We, paradoxically, pay considerable sums of money to be fooled (movies, books, magic shows). It perhaps keeps us sane in a world that is dukkha (unsatisfactory). Remember Gautama was looking for an exit (from samsara). He, it seems, wasn't into magic (maya). Too bad. — Agent Smith

If I remember correctly, dukkha is suffering and it is due to our dependence on maya, which ultimately keeps us stuck in samsara. So, following that thread, the great illusions of life are a sort of drug that keeps us sane by by distracting us from the eternal suffering that Guatama sought to escape. You must admit, given the buddhist perspective, what Guatama attempted is an insane task by all worldly standards. Religion is a tricky thing.

For the religious individual, it is different because morality is derived from a divine principle that is believed to be the law of god. For such an individual, morality is substantially extant and he is held accountable for his conduct whether or not it is seen by others. — Merkwurdichliebe

Don't forget that religious folk are far from certain what is moral and what is not moral. It is never an easy question unless you belong to the same fundamentalist church. The debate about what god wants and how to interpret religious doctrine often turns into conflict between theists.

The problem arises when a group of individuals who derive their morality through a percieved common faith decide to impose their religious morality on others. — Merkwurdichliebe

Including other religious expression of the same faith or different faiths. Religions do not agree on god/s will. Whether it's Protestants fighting Catholics or a Sunni vs Shia brawl. Some Christians fly a rainbow flag, others hate fags...

To be fair, I think their "happiness" comes from having a good trust in their government and a pretty homogenous population. — Paulm12

Agree.

I'm curious what the difference between a Theocracy is and a country that has a "national church" such as Finland or Denmark. — Paulm12

One difference is that an official church doesn't mean fundamentalist or literalist interpretations - e.g., where the legal system must follow the Koran or the Bible. In nominally Christian countries where they have a national church, people generally hold the Bible to be allegorical stories and fables representing symbolically some kind of beneficial force or god. From them you don't get shenanigans about how to stack the supreme court in order to follow particular interpretations of a holy book. In theocracy, culture and behavior is forced to conform to particular and narrow interpretations of holy books.

think an important part of a country is having religious freedom (which of course, is often supported by religious and nonreligious people). — Paulm12

Secularism and religious freedom are in the interests of religious diversity but fundamentalists don't like it when they realize the practices of other faiths they dislike have equal protection and status.

If I remember correctly, dukkha is suffering and it is due to our dependence on maya, which ultimately keeps us stuck in samsara. So, following that thread, the great illusions of life are a sort of a drug that keeps us sane by by distracting us from the eternal suffering that Guatama sought to escape. You must admit, given the buddhist perspective, what Guatama attempted is an insane task by all worldly standards. Religion is a tricky thing. — Merkwurdichliebe

Gautama, in my humble opinion, was cursed with hyperalgesia (his pain threshold was low) and hence, I suspect, his description of existence as hellish (1^st Noble truth: Life is suffering). It could be the other way round of course: Most folks are, in this case, gifted with hypolalgesia (high pain threshold). According to legend, Gautama descended from...paradise? The penny drops, oui?

Quite, although 'substantially extant' is a rather awkward way of describing it. Do you mean for them it is 'real, in spite of what anyone says about it'? — Wayfarer

Exactly. Excuse my lexicon, I was simply attempting to speak the strange language of philosopher.

Don't forget that religious folk are far from certain what is moral and what is not moral. It is never an easy question unless you belong to the same fundamentalist church. The debate about what god wants and how to interpret religious doctrine often turns into conflict between theists. — Tom Storm

A truly religious person will likely have a fanatical certainty of the general law that is to be observed. And if you are referring to fundamentalist churches, you are then pointing towards the theoretical morality into which the so called "law of god" is formulated for easy digestion. What I am saying is that all that collectivist religiousizing is edifying for many, but at the core of it all, religion is the domain of the individual and nobody else. I would go so far to say that there are exceedingly few examples of truly religous individuals, which unfortunately makes the church the only sample we can draw from for examples of what religion is. Too bad for us.

Including other religious expression of the same faith or different faiths. Religions do not agree on what god/s will. Whether it's Protestants fighting Catholics or a Sunni vs Shia brawl. Some Christians fly a rainbow flag, others hate fags...

What's wrong with hating fags? ... Just kidding, being facetious.

Again, none of that is religion. They, look like religion, because, sadly, that is the example the world presents to us, but these are merely adulterations of religion. The universal goal of each is the salvation of the individual practitioner, nothing else.

Gautama, in my humble opinion, was cursed with hyperalgesia (his pain threshold was low) and hence, I suspect, his description of existence as hellish (1st Noble truth: Life is suffering). It could be the other way round of course: Most folks are, in this case, gifted with hypolalgesia (high pain threshold). According to legend, Gautam descended from...paradise? The penny drops, oui? — Agent Smith

:rofl:

That is genius stuff. :clap: :clap: :clap:

That is genius stuff. :clap: — Merkwurdichliebe

You jest! :snicker:

You jest! :snicker: — Agent Smith

If you insist...

According to legend, Gautam descended from...paradise? The penny drops, oui? — Agent Smith

His father must have said that. Get it ... *crickets*

A truly religious person will like have a fanatical certainty of the general law that is to be observed. — Merkwurdichliebe

Not so. Some would argue that truly religious is the opposite of fanatical. I can think of many very religious people (including preachers, priests and nuns I have known) who do have this trait at all. This is a fundamentalist trait, not a religious trait.

What I am saying is that all that collectivist religiousizing is edifying for many, but at the core of it all, religion is the domain of the individual and nobody else — Merkwurdichliebe

Perhaps you mean 'should be' the domain of... Not sure that this gets to the problem of religions in practice however. We know they help decide elections and change governments and help pass laws and put people in jails and enforce world views and what can be taught at schools so I would not see how your argument works except in theory.

Again, none of that is religion. They, look like religion, because, sadly, that is the example the world presents to us, but these are merely adulterations of religion — Merkwurdichliebe

Religions are organized social groups based around rituals, community and transcendent beliefs. Sounds to me like you are changing the definition to suit a viewpoint or is it a no true Scotsman fallacy? You tell me. :wink:

:ok:

Not so. Some would argue that truly religious is the opposite of fanatical. I can think of many very religious people (including preachers, priests and nuns I have known who do have this trait at all. This is a fundamentalist trait, not a religious trait. — Tom Storm

The demands of one's faith are beyond reason... that sounds quite fanatical to me.

Perhaps you mean 'should be' the domain of... Not sure that this gets to the problem of religions in practice however. We know they help decide elections and change governments and help pass laws and put people in jails and enforce world views and what can be taught at schools so I would not see how your argument works except in theory. — Tom Storm

Sounds like another argument in favor of campaign finance reform. I say, go for it.

Religions are organized social groups based around rituals, community and transcendent beliefs. Sounds to me like you are changing the definition to suit a viewpoint or is it a no true Scotsman fallacy? You tell me. :wink: — Tom Storm

google definition of "religion":

"the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

I emphasized personal. So, who did you ask was committing the Scotsman fallacy? You obviously

Secularism and religious freedom are in the interests of religious diversity but fundamentalists don't like it when they realize the practices of other faiths they dislike have equal protection and status. — Tom Storm

Fundamentalists are the lamest strawman for dismissing religion. It's like evoking Elmo's pedophilia to demonize all muppets

Knowing what's bad doesn't mean we should punish it or eliminate it. Gods created both good and bad. The real horror starts if we want to eliminate "the bad" in the name of.

@Hillary

There's little to no difference between evil (Satan) and justice (Justitia). This, in my humble opinion, is the crux of the issue. A taste of one's own medicine! Reciprocity, re Newton's 3^rd law.

To complicate matters further, as if that were not enough, one must be able to distinguish Praxidice (justice) from the Furies/Erinyes (vengeance).

Fundamentalists are the lamest strawman for dismissing religion. It's like evoking Elmo's pedophilia to demonize all muppets — Merkwurdichliebe

No, it's not being used as a straw-man for dismissing religion. It's being provided as an enduring example of where religion goes wrong and makes the world worse. Many religious writers are in complete agreement and sometimes go further than atheists on this subject. Just read Christian writers David Bentley Hart or Bishop John Shelby Spong, or one of the best more recently by a Christian writer Kristen Du Mez Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation. This is important stuff and can't really be minimized with vague 'straw man' claims.

Nothing is really ‘religious’ by the same line of argumentation.

A tax office is a secular building. A church is a religious building.

Morality is not owned by religious institutions anymore than it is by secular institutions.

There are many areas where you can argue for some item of human experience being partly secular or partly religious. In political terms secular - which I believe is where the term is most commonly used today? - means the state keeps figures of religious institutes away from governance of the state. It is not an absolute as most things are not unless they are abstractions.

For instance the UK is a secular nation yet it is ridiculous to state that the religious institutions play no part in the broader political environment. I would say that religious institutions have far less sway in the UK than they do in the US though.

I emphasized personal. So, who did you ask was committing the Scotsman fallacy? You obviously — Merkwurdichliebe

It's actually the 'no true scotsman fallacy' - it means you are redefining what something means (here religion) in order to provide your own exculpatory definition. Like you seemed to do above. If I am wrong about that, apologies.

Obviously all beliefs, from politics to religion begin as personal values, but they are practiced in community as public expressions of personal belief. Or are you going to argue somehow that the umpteen millions of people who belong to churches and synagogues and mosques and ashrams and who follow the teachings of their faith leaders in community groups don't count? If you argue that they are not true religions then I think you may be evoking that contested Scotsman. :wink:

If you argue that they are not true religions then I think you may be evoking that contested Scotsman. — Tom Storm

As a Scotsman, I do agree that I don't understand anyone who puts sugar in their porridge.
It's like adding syrup to your chicken curry! :vomit:
They are almost.....contradictory. Opposite sides of a magnet will repel but they can be 'forced together' and held in place.
I suppose I feel the same way about combining the word 'true,' with the word 'religion(s).'
It's more a matter of subjective taste based on a strongly grounded personal interpretation of the evidence involved, rather than individual ability to completely disprove the concept of sugar in your porridge being valid, even if someone says THEY like it or THEIR religion is true.

. Opposite sides of a magnet will repel but they can be 'forced together' and held in place.
I suppose I feel the same way about combining the word 'true,' with the word 'religion(s).' — universeness

It's exactly the opposite. It are a north and south pole. Of course, your poles are contrary because you, irrationally, don't believe and are not able to understand it as your inborn religious feeling is beaten into submission be a new theology.

It's more a matter of subjective taste based on a strongly grounded personal interpretation of the evidence — universeness

As if science doesn't give a personal interpretation. They even try to define how evidence should be interpreted. The haughtiness...

rather than individual ability to completely disprove the concept of sugar in your porridge being valid, — universeness

:lol:

As a Scotsman, I do agree that I don't understand anyone who puts sugar in their porridge. — universeness

Well, I'm not a true Scotsman I can't eat it without honey. :razz: And I have it for dinner.

Separation of church and state doesn't mean we exclude religious values, it means we exclude religious institutions from government. — T Clark

Sorry - I should point out that my personal experience of democracy is external to the US system. I wasn’t referring to the ‘separation of church and state’ as such, but to its common (mis)interpretation as the ideal of secularism: as Wayfarer pointed out, the difference between ‘freedom of’ and ‘freedom from’ religion.

I think where the US struggles is in recognising this distinction. So I agree with you here, and I think that secularism should not be presented as the ideology behind ‘the separation of church and state’ at all. They’re not supposed to mean the same thing. That was kind of my point.

It is a nebulous term. The UK is classed as a ‘non-secular state’ in some ways yet religious institutions seem to hold far more sway in the US, which is classed as a ‘secular state’.

I just roughly demarcate in terms of political influence and sway over court and governmental proceedings … which leaves the UK in a somewhat contrary position as the Royal Family has legal power yet they keep these powers by not actually using them and remaining ‘neutral’. In the US it doesn’t take a genius to see that religious views play a large role in leaning governmental powers one way or another.

Well, I'm not a true Scotsman I can't eat it without honey. :razz: And I have it for dinner. — Tom Storm

:rofl: Well,I've heard that only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday Sun.
Very strong midday Sun in Scotland is probably about as rare as someone putting honey in porridge, but I have seen a brand called 'quakers' who sell little packets of freeze-dried porridge with honey in it!
Go figure! You are just a wild child rebel Tom!
Philosophically speaking, does honey in your porridge mean you are more likely to rebel against, or advocate a society that considers theistic tenets when making economic, social and foreign policy?

It's exactly the opposite. It are a north and south pole. Of course, your poles are contrary because you, irrationally, don't believe and are not able to understand it as your inborn religious feeling is beaten into submission be a new theology — Hillary

:lol: What? So for you, North is not opposite South?
I cant debate rationality with an irrational thinker, it's a waste of time.

What? So for you, North is not opposite South?
I cant debate rationality with an irrational thinker, it's a waste of time. — universeness

My dear brother Uni, listen carefully. The north and and south pole of a magnet exist by virtue of each other. It's you trying to push two like-poles against each other. In reality the north pole (science) and south pole (gods) naturally fall onto each other, making a new powerful dipole, each pole reinforcing the other. How powerful you wantit (want it)?

My dear brother Uni, listen carefully. The north and and south pole of a magnet exist by virtue of each other — Hillary

They are opposites, positive and negative, opposites. The rational people and the irrational people (like you), opposites!

They are opposites, positive and negative, opposites. The rational people and the irrational people (like you), opposites! — universeness

What's wrong with being irrational. The mist irrational thing is a mindless spark!

It is a nebulous term. The UK is classed as a ‘non-secular state’ in some ways yet religious institutions seem to hold far more sway in the US, which is classed as a ‘secular state’.

I just roughly demarcate in terms of political influence and sway over court and governmental proceedings … which leaves the UK in a somewhat contrary position as the Royal Family has legal power yet they keep these powers by not actually using them and remaining ‘neutral’. In the US it doesn’t take a genius to see that religious views play a large role in leaning governmental powers one way or another. — I like sushi

Agreed. I like that you brought up the ‘neutral’ position of the UK Royal Family, as head of both church and government.

In Australia, there appears (in my view) to be a considerable percentage of the population who are deliberate ‘fence-sitters’, both in political and religious ideology. Where the UK system enables a neutral position as ‘above’ politics (ie. nobility), in Australia the neutral position is that of the larrikin: the boisterous, badly behaved maverick with an apparent disregard for convention. They always have a critical voice in our government, but no noticeable balance of power because they are deliberately informal, in every sense of the word.

I think perhaps it’s the ‘one way or another’ - the lack of neutrality in the US system - that I find intriguing, as an external observer. It seems to me (but I may be way off the mark) that the very notion of ‘God’ (whether possible or impossible) assumes the only ‘neutral’ position available in the US. This separation of church and state - and its subsequent interpretation as either freedom of or freedom from religion - contributes to this.

What's wrong with being irrational. — Hillary

It's not rational!

The mist irrational thing is a mindless spark! — Hillary

And your alternative offer is god(s) :rofl: Let the people decide!