Mytmouse, please from now on use the normal quote feature. It makes everyone's life much easier, thanks.

I agree that humanity can find unity in the golden rule, but religion is not the appropriate vehicle for this. Because while there are examples of the golden rule in most religions, there are also just as equally significant differences and contradictions between religions and how they see humanity as supposed to conduct their lives.

I don't see why unity can't come out of a secular and humanistic cause. In fact it is my contention that only when humanity will move past petty differences and attachment to their blind faith will they begin to see what we all have in common.

The appropriate vehicle for this is humanism because we are all humans. Not God, because not everyone believes in god.

Ah, but dogma and mechanics are foundational composites that comprise religion. Without dogma it is no longer faith, but mere belief. Without mechanics, scripture, and ritual it is no longer a religious institution but just a philosophy.

If you want to see unity through the golden rule, wouldn't it be a lot easier just to unite under the golden rule alone?

The context under what I meant 'real' is practicality to the human condition. But even under the context to which you maintain, I would differ highly in such a philosophy, and so would Buddhism; a religion which you profess has a lot in common with others.

Allow me to illustrate a very fundamental difference between two major religious schools of thought; mainly the east and west illustrated here by Christianity and Buddhism.

You subscribe to the theory that only the spiritual is real. That, I'm assuming, as spirits there exists a phenomena (actually, a real 'being') separate from material existence. This is a highly fundamental divergence from Buddhism that I don't think can find any way around contradiction no matter how loud you yell "the golden rule".

One of the most fundamental philosophies behind Buddhism is the idea of "Sunyata" (or "emptiness" or "voidness") and impermanence. Even though, as a secular atheist, even I subscribe to this Buddhist ideal; because it is perhaps the only religious idea that is scientifically and logically sustainable. Or, like Albert Einstein said, (I'm paraphrasing) Buddhism will probably become the cosmic religion of the future, because it is the only religion able to cope with science and logic.

The idea of Sunyata is what many Buddhists call "the Middle Way". Roughly, it is a compromise between the materialist idea that things exist inherently (as you propose with a 'spirit') and between the nihilist (in the Indian context of the word) idea that things do not exist (similar to the western word solipsism). What you propose with a spiritual existence is that there exists a spirit within us, that is essentially a permanent (eternal) and therefore separate existence. The idea of the spirit (and God for that matter) is simply incompatible with this foundation of Buddhism. Being that, both theories of God and spirit propose that there can (and is) things existing inherently; completely self-sustaining and permanent from the rest of existence and from other life. This is a fundamentally flawed idea when applied to anything resembling logic.

First of all, how can something exist inherently? In order for separation, that would imply that two totalities of existences can somehow be separated by themselves? Tell me, what exactly separates these totalities? Nothingness? Non-existence can't separate two existences because there is literally nothing to separate them. That is, 'nothing' isn't some void or empty 'space'; it is actually the absence of space-time and therefore it is a theory completely incompatible with our understandings of logic, reason, and science (which you unabashedly profess points to an inherent existence [God]).

Likewise, how can God create existence (that is, a totality of all things existing)? That would obviously imply that God would have to be separate from 'all things existing' and therefore in the category of things 'not existing'. By the very nature of theism, God doesn't exist! And then theists will say, well God is his own existence; or, his own self-sustaining totality of things existing (and presumably this existence doesn't abide by the same physical laws as ours). And there we are with the problem of things existing inherently (and anyway, if God existed inherently like this theists' reply would suggest, God wouldn't be able to interact with his creation!). And likewise, the theist philosophy is that "something can't come from nothing". In this argument we essentially run into the same exact paradox. God is considered something correct? So he must have came from something? And that something from something? And so on ad infinitum. Unless, of course, God isn't something and doesn't exist; but that would explain a lot and well that's just godless atheism that has no chance of uniting according to our holy texts in the Bahá'í Faith!

I would read this here: The Buddhist Attitude to God

But anyway, sorry for my digression.

The idea behind the Buddhist conception of "Sunyata" is that things aren't inherently existing but all dependent-arising. That is, everything of existence is essentially one. Everything is dependent upon their real and material causes and conditions. Things exist but they don't exist inherently.

This is simply incompatible with other religious sentiments.

I am separated from God (as I don't believe in him and I believe that it is highly unlikely that he exists in the first place), and my life hasn't been better. In fact, it is much better than when I was under the false comfort of the God-concept. I must be in unpleasant and torturing separation from God!

So I'm a binary thinker like the religious fundies because I recognize that not all the religions are the same, fundamentally?

Wrong. Many other religions don't believe in a creator, and/or in fact their philosophies are completely contrary to the idea of a creator as I have pointed out about Buddhism above!

Even religions with a god(s) posit much more complex identities of the nature of the universe than just a creator-god.

If you truly believe that's what I'm saying then you haven't been paying attention at all. I am merely pointing out that no one knows the truth, I'm not positing the alleged superiority of my truth at all. And religions believe they have it figured out, and in the process of dogmatic faith, it is mass delusion.

Hell, now that I found out you're Bahá'í Faith it becomes all clear to me. I thought you were attempting to make a rationalized debate about how religions are all united; but now it's clear that this is simply an idea that was professed to you in church and you soaked it up without question or inquiry because it is your faith.

There are many elements of truth in Mao's little red book. I would personally say a multitude more truth than the first most popular selling book the bible!

But we now know that much of that was lies. That is, even though there is some truth and falsehoods in Mao's book; Mao never practiced what he wrote, and perhaps he didn't even believe it himself! Like many instances of religion, communism was MIS-used, as you say, to control the masses. But unlike religion, communism's truth value is invested in the real material conditions of human reality and recognized the true common-hood of humanity and that is us as a species-being (as Marx says).

He didn't last very long because his legacy was destroyed by propaganda means, just like numerous other 'prophets' before and after Jesus. The story of Jesus wasn't squashed by the powers that be but eventually taken up and forced upon the masses. It's been a missionary religion ever since. Hardly a religion tolerant of other religions' beliefs, and hardly a source of unity!

Ah, well, I think I've realized that you're merely a puddle in a hole (if I may borrow the analogy from the late great Douglas Adams). You look at the hole you're in and you say, "well, this hole fits me quite perfectly; it seems as if all of nature is here to support me and for me to use, this must be evidence that someone (or something) created it!"

I'm just wondering if you believe the shape of a banana is evidence of God because allegedly it fits the human hand perfectly!

When in actuality, nature points directly away from the idea of a God. It points right toward the idea that everything is one and dependent upon each other and not existing inherently. That things formed and are forming due to natural selection and eons of material causes and conditions.