Absolutely true. It's my bad, negative, counterproductive attitude that's caused all the trouble in the world; the alternatives I've suggested count for naught. That's what they told me when I was Cassandra. If I could bear it through 81 lives, I guess one more incarnation won't hurt any more. — Vera Mont

Whoo, I unexpectedly had to replace my monitor. I am glad it was the monitor that went down and not the computer.

I think you made an overstatement about your negativity causing all the trouble in the world. And I am very sorry but I do not remember your solutions. If I were not working, I would go through all your posts, but considering my time is limited can you help me out by repeating your solutions?

I think you made an overstatement about your negativity causing all the trouble in the world — Athena

Well, that's a relief! I never meant to start those world wars.

And I am very sorry but I do not remember your solutions. — Athena

You either disregarded or strongly disagreed with them at the time, so there wouldn't be much point.

I would imagine that such a perfect state would simply not involve the desire for novel experiences, or it would somehow be fulfilled without significant effort (perhaps like a simulation). However, in this existence, new journeys will continue to await us. — Existential Hope

Doesn't Buddhaism address this?

The Four Noble Truths are a contingency plan for dealing with the suffering humanity faces -- suffering of a physical kind, or of a mental nature. The First Truth identifies the presence of suffering. The Second Truth, on the other hand, seeks to determine the cause of suffering. In Buddhism, desire and ignorance lie at the root of suffering. By desire, Buddhists refer to craving pleasure, material goods, and immortality, all of which are wants that can never be satisfied. As a result, desiring them can only bring suffering. Ignorance, in comparison, relates to not seeing the world as it actually is. Without the capacity for mental concentration and insight, Buddhism explains, one's mind is left undeveloped, unable to grasp the true nature of things. Vices, such as greed, envy, hatred, and anger, derive from this ignorance.

https://www.pbs.org/edens/thailand/buddhism.htm

Can you imagine a consumer economy without desire? Isn't that also a matter of culture?

You either disregarded or strongly disagreed with them at the time, so there wouldn't be much point. — Vera Mont

Aw, come on. I may be in a better mood today. Today I may think your ideas are wonderful.

Today I may think your ideas are wonderful. — Athena

It doesn't matter. Most of the suggestions and links I offered are not my own ideas anyway - they're out there in the webisphere for anyone to access.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/climate-change-denial-fossil-fuel-think-tank-sceptic-misinformation-1.5297236
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCKz8ykyI2E
https://bravenewclimate.com/about/
If you were interested in climate change mitigation
or alternate social organizations,
https://www.ic.org/directory/communes/
https://equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/the-spirit-level
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09640568.2020.1837088
you would have looked up some of them.
What you are interested in is not in there, because I simply don't believe your agenda is viable.

Yes, Buddhists do delve into the nature of desires. Whilst they mention the negatives, they also believe that we can transcend our problems (nirodha). Although perfect satisfaction may not be possible (in this existence), we can nevertheless continue trying to limit unnecessary needs (something that can be influenced by a shift in one's perspective). To the extent we do have them, it can be worthwhile to choose a path to happiness that isn't surface-level and that aids most people.

It doesn't matter. Most of the suggestions and links I offered are not my own ideas anyway - they're out there in the webisphere for anyone to access.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/climate-change-denial-fossil-fuel-think-tank-sceptic-misinformation-1.5297236
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCKz8ykyI2E — Vera Mont

This is happening "An estimated four million people worldwide took part in the climate strikes on Sept. 20, which are part of a broader movement to raise awareness about carbon emissions. (Shutterstock / Ben Gingell)" That is positive, isn't it?

https://bravenewclimate.com/about/

This man is considered an authority and he is doing a lot with that authority.
"Barry is a leading environmental researcher, modeller, data analyst and author, in the fields of ecology, conservation biology, palaeoenvironmental reconstruction, and sustainable energy systems. He is a ARC Australian Laureate Professor at the University of Tasmania, where he holds the Chair of Environmental Sustainability. He has published five books, over 300 refereed scientific papers and is an ISI highly cited researcher."

https://www.ic.org/directory/communes/

That is a very nice list of communes and there are more communes. Thank goodness, because we might come to rely on what these people learn. I was inspired by the communal living in the 60s. I did not join a commune because that was not something that interested the person I married and I was still working with the 1950 values of family and owning a home. However, I wrote a few stories in the book "What Happened to the Hippies?" by Stewart L. Rogers. I enjoyed the creativity of the Hippy movement and paid attention to Buckminster Fuller and Alvin Toffler's Future Shock. Hum. I am thinking there is a lot we could be discussing if we shared the same books. That would be more interesting than insulting each other's character.

https://equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/the-spirit-level

The information in this one was not possible a hundred years ago and it will be interesting to see what happens when it spreads.

What you are interested in is not in there, because I simply don't believe your agenda is viable.

I think I have said you need to ask questions instead of jumping to conclusions about me. You have no idea what I know nor how I feel. Whatever is going on in your head it is not knowledge of me.

I think I have said you need to ask questions instead of jumping to conclusions about me. You have no idea what I know nor how I feel. Whatever is going on in your head it is not knowledge of me. — Athena

Fair enough. Don't instruct me what I need to do, and we're even.

Yes, Buddhists do delve into the nature of desires. Whilst they mention the negatives, they also believe that we can transcend our problems (nirodha). Although perfect satisfaction may not be possible (in this existence), we can nevertheless continue trying to limit unnecessary needs (something that can be influenced by a shift in one's perspective). To the extent we do have them, it can be worthwhile to choose a path to happiness that isn't surface-level and that aids most people. — Existential Hope

I am trying to figure out how this can fit into a discussion of culture. For sure if we grow up in a Christian country we are apt to be Christian. If we grow up with Hinduism we will likely be Hindus and so on for the religions. They all aim at a better lives for individuals and the nation. And let me say, I am shocked by how materialistic the US has become. I just do not see that as compatible with the teaching of Jesus.

In my old grade school textbooks, some over 100 years old, the values are social harmony, conformity, and sharing. One way to achieve this is by paying taxes that can be used for national parks that everyone gets to use without charge. If we do happen to be rich, we are to share that with everyone. We should not envy the rich because money is not always a source of happiness and the rich girl may be very unhappy because of something sad in the family.

Older books for children focused on virtues and character and our report cards graded us on character traits. The priority of education back then was good citizenship and I was shocked when in high school I was to choose a career and being a homemaker was not one of the choices. My sister who was a couple of years younger grew up angry with our mother who always did women's work for low wages and her failure to go for the money. :gasp: Our culture has changed a lot in my lifetime.

Especially the book of the 1917 National Education Association Convention, contains lectures about how we must conserve and how our waste is shameful. Public schools were used to mobilize the US for WWI and WWII and did not have the mass production we have today. Women knit socks and scarves for the soldiers, and schools became civic centers for supporting the war effort in many ways. Everyone was part of something much bigger than themselves, and public education made this so.

I have been listening to a college lecture about Athens and the difference between individualism and individualistic. One is just being a unique individual enabled to self-actualize and make one's best contribution to society. It puts the city-state first, as in God, family, and country. The other puts self first and I am horrified by our changed reality that has taken being self-centered to an extreme. For me, the best explanation for this change is the change in public education and putting technology above humanism. That is a cultural issue.

Materialism and short-sighted hedonism must be tackled before it is too late. Simultaneously, religious extremism and a tendency to drift away from each other in the name of preserving one's unique nature also have to be addressed. India's first Prime Minister, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, emphasised the need for having a scientific temper and material progress. At the same, he understood that life has a variety of dimensions, which is why a one-size-fits-all approach is likely to be insufficient. The Discovery of India, his most famous work, shows his love for the ancient as well as the modern.

"She was like some ancient palimpsest on which layer upon layer of thought and reverie had been inscribed , and yet no succeeding layer had completely hidden or erased what had been written previously."

—Pandit Nehru's description of India in 'The Discovery of India'

Unfettered selfishness is undoubtedly a recipe for disaster. As someone from India (a society which is fairly collectivistic even now), I hope that we will find the apposite balance.

His death served the personal purpose, causes and meaning he cherished most in his life imo. If your death can serve your life, then you die well, imo. It then becomes a legacy question for those who hear the 'true' story of your life, to agree or disagree that your death served your life. A suicide bomber may also think their death served their life and they died well, but we always have the counter point that one persons hero is another persons terrorist.

You have no way to measure the affect the legacy of Socrates had/has on any of the issues you mentioned above. The nature and spread and power of slavery, god worship, territorial war, imperialism, racism, sexism, ideological madness and even genocide, have all changed significantly since the days of Socrates. It's just as valid to credit all improvements made in those issues, directly to Socrates as it is to credit no aspect of improvements made whatsoever to Socrates. — universeness

Thank you. In the post above I explained the difference between individualism and being individualistic.
One puts the state first, and the other puts the individual first. Socrates put his values and the good of humanity above any self-centered concern. My sense of that is, feeling a part of something that is much bigger than one's self.

As for Socrates moving us away from superstition, this is like a particle of water in a flood. Individual particles of water are ineffective and large bodies of water can be life-giving or deadly. Conscious living begs us to be aware and make good choices and Socrates was most certainly part of this growing consciousness. He did not stand alone but was a part of debates and changing consciousness.

Unfettered selfishness is undoubtedly a recipe for disaster. As someone from India (a society which is fairly collectivistic even now), I hope that we will find the apposite balance. — Existential Hope

You are from India? I have been so wanting an Indian point of view. In the US I don't think we have a collective awareness. We don't have a sense of how our lives impact everything and everyone. This is a disaster when dealing with a pandemic or global warming. :yikes: Democracy depends on the collective and serves all, but we think the US is democracy and don't know its origin or history and we are serving laize fair capitalism, not democracy. I see this as a huge problem.

Democracy depends on our ability to know truth and that sure isn't what is happening with those who deny the truth of pandemics and global warming. I fear we just do not loving the pursuit of truth as much as we should, and I think this is a problem with religion and education for technology. We have put our faith in a humanized god, not so different from Zues, and money, and technology, and our faith in humans has crashed.

You are from India? I have been so wanting an Indian point of view. — Athena

It's an honour to be of some use. I cannot possibly hope to represent the views of more than a billion people, but from my experiences, I would say that there value can be present everywhere if we refuse to hurriedly take things too far. Not having collective awareness will lead to the sort of problems that you mentioned. But if group identity starts to utterly dominate our minds, we begin to terminate the individual and end up harming ourselves. Examples of this in India could be parents wanting their children to choose only a few career options for the sake of tradition or the good of the family and people blaming an entire community without caring about the fact that individual opinions can vary. This is why your point about the impact on everyone is so significant. "Everyone" makes it transparent that we are, ultimately, not dealing with some monolithic organism, but people. We should respect the beauty of the diversity of the sentient experience without turning a blind eye to our deepest threads of unity. This would allow us to sincerely seek the truth as egotism and antagonism would give way to concern for the fellow being and a more profound comprehension of our shared existence.

I have declared myself a democratic socialist and a secular humanist, consistently on TPF.
I value co-operation far far far more than I value competition.
My individuality is part of my identity, my socialism and humanism are my conclusions and my main/strongest drivers.

I have declared myself a democratic socialist and a secular humanist, consistently on TPF. — universeness

Your comment reminded me of Wikipedia's description of Pandit Nehru:

"Jawaharlal Nehru (/ˈneɪru/ or /ˈnɛru/;[1] Hindi: [ˈdʒəʋɑːɦəɾˈlɑːl ˈneːɦɾuː] (listen); juh-WAH-hurr-LAHL NE-hǝ-ROO; 14 November 1889 – 27 May 1964) was an Indian anti-colonial nationalist, secular humanist, social democrat,[2] and author who was a central figure in India during the middle third of the 20th century. Nehru was a principal leader of the Indian nationalist movement in the 1930s and 1940s. Upon India's independence in 1947, he became the first prime minister of India, serving for 16 years. Nehru promoted parliamentary democracy, secularism, and science and technology during the 1950s, powerfully influencing India's arc as a modern nation. In international affairs, he steered India clear of the two blocs of the Cold War. A well-regarded author, his books written in prison, such as Letters from a Father to His Daughter (1929), Glimpses of World History (1934), An Autobiography (1936), and The Discovery of India (1946), have been read around the world. The honorific Pandit has been commonly applied before his name."

There are those in India (or, as those belonging to the further side of the right wing of the political spectrum prefer to exclusively say, Bharat) today who accuse Pandit Nehru of possessing a colonial mindset as he encouraged ideas such as secularism that weren't "indigenous". People such as J. Sai Deepak argue that secularism emerged out of Protestantism and that Semitic/Western principles cannot be applied to Hindus (even though Pt. Nehru never made secularism synonymous with atheism/thoughtlessly attacking religion or Dharma). The strange thing is that these are the same people who talk about the tolerance of Hinduism. However, the spirit of genuine pluralism that guided Mahatma Gandhi and others appears to be missing. For the Mahatma, the common experiences of all men and women and the constantly evolving nature of India's demographics meant that indigeneity was not a rigid concept that ignored the good that lay elsewhere. His emphasis on equating what he considered the divine with truth itself (his autobiography is called 'The Story of My Experiments with Truth') made him seek value everywhere. Mindless competition will spell doom for us. As degradation continues, one can only hope that reason will prevail.

. "Everyone" makes it transparent that we are, ultimately, not dealing with some monolithic organism, but people. We should respect the beauty of the diversity of the sentient experience without turning a blind eye to our deepest threads of unity. This would allow us to sincerely seek the truth as egotism and antagonism would give way to concern for the fellow being and a more profound comprehension of our shared existence. — Existential Hope

I am going to boldly risk looking a complete ass because the temporary pain of publically making a fool of myself is minor to what I can gain from someone with your understanding.

I have been helping a homeless man with severe brain damage and I am learning I am not the nice person I want to believe I am. Small things make me crazy like when he shakes the carton of almond milk, or I find a hair in the bathroom sink. I seriously need to live alone. He had a third stroke and this time he will be put a facility where he will get the care he needs. He may not stay. He may run but I don't think he will be physically capable of living on the street again.

This morning he had a procedure and after I waited an hour to see him, I was told he did not want to see me and I only thought of myself. :gasp: My reaction to being told I could not see him was too bad, but I wish I had immediately gone into reasoning and problem-solving with sensitivity to the possibility that he felt terrible because of the procedure and needed to be alone to heal and get past pain. Instead, I had a self-centered emotional reaction. I couldn't believe he didn't want to see me, the most important person in his life for the last 6 months :vomit: and I didn't trust the security guard and nurses, :worry: .
In my own head, I created a drama of everyone being against me. Fortunately, my paranoia lasted only a few minutes and it was in the privacy of my head, but it bothers me that I even had all these negative thoughts and so much ego tied into all this!

On the positive side, I see my wrong mental habit wrapped around my ego, and at this late date in my life, I know there is a better way. I have spent most of my life trying to understand how to be a better person and only in the last year have I met Asian people who have a totally different approach to life. I am thinking they are giving meaning to the reading I have done. Like I get it. But I am not there yet. Trying to understand a more Asian way of thinking is like going to a different planet.

Have I said anything that makes sense? I love what you said.

"as egotism and antagonism would give way to concern for the fellow" That is a new world.

I have declared myself a democratic socialist and a secular humanist, consistently on TPF.
I value co-operation far far far more than I value competition.
My individuality is part of my identity, my socialism and humanism are my conclusions and my main/strongest drivers. — universeness

Oh my goodness but how do we survive in the US if we think like you? I am beating myself up for not being a more successful person. I didn't try hard enough, or was there value in being cooperative and not competitive? I remember the 1970 recession when it was extremely hard to get a job and it was demanded that we dress up our resumes and perhaps exaggerate our qualifications. I was a domestic woman and just could not become competitive in that way. Not even college cured me of being a domestic woman. I knew the tricks for selling things and I could have been rich but I had to take a low-paying in-home aide job that fit my values. I have read women tend to be more attracted to meaningful work, and we do it for intrinsic reasons, not the money. Doing something just for the money was so wrong! That is being part of the problem.

I am not sure I am wrong. Now teachers and nurses are paid a lot and they want more, and this makes education and health care unavoidable. Our equality with men means more women and children are involved in crime as both victims and the ones who commit the crimes. Our technological development is doing fine, but our civilization seems to be spinning out of control.

Talk to me. Where do we go from here?

"Jawaharlal Nehru (/ˈneɪru/ or /ˈnɛru/;[1] Hindi: [ˈdʒəʋɑːɦəɾˈlɑːl ˈneːɦɾuː] (listen); juh-WAH-hurr-LAHL NE-hǝ-ROO; 14 November 1889 – 27 May 1964) was an Indian anti-colonial nationalist, secular humanist, social democrat,[2] and author who was a central figure in India during the middle third of the 20th century. Nehru was a principal leader of the Indian nationalist movement in the 1930s and 1940s. Upon India's independence in 1947, he became the first prime minister of India, serving for 16 years. Nehru promoted parliamentary democracy, secularism, and science and technology during the 1950s, powerfully influencing India's arc as a modern nation. In international affairs, he steered India clear of the two blocs of the Cold War. A well-regarded author, his books written in prison, such as Letters from a Father to His Daughter (1929), Glimpses of World History (1934), An Autobiography (1936), and The Discovery of India (1946), have been read around the world. The honorific Pandit has been commonly applied before his name." — Existential Hope

I would love to know the books he read because this explanation of him makes me think he was literate in Greek and understood the reasoning for democracy as it came out of Greek philosophy. I don't think religion is compatible with democracy. I think the religions have more agreements than disagreements, but their mythologies explaining human behavior are whacky. I like the notion of reincarnation and it might be part of reality but until we can test and validate that we should not be too sure of that possibility.

secularism emerged out of Protestantism — Existential Hope

I wonder how got Deepak got that idea. I would credit the Greek philosophers for secularism. It goes with deciding our health problems have physical causes and those problems are not caused by the gods. Socrates rejected the line of reason for atoms because that just didn't interest him, but in general back in the day, some of the Greeks were interested in physical reality, and not the gods. Socrates did take issue with some of the god stories that promoted bad values, such as adultery.

But Calvinism led to Puritans and then the Congregationalists and it strongly influences our materialism, work ethics, and economy. It is so different from collective reasoning because that line of reasoning is based on God's chosen few, not the whole of humanity. I can see where Deepak might take issue with that line of reasoning.

I am going to boldly risk looking a complete ass because the temporary pain of publically making a fool of myself is minor to what I can gain from someone with your understanding. — Athena

There is much that I do not understand, but I sincerely appreciate your choice to consider my opinions.

What you wrote does make sense to me. I think that we would err to presume that the journey towards the good ends during a particular point in our finite existence. While having discussions with some antinatalists, I was intrigued to see how often this fact of deficiency was brought up to indict life. I think that this perspective, despite being understandable, is unidimensional. Why would one not adop a similar approach towards the negatives and argue that problems only arise when life is at the gates of hell itself? Also, even though we may not achieve perfection in this life, we always have a seed of the good and the truth that can grow into a giant tree. All of us may sometimes find ourselves wrestling with desires and thoughts that are contrary to our ultimate aim. What makes the difference is, as in your case, being able to recognise the unethical deviation and correcting it. Sure, perfection may remain unattainable, but we can still possess more than adequate goodness.

"I am but a poor struggling soul yearning to be wholly good-wholly truthful and wholly non-violent in thought, word and deed, but ever failing to reach the ideal which I know to be true. I admit it is a painful climb, but the pain of it is a positive pleasure for me. Each step upward makes me feel stronger and fit for the next."

—Mahatma Gandhi, YI, 9-4-1924, p126

As regards the way of life we should prefer, I think that the manner in which the Mahatma discerned the value everywhere can serve as an inspiration for us. This is what he, as a Hindu, thought about the various religions of the world:

"I believe in the truth of all religions of the world. And since my youth upward, it has been a humble but persistent effort on my to understand the truth of all the religions of the world, and adopt and assimilate in my own thought, word, and deed all that I have found to be best in those religions. The faith that I profess not only permits me to do so but renders it obligatory for me to take the best from whatsoever source it may come."

—Harijan, 16-2-34, p. 7

I believe that the example of people such as Mr Deepak demonstrates the pitfalls of being parochial. It is true that ideas such as secularism might have external origins, but that does not mean that it, with some modifications, cannot qualify as a useful tool for strengthening democracy. Eastern knowledge regarding consciousness and Western scientific implements can be an area of cooperation. In the final analysis, it will be a story of the progress of life.

I would love to know the books he read because this explanation of him makes me think he was literate in Greek and understood the reasoning for democracy as it came out of Greek philosophy. I don't think religion is compatible with democracy. I think the religions have more agreements than disagreements, but their mythologies explaining human behavior are whacky. I like the notion of reincarnation and it might be part of reality but until we can test and validate that we should not be too sure of that possibility. — Athena

The fact that he wrote much of his work from prisons says something about his erudition. As a Hindu, I am unsure if religion is incompatible with democracy if it is restricted to an individual practice that also acts as a fount of unity. What I am convinced of, howebeit, is the need to separate politics and religion. Whether this conflation is done by Dharmic/Indic religions or Abrahamic ones, the results do not seem to be particularly desirable.

I should also mention that Pandit Nehru was probably a pantheist who perceived both positive and negative elements in religion. The following quotations from 'The Discovery of India' bespeak this:

"What the mysterious is I do not know. I do not call it God because God has come to mean much that I do not believe in. I find myself incapable of thinking of a deity or of any unknown supreme power in anthropomorphic terms, and the fact that many people think so is continually a source of surprise to me. Any idea of a personal God seems very odd to me. Intellectually, I can appreciate to some extent the conception of monism, and I have been attracted towards the Advaita (non-dualist) philosophy of the Vedanta, though I do not presume to understand it in all its depth and intricacy, and I realise that merely an intellectual appreciation of such matters does not carry one far. At the same time the Vedanta, as well as other similar approaches, rather frighten me with their vague, formless incursions into infinity. The diversity and fullness of nature stir me and produce a harmony of the spirit, and I can imagine myself feeling at home in the old Indian or Greek pagan and pantheistic atmosphere, but minus the conception of God or Gods that was attached to it."

"Religion, as I saw it practised, and accepted even by thinking minds, whether it was Hinduism or Islam or Buddhism or Christianity, did not attract me. It seemed to be closely associated with superstitious practices and dogmatic beliefs, and behind it lay a method of approach to life's problems which was certainly not that of science. There was an element of magic about it, an uncritical credulousness, a reliance on the supernatural. Yet it was obvious that religion had supplied some deeply felt inner need of human nature, and that the vast majority of people all over the world could not do without some form of religious belief. It had produced many fine types of men and women, as well as bigoted, narrow-minded, cruel tyrants. It had given a set of values to human life, and though some of these values had no application to-day, or were even harmful, others were still the foundation of morality and ethics."

I would credit the Greek philosophers for secularism. — Athena

He could have received the idea from sources like this one:

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/03/17/the-rise-of-secular-religion/

Irrespective of the origins, the kernel of the issue lies in upholding the catholicity of Hinduism while constructing narrow walls between "us" and "them". This goes against the Upanishadic claim "Ekam sat Vipra Bahudha Vadanti" (Truth is one, the wise perceive it differently). The world has already suffered severely as a consequence of our failure to learn from each other and respect that which is good. We don't have to propose that distinctions are illusory, but making all the bridges collapse is unlikely to be a decent proposition. I hope that we can continue to do the right thing.

May you have a great day/night!

Mindless competition will spell doom for us. As degradation continues, one can only hope that reason will prevail. — Existential Hope

I can but agree with your two sentences above, completely, and continue to act against our species continued use of money, unfettered capitalism, willingness to follow others blindly and party politics.

Your comment reminded me of Wikipedia's description of Pandit Nehru: — Existential Hope

I am honoured to find common ground with the politics of Pandit Nehru.
I will still wag a disapproving finger at the small part of his legacy that involves his tryst with Mountbatten's wife, if it is true as reported.

I agree with you that secularism does not demand atheism but I think atheism accommodates secularism better than theism.

Irrespective of the origins, the kernel of the issue lies in upholding the catholicity of Hinduism while constructing narrow walls between "us" and "them". — Existential Hope

The problem with even a theism as universal as a pantheism is that it credits any human achievements to supernatural influences and reduces human reason, will, motivation and purpose to nothing more than a conduit for supernatural reason, will, motivation and purpose.
I think this is the curtain between you and I.
I insist in assigning credit to humans alone, and not (what I am 99.999% sure are non-existent) supernatural agents.
This curtain, of course can be opened and closed and we can still fully co-operate to help make the better world we both think can be achieved. A better and continuously improving human experience for those who come after us.

The antinatalists are short sighted fools, who utterly fail in their responsibility to help to make a better future for our continuing species, simply because they are so afraid of suffering.
In truth, suffering is limited, as an eternal hell of suffering, would make an individual into a creature that served no purpose, and learned to accept any level of pain as normal and probably even, eventually, enjoyable.
If I experience the 'limits of pain,' that can be done mentally or physically to a human, every given time unit, for tens/hundreds/thousands/millions of years, then such would eventually just become boring and meaningless, just like antinatalism.

Oh my goodness but how do we survive in the US if we think like you? — Athena

You have already achieved that survival. You have reached a grand laudable lifespan.

I am beating myself up for not being a more successful person. I didn't try hard enough, or was there value in being cooperative and not competitive? — Athena

I don't understand this mindset! What notion of success are you allowing to hold judgement over your life? Surely not the amassment of money and material goods.

I remember the 1970 recession when it was extremely hard to get a job and it was demanded that we dress up our resumes and perhaps exaggerate our qualifications. I was a domestic woman and just could not become competitive in that way. Not even college cured me of being a domestic woman. I knew the tricks for selling things and I could have been rich but I had to take a low-paying in-home aide job that fit my values. I have read women tend to be more attracted to meaningful work, and we do it for intrinsic reasons, not the money. Doing something just for the money was so wrong! That is being part of the problem. — Athena

Sounds to me that you know what your reasoning was, for not playing the money trick game, to buy cheap and sell dear, and become rich by doing so. Never forget the main problem the rich (especially the nefarious rich) have. If you can buy a Rolls Royce in the same way as an average person can buy a loaf of bread or a drink of water, then there is no joy, no satisfaction, no achievement whatsoever, in buying a Rolls Royce. This is why the rich get involved in weird shit, as they need to get involved in more and more extreme stuff, to feel anything.

I am not sure I am wrong. Now teachers and nurses are paid a lot and they want more, and this makes education and health care unavoidable. Our equality with men means more women and children are involved in crime as both victims and the ones who commit the crimes. Our technological development is doing fine, but our civilization seems to be spinning out of control.

Talk to me. Where do we go from here? — Athena

We keep on the same path Athena!
We do whatever we can as individuals to help create a better world.
We speak out and vote against unfettered free market capitalism. We support ideas such as Universal Basic Income. We advocate nurturing people over profits. We fight for the basic means of survival to be accepted as a human right or else we declare our society, still, uncivilised. We support the removal of money as the main means of exchange from global humanity. We totally reject all forms of religious authority, for ever and ever, regardless of how convinced that woo woo is real, any individual or group is.
I could go on, but I wonder when you will finally accept that you have been, and continue to be, a 'successful' human being. Why don't you take that very very deep, very slow, inhalation and exhalation of breath, over and over again, that confirms your 'at f****** last, acceptance of you as a successful human.' It was NEVER about becoming one of the rich and powerful. The vast majority of them are, and always have been, and always will be, unsuccessful human beings imo.

I don't think that claims about Lady Mountbatten make much sense. Not only were these people living livees that were always under the public eye, but Lord Mountbatten, Pandit Nehru, and many others were working so closely together that major incidents going unnoticed was unlikely (especially because there already were people who had begun to spread rumours). Also, here is what Lady Many Pamela said to Karan Thapar in an interview about this:

"I mean a very deep love. The kind of love that the old knights of old, a chivalric love really. Now days everybody assumes that it has to be a carnal love, but you can have just as deep an emotional love with two like souls in a way, people who really grow to understand each other, and to be able to listen to each other and to complement each other and find solace in each other."

In general, I would agree that atheists would have an easier time accepting secular principles than theists who are always tempted to intermix the state and religion. Personally, as a theist, I simply don't see much good coming from doing so.

Concerning theism, reason, and human achievements, I would say that human achievements are ours alone. Even if there is an ultimate mind/consciousness, we (or the material world) are not separate from it (this is what distinguishes this view from traditional monotheism) and our ability to reason is simply a smaller version of something grander. At the same time, one's will and the good they do with it are their own. I am not even sure if the possible all-pervasive consciousness is actually "supernatural" rather than a higher aspect of nature that could be understood someday (panentheism and panpsychism, which also interests non-theists like Goff, do often interact with each other). I certainly would not say that people were simply created out of absolutely nothing for the good of a celestial dictator. Rather than conduits, we can discover reflections of the ultimate. Hindus believe in a cyclical model in which individuals have always existed in some form. Mahatma Gandhi frequently focused on truth over scriptures and religious authority. I, too, think that to believe that some texts written thousands of years ago contain unblemished knowledge would be to disregard the trajectory of evolution and the necessity to keep learning. Here, the Nasadiya Sukta (a prominent part of Hinduism) comes to one's mind:

"Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it?
Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation?
Gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
Who then knows whence it has arisen?

Whether God's will created it, or whether He was mute;
Perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not;
The Supreme Brahman of the world, all pervasive and all knowing
He indeed knows, if not, no one knows"

—Rigveda 10.129 (Abridged, Tr: Kramer / Christian)
(Here, "Gods" refers to the kind of anthropomorphic conceptions of a higher power.)

Hopefully, we will continue use our fascinating faculties for the good of all.

Propaganda against the first Prime Minister is a passion for many:

https://www.altnews.in/never-ending-propaganda-to-malign-jawaharlal-nehru-an-alt-news-compilation/

In the final analysis, Mr Nehru's relationship with Mountbatten's wife does not dilute the validity of his political stance. At best, it can be used to question his moral stance or social stance and Mountbatten's daughter Pamela does indeed insist they had no sexual relations.

Hindus believe in a cyclical model in which individuals have always existed in some form. Hopefully, we will continue use our fascinating faculties for the good of all. — Existential Hope

But you still have to qualify and evidence brahman or reject it.

From Wiki: Brahman
In major schools of Hindu philosophy, it is the immaterial, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists. It is the pervasive, infinite, eternal truth, consciousness and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes. Brahman as a metaphysical concept refers to the single binding unity behind diversity in all that exists in the universe.

Do you hold that brahman is true?

In the final analysis, Mr Nehru's relationship with Mountbatten's wife does not dilute the validity of his political stance. — universeness

True

Do you hold that brahman is true?
3m — universeness

As I said earlier, I do believe that consciousness has a higher role to play here and that it exists everywhere (possibly in a rudimentary form as some panpsychists would believe). Although this may go against the beliefs of some Christians and Muslims, it can account for the difficulty in seeing how consciousness arises from a purely material reality. Whether one wishes to all this a mind/Brahman/computer is a matter of preference.

Also, I am not sure if it would be entirely accurate to say that Brahman does not change. Since I don't disconnect the world from the ultimate reality, Brahman must change in at least some way as we change and modify our environment.

Whether one wishes to all this a mind/Brahman/computer is a matter of preference. — Existential Hope

So what is your preference? It's ok if you would rather not say but then saying that you are a theist, suggests you do have a preference and this means you must defend and justify your preference.
Why does a cyclical theory, such as Roger Penrose's CCC not attract you more than theism when theism has such poor evidence and CCC at least has hawking points, that it can demonstrate in the cmb, that are further evidenced/supported by data from the planck and Wmap projects.
I know there are alternative possible explanations for Hawking points but none that are strongly compelling. What convinces you most towards theism?
The something from nothing concept is invalid as there is no exemplar in this universe that science is aware of, for the concept of 'nothing.'

I tend to fluctuate between Brahman and consciousness. As long as the word is not being used to describe a rigid concept of a divine that supposedly provided apparently inerrant ideas given thousands of years ago, I am fine with any choice.

I suppose that the concept of nothing (as a term of negation) could also depend upon the context (nothing in a box would differ from nothing in a vacuum), but I do think that, at the final point, despite the seemingly finite nature of the material reality, pure nothingness does not make sense. I am actually quite sympathetic to the CCC. As a Hindu, I don't believe in creatio ex nihilo (something must always exist according to Hindu panentheism) and prefer a cyclical model (which doesn't go against my theism, or, more accurately, panentheism). This article mentions that Sir Penrose himself seems similarities between his model and Hindu philosophy:

https://nationalpost.com/news/what-does-the-penrose-big-bang-theory-mean-for-religions

But panentheism insists that a god exists as a separate entity, outside of spacetime.
The idea that this panentheistic entity is omnipresent, does not equate such with panpsychism.
Panentheism is a 'rigid concept of a divine,' is it not? It is posited as a prime mover, a first cause an agent of mind/consciousness that created the universe or started the now eternal cycle but it is not deist, is it? not if it is not ever changed but is the cause of all change, which again reduces all change caused by humans to be nothing more than divine relayed intent. 'Outside of spacetime,' is surely supernatural.