We can assert that any given definition fails to capture the totality of a described x. I use the definition I do because I think it clearly describes one identifying attribute of a religion, the identifying attribute relevant to separation of church and state. An attribute which all definitions, however expansive they may be, agree on.

Unification over normative content relative to the sacred.

(durkheims definition, by the by, allows for every individual human believer to have his very own religion - diversity is in no way a problem - again, it's a strength of that entire line of thinking)

---

Let's add to our Church of the Secular Sacred. All of their definitions , for everything, are completely and fully true. No need to worry about our own - they've got it all right.

What do we think about separation of church and state in their case? If we find it difficult to maintain an adherence to this notion in the case of a religion of nature, now made infallible for purposes of illumination, might we start to wonder whether we actually supported separation of church and state to begin with? So many responses have been to the effect of religion getting it wrong, or not being able to prove something.

That would be insisting on wrong and unproven things be separate from state. A true and proven religion would be exempt from separation, accurately described as such.

(November 17, 2020 at 5:14 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Unification over normative content relative to the sacred (durkheims definition, by the by, allows for every individual human believer to have his very own religion...)

"Unification" requires more than one instances of something. Either unification is unnecessary in your definition, or individuals cannot have their own private religion.

Ill point you to the many pages where I repeatedly addressed these concerns.

But who cares? Our Church of The Secular Sacred has all the right definitions for everything - and they seek to write or change some law to conform to their religious beliefs.

(November 17, 2020 at 5:14 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Unification over normative content relative to the sacred.

"Sacred" is a likewise problematic and ambiguous term. Everything and anything can be considered sacred, with or without religious underpinnings. Yet given that you're using the term to define religion, you've committed yourself to a non-religious definition of sacred. So what is your secular definition of sacred?

(November 16, 2020 at 6:10 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Me: "Religion is not a primitive form of science because it's claims tend to be established through revelation not experimentation" (page 7).

You: "This whole thread is merely John's attempt to equate science and religion as faith based views of reality" (page 16).

I never said or claimed that religion is a primitive form of science. That was someone else.

I said you are attempting to equate religion and science as faith based world views.

Try reading for comprehension next time.

Now, given you are unable to even identify which poster you are replying to, how credible do you think that makes you appear?

How am I attempting to equate religion and science as faith-based, if I said science is based on experiments, and religion on revelation lol?

(November 16, 2020 at 6:10 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Me: "Religion is not a primitive form of science because it's claims tend to be established through revelation not experimentation" (page 7).

You: "This whole thread is merely John's attempt to equate science and religion as faith based views of reality" (page 16).

And since we are on the topic, what is your god's policy on intentional lies? Hmmm?

---

(November 17, 2020 at 6:39 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: How am I attempting to equate religion and science as faith-based, if I said science is based on experiments, and religion on revelation lol?

Answer the question asked. How credible do you think you appear if you are unable to identify individuals you are replying to?

(November 17, 2020 at 6:25 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(November 17, 2020 at 5:14 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Unification over normative content relative to the sacred.

"Sacred" is a likewise problematic and ambiguous term. Everything and anything can be considered sacred, with or without religious underpinnings. Yet given that you're using the term to define religion, you've committed yourself to a non-religious definition of sacred. So what is your secular definition of sacred?

Which is why the definition I used leaves it specifically ambiguous.  The sacred can be credibly and accurately defined in any way, but a religion is defined by unification over normative content relative to the sacred no matter how sacred is conceived of by that religion.

In a religion of nature, nature is likely sacred.  Could be a left handed widget, tho.  It really doesn't matter.  Separation of church and state isn't on account of whether anyone gets the right set of sacred articles..but if you really must - whatever those proper sacred articles are, our Church of The Secular Sacred has them right.

I doesn't go,"no law.....except in the case of a true and proven religion, except in the case of a religion with the proper sacred articles, except in the case of a religion informed by scientific experimentation".

What do you think about separation in their case? If you spent less time fielding doomed objections to uncontroversial and demonstrable aspects of religion you might realize that this is the dream setup for you. I fixed your infantile bullshit about a separation of science and state by positing a religion that you were simply incapable of conceiving. You might actually get a decent answer to the items in your op q, assuming that answers about any of this shit was ever the point of making the thread to begin with. If you're wondering about science, and religion, and separation, and specifically how they might all relate and in what circumstances something thoroughly scientific might still be subject to the maxim - here it is.

(November 17, 2020 at 7:16 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Which is why the definition I used leaves it specifically ambiguous.  The sacred can be credibly and accurately defined in any way, but a religion is defined by unification over normative content relative to the sacred no matter how sacred is conceived of by that religion.

You have no definition for sacred and yet built your definition of religion around it?

Durkheims definition, and the sacred is defined by the religious themselves, as has been repeatedly explained to you.

Again, doesn't matter. If there's such a thing as the proper sacred articles, our church of the secular sacred has them. Does that mean that the church of the secular sacred is not subject to separation?