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
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
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
To be fair, I think their "happiness" comes from having a good trust in their government and a pretty homogenous population. — Paulm12
I'm curious what the difference between a Theocracy is and a country that has a "national church" such as Finland or Denmark. — Paulm12
think an important part of a country is having religious freedom (which of course, is often supported by religious and nonreligious people). — Paulm12
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
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
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
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...
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
You jest! :snicker: — Agent Smith
According to legend, Gautam descended from...paradise? The penny drops, oui? — Agent Smith
A truly religious person will like have a fanatical certainty of the general law that is to be observed. — Merkwurdichliebe
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
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
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
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
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
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 — Merkwurdichliebe
I emphasized personal. So, who did you ask was committing the Scotsman fallacy? You obviously — Merkwurdichliebe
If you argue that they are not true religions then I think you may be evoking that contested Scotsman. — Tom Storm
. 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 more a matter of subjective taste based on a strongly grounded personal interpretation of the evidence — universeness
rather than individual ability to completely disprove the concept of sugar in your porridge being valid, — universeness
As a Scotsman, I do agree that I don't understand anyone who puts sugar in their porridge. — universeness
Separation of church and state doesn't mean we exclude religious values, it means we exclude religious institutions from government. — T Clark
Well, I'm not a true Scotsman I can't eat it without honey. :razz: And I have it for dinner. — Tom Storm
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
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 — Hillary
They are opposites, positive and negative, opposites. The rational people and the irrational people (like you), opposites! — universeness
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.