt/leader and to be distributed to the orphans and the poor. Muhammad kept pretty much nothing. The other 4/5 is distributed amongst the fighters and the people.

He had no slaves when he died. He did buy slaves. But usually freed them. So he "bought" or Abu Bakr did as he had wealth, Belal but he became his companion as a free man.


Just as a general.point the wealth issue is something that is misunderstood today. Certain individuals have conditions attached to their wealth. So the leader having 1/5th isn't his as such. It has to be used for certain things.

Similarly a male child getting 2/3rds of his father's wealth and a female getting a third is not as unfair as some think when you look at the conditions attached to each. The male child has to use the wealth for living relatives and other things where as the female has no such obligations.

No he didn't have any slaves when he died, because he literally freed them the day before he knew he was going to die according to the cannonical material. Some might see as a symbolic gesture since his death was a major event, others might just see at as a dick move since he didn't need slaves anymore.

 

[frostbite]

Perhaps the thread title should change to "Cult, what's the point?".

There are many religious cults, few religions. All religions were cults at some point, then they became dominant in an geographic area and they were promoted from "cult" to "religion". After a "cult" became a "religion" it used its dominance to eliminate all other "cults", often by killing a lot of people.

So, there are many more cults than religions, but there are many more people who follow the few religions than people who follow the many cults. It is logical to focus on "religion" than on "cult" since more people follow religions. And there is a negative connotation for the word "cult" although I honestly cannot see any real differences between a religious cult and a religion.

 

[frostbite]

No he didn't have any slaves when he died, because he literally freed them the day before he knew he was going to die according to the cannonical material. Some might see as a symbolic gesture since his death was a major event, others might just see at as a dick move since he didn't need slaves anymore.

Classic con artist move.

 

[Roane]

No he didn't have any slaves when he died, because he literally freed them the day before he knew he was going to die according to the cannonical material. Some might see as a symbolic gesture since his death was a major event, others might just see at as a dick move since he didn't need slaves anymore.

You've just made that up fella. It's well documented.

I find it amusing that you will provide references for bits of what you think can be used against and then make these kind of statements.

The references I can, and have been clarifying.

 

[Roane]

Classic con artist move.

He's made that up

 

[Peter van der Gea]

There are many religious cults, few religions. All religions were cults at some point, then they became dominant in an geographic area and they were promoted from "cult" to "religion". After a "cult" became a "religion" it used its dominance to eliminate all other "cults", often by killing a lot of people.

So, there are many more cults than religions, but there are many more people who follow the few religions than people who follow the many cults. It is logical to focus on "religion" than on "cult" since more people follow religions. And there is a negative connotation for the word "cult" although I honestly cannot see any real differences between a religious cult and a religion.

All religions start off as cults. Its only when the cult is big enough that its counted as a "religion"

 

[Gehrman]

You've just made that up fella. It's well documented.

I find it amusing that you will provide references for bits of what you think can be used against and then make these kind of statements.

The references I can, and have been clarifying.

No I didn't. Its in the sealed nectar.

Voted best biography of Muhammed by the Muslim world league.

Page 624

 

[Roane]

No I didn't. Its in the sealed nectar.

I have the sealed nectar in front of me. So can you provide a reference?

Just FYI this isn't a book of sources or references for Muslims. However it is acknowledged as one of the best for what it aims to do. Similarly it starts many years before Muhammad and describes practises before Muhammad and the prophethood.

Also worth noting is that slavery, as in the trans Atlantic slave trade isn't what the word slavery in English translations refer to. Slavery in the this sense is not what shariah ever allowed/permitted. What was permitted was what in Arabic would be "riqq". Which is not the same as what many view today as slavery.

Just FYI but carry on

 

[Gehrman]

I have the sealed nectar in front of me. So can you provide a reference?

Just FYI this isn't a book of sources or references for Muslims. However it is acknowledged as one of the best for what it aims to do. Similarly it starts many years before Muhammad and describes practises before Muhammad and the prophethood.

Also worth noting is that slavery, as in the trans Atlantic slave trade isn't what the word slavery in English translations refer to. Slavery in the this sense is not what shariah ever allowed/permitted. What was permitted was what in Arabic would be "riqq". Which is not the same as what many view today as slavery.

Just FYI but carry on

Page 624. I also have it front of me.

"On Sunday, a day before his death, the Prophet freed his slaves."

 

[Roane]

Page 624. I also have it front of me.

"On Sunday, a day before his death, the Prophet freed his slaves."

There is only 584 pages in the sealed nectar.

The next page starts the bibliographic references

That's the English version.

Ar raheequl makhtum is it's Arabic name.

 

[Gehrman]

There is only 584 pages in the sealed nectar.

The next page starts the bibliographic references

That's the English version.

Ar raheequl makhtum is it's Arabic name.

 

[Roane]

Give me the reference for that book please.

I thought maybe there was other copies of the sealed nectar so googled it. I found a website that gives reading times for books and even that confirms that the sealed nectar is 588 pages in total

 

[Gehrman]

https://www.amazon.com/Sealed-Necta...swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1661014675&sr=8-3

" New full color Deluxe Gift Edition of Ar-Raheequl Makhtum with 215 more pages than the regular edition as it includes maps, pictures, diagrams and new presentation style. A complete authoritative book on the life of Prophet Muhammad (S) by Sheikh Safi-ur-Rahman al-Mubarkpuri. It was honored by the World Muslim League as first prize winner book. Whoever wants to know the whole life style of the Prophet in detail must read this book. Muhammad (S) is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him, are severe against the disbelievers, and merciful among themselves. You see them bowing and falling down prostrate (in prayer), seeking bounty from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure. The mark of them (i.e. of their Faith) is on their faces (fore heads) from the traces of prostration (during prayers). This is their description in the Taurah (Torah). But their description in the Injeel (Gospel) is like a (sown) seed which sends forth its shoot, then makes it strong, and becomes thick and it stands straight on its stem, delighting the sowers, that He may enrage the disbelievers with them. Allah has promised those among them who believe and do righteous good deeds, forgiveness and a mighty reward (Paradise). (Al-Fath: 29) The Prophet Muhammad (S) said: "The example of guidance and knowledge with which Allah has sent me is like abundant rain falling on the earth. Some of which was fertile soil that absorbed rain-water and brought forth vegetation and grass in abundance. (And) another portion of it was hard and held the rain-water and Allah benefited the people with it and they utilized it for drinking (making their animals drink from it) and to irrigate the land for cultivation. (And) a portion of it was barren which could neither hold the water nor bring forth vegetation (then that land gave no benefits)."

 

[2cents]

Give me the reference for that book please.

I thought maybe there was other copies of the sealed nectar so googled it. I found a website that gives reading times for books and even that confirms that the sealed nectar is 588 pages in total

I have a PDF version which is 503 pages. The reference in mine is on p. 477.

 

[Roane]

https://www.amazon.com/Sealed-Necta...swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1661014675&sr=8-3

" New full color Deluxe Gift Edition of Ar-Raheequl Makhtum with 215 more pages than the regular edition as it includes maps, pictures, diagrams and new presentation style. A complete authoritative book on the life of Prophet Muhammad (S) by Sheikh Safi-ur-Rahman al-Mubarkpuri. It was honored by the World Muslim League as first prize winner book. Whoever wants to know the whole life style of the Prophet in detail must read this book. Muhammad (S) is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him, are severe against the disbelievers, and merciful among themselves. You see them bowing and falling down prostrate (in prayer), seeking bounty from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure. The mark of them (i.e. of their Faith) is on their faces (fore heads) from the traces of prostration (during prayers). This is their description in the Taurah (Torah). But their description in the Injeel (Gospel) is like a (sown) seed which sends forth its shoot, then makes it strong, and becomes thick and it stands straight on its stem, delighting the sowers, that He may enrage the disbelievers with them. Allah has promised those among them who believe and do righteous good deeds, forgiveness and a mighty reward (Paradise). (Al-Fath: 29) The Prophet Muhammad (S) said: "The example of guidance and knowledge with which Allah has sent me is like abundant rain falling on the earth. Some of which was fertile soil that absorbed rain-water and brought forth vegetation and grass in abundance. (And) another portion of it was hard and held the rain-water and Allah benefited the people with it and they utilized it for drinking (making their animals drink from it) and to irrigate the land for cultivation. (And) a portion of it was barren which could neither hold the water nor bring forth vegetation (then that land gave no benefits)."

Give me the title chapter.

 

[Roane]

I have a PDF version which is 503 pages. The reference in mine is on p. 477.

I have the green darassalam publication. It's not on that page either.

I'll have a look see if I can find it

 

[2cents]

I have the green darassalam publication. It's not on that page either.

I'll have a look see if I can find it

Just go to the heading "A Day Before His Death" right near the end (obviously).

 

[Gehrman]

Give me the title chapter.

The chapter is called "The journey":

To allah the sublime

Symptoms of farewell.

 

[Roane]

The chapter is called "The journey":

To allah the sublime

Symptoms of farewell.

Found it. It's page 555. In my book.

Cross referenced it. At the time of his death the only "slave" he had was Thawban b. Bujdud. He was a Yemenite Arab that has been a slave in pagan times. Muhammad had bought him and freed hi but he was with him until Muhammad died.

Will need to look further into this.

 

[Zlaatan]

The only person I had to prove it to was me. And for me the correct answer for those who don't believe IS who cares.

I like your algebra example. I enjoyed algebra. For those who feel the need to do it I'd help. To those who don't feel the need to do it I don't care. Similarly as a theist I don't HAVE to prove nothing. I can choose to if I feel like it.

If by non believers you mean atheists then no I'm not amazed some are hung up etc. For some it's a religion.

Atheists/non believers are like sects in religion. Some do their thing and get on with life. Some follow personality and quote their views. Some knock on your door and demand answers.

For me I like to entertain some and shut the door on others. Depends how I feel and depends on their approach.

You're still talking about how you only need to prove it to yourself and how you don't care about what other people believe. I'm talking about the concept of the burden of proof in regards to theism and atheism, it's two completely different things. All this started with the question "But isn't the burden of proof on those who claim God exists?" to which you answered "Not really". That is incorrect and it doesn't become any less incorrect just because you only care about what convinces you to believe.

You also need to make up your mind up about what does and doesn't amaze you. Non-believer, people who don't believe and atheist means the exact same thing.

I don't have a problem with folk not believing and it amazes me why people who don't believe are so hung up on it.

If by non believers you mean atheists then no I'm not amazed some are hung up etc. For some it's a religion.

What amazes me is that people who are part of a religion tries to belittle atheism by equating it to a religion. It's like admitting that religion is a bad thing and at the same time saying that you have no idea what a religion is, only in less words.

 

[Gehrman]

Found it. It's page 555. In my book.

Cross referenced it. At the time of his death the only "slave" he had was Thawban b. Bujdud. He was a Yemenite Arab that has been a slave in pagan times. Muhammad had bought him and freed hi but he was with him until Muhammad died.

Will need to look further into this.

I don't know who the slaves mentioned are earlier when it's mentioned its muhammeds own slaves who are sent to various kingdom's to invite the rulers and their subjects to Islam.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

What amazes me is that people who are part of a religion tries to belittle atheism by equating it to a religion. It's like admitting that religion is a bad thing and at the same time saying that you have no idea what a religion is, only in less words.

I think this is a misreading. What they're usually saying is that there's a vocal minority of atheists for whom the absence of religious belief seems to be as important to their identity and lives as religion is to believers, and who seem equally as passionate about espousing their atheism as many evangelicals do about espousing their religious beliefs.

I don't believe in a God or gods, but I can see why those who do might think passionate atheism is odd. Sort of like how I feel when I come across people who are really vocal about not liking football.

 

[Roane]

You're still talking about how you only need to prove it to yourself and how you don't care about what other people believe. I'm talking about the concept of the burden of proof in regards to theism and atheism, it's two completely different things. All this started with the question "But isn't the burden of proof on those who claim God exists?" to which you answered "Not really". That is incorrect and it doesn't become any less incorrect just because you only care about what convinces you to believe.

You also need to make up your mind up about what does and doesn't amaze you. Non-believer, people who don't believe and atheist means the exact same thing.





What amazes me is that people who are part of a religion tries to belittle atheism by equating it to a religion. It's like admitting that religion is a bad thing and at the same time saying that you have no idea what a religion is, only in less words.

My response wasn't based on just the starting point you've highlighted. As in "But the burden of proof...". It was based on and clarified to another poster on how these conversations go generally.

To explain if I knocked on your door and starting talking about God then yes the burden of proof is on me. If you as an atheist knocked on my door for me the burden is on you.

The issue of non believers isn't just atheists. It's agnostics and even people with a different religious belief.

And maybe you're right maybe atheism isn't a religion, more a sect.

 

[Roane]

I don't know who the slaves mentioned are earlier when it's mentioned its muhammeds own slaves who are sent to various kingdom's to invite the rulers and their subjects to Islam.

I can name 5 of Muhammad's "slaves" and all were freed well before his death. Likes of his adopted son were slaves gifted but freed. As in Zayd. Zayd did go on these type of missions but certainly not as a slave.

Many see Belal as Muhammad's slave but he was bought out of servitude by Abu Bakr and freed. Never did he "belong" to Muhammad as in at point of sale before being freed.

Note here belong is just at point of sale or being gifted. Because technically if I bought someone (even with the intention of freeing them) at point of sale I have bought them

Edit: I could be wrong here but language is an important issue when these texts are translated. As I mentioned before there is a concept of "riqq" that existed in Islam and before. This is always translated as slavery. However when you look at what it was it wasn't me buying you for example. It was more like if I owed you money and was working it off. I'd still go home and I'd still be me and have my own possessions and family etc but my debt meant you owned my time until it was paid. Not the best explanation but hopefully you get what I mean.

 

[frostbite]

Just go to the heading "A Day Before His Death" right near the end (obviously).

Since you are an atheist yourself, do you really think that any of these Muhammad biographies are close to the historical truth?

I mean, look at Trump. He was the President, a very visible position, and there are laws and safeguards that every piece of correspondence must be preserved. And we have reports that he destroyed some, then he took top secret paperwork at home and so on. And all those people who have worked with him have only revealed a miniscule amount of his dealings. There are prosecutors who work on that, and still they have a hard time to unveil the truth because those who know do not speak.

Now imagine if a few of his disciples write stories and books about him. And then a thousand years from now, a historian writes a biography based on these "insider" sources. Look at how easily the Trumpers diminish all criticism of Trump.

Of course, Trump has a lot of opponents and they also write books. Muhammad had a lot of opponents too, but the difference is that Muhammad's disciples probably killed and destroyed all his opponents. A thousand years ago, it wasn't hard to destroy the opposition and eliminate almost all evidence of their existence, it happened many times in Christian-dominated lands.

 

[Roane]

Since you are an atheist yourself, do you really think that any of these Muhammad biographies are close to the historical truth?

I mean, look at Trump. He was the President, a very visible position, and there are laws and safeguards that every piece of correspondence must be preserved. And we have reports that he destroyed some, then he took top secret paperwork at home and so on. And all those people who have worked with him have only revealed a miniscule amount of his dealings. There are prosecutors who work on that, and still they have a hard time to unveil the truth because those who know do not speak.

Now imagine if a few of his disciples write stories and books about him. And then a thousand years from now, a historian writes a biography based on these "insider" sources. Look at how easily the Trumpers diminish all criticism of Trump.

Of course, Trump has a lot of opponents and they also write books. Muhammad had a lot of opponents too, but the difference is that Muhammad's disciples probably killed and destroyed all his opponents. A thousand years ago, it wasn't hard to destroy the opposition and eliminate almost all evidence of their existence, it happened many times in Christian-dominated lands.

Just to butt in here. I'm a Muslim and we don't put a lot of "faith" in biographies like this.

The sealed nectar is one of many and as Gehrman pointed out it has won an award for being one of the best biographies.

As musls we read it but it's not a point if reference or proof.

The criteria for proof and what can be used as a point of reference is very strict. The hadith for example are not like biographies. They have chains that have to be unbroken and from multiple sources to be graded as strong or weak

There are also books by his opponents. Some called him a lunatic or possessed but then, maybe inadvertently or begrudgingly they provide evidence of some historical points that hadith have mentioned.

 

[2cents]

do you really think that any of these Muhammad biographies are close to the historical truth?

I don't see any reason not to approach the standard Islamic traditions/sources concerning Muhammad and the birth of Islam with a great degree of skepticism. I’ll write something more about this topic later.

 

[Zlaatan]

My response wasn't based on just the starting point you've highlighted. As in "But the burden of proof...". It was based on and clarified to another poster on how these conversations go generally.

To explain if I knocked on your door and starting talking about God then yes the burden of proof is on me. If you as an atheist knocked on my door for me the burden is on you.

The issue of non believers isn't just atheists. It's agnostics and even people with a different religious belief.

And maybe you're right maybe atheism isn't a religion, more a sect.

If I came to your door and said "I'm here to tell you that god doesn't exist" then yes the burden of proof is on me to prove that, but that isn't the atheist position. It's what theists desperately want the atheist position to be since it takes away this burden of proof they don't want, but it's not.

There's a big difference between "I don't believe gods exist" and "I believe that gods doesn't exist", atheism means 'to not believe' which only fits with the former and if you don't believe in an unproven claim then you don't have the burden of proof.

For example if I came to you and said "I don't believe that unicorns exist", would you ask me to prove that?

 

[Zlaatan]

I think this is a misreading. What they're usually saying is that there's a vocal minority of atheists for whom the absence of religious belief seems to be as important to their identity and lives as religion is to believers, and who seem equally as passionate about espousing their atheism as many evangelicals do about espousing their religious beliefs.

I don't believe in a God or gods, but I can see why those who do might think passionate atheism is odd. Sort of like how I feel when I come across people who are really vocal about not liking football.

Well that makes more sense, but I don't get why it's seen as odd when we're talking about one of the biggest questions mankind has ever faced. The vast majority of people on earth believes in a multitude of supernatural beings and claims to have an answer for which there is no objective evidence of, I don't see what's strange about people wanting to find the truth and also question those beliefs when they affect us on a daily basis.

 

[Roane]

If I came to your door and said "I'm here to tell you that god doesn't exist" then yes the burden of proof is on me to prove that, but that isn't the atheist position. It's what theists desperately want to be the atheist position since it takes away this burden of proof they don't want, but it's not.

There's a big difference between "I don't believe gods exist" and "I believe that gods doesn't exist", atheism means 'to not believe' which only fits with the former and if you don't believe in an unproven claim then you don't have the burden of proof.

For example if I came to you and said "I don't believe that unicorns exist", would you ask me to prove that?

That maybe your position but not all atheists are the same in my experience.

In my experience most of it is just YouTube vids and maybe read a book by Dawkins et al.

Very aggressive and incapable of conversation/discussion. Even on here you will note those who have discussed without trying to inflame and those who come in with certain phrases.

Likes of @2cents are atheist but I can have a conversation with them. Likes of @Gehrman have a certain way but again I've been conversing. @frostbite not so much as it's clear to me what the approach is. So usually I keep it short and sweet if responding at all.

Tbh if you knocked on and said unicorns didn't exist or spoke of a spagehtti monster I'd say good for you as I'd already have an idea where this was headed. Wouldn't waste my time.

Truth be told I love a good discussion. Preferably verbal as I don't write well my my views. I have gone to and invited many a people to discuss. Even turned up at things like speakers corner in my younger days. As I've got older I've the tendency to not bother. Especially if I know where it's heading