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

Is the movement in Australia towards becoming a republic not quite significant now?

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

Have yoh actually read what I write? If a cosmology is complete, and mine is, what other reason for it's existence can be given than gods?

wrong with being irrational.
— Hillary

It's not rational — universeness

Ooookaaaay.... :lol:

The myth of state secularism is but a special case of the is/ought fallacy, for there isn't an objective basis for ethics, including the ethical matters of law and government policy.

If a cosmology is complete, and mine is, what other reason for it's existence can be given than gods? — Hillary

Anything your unfettered imagination can come up with. Anything goes in your world of woo woo.
Your universe could have been created by SCIgod from the union of the mathaphys and the orga.
Or it could have been da boomboom that made everything. Da boomboom was da first cause and did not need any other cause, cause it was da first da only, da original da boomboom!

Anything your unfettered imagination can come up with. Anything goes in your world of woo woo. — universeness

Like in science!

Like in science! — Hillary

No science makes effort to discern between what is plausible and what is not.

No science makes effort to discern between what is plausible and what is not. — universeness

So does theism. There is just as much woowoo going on in science as in religion, if not more. Did you make a study?

One noticeable difference is that US Presidents, bare minimum, play at believing in god whilst in the UK a Prime Minister is mostly mocked/ridiculed for outward/semi-vocal religious faith (eg. Tony Blair).

So does theism. — Hillary

:rofl:

Now look here brother Uni, without the gods and heaven I wouldn't exist. Without them I wouldn't have the cosmology they revealed to me. Study the universe, life and people and you know heaven, the gods in it, and the people gods in particular.

Believe in da boomboom brozzer, if ya needs to! It elp you in dee nite when da bad veesit your brain!
I will stay with rationality thanks!

:lol:

You're allowed, brother Uni, you're allowed. If that comforts you, it should be properly valued on its merits. As long as we realize it's just that. Comforting. And I kinda like it, people opposing my views. Better than boring compliance!

:up:

Australia — universeness

:cool:

that is true, but when it comes to well-funded lobby groups taking legal action to prohibit displays of religious iconography in store windows then it amounts to rather more than that in practice. — Wayfarer

I haven't heard of anything like that? Was it in the US? Australia?

A truly religious person will likely have a fanatical certainty of the general law that is to be observed... I would go so far to say that there are exceedingly few examples of truly religous individuals, — Merkwurdichliebe

This is certainly not true from my experience.

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). — Agent Smith

This shows a pretty egregious lack of understanding of what "suffering" means in Buddhism.

Thank you for the opportunity to use "egregious" in a post.

This shows a pretty egregious lack of understanding of what "suffering" means in Buddhism.

Thank you for the opportunity to use "egregious" in a post. — T Clark

You may have a point. What's your take on suffering...in an out of Buddhism?

You're welcome.

So, who did you ask was committing the Scotsman fallacy? — Merkwurdichliebe

I think you are committing the No "No True Scotsman Fallacy" Fallacy

What's your take on suffering...in an out of Buddhism? — Agent Smith

My own reading of the ancient Sanskrit texts indicates that the correct translation is "All life is surfing."

But seriously, here's one brief explanation from the web:

A common, sloppy rendering of the Truths tells us that life is suffering; suffering is caused by greed; suffering ends when we stop being greedy; the way to do that is to follow something called the Eightfold Path.

In a more formal setting, the Truths read:

The truth of suffering (dukkha)
The truth of the cause of suffering (samudaya)
The truth of the end of suffering (nirhodha)
The truth of the path that frees us from suffering (magga)...

The Second Noble Truth teaches that the cause of suffering is greed or desire. The actual word from the early scriptures is tanha, and this is more accurately translated as "thirst" or "craving."

We continually search for something outside ourselves to make us happy. But no matter how successful we are, we never remain satisfied. The Second Truth is not telling us that we must give up everything we love to find happiness. The real issue here is more subtle; it's the attachment to what we desire that gets us into trouble. — Learn Religions

it's the attachment to what we desire that gets us into trouble. — T Clark

:snicker: Gracias for clearingt that up for me.

Is not wanting attachment itself an attachment? :chin:

This is another one of those philosophical enigmas that I haven't been able to crack for, what?, the last 30+ years.

Reminds me of trying to get cellotape off my hand. It's stuck on my right hand; I pull it off using my left, it now gets stuck on my left hand; I use my feet, it gets stuck on my feet...you get the idea! I can't get it off! :cry: I'm suffering!!!

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. — Tom Storm

Wayfarer has quoted this text several times on the forum. St. Augustine, one of the Catholic Church's Church Fathers, wrote it in 415. It shocked me the first time I read it.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.

This is another one of those philosophical enigmas that I haven't been able to crack for, what?, the last 30+ years. — Agent Smith

Avoiding attachment without trying not to try to avoid it is the hardest part. Please don't imagine I know how to do it.

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. — Possibility

Separation of church and state is intended primarily to protect religion from government influence rather than the other way around. One obvious way that could happen is that government will restrict religious practice. Surprisingly, to me at least, many Christians also believe that churches' involvement in politics leads to a corruption of faith.

Avoiding attachment without trying not to try to avoid it is the hardest part. Please don't imagine I know how to do it. — T Clark

I thought you might have some idea how to, you know, find the way out of the maze of suffering/agony/angst/pain. I would like that very much, but looks like I'm not getting out of the mess I'm in anytime soon. I hope, I :grin: and bear it!

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. — Possibility

How does the US struggle to recognize the distinction? The US is not an anti-religious state. Neither the Bible nor books by Richard Dawkins are banned in the US.

the way out of the maze of suffering/agony/angst/pain. — Agent Smith

• Alcohol and drugs
• Death
• Enlightenment

The first two are easy.

But I also wonder if I grew up in a theocracy if that would be the system of government I support. — Paulm12

Then you’re against religious freedom?

:snicker:

Good one!

As for nirvana, do you suppose one of 'em options is via dolorosa (the problem is the solution :snicker: ). There are precedents of clearing one's karmic debt through intense suffering (hell being the "easiest" way to do this). Interesting stuff this is! :chin: