What can replace God??
Facts:
1. I m an atheist, who has huge respect for the ones who believe in any kind of God. I m kind of "envy" them also. Cause at least (even with wrong way, imo of course) they have answered to their existential questions! And I haven't. Not at all.
2. The vast majority of people worldwide believe in God. Any kind of God, i don't care even if that is "Yellow Pigs" or "Holly Birds".
So these people "take" the "proper rules" about ethics and being good in general to their societies from their God. Cause they think they will get some kind of after death Reward for being good.
3. Despite all these religions and Gods, we STILL face a huge chaos in societies. An enormous one! ?Many atheists accuse religions for that mess and I was always wondering "aren't people behind religions?! Wtf?. Are these religions alien manufactured to earth?! Aren't people who maintain them, and still want them in their lives?Accuse people! "
Questions:
?1. So are we sure that world would be a better place without religions?! At the intellectual level that most people are worldwide? (And when I say intellectual, I don't mean only intelligence but also self cultivation in general.The humanity average mind level, if that helps you to understand more how I mean it)
If you tell all these people "hey! you only have this life and that's it man! You become dust and earth afterwards. No heaven, no afterlife, no fucking virgins and drinking cocktails. No REWARD in general for being a good guy in your life.
Are we sure that this won't bring bigger chaos to societies?? I strongly strongly doubt.
So for me religions are a "necessary" human invention. We still need them.
2.If you gonna make people stop believing in religions then WHAT could replace God? How can you convince people to be "good" ???
My only long guess is Logic. That vast majority of people worldwide reach to a high average intellectual level, as to think Logically and realize that acting "good" when you live in a society is firstly for your own benefit!
But first I doubt that vast majority of people will ever come to that level and second even if they do, thinking Logically maybe isn't enough at the end at all for convincing someone to be "good".
So what else could take God's role to "give" the Ethics that people should follow??
1. I m an atheist, who has huge respect for the ones who believe in any kind of God. I m kind of "envy" them also. Cause at least (even with wrong way, imo of course) they have answered to their existential questions! And I haven't. Not at all.
2. The vast majority of people worldwide believe in God. Any kind of God, i don't care even if that is "Yellow Pigs" or "Holly Birds".
So these people "take" the "proper rules" about ethics and being good in general to their societies from their God. Cause they think they will get some kind of after death Reward for being good.
3. Despite all these religions and Gods, we STILL face a huge chaos in societies. An enormous one! ?Many atheists accuse religions for that mess and I was always wondering "aren't people behind religions?! Wtf?. Are these religions alien manufactured to earth?! Aren't people who maintain them, and still want them in their lives?Accuse people! "
Questions:
?1. So are we sure that world would be a better place without religions?! At the intellectual level that most people are worldwide? (And when I say intellectual, I don't mean only intelligence but also self cultivation in general.The humanity average mind level, if that helps you to understand more how I mean it)
If you tell all these people "hey! you only have this life and that's it man! You become dust and earth afterwards. No heaven, no afterlife, no fucking virgins and drinking cocktails. No REWARD in general for being a good guy in your life.
Are we sure that this won't bring bigger chaos to societies?? I strongly strongly doubt.
So for me religions are a "necessary" human invention. We still need them.
2.If you gonna make people stop believing in religions then WHAT could replace God? How can you convince people to be "good" ???
My only long guess is Logic. That vast majority of people worldwide reach to a high average intellectual level, as to think Logically and realize that acting "good" when you live in a society is firstly for your own benefit!
But first I doubt that vast majority of people will ever come to that level and second even if they do, thinking Logically maybe isn't enough at the end at all for convincing someone to be "good".
So what else could take God's role to "give" the Ethics that people should follow??
Comments (309)
You say it for fun. But I have also considered that possibility also.
Too late.
Can't see how can happen. Seems that money is one of the main reasons that chaos would be greater in societies without God. Not a part of the solution.
I think that we have to go behind the facade of what was offered by religion and look to the possibilities of imagination. It is not simply about overthrowing religion, but finding connections with the deepest aspects of ourselves, including the numinous and the essential values for living.
What makes you think religions or god beliefs make people behave morally? I have worked with prisoners for 30 plus years. Many of them have believed in God. This does not prevent them from being violent, from stealing, lying, murdering, dealing drugs, abandoning their children... Name the crime; a religious person is likely to have done it. Prisons are full of men and women who believe in God.
If people are going to do good the source of this transcends any belief in God. Just consult the Taliban.
The other problem with a belief in God is that theists have no moral foundation. What they think is good or bad depends on their personal preferences. Or how they interpret a given holy book. Or what their subjective interpretation on God's will might be.
Just consider issues like gay rights, the role of women, drug policy, capital punishment, euthanasia - these moral issues do not unite theists. They are all over the place when it comes to deciding upon such moral questions because in the end they have to decide what they think God wants. No one knows the answer to this so we have religions that totally disagree with each the about morality. People still have to decide for themselves regardless of theism.
I don't. I just think in many people helps. Cause of the "fear" of God punishment, or the "reward" they try to act good. Even not achieving it always. But at no point of my post I mentioned that as someone to act moral has to believe in God.
Quoting Tom Storm
And atheists have??
Quoting Tom Storm
Taliban are evil cause of religion? They are evil cause they choose to be. Religion is their cover and their "excuse" as to act like that. There are millions other islamists that don't "translate" the Korani the shitty way they do. Evil person choose to be evil inside him allready.Its not the religion which makes him evil. I just say that without religions evil people might be even more.
Quoting Tom Storm
And unite atheists?
Quoting Tom Storm
I don't doubt at all about your experience or what you mention here. But it is not what I claimed.
Well said. the notions of a common good and the pursuit of happiness do not appear or disappear if one supposes or denies divine agency.
I think it is perfectly possible to construct a moral system without religious beliefs. Upbringing, education, and a legal system would be quite adequate to enforce proper conduct.
However, I think the evidence to support the belief that the world would be a "better place" without religion just isn't there.
Of course not. That's not my point. My point is that theists and atheists share a moral starting point. Personal preference.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Err... no. They are an example of fundamentalism. They certainly believe they are doing good and bringing God's will to earth.
Quoting dimosthenis9
As above. Atheists and theists share the same basis for morality.
Quoting dimosthenis9
I was answering your question below.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Replacing god/s isn't an issue since theism doesn't lead to moral behavior. Your wider question about convincing people to be good I didn't answer since you made assumptions along the way which needed clarification.
You can't convince people to be good (whatever that is). You can't even convince people to wear masks.
Most folk are above average? I once had the task of explaining, to a director in the Department of Education, why we could not have more kids scoring above average in standardised tests.
For sure you can't just simply throw religions out of the window one day. I agree with that work with ourselves that you suggest and I think it plays a huge role as someone to act "good" in societies. But how you could convince people to do that is the real question?
So folk think religion is problematic because the belief is unjustified; that there is no evidence to suport religious contentions.
I don't agree. The problem is not lack of evidence. The problem is belief in the face of the evidence.
It is belief that the wine is blood, that the bread is flesh. It is belief that god would have you sacrifice your eldest son. It is belief that women cannot drive, that guns bring peace, that homosexuality is unnatural.
It's the basic dishonesty of religion that renders it culpable.
Most folks are below average nowadays. What I wrote was an "if" scenario and I just don't know if that will ever happen indeed.
I'm not sure I got your point here. So you think that any kind of belief is problematic and not just religions?
Quoting Banno
And who needs that dishonesty at the very end as to maintain it? Aren't people who actually need that "dishonesty" as to follow some rules?
So you think that even without religions things would be the same more or less ? No better or worse?
Quoting Tom Storm
Hmm. How can the base be the same when theists get moral rules from some God and atheists don't? I don't think it's same base here.
I find that possible also. But how that construction would work for folk troubles me. What would be the fundamental base of that moral system? From where morals would come from? And how we could convince people follow it without any God "punishment"?
There's the rub.
And @dimosthenis9's asking for a "fundamental base of that moral system" misunderstands this.
Suppose there is a "fundamental base"; it remains that one must chose to follow it, or no.
On what basis could one make the choice, without already having made that choice?
Hence, as I suppose you might agree, the point is not to follow some fundamental moral system, but to become a better person.
Hence, Virtue Ethics.
What can replace god? Silence.
Well, personally, when I judge the ethical value of a particular action, I decide whether that action is "good" or "bad" on the basis of upbringing. This tends to be my primary motivation in avoiding a particular action, for example, not the thought that I may be punished by God, though I can't rule out that possibility should I choose to take a different course of action.
I think children are quite good at learning what is right and what is wrong if they have parents who are themselves good role models.
It would need to start with basic things such as discipline, self-control, and cleanliness which is something that even animals can learn without any fear of God.
In those cases where upbringing and education fail to have the desired effect, there would be fear of the law or social disapproval. But I agree that sometimes it may be easier to tell children that God will punish them to instill right behavior. And, as I said, the possibility of divine punishment cannot be ruled out.
Gaism fulfills everything a religion needs to.
Gaia created us as a species, and individually gave each of us life. We all live our lives under Her purview. When we die we return to Her.
Gaia is so far beyond our ability to understand that She is, relative to our puny minds (which are after all merely tiny, gnarled bits of Her), effectively transcendent, and infinite
We are blaspheming terribly against this living god, by desecrating her body. In consequence, we are literally descending into hell.
The only way we can escape this fate is to regain our relationship and respect of the real deity.
If there is anything that can still save us, it is mass adoption of the actual, non fairy tale religion.
What I say is a reframing of a materialist worldview, rather than woo. I have little interest in woo.
In response to your query about how it is possible to convince someone to act in a way which is 'good' without the idea of God, I think that it is about appealing to the person's better nature. In many ways it is just about removing all the fear involved in religion based on divine wrath and punishment. In some ways it may be simpler to explain according to reason, as well as to emotive and intuitive aspects of the picture. Personally, I grew up with discussion about what constituted sin and in a lot of ways the focus was on petty matters rather than the essentials of morality and ethics.
Religious enthusiasm and secular enthusiasm are nearly indistinguishable, no matter the contents of their thoughts. I would prefer some religion to Juche socialism.
But I think one can appeal to the conscience no matter the content of one’s beliefs. I seem to carry around this unseen witness to keeps tabs on my own behavior.
I think this is excellent advice.
Quoting Banno
Yes, I have learned to understand morality as performative.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Quoting dimosthenis9
The point already made is that not many care what a 'god wants' (which is why prisons are full of theists). And no one knows what God wants - it's subjective interpretation. I fail to see how God helps in any way on this matter. Some Christians think God condones killing (capital punishment, self defense, war, homosexuality) some are conscientious objectors and refuse killing in ANY circumstance. The decision is made via personal choice. God itself remains silent.
There are always those who want to eff the ineffable. They don't know what the eff they are talking about.
But of course one must chose to follow it. And for sure not everyone will choose that. I just ask what kind of fundamental base could replace God as to convince as many people as religions do now to follow it. If of course there can be actually one.
Quoting Banno
On the basis that you teach kids for
example to "act good" cause God says so. Can that be replaced with something else? That's my question. What different can you teach them that could be so convincing as religions?
Quoting Banno
Sure I agree. But what I am curious about is how you can achieve that goal for humanity without Gods? Shouldn't something take his place as to urge people to become better persons indeed?You ask from someone to be moral. Shouldn't you give him a good reason to act like that also?
Quoting Banno
God seems to me pretty silent already all these years.
For me God helps as not more people to act evil. Of course is always a matter of choice what you will do at the end. But imo things would be much worse, at least now. Many people try to act good cause of God's fear or reward. They even push themselves to do that. And that's social useful at least in my eyes. Without it, we might have even more people who would choose evil, than we already have. Maybe more work for you in prison also.
Lots of people think this. But what is the evidence?
Quoting dimosthenis9
I doubt this is true. And I suspect it goes the other way - a lot of morally repugnant behavior happens because of god beliefs - female circumcision; homophobia; misogyny; capital punishment; prohibitions on birth control (leading to AIDS and overpopulation and cruelty to unwanted children).
I don't think you can say that the plus side is dominant.
I also think any moral system based on fear is not a moral system. That's mafia morality.
What is Juche socialism?
Quoting NOS4A2
Interesting opinion.Consiense might actual be helpful in playing God's role.It gives you both reward and punishment indeed. But you have to find then a great way as to "communicate" that to people and make them realize that.
Still a necessary mafia.
Quoting Tom Storm
Are these what Christianity teaches for example and you blame religions for that?Don't think so. All what you mention happen cause people fail to act good EVEN when they believe in God. I m scared of what is going to happen if you tell humans that God isn't "there" anymore.
Educational system should turn into that direction I think.
:up: :smirk:
Quoting dimosthenis9
Given that our problems are man-made and consecrated / canonized by religion (i.e. the cure that infects us), make the world "a better place" for whom to do what?
Replace h. sapiens.
(A) Breed sociopathy / psychopathy out of the species. (B) Replace the hedonic treadmill with eudaimonism as basis of socioeconomy and therefore life-long pedagogy. (C) Good luck with that ...
Ethics are not "given" (re the Euthyphro) but is the reflective application – praxis – of empathy and fairness based on the constitutive eusociality of (our) species for adaptively striving against (our) atavistic, cognitive defects (i.e. reducing (our shared) miseries).
Quoting dimosthenis9
"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion." ~Steven Weinberg
Yes, this is what many Christians teach and believe. All over the world. And then there's Islam... You are not following my point. Religions have interpretations of God's will. Many of these interpretations result in terrible harm and behavior.
I have no idea what Gaiasm is and don't think ever heard it. But I will check it only because I liked the passionately way you talked about it.
Don't agree with Mr Steven. Not at all.
Quoting 180 Proof
Of course they are not "given" by anyone and are human inventions. I just say that the base that is used for these "inventions" is God. That's what I mean when I write "given"
Quoting 180 Proof
These are the only ways to convince someone be "good"? Hmm.. Ok.
Quoting 180 Proof
Hmm..What about for us for start?
Christians are people. It's not Christianity's fault that people make shit out of it. It's the same way in what we talked before with Talibans. You can't blame Islam.
Quoting Tom Storm
So why don't you blame the people who make these wrong interpretations and you blame religions?
Never understand that really, as I wrote when I opened the thread also. If I tell you to do something and you go and do the exact opposite. Would it be my fault that I told you something from the beginning cause I should have predicted that there is the danger for wrong interpretation??
Quoting dimosthenis9
Yes - that is my exact point.People practice religion and interpret it - how do you know which version is correct? Deciding on this means you are interpreting God's will.
Your question is what is morality without God? My response is that a god derived morality is people choosing a range of options they think god wants, with no consistency and often many harmful results. There is no single god based morality. It is a total mess of sects, decisions, branches, interpretations, various pastors/vicars/archbishops/popes and then there's the differing religions themselves.
Again, you seem not to be engaging with the key issue. The problem is religion as practiced. It is, for instance, official Catholic doctrine that no birth control must be practiced ever - no condoms or the pill. Immense harm comes from this. You say people 'make shit out of it' - that could be seen as a disrespectful way to describe people's sincere pious beliefs. Abortion; the status of women; homophobia; much religious doctrine holds dreadful positions on these issues. Just read The Bible, you'll see.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Again you miss the key point religion is interpretation. How do you know which one is wrong? That itself requires interpretation.
Reality? Truth? Learning?
We can pass moral judgment on religious texts, they therefore do not define morals.
If the diverse religious adherents didn't speak on their behalfs, the gods would become silent.
If you believe in rebirth, it automatically means that you want to preserve the future world.
Do you need a God for souls to exist?
Read some histories of religion (re: e.g. Crusades, Inquisition, witch hunts, pogroms, "promised land" ethnic cleansings, "holy wars", supports for marital rape & genital mutilation & homophobia & slavery & human sacrifices ...) Weinberg's observation is an apt generalization.
How we use (exploit, waste, despoil) the world is the problem that's at the root of all of our other problems, therefore we can't "make the world a better place" for ourselves as a species so long as we inhabit the world.
What can replace Santa Claus? Magic? Faith? :roll:
I do. But I don't find them helpful to my question.
Unless If your answers like "replace homo" and "breed psychopathy out of species" have some kind of hidden message. Then no, didn't get it at all.
Quoting 180 Proof
You do exactly the same as most atheists who blame religions for people's acts. As I already mentioned when I opened the topic here .What you mention is Human history not religion history. Is religion a magic pill that transforms people from good to evil? I haven't even read any religion to support "go and kill others cause God wants". Well maybe except Satanism but anyway.
Humanity is full of atrocities. Others "excuse" their acts with "God's will", others with something else. It's always people behind them. Religions don't make them evil. It's just the excuse they use to themselves for choosing to be evil. I don't think that if the world had no religions and Gods would be a better place.I find it very possible more people to choose evil at the end.
Well no if you believe in rebirth you have already a reason to "act good". But most people who believe in rebirth don't they follow some kind of religion already? Don't know, just asking.
And well then, we would have to convince more people start believing on rebirth. But without any God for that, wouldn't that be difficult to happen?
So what you suggest is like making even harder criticism in religious texts as to show people how wrong they are? Or I didn't get it right?
And if yes, won't we need give them afterwards another reason as to "convince" them acting moral?
Religion is human behaviour (this is your whole point) so religious history is human history. I can only imagine that you are having a joke with this ongoing argument. No one can miss the point this many times unless it's deliberate.
Why have atheists rejected a creator? My best guess is that they've got an alternate answer for the fundamental question of metaphysics: why is there something rather than nothing? The short answer: Chance. The long answer: Epistemic/Innate Chance.
Ergo, Chance has replaced God in the mind of atheists.
:point: God does not play dice.
No. There is not any evidence that 'something & not-something' (i.e. atoms & void) were "created"; therefore, there's is not a "creator" or cause of 'something & not-something'. Best evidence: 'something & not-something' is just the brute fact. "Chance" merely describes the contingent interplay, or transformations, of 'something into not-something into something-else' ad infinitum and is, therefore, a derivative effect and not a cause of (chance) itself.
:fire:
NB: I am not an unbeliever (i.e. non-supernaturalist) because I am an naturalist; I am a naturalist because I am an unbeliever (i.e. non-supernaturalist).
Quoting dimosthenis9
:yawn:
Read some religious scriptures and, as I suggested before, histories of religions. Here's a link to a webpage listing quotes from the Hebrew & Christian scriptures commanding, in effect, "go and kill others cause God wants".
https://www.openbible.info/topics/killing_non_believers
I am an atheist but I don't tend to trade in answers. And I don't buy the question: why is there something rather than nothing? It's not a question I have ever asked or have ever thought would be worth asking.
Well, the question is about you unless you're nothing! Nevertheless, anekantavada - different strokes for different folks.
Good that you're an atheist but remember, from a certain point of view, you do have a God although you may not think so or worship faer. This God is Chance.
Seems they do miss it despite all these though.
My point and skepticism is that religions and God in all over human history were the attempt of people as :
1. To give to themselves some answers to their existential questions
and 2. To set some "moral" rules as people to be able live in societies.
Humanity needed both of them.
I don't support religions are good. I wrote I am an atheist from the beginning. I support that without them maybe things were even worse. Interpretations of religions as you mentioned bring mess. Yes of course they do. But I m scared that this mess would be even greater if you can't give another "excuse" for people to act "moral".
Not all people who believe in religions act and think the way you mentioned. Some of them act really good cause of God's fear and after death reward. What would happen then with all these people? What would convince them to act good?
So you already have evil people (theists or atheists) and then there is the possibility of good theists to become evil also! So more evil at the end.
I started this topic cause I m very concerned with the way that people become atheists more and more nowadays, mostly in western countries. And that is, without self cultivation, without truly working with themselves as to realize why you have to be "good". Just with social media-ish aphorisms about God and make fun of people who believe.
Ethics will become a crucial matter in the future imo. And not sure if that will be better .
I can't get any clearer than that. If you still don't understand my point then I am obviously unable to explain it right.
There is no such thing in Bible at least. Since I have studied it. If you search you will find all kind of stupid interpretations about religions and killing people.You will find everything.You can't blame religions for that, makes no sense.
Sorry making you sleepy. Wasn't my intention.
More on 'God commands killing ...'
e.g.
The Canaanites under Moses and Joshua (Numbers 21:2-3; Deuteronomy 20:17; Joshua 6:17, 21)
The Amalekites annihilated by Saul (1 Samuel 15)
https://www.bethinking.org/bible/old-testament-mass-killings
You don't provide anything else than aphorisms to religions.I studied Bible and at no point I got the meaning to "go and kill others". As millions of believers also. If you got that meaning then ok.
Wanna answer my initial questions also as to get at least what YOU think? Cause you have write everything except that!
Societies would be better without religions?
Can we provide people with better ways to act "moral" than religions do? And if yes how?
Simple answers with no "Homo sapiens" would be appreciated as to get your point. Ok you don't agree with me.Got that. Tell me at least your point!
I don't think you are a genuine interlocutor so I will leave this to the sensible arguments of 180 Proof.
Take care
If you say so.
Quoting 180 Proof
So things would be the same for you.Ok at least I got where you stand now.
Quoting 180 Proof
Didn't know there were any wrong questions.
Quoting 180 Proof
At least we agree on that.
Uh huh.
Interlocutors should agree with you as to be genuine? I respect your opinion just don't agree with what you support. Take care also.
https://www.bethinking.org/bible/old-testament-mass-killings
And you support that these aren't interpretations? It gives all kind of alternative explanations and you present them as facts of urging to kill others. Ok.
There are two ways you can defend God:
1. Prove that the genocide recorded in the Bible didn't occur at all. Finish the opponent before fae even starts :chin:
2. Prove that the mass murder was justified in the sense good.
I'd like to see which you pick and how might you furnish the relevant proof.
But why to defend God especially since I don't believe in any God?
I don't doubt that many massive killings occurred in the "name" of religions. But that's what people did as to excuse their evil behavior and achieve their personal goals (greed etc).
All I'm saying is that God and religions offer a "moral" base which is still necessary to societies. Despite all the bad things happened from people who use them for evil,still the good things that brought to human societies overcome the bad ones.
And without any God-ish moral system things would might be worse. I m not even sure about it. Just saying my opinion.
It is as simple as that. Just many atheists turn into bulls when they hear anything about "God and religions" and accuse them for every human harm that show up throughout history. I have met many of them in my real life so their stubbornness doesn't surprise me. It's the new trend to be Atheist nowadays and just make fun and accuse others who believe.
This is an example of what I mean. Of course not - you agreeing with me is not important. It's your approach. It seems like you are taking the piss. If you are serious then my apologies. I suggest you embrace a religion as soon as you can since you are already mounting a standard apologist's argument and style. :joke:
Quoting dimosthenis9
WTF? :chin:
Well my point is that I (and no person in history, probably) have never seen an example of nothing before and I doubt that nothing ever existed - since it would need to exist to 'be' nothing, hence not nothing but something- hey, this sounds like one of your capers... For me the argument is this... something. The end. :joke:
[quote=Wayfarer]There's another principle in Buddhist philosophy, that of 'prapanca', meaning 'conceptual proliferation'. It is literally 'becoming entangled in thought.'[/quote]
Join the club! :joke:
You accused me of not being genuine interlocutor and I m the one who takes the piss also?! Ok.
Quoting Tom Storm
That's not gonna happen.
Since 180proof got it and agreed on what you said. Can you explain that "wtf" to me also?
What I wrote comes to contradiction with the link that provides "possible explanations" for why the genocide occurred?
At which point of my previous posts I denied the massive killings that happened in the name of God?? I just say that they were cause of interpretations that people used for their evil. And not cause Christianity, for example, refers to "kill others".
Quoting dimosthenis9
No - I'm saying that you may not be genuine because you appear to be taking the piss.
Quoting dimosthenis9
You'll be a lot happier given that you are so concerned about the implications of plummeting world morality if belief in God ends. You can help avoid this disaster by restoring belief in God through, for instance, getting on a philosophy forum and posing dilemmas about the decline in the belief in God and how this is an alarming phenomenon. Or something similar.
That's based in your opinion that I got pissed of course. Which has never happened.
Quoting Tom Storm
Thank you for the sarcasm .You surely are a genuine interlocutor.
(1) Propensity is a nice word I found in Popper.
This is a rejection of a religion that holds to those views you have specified, but not of all religion. By analogy, a government that prohibits women from driving, advocates gun ownership for peace, and that forbids homosexuality is a government you might disagree with, but it is not a good argument that there is a lack of evidence to believe in the value of government. You are simply pointing out those things you'd rather not exist in your ideal government.
This is to say that you can hand select the worst qualities of religion to build the weakest strawman imaginable, but it's just as possible to build a steelman, choosing only the best qualities. It would seem the inclination would be to form a religion that didn't violate all you held dear, considering the goal is to establish what you hold as the ideal.
I don't know any religion that fulfils that. It would be a kind of Hinduism without gods or Buddhism with souls.
What I'm very interested in, what would you call someone who doesn't believe in gods but in souls?
So there was a fox, and he saw these delicious grapes, but they were just out of reach, so he jumped and jumped to try to get them. Despite his best efforts, he was unable to get a single grape. He walked away and said aloud "Who cares! They were sour anyway."
Such is the fable of sour grapes. You don't get what you want, so you claim it wasn't worth getting anyway. It explains part of the way humans behave and gives us some insight.
Archeological evidence has established there never have been talking foxes, and even among non-talking foxes, we've never seen one that has shown such complex psychological behavior that would make us think foxes are able to convince themselves that things they cannot obtain really aren't worth obtaining anyway. In short, after some degree of analysis, it turns out the story is complete bullshit, and it's embarrassing really that adults might have entertained the thought that foxes do as depicted in the story.
Ergo, the entire story of the fox and the grapes should therefore be rejected, right?
If this conclusion is wrong, then why is biblical literalism something I should be interested in?
To the old Greeks law giving was about the basis on which natural phenomena would settle down between periods of upset. Some extended that to mores but only in the sense that they saw themselves as part of the world. Their relationship with that god or with the gods plural, which were deliberately portrayed in fanciful terms so as to try (unsuccessfully) to not become intense, was metaphorical and not personal.
Epicurus warned most poignantly against superstition.
I wish a concept would catch on which (I seem to remember) actually existed in my young day, namely to be agnostic (usually calling oneself atheist) but look for reasons to base one's moral outlook on wholesome secular principles.
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics are mainly mental ideas for thinking. I don't think his attitude to "god" or "gods" was anywhere near as "moralistic" as has usually become commonplace since.
The merest mention of "god" seems to lead most people to this moralistic concept which doesn't warm, doesn't encourage, it just takes away from us. I sense a lot of people are getting "triggered". Using the three stages of perception Husserl identified occurring BEFORE we reach the judgment phase, we could fortify ourselves in the face of the "meme" aimed at our habitus, by revaluing as Nietzsche calls for.
Nietzsche who lived in the run up to Kaiser Bill times poignantly shows us a man with a lantern looking for "god" in daylight saying "we have killed him you and I" meaning the oppressing bourgeoisie. A "superman" or "overman" (English prepositions don't get it right) is someone that has to rise out of oppressing precisely by becoming their own free self. (The overgrowth in fundamentalism was a later counter-misreaction to the scene around Kaiser Bill whose supporters had emphasized how Christian they were.) I sense there is a lot of quasi-indexicality in Nietzsche - speaking in the voice of his characters, often without speech marks (some commentators hold Hume and Plato are doing this too).
Respect the other (e.g family members or employees) enough to leave them free as ends to themselves, and not your means to use only; don't go as far as despoiling the jungle or plain that helps you eat or the earth that helps you build.
What and who is, calls me to respect it / them: my own original version of is = ought. Apparently Hume was an ironist. Hume was probably only saying we won't catch many people inferring (to any partial degree) from is to ought because that's how people around him were, and wasn't laying down a categorical entailment in the opposite direction.
Virtues = going equipped.
Morals are to do with morale (Julian Baggini says).
When we de-intensify both morals and the optional extra religion, the latter might simply be a non-heavy going personal relationship, singly whether sometimes in the company of fellows or not. A god worth its salt doesn't need "defending" in the way usually thought. I have lots of affinity with honest atheistic agnostics. That my own discovered "redefining" of "god" differs from all those I meet reassures me (and amuses them). Thus, any existence or absence of mere religion around individuals left to choose (rather than pressured by agitators), ought to become a non-issue.
I think that if Dimosthenes9 decouples and unlinks religion from morality, and vice versa, he can hope that people will look for morals that boost morale from all wholesome sources no matter what the badge or the brand name.
... that religious texts don't define morals, aren't authoritative, and the diverse gods aren't around, are useless/irrelevant in the matter.
It's on us, always was, so we better cultivate and nurture moral awareness.
Prescribed rule-following maintained by hope for eternal bliss (reward, safety), and fear of damnation forevermore (punishment, threat), doesn't make a person moral, though it could make them scary/dangerous. It’s merely motivated self-interest. Sure, if there are persons out there that would misbehave if not for a virtual leash (hope for, or fear of, otherworldly consequences), then, by all means, they should remain leashed.
Short answer: Biblical literalism is a sine qua non for Christianity. Miracles, the smoking gun for God, don't mean anything otherwise.
Long answer: There's a dilemma for Christians which is that either the Bible is a metaphor or it's literal. If it's a metaphor, miracles are impotent. If it's literal, explain how genocide is good.
I find it fascinating to ponder the many usages of the term "square":
- in logic - "it squares" (is consistent)
- in aesthetics - geometry, which assists calculations and illustrates relationships
- in epistemology - stemming from the above, and consistency again
- in ethics of relationships, "have you squared it with the boss" and such like.
Imposing zero sum terms is bad interhuman arithmetic.
The opposite of a right is a wrong. Do they realise that, when something is stolen from them?
First off, my apologies if you didn't like the way I phrased my response - WTF? The What The F**k expression carries a deep meaning for me. It represents WTFery - claims, attitudes, beliefs, emotions, whathaveyou, that make zero sense to the listener/reader but...take heed...not necessarily because the claims, attitudes, beliefs, emotions, etc. are inherently nonsensical.
You want to explain the genocide as chronicled in the Bible in a way that's coherent with our understanding of God and what morality is. Why else would you want to explain it?
If so, only two choices for you:
1. Show that the mass murders didn't actually occur. Hanover probably thinks its a metaphor.
2. Show that offing people en masse is good.
What's your move?
Texts deliberately made semi-nonsensical are only authoritative in combination with accompanying teaching of meanings, and if that doesn't deserve our freely discerning respect we shouldn't give our loyalty.
Miracles are only ever relative, and have been far overblown: the recent apologetists have misled the public on this point among others.
Rabble rousers have been setting up gullible unthinking "believers" with simplistic caricatures of "belief". I've followed this for two thirds of a century, and researched about the period before. Just sidestep all the bad manoeuvres on all sides. As for anomials, if you can't ignore them (for example if they are brazenly making an excuse for stealing) challenge them regarding stealing, in public so that others will understand. Morale-supporting morals are public property and don't belong to eccentric ghetto dwellers and their proselytisers. Encourage your peers to become honest agnostics.
Oh no no, my apologies then that I didn't get the deep meaning of your "wtf" argument! Now I do, and seems perfectly appropriate to use it now in what are you saying. You give me 2 choices for an issue that I don't doubt!
I explain AGAIN that for me God and religions offer people a moral base as to act "good".Is it the best moral base? For sure no!
Of course throughout history mass murders happened in the name of God. I don't question that. But that is cause human interpretation of religions as to act evil!
I can't talk for all religions since I have only studied the Bible. And I haven't seen any part where it is mentioned to go and kill others!Many metaphors used for sure but in general it gives people a constant urge to act good and compassionate.
Atheists would just take some lines out of the Bible and say "hey see that! It says go and kill" without caring for the meaning that comes from all the rest that are written before and after this line.
But despite all these people STILL make chaos and take advantage of Christianity as to act evil and excuse it. Wanna say that religion is a bad moral system and that's what brings all the chaos? I hear that.
Is it the only one though that we still have as to convince people to act good? Yes it is. Unless you have something else in mind.
My wondering is what is the alternative?? What could replace that and in what way we could convince people to act good then? And I don't even say that I m right on that! Just my personal thoughts on that issue which bothers me. I was really careful with the wording of my questions.
So my next move if you still don't see my point?
Well I drop the mic! That's it.
Thank you for humoring me and my quirks. :up:
Quoting dimosthenis9
This is all very convenient. The good you attribute to God, the evil to humans. You forget that humans are supposed to have done what God commanded be done - the genocide the Bible speaks of was God's will.
Quoting dimosthenis9
That I have no alternative but to kill you in cold blood doesn't make it right to do so.
If Jesus rising from the dead was actually him getting up from a dreamless sleep, Christianity is in trouble, big trouble.
Didn't you see my responses and what did you think of them? I tried to cover the original ground.
Why do miracles become impotent if they're metaphorical? They just become not literal.
All of these anti-God threads degenerate into beefs people have against one form of organized religion or another.
Sorry with all that spamming I missed it and now I read it.
Quoting Fine Doubter
Honest agnostics is my best guess also. And as someone to be like that, for me at least, as I wrote when I opened the thread requires logical thinking. Logical thinking makes you see why you can't steal or kill when you are a member of society. It's for your own personal benefit to act good if you wanna be a society member at the end!
But I already mentioned in my initial post why I still have doubts if Logic is enough for that "moral purpose". It's just that I'm huge fan of it. You think honest agnostic can happen with a different way? In a sense that can convince people to act like that? I would like to know.
A logical thinking would also make atheists to realize that should respect those who believe in God! If they don't give you trouble, then come on, give them a fucking break. Let them believe!
Atheists think that religions and their followers are to blame for all mess in societies. Well no they don't! Just respect and give more matter to if that person acts good! If he does that for the God, so be!
I have used many times in my posts the words good and bad. These have vague meanings as what good and bad is considered. I just used them as to make my point clearer to the ones who would read the post.
At the very end for me there is No Good or Bad.Good and Bad exists in all of us. We are both! The only real distinction to me is :
Social useful people
Social useless people
But still it's only my opinion. Nothing else.
No no. Not at all. I attribute both good and bad in people! In fact I attribute always and everything to the People!At the end everything is cause of them. Who invented God at the very end? People! Who do societies? People again.So for sure no . I m just mostly interested in what moral fuels people as to act like that.
What I ask is if religions at the end prevented more chaos as to come up all these years.
At the end as others mentioned and I agreed. Being Good or Bad is a personal decision! In what I insist is to the "excuse" that people give to themselves as to convince them to make that decision. And yes I think that maybe religions prevented more evil to come in societies!
You continue to refer to a specific part of the Bible that I already told you that I don't deny it and I mostly think of it as metaphor according to the other things are written before and after that part.
I wanna ask you something and you please answer me honestly. If you read the Bible.
Remember please the moment you finished it and closed the book, from what you had read, you got the feeling that this book urges you to kill others??? Tell me the general picture that you would think about that book.
The same thing I call myself. Curious.
I believe in soul existence also but not in a divine way. Mostly in energetic way.
But still it's not that I am dogmatic about it and think that it is true. It's just a real strong possibility for me.
That's Exactly what I I hope at the very end.
To distinguish moral from religions. And how-if that can be done?! That is the exact reason and curiosity I had as to open that thread.
Quoting dimosthenis9
"If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then, brother, that person is a piece of shit." :halo:
Oh you again? With a great video - argument that time. Nice. Thought you were still "outta here".
As for the history of good and evil in societies across periods of time, they just wax and wane, sometimes religion was in it one way, sometimes the other way, sometimes not at all.
{ * who were doing it to make tens of millions in money }
Oh that's what you do here.Ok go on then.
Well in fact that's kind of what I try to do indeed.
Jeremiah's point exactly - worsening oppressions right in the middle of Josiah's "Make Judah Great Again" campaign. Josiah who was so out of it he miscalculated and got shot when he needn't.
Is English not your first language? Taking the piss means taking the Mickey or poking fun with something.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Not sarcasm. Advice.
You'll note, if you were reading carefully, that I said 'seem' in my comments. This is another nuance perhaps you don't recognise.
Children match their behaviour to the adults around them. There is a vast literature regarding managing their behaviour and growing them into adults. None of it says that you can only do this by frightening them with supernatural parents.
But yes, I do have a preference for government that is in touch with reality.
That was once a thing. Not so much anymore.
No it's not. I thought you meant that I got pissed of with something,like got in my nerves.
Quoting Tom Storm
Maybe English isn't my first language, but no my friend ,that was pure sarcasm. When you tell me to start a crusade in Philosophy Forum about religions. Well no that's not advice at all.
I respect all opinions and I am really careful with the wording I choose as to express mine. At no point I wrote that my opinion is the right one. But I support it with arguments.
To tell me you don't agree with it, it's perfectly fine and understood. To spam the thread (that's not going for you) with clever-ish "tweeter lines" without any real arguments. And offend others cause you don't agree with their views, it's a total different thing. And for those who do that, cause I meet many of them also in real life, I have no tolerance and respect at all. Just giving them the answer they deserve, and close my door.
But even nowadays aren't religions the main "source" for morals that we give to kids? Both from parents and educational system?
Sure it isn't the only way for moral education,but seems to be the strongest one.
What is the best argument to convince a kid (since we talk about them) to act "good"? What could replace these supernatural parents that you mentioned and the " fear" of their punishment?
If we want to "get rid" of religions and unwrap morals from them, distinguish them eventually, shouldn't we have an "alternative plan"? Something else to propose to people?
No. But that this is unthinkable for you is curious.
Quoting dimosthenis9
As if children responded well to rational discussion.
Quoting dimosthenis9
You missed the point of virtue ethics. The plan is to create better children.
As others have pointed out, the notion that punishment is the only, or the best, or even one of, the ways to create kind, just, open, thoughtful people is untenable.
That this is unthinkable for you is curious.
Yes it seems hard to believe that. Worldwide theists are still the vast majority and with that "moral guide" they raise their kids too.
Quoting Banno
That seems like a good alternative, in my eyes at lest. Why not?
Quoting Banno
But that plan to create better children shouldn't involve moral teaching also? You mentioned before rational discussion. Rational discussion seems a good way to give morals to kids indeed.
I never mentioned that divine punishment is the best or the only way to create kind people. And I don't agree with it either. All I'm saying is that, so far at least, seems a necessary "bad" thing for humanity to use it for moral guide. The least bad thing as to put it that way.
That needs to change, imo at least. But that transition should be really careful in the way that is gonna happen.
My biggest concern is the way that humanity started the past years to move into atheism. With no self reflection, no self cultivation, no rational thinking. Just with social media - ish aphorisms for theists and morals. And adding in all these the average low intellectual level that most people have worldwide.
Well yes considering all these, I find the danger of bigger chaos to come into societies in the future very possible.
You might face this: there have been ethical, well-behaved, productive atheists for hundreds of years. If what you say is so, how could this be?
Perhaps considering this might lead you to see the light.
Yes. Eccentric reasoning, it seems.
But of course they were and still are. People who are logical enough as to understand that acting good in societies is what they should do. Those who don't need a God to tell them what is good or bad.
I don't know though why you mention that. At which point have I mentioned that as someone to be moral is necessary to believe in any God?Or that atheists aren't moral??
I don't see religion belief as a requirement for someone as to be good! Not at all. I just mention that most people (even nowadays) have that need though. When someone can't reach to that conclusion (acting good) reasonably, well yes I much prefer to reach via God's "help" rather than not reaching there at all.
For me religions, in humanity's history, might have offered more good to societies than the bad things they brought. People who invented religions gave to other people a moral system to follow. And as in all other things, what human invented, is what he needed the most. People needed God and belief and "create" it. Religions weren't established by aliens. Even if it wasn't the best moral system I repeat,it was still one.
Exactly. And at these hazards both theists and atheists fail! Not all of them of course. They stick badges, as you mention, to one another and start to fight. As to obligate others to believe or not believe what they do.
The only thing that should be examined is if someone is good (social useful) or bad (social useless) and not if he believes in God or not. If someone make him good to believe even in "Pink Elephants", well then praise Pink Elephants for that, and give him a fucking brake! Just respect him. So simply.
First, I have to say your post is absolutely fantastic. While many atheists may feel like you, it seems rare that they voice such ideas.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Quoting dimosthenis9
Great questions. A lot of times people leap on the moral aspect of religion. I think that what is even stronger than the moral aspect of religion, is the social element of religion. Religion gives you community, belonginess, and a greater purpose not only for you, but those around you. It encourages you to reach out to other people and bring them to the light. It is a place you can reach out to for emotional support.
I think that's what some atheists miss when they focus on the "logic" of a religion. They'll see a religion do something immoral, and wonder why anyone would do that. "Surely they must be stupid!" they think. I don't think atheists are any more intelligent than people who believe in a religion. What they are, is more independent. They don't necessarily need a crowd of people around them.
But many people do. They want the support group. The social safety net. To sing in the choir. To feel like they are part of not just some abstract plan that is greater than themselves, but the real and present group of people that they are attending and finding friends with. To question God is to question those bonds. To risk losing the place you might find solace in. That is very hard for people to leave.
Presently, there is no organized social alternative to this. I believe the internet has opened a way for people to socialize more easily, and the anonymity can replace the need for a place to confide in one's "sins". Still, it lacks the human touch. The weekly meeting that is virtually free to no cost to personally attend for most people.
Could we create an alternative to this? Perhaps an enterprising person could. The irony of course is since many atheists are independent and don't need that social group as much, they're less likely to form and congregate a large enough group that could gain the attention it needs as a viable alternative to church.
Again, great discussion topic.
Nonsense. There are(for those who want community) freethinker, skeptic, humanist, rationalist, atheist social groups, societies and community events, dinners, picnics, music, talks and video TV. Not to mention support groups for former priests and pastors/vicars/rabbis who have become atheists (a fairly common thing) and people who have left unforgiving fundamentalists groups eg Recovery From Religion. Three are also trans and gay friendly atheist communities. And then just about any social group and community is a secular one.
Quoting Philosophim
Atheism's not about the numbers, it's the reasons and the lack of them.
Probably you are the first one who thinks that. From the time I opened it I got plenty of sarcasm and attacks. Well there were some really interesting opinions also of course.
Quoting Philosophim
Exactly!All these offered much more good to humanity than bad. That's what I believe at least!
Quoting Philosophim
I don't have to add anything here. Just repost it as to "bold" it even more!
Quoting Philosophim
Many people DO need all these things you mention in their lives! And it's all fine! That's what atheists can't understand and they mock and laugh at them. As if they are superior. Poor stupids.
Quoting Philosophim
Never thought that before. Sounds totally reasonable though. So at the end, they might turn themselves into the biggest obstacle for their fight against religions?? Right? That is a fucking huge irony for sure.
Man what are you talking about?? The guy says there isn't an alternative as to replace religions.Answering my initial question.
Not that there is no community in general except church's!
If God is the creator of the world then there can be nothing ugly in the world. Everything must be beautiful because how can God sustain a positive ugliness thru his creative power? Does not his holiness prevent it. Now turn to the world and see there is much that is ugly and much that is good. Nothing all good can partake of this. A gnostic dualism would actually make more sense
Quoting dimosthenis9
I responded directly to the issues the person raised. I can't help it if you didn't follow.
The issue of evidence that something (the universe) was created is an all-important one for it has bearing on the question of what kinds of explanations are plausible for the existence of the universe.
However, for the moment, disconnect the believability of an explanation from explanation itself and God, as an explanation, even though scoring low on the believability scale, comes into its own so to speak.
As for your interpretation of Chance vis-à-vis the existence of the universe, if, as you say, chance is not a cause, then atheists haven't been able to refute the god hypothesis that's offered as an explanation for why there is a universe at all. I probably misread you but the ball is in your court.
What are you talking about? You responded to something that you got it totally wrong. Talking about communities in general like gay and irrelevant stuff like that.
What are you trying to imply now about responding directly to the issues? These weren't the issues at all.
It's obvious what you did. Just admit it and move on. The thing that you preferred the lame excuse though says a lot. So be then.
For sure It would make more sense.
Maybe. You take care too.
I see the word "logic". It's all good here!
1. I think religion should be a personal matter. It is not something to be forced down to anyone's throat saying, this is good, or .. so forth so fifth. If one wants to have religion, let them have whatever religion that suits, and it will make them happy. When the majority of individuals are happy in a society, the whole society would be happier.
Can religion be moral guidance? In theory yes, but in practice, it depends who you are talking to. It is not fair or accurate to accuse or praise a certain group of people in society. There are good atheists, so so ones, and bad ones, so are theists. There are atheists who pretend to be theists, vice versa. Some agnostics will become theists or convince themselves atheists who knows? People change through time.
2. Can anything replace God? No, I don't think so. God is a special concept, and existence that human reason can never prove or understand. Nothing can replace God. Maybe they will try, but will fail or have already failed. In ancient times, life would have been far easy and simple, because people had no internet, no globalisation, no widespread religious scepticism. They believed in God, and God will take care of everything even afterlife in heaven.
Now, people have lost that comfort zone. They fall into pessimism and nihilism and apocalyptic thoughts. When they die, they don't know what will happen to their soul. And even souls exist? Uncertainty. Fear. All these transform to extreme negative world views and depression. Nothing will replace God. Do they need God? I think it is, again, a personal issue. People will only believe in God, if they had personal experience of God or religious events. Otherwise it would be unlikely the faith and beliefs could arise via intellectual or ethical inculcations.
Question: Why is the expansion of the universe accelerating?
Accepted answer: Dark Energy
Real answer: We don't know
I suppose we're so desperate for answers that an empty word is enthusiastically accepted than no answer.
I can see where you're coming from.
On the one hand I think churches used to be a place to sing together (more rare in the last 15 years). I also agree it's tough leaving anything.
As a youngster I didn't have that goal for the church, and in recent years I've gone back to that attitude. In between, I joined the "church within a church" where I thought these goals would be fulfilled (your spiel sounds like their advertising).
I left that because of underhand goings-on, dumbing down and being strung along so that I could provide cover. I'm not going to venture a percentage as to how general this is in churches, but I hear of a lot of churches that have the "church within a church". To turn round your point about questioning God 180 degrees, in my observation to question those bonds is not to question God.
Let's say it has been happening like you say sometimes. You can't say how general that is either. So yours is a valid but perhaps, at the practical level, a weak argument. I've known the values you say in a local history society (minus probably the confessing) and I imagine they occur in plane spotters' clubs or model making societies.
For the thrust of OP's main point it doesn't matter whether religion dwindles or changes, it's about how we can roll out morale-building mores to the public and not cliquey eccentric tribes which was how most churches were functioning sociologically, and on honest rational grounds. While there was a bit more religion in my young day, the agnostics obviously felt fully entitled to take part in morals.
If it's the non-religious that are just as prone to poor logic as the churchgoers are, we ought to teach them good logic and not pretend only we churchgoers are entitled to have logic (of sometimes poor calibre).
I want to nuance your statement because there are too many definitions or usages of "god". In Nietzsche's milieu we know something of the concept the oppressive bourgeoisie vaunted. Believe you me, it is too fluid, there is what is not called a god that is a god but not a good one, and every conceivable variation. Interposing an empty concept as 180 Proof rightly calls it is the exact opposite of the honest logic required. If you aren't an inspired evangelist (and probably even if you are) how are you going to make this inconvenient and confusing incumbrance catch on?
That was only a specific cultural timewarp when morals piggy backed on gods, it doesn't apply in the present tense.
I'll count myself out anyway because I look for my gods myself if I fancy having any, and I don't package deal / portmanteau as between my gods and my morals. Any divinity worth its salt will not give you brownie points for flourishing the lip service you give it. You and Philosophim sound like you are trying to achieve the opposite of what was in the OP.
Don't you believe that this was the case through all humanity history till even nowadays? Most people in societies weren't raised with some "religion moral guide"? Theists were always more. And even nowadays they still are. So a theist won't raise his kid according to his religion's " moral standards"?
Quoting Corvus
Of course it isn't fair at all. You can't characterize a group of people in general as good or bad according to their belief or no-belief. I would never do that.
Quoting Corvus
Roger that.
Quoting Corvus
Since you mention it. That's another issue bothering me. The ongoing higher levels of depression that appear in societies. Could this be a result also of "losing God" and all the "comfort" that it brings as you already mentioned?? Don't get me wrong, I don't support that atheists are depressive.Hell no.
I just wonder if with the way that humanity moves into atheism (with no self cultivation at all, as I mentioned at previous posts) plays an important role for these higher levels of society depression. Don't know. Just wondering about it.
By the way. You answer to the OP with the way I prefer to be done. Specifically to the questions and with no unnecessary words at all. Just the "juice". That's what I appreciate.
What seems that you fail to realize(or you don't wanna admit it) ,is that this "empty name" as you call it was full filling the desperate human need for some kind of explanation and answers to their existence. Fake answers? Lie? Yes I agree. But a necessary lie for humanity!
Most people STILL need that "lie" in their lives. Even if you and I don't. There are many more that they do! Can't blame or make fun of anyone for that. If he doesn't give you any troubles and he is acting "good", just respect him and move on!
Assuming you are correct, why is that a reason to dispense with the acceptance of God?
Quoting Nietzsche:
"When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet. This morality is by no means self-evident… Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole.”
What then happens when we kill God? Two possibilities:
1. "For the game of creation, my brothers, a sacred yes is needed: the spirit now wills his own will."
or, the opposite:
2. "What I relate is the history of the next two centuries. I describe what is coming, what can no longer come differently: the advent of nihilism... For some time now our whole European culture has been moving as toward a catastrophe."
So, we either get the soaring will unencumbered by the fetters of religion, free to plot its own course toward a new personal morality or we sink into a sea of meaninglessness, unable to swim under our own power, with nothing to keep us afloat.
If #2 is what occurs, then a ressurection of God might be in order for some. That #1 will universally happen isn't borne out by the evidence. That some wish to return to the pre-death state is an understandable and reasonable choice.
Definitions tend to be overly general, but "God," to me, is a motivator for good. That you can't find a referent to the noun doesn't affect the meaning of that term.
Quoting dimosthenis9
A subset haven't been; and some religions don't have any. I'm pro "religions" as a vaguely general phenomenon (and I do urge members to apply quality criteria), I just want to stop the package dealing and piggy backing. If you don't know how to suggest morals, don't pooh pooh those who do know how to suggest them.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Is that a buzz phrase?
But we don't wanna create anything. Who are we as to "create" something? We just wonder if and what could take God's place. Especially with morals that comes from religions. All 3 of us though seem to agree that this is probably impossible. At a high amount of people at least.
Quoting Fine Doubter
Bad or good I haven't heard not even one religion not to have morals. Even Satanism has.Evil morals!
Morals is not necessary something good. See our morals in societies too. Not all of them are-were good in human history.
Quoting Fine Doubter
Sorry didn't get that. Why this to be a buzz phrase?
To you and to MANY more people. That's why I find that kind of theists wayyy much "better" (social useful) than a dogmatic stubborn atheist! Who wants to force his non belief to everyone! (social useless!!).
:100: :pray:
People infantilize themselves by making shit up aka woo-of-the-gaps, imaginary cosmic lollipops because that's always been far easier (safer) than fucking around and finding out what is and is not the case. Just dumbing ourselves down by handcuffing our minds to symbolic cradles doesn't entail we ought to keep doing so. Oh and sorry, dimo, you're confusing me with someone else, or just jizzing strawmen on my shoes :roll: ... You've no fucking clue what I "fail to realize" or understand. Two years ago I wrote
Quoting 180 Proof
All "gods" are on that list above (i.e. members of the Null Set).
Quoting TheMadFool
As Freddy Z says
[quote=The Genealogy of Morals III. 28]Man would rather will nothingness than not will.[/quote]
NB: Science manifests as an intergenerational community of (dialectical, abductive, re)searchers which provides fallibilistic, testable, approximations and not "answers". (e.g. Dark Energy is not "the answer" any more than is quantum entanglement or natural selection.)
Scroll up.
Man you gonna make me crazy. Wtf that's different from my initial PURPOSE of my thread? To explore IF and CAN we do something different in societies!? Where exactly is our disagreement for that??
Quoting 180 Proof
What do you mean wrote? Where you wrote that? In TPF or you are a writer and that's from your book? (not that if you are that this would give you the authority to talk such dogmatic, but anyway). So what if you wrote that at the very end? What proves exactly? Help me here.
At least you have some real arguments after all this time. That's improvement.
Why do concepts have to be filled? If one is gagging for honest logic (whatever that is), and insisted concept must be filled with something, then the concept had been filled with the concept of "empty". Because it is empty, obviously he was not able to see it looking for something tangible and physical. Object and concept is not same, is it? (hey I better not give out too much hint here.)
Quoting Fine Doubter
I don't think anyone is here for some brownie points from divinity.
Basically, Something Is Better Than Nothing!
"Freedom" is a member of the null set as well. Don't abandon Witty now! Meaning is use. These words do a whole lot in our world, identifiable referent or not.
Gennaion Pseudos
Yup, to build a strong tribal identity there needs to be others or an out-group, so there can never be a universal bonding in this model. However the essential elements of what a belief system is comprised of and the community and meaning it offers doesn’t need to come in the form of a particular religion, political party, or whatever. I think that may be what Tom Storm was suggesting.
They don't always, but we (and this is a public educative forum) have to look very hard at the rationale if reasoning is supposed to be based on that, and because OP and you and Philosophim want to overload me with your nebulous ideas charged with the label "morality" on the back of it, I'm going to have a say over it, as I hope almost all religious believers would, in the same circumstances. You don't sound honest about reasoning (which was OP's original "apparent" proposal), and that's immoral in itself. Effectively you've just admitted that for you, morality - a nebulous concept that you haven't characterised that has to be tied Gordian-like to another nebulous concept which you have graciously conceded to yourself doesn't have to be characterised - is an empty concept.
Those times I do do religion, I don't do it out of any need to be bossed.
Quoting Corvus
Please don't act stupid, you know you wouldn't expect us to actually want to sign a blank cheque.
Quoting dimosthenis9
You seem to be one of the ones that won't run with it. You sound like you're not interested in morality at all. Later I'm going to extract some extracts from this very thread and serve them up to you again like yesterday's greens :yum: I'll give you juice!
Quoting dimosthenis9
Well give all of us billions of level headed and kind hearted agnostics some room then. You sound like you are fixated on excluding the middles. Haven't you read your Max Black?
Were you implying a subtext: "Who wants to force his immorality"? Were you?
180 Proof doesn't force anything. He gets in quick when you dump duplicitous "arguments" on us and leaves you with the hard work of figuring out why, should you be so moved. Most of us forum members are determined to stretch our minds for serious reasons. Have you ever read Consolation of Philosophy by Manlius Boethius?
It sounds like some bitter power hungry poisonous declaration against political enemies. We have been only engaging in a philosophical debate. What clique are you talking about? Is that all you see in the arguments?
Why do you call it stupid? The reply was tailored exactly to the level of the questions asked, so that it could be understandable to the questioner.
I have never commented on morality along with religion in my life taking sides one way or the other. My point was, some concepts are inexplicable, and we should accept that. There are plenty of the other concepts which are inexplicable, unprovable, but we accept, because they affect us. Empty concepts does not mean that it is despicable, meaningless and has no value.
Can we pull this apart. Have you got boundaries or do you get walked over? Boundaries are your healthy exchange zone. Better gods and their better adherents want you to have individuality and responsibility for your reasoning and the health of your mind, and the bad ones and their bad adherents don't.
Don't dodge that because you have exempted yourself from having any gods yourself.
Are you an evangelist?
If religions are going out of fashion look for a basis for morals in reason. If some people have some sort of religion leave them to it. None of them are in a ghetto where they can't find out about morals on grounds of reason.
You are the one that needs to leave people be. Move on to honest logic and reason like you were "suggesting" with forked tongue.
I'm probably twice your age and I worked hard to get away from some duplicitous people who had elaborate excuses.
ref your last three posts, if people don't have personal experience of god or religious events it is unlikely faith or beliefs would arise via intellectual or ethical inculcations:
though I know people that was true of, the question was the other way around. I've misread it a little, but your point isn't clear here. In your subsequent (shorter) posts you didn't make it clearer. I was certainly in the wrong for not asking you for clarification and you didn't seem to be querying the clarity or thrust of the other two I've cited.
Are you trying to say morality doesn't essentially come into religion, only sometimes incidentally? And that the main source of morality has to be direct from reason?
I am one of the emotivist, who believes that morality depends on people's emotion, like from G.E. Moore ( https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moore/). That makes me a relativist as far as morality is concerned. So that leaves me have very little to say about morality in religion.
In morality, my interest is, linguistic aspect of it .i.e. when one makes a moral statement, I ask if it makes sense to say that. Is it logical to say that? That is all.
I think I said in my original post to the OP, if one asked me, if religion is foundation of morality, I said, it would depend on who you are talking about. There are all sorts and types of theists, atheists and agnostics, who could switch their sides any minute in their life for any unforeseen circumstances or thoughts popped into their minds or whatever the reasons. Moreover, there is no necessary apriori universal law to say that atheists will always act this way in certain circumstances, or theists will always act that way, and same for agnostics. No universal laws at all on these things.
Therefore just being / claiming that one is a theist, atheist or agnostic itself doesn't make or guarantee the being for morally good or bad. I thought that says clear enough about me I am a moral relativist and emotivist, who has not much to say about religion and morality.
Philosophim appears to be claiming that there's no viable alternative to religion for non-religious people because they're not as dependent on social groups. Is that true? First let's look at what religion offers, as defined by Philosophim:
I'll add to the list:
None of the above is only found in religion. In fact, religion constrains possibilities in many of these aspects, and most alarmingly tends to constrain moral development.
I think he mostly means that since most atheists are usually more independent,they don't have so much the need to get united in large scale and under a new moral umbrella, as that to become enough to replace religion.And not that atheists don't have also the need for social groups in general. The key phrase in Philosophim opinion is " a large enough group". That's what I think at least, but maybe I got it wrong . Don't know. Philosophim could clarify that for us.
Quoting praxis
Of course not. But religion is still the hugest social organization. That's why imo still dominate in morals.
Quoting praxis
Interesting phrase. What could that be in your opinion? And how could that happen also?
No I m not. Simple atheist as mentioned when I opened the thread.
Quoting Fine Doubter
At what point I haven't respected anyone who is theist or atheist as to tell me that?
Told you again my only criteria is "good" or "bad" in "social useful" and "social useless" terms. Not at all what someone believes or what not believes. Don't get at all, whom exactly you urge me to "leave alone".
Well Logic is my only belief. So now that I rethink maybe I m not atheist at all after all.
Logic is my God.
Quoting Fine Doubter
And you tell me that cause...? Since when age is a "argument validation" measurement? Or you mean that I am the duplicitous one? And what exactly excuse I have elaborated?
In any case if you want to "get away" from me. Go on. I m not gonna stop you. Promise!
You fail to understand simple things.
I talk about dogmatic atheists who want to force. And not ALL atheists of course. Same as I would talk for dogmatic theists who want to force their belief to Atheists! So what are you talking about?
Last time I get involved as to explain such a simple thing from my arguments. Or else I would need to explain every word and day hasn't enough hours for that.
Philosophim never used the phrase "new moral umbrella". I know what you mean but you appear to be quoting him. The scare quotes are unnecessary and misleading the way you use them here. Anyway, you're talking about two different dynamics, morality and, I guess, group scale. However, I think what Philosophim is actually referring to is how tightly bonded a group is, so scale is largely irrelevant, and morality or shared values/norms strengthen community bonding.
Assuming that the real trick to religion is strongly binding a community, rather than offering morality at scale or whatever, is that a good thing? You've agreed that the components of religion, like community, purpose, meaning, ritual, narrative, transcendence, etc. are all available without religion. What if group solidarity is valued more than a principle like truth? Would that be a good thing or a bad thing? In a sense it could be, as you say, "socially useful", but useful to what end? Religion is notoriously useful to charismatic leaders for whatever their agenda may be.
Quoting dimosthenis9
There are well-established theories on moral development. Google it.
It happens with learning and teaching, and also with reasoning and training.
That's my phrase not his, as to make clear to everyone. It seemed that I was quoting him indeed the way I wrote it, true. I corrected it also to my previous post.
Quoting praxis
That too.But since they don't have such strong bonding together as theists do,they can't get organized in big numbers also. At least that's,what I got from his post. But again I might misunderstood it. Can't be sure.
Quoting praxis
If you ask me .If that solidarity urges people to act "good", well hell Yes it would be a good thing then.
At the end what is the truth after all?? Can we know it? Can an atheist prove that there is no God? Can a theist prove that there is? We can never be dogmatic about issues like that.
Useful as to act "good" in societies, respect others,don't give others problems etc. I wrote again that good and bad have vague meanings. I just use them for my thread's purposes, as to make my point clear in what I mean.
Social useful and useless is only what exists, for me at least.
Quoting praxis
I haven't studied any of these theories that you mentioned as to be honest. But since their methods are learning, teaching, reasoning and training sound interesting. I will check on that.
Exactly right. Which is why I responded with my list of secular community alternatives, some of which also address identity. Transcendence? I am not sure if that's anything but a poetic abstract, but I know what people mean. People also talk of experiencing the numinous. You can get that visiting nature or listening to an orchestra play (there are endless possibilities).
Whatever you like to call it, the key affect being the reduction of existential anxiety, something commonly believed to be exclusive to the religious realm.
That just sounds to me like a secular idea. I would have thought religions often increase existential anxiety - especially worrying about God's judgment, the afterlife, etc. In such a context, atheism may be understood as transcendent. Thoughts?
Of course you can. But some people can't.Or that isn't enough for them. And they need God as to feel that way. So what's the problem if they do? I can't see any.
Easy: A C Grayling
:up:
Quoting Wheatley
A better secular education system too.
Magical thinking, learned helplessness, reality / death-denial, trust in imaginary friends, fear of imaginary enemies, etc – you don't see any problems with adults cultivating and blinkered by such "god"-related/fixated emotional habits?
:100:
Keep saying that just because some famous philosophers said such and such blah blah ..., or keep listing lots of links and words as if they are meaningful for anything, really doesn't impress me at all in philosophical arguments. At the end of the day, the most meaningful statements are the ones from the claimers own mind and intention out of his / her own reasoning regarding the OP or the topic. It would be good to have the links and quotes, only when they are extremely relevant and meaningful.
If one wants to make a claim or statements regarding the OP, do so, but back it up from a logical point of view with universally valid reasoning and evidential facts on why the claims or statements are relevant and logical and therefore it is true. That is philosophy.
Without that backing up, all the claims and statements mean nothing more than just personal emotional assertions and pleas which will be seen as the claimer's blindly ardent propagation of dogmas and prejudices to the others for some peculiar personal motives.
Suggesting and accusing the other posters for making up cliques or ganging up just because their views were similar to each other, or making emotion filled irrational comments in the discussions do not help either.
True! But I guess it is so difficult being rational with someone who believes in a celestial dictator as "God"
Facts, arguments, knowledge, statements, axioms, and other forms of logic, cannot fit with religion because those persons are already so influenced by a dogma which is so strong.
I see problems to the theists they think and act like that. No problem at all to the theists who don't!
You as many other atheists, seem to focus ALWAYS and ONLY to the bad things that religion brings. And you don't admit nothing good at all. You don't acknowledge any good to religion at all. And that's simply logical impossible! It is so simple as that after all.
Want it or not religion is still "alive" cause it also brings some good and is still useful to humanity. And maybe yes, the good things might be more, that's what I believe.Or else people would have abandoned it already.
Not saying that my belief is for sure right though.
Quoting 180 Proof
Adults have even worse emotional habits and for hundreds other reasons . With religion or not. That's another topic though, and you can't blame religion for that too.
Sure. If you think so, then present it as arguments and back it up with reasoning and logic, rather than saying they are bad and stupid. Simply saying "it is so difficult being rational with someone who believes in a celestial dictator as God" doesn't sound to me very much rational either.
To assert that statement, and expect the others to accept as a logical comment, the claimer must define "rational" "god" "a celestial dictator" and "difficult" in full, and demonstrate why that is true and making sense. Before that, I wouldn't accept it as a rational statement at all.
Excellent video and right to the point of the thread. Not that I agree with everything is said there. But really really interesting.
Kind of spooky at the beginning. Thought Grayling just have read the thread and started talk(answering)..
I did not say they are bad and stupid... I just think they are brainwashed or similar. Some of the arguments I have according to the books I have read are the following ones:
New atheism:
I didn't say that you did. I was just saying in general, not pointing to anyone in particular. Sorry if it was not clear.
Understandable then :up:
What exactly is half truth? From the facts I present in my beginning of the thread which are lies?
And I always claim that these are my personal opinions, not necessary right.
With the dogmatic way you talk. As if you are the "ultimate truth holder",you rape logic!
We agree on some matters, we disagree on others. And you can't just accept it.
I could have written that. Every single word .As the rest of your post also
The only thing it offers us, is to show us one more time, how dogmatic people are about their personal beliefs. Whatever it is.
Even well read people get blinded by their lust everyone to agree with their personal beliefs.
That's the only use, arguments like that have.
Here we agree again on the fundamental points in philosophy. This is through our pure universal reasoning processes. I salute ~ :grin: :pray:
In fact we have the Tank of Logic in our side. Covering our back.
:100: :up: :wink:
In religion there is necessarily an intermediary or higher authority that requires faith, and that authority holds all the cards. Maybe you’re familiar with the proverb that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. In any case, the same suppression of independence applies here as it does to moral development, or any other aspect that leads to independence, so transcendence, the actual experience of it, is not encouraged, and in many cases is deliberately suppressed.
Some may indeed have. They are usually those who have seriously studied their religion and/or have a religious/spiritual guide, usu. a priest. But the great majority, even those who "live by the bible" I believe, have not actually solved anything. They live in an illusory religious world, based on an illusory God. By "illusory God" I mean --and I'm referring speak for the prevailing religion in my country, Greek Orthodoxy-- the God as it is presented by the Church and the vast relevant Greek Orthodox literature, including the school books.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Exactly. This is the proof that the religion of the masses has never been able to solve any problem, except from a blind obedience to the Word of God, the Church, the 10 commandments, etc. which act as an obstacle to Man's immorality and the excesses that Man is predisposed to, as well as a remedy to his primordial fears. Marx was not wrong stating that "Religion is the opium of the people". It kind of acts as a hypnotic, a drug!
Questions:
Quoting dimosthenis9
It depends what one means by a "better place" and what (kind of) religions one talks about. From a materialistic view, dogmatic religions (such as those I described above) provide some safety and control in a society. From that aspect, I really don't know what this place would be if they didn't exist! What I know is that, because exactly of their dogmatic and suppressive nature, they can't set Man free, neither lift him to a higher spiritual level and real knowledge. But there are a lot of religions, esp. Eastern ones, and most importantly Buddhism which I consider in general a non-dogmatic and "practical" religion, with many "schools", which are not considered "sects" or "heresies" to be fought as it happens with Christianity, and esp. Greek Orthodoxy, which pursues them!
Quoting dimosthenis9
I don't think that God must be replaced by anything, except maybe some Supreme Being, Infinity ... the name doesn't really matter. Because we don't need to speak about God to be religious! And by religious I mean mainly, having 1) spiritual values and views (transcendental knowledge, worldviews) that count more than material ones, and 2) moral values (ethics).
Quoting dimosthenis9
"Good" means ethical (moral) and ethics have to do with behaving for the greater good. This is based on common sense. So, to convince people to be "good", you have to convince them to apply common sense! So, simple? Not at all. Common sense is something so difficult to apply that sometimes I wonder if there is such a thing! :smile: It means thinking and acting rationally. And we know that rationality is not people's cup of tea, and even if they were pursuing it, there is so much (mental) aberration in Man that that it is very difficult, if not impossible, for him to achieve a rational stablity!
I don't judge if their solution is right (imo it's not at all).But even with "illusions" , as you say, they still gave some existential answers, to themselves. On the other hand, I m condemned to burn in the curiosity's hell.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Well my fear is that chaos would be even bigger. Since I already mentioned the low average humanity's intellectual level,even nowadays.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
I consider Buddhism also as the most practical religion of all.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
I get your point,but for me when I say God I mean religions also.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
As most things in life, it is so simple after all indeed. But as most things in life also, the huge difficulty comes from putting that "plan" in action!
Quoting Alkis Piskas
That's exactly what I mean when I support that humanity's average intellectual level, make religions still useful nowadays.
True.
We do not "disagree" on interpreting the same, relevant facts. You conspicuously grasp much fewer of the 'facts of religion' than I (and quite a few others here) do; apparently, this thread discussion makes clear, you're so uninformed that you don't even recognize how uninformed you are and yet you're trying to discuss these matters with others who are much more informed. You don't "disagree" with me, dimo9; you just reject or misinterpret what you're unfamiliar with and don't understand. It's not "dogmatic" of me to repeat statements (you've) not shown to be untrue based on facts of matter or lapses in my logic. Of course, you are entitled to your "opinons" just as I am entitled to dispute those uninformed opinions (and vice versa), which is the basic etiquette of informal public discussion.
You are a total waste of time.
In every response I bomb you with arguments, which you never reply or respond. And all you do is repeating insults and implying how much "informed" your precious self is.
I'm tired of stripping your weak, lame, shitty arguments off (when you rarely offered some actually).
Arguments like "Bible urge people to go kill others!". Better shake your head a little.Might help!
I just wish you to act like that only here in TPF and not in your real life .For egoistic reasons as not to admit anything. That's what most people do. They deal a discussion as a fight to "who is right". And they don't give a fuck about getting useful outcomes!
Well if you act and discuss like that in real life also, then pity for the people around you.
In any case,i m done with you. Go play with someone else.
Just thought I’d show you a proper use of scare quotes. Carry on!
If you say so.
It’s suspicious that from the start you praise the value of logic or reasoning according to strict rules of validity, and yet in action behave as though you don’t value it at all.
Hey... I thought we were going to wait until engaging again? :smile:
I don't really care if people believe in God. In fact, one of my closest friends is a Catholic Priest.
That's only your opinion. Respected but I think I do indeed. It's my most precious value.
Well I had itches in my fingers. I had to respond. Couldn't hold it.
Though as to be honest I also thought that I should wait to engage with you in another thread, since that's what we "agreed" . But I had to take it out of me. Sorry.. Hahah
That's ok. As long as we both behave, that's fine.
That is exactly what someone who doesn't care about the truth says. If you were interested in the truth you might ask me to substantiate my claim or try to disprove it yourself, but no, you just say that it's my opinion.
Scrolling backward, a few notable items from the previous page:
Quoting Corvus
to which dimosthenis9 replies with:
Quoting dimosthenis9
but not before admitting:
Quoting dimosthenis9
Surely you can see how silly this looks.
Man please! Pretty please!! From the moment I opened that thread it consumes crucial time of my day responding to comments. Cause when I open a thread I m passionate about it and truly bothers me in my real life thought in general! And I don't just make joke and spam like others do.
You want me to tell you what when you tell me such things?!?! To agree that yes I don't follow Logic since you said so??
Take all my posts in that thread from the beginning and show me where the fuck I don't follow Logic or else please stop breaking my balls. Really please!
Now you just accused me, for not asking you why? Thing that you could do it immediately with your first post. But no, you preferred the silly "quote" joke and second post to just accuse me for no Logic! Are you serious??
You have a problem or something? When you know that there is no way to have and know the Absolute Truth then yes some of the things are just personal opinions and nothing else.
You want me to say that I hold the "Holly Truth Cup" and my opinions are always right?!?!?
It's Pure Logic. Wanna take you serious with comments like that??
Yes, I have a problem with the way you claim to value logic but do not express that value in action. It is an incongruity that creates distrust, in me at least.
A fact is a statement that can be proven true or false. An opinion is an expression of a person's feelings that cannot be proven. Opinions can be based on facts or emotions and sometimes they are meant to deliberately mislead others.
It is my last effort with you. SHOW me where I do that! Before you told me to ask you why you said so? And I DID. And you come again with empty hands!
So last chance. Show me or please stop spamming!
You wish. The only reason I respond you now is cause you are so damn sneaky and awful that you try to spoil my name! Shame on you.
No I m not a ex-banned member idiot.
Bye for good now!
Alright, starting with your facts from the OP.
Given these facts, that the vast majority of people in the world are religious and that there is enormously huge chaos in societies, it seems reasonable to speculate that religion is doing nothing to alleviate this enormously huge chaos, and may in fact be significantly contributing to it.
If that's a valid theory, why the hell would we want to try figuring out a replacement?
:razz:
But have you seen ever the world without religions as to be sure that less chaos would occur??
How can you be sure that mess without religion wouldn't be bigger?? I haven't seen it either. And that's why I mention that it's only my opinion and can't be sure!
Atheists always focus on the bad things that religion brings (which are many I don't doubt), but they don't see any good that comes from them.
Tell me please, you find logical that such a humanity "invention" as religions offer nothing good as people to keep it and maintain it till nowadays??Is it possible one issue like religion to have Only bad things??
And yes I still believe that with the way people behave and their intellectual level religions offer a huge "moral pillow" to societies.
That pillow though, me personally as atheist, I don't find it good enough. And I wonder, then what else?? Suppose human stop advising religion and God for moral values. Then how can they be convinced to act good in societies??? Is it even possible? All these are my questions.
Many many theists act and behave good CAUSE of their belief! And I can't make that I don't see that, just cause I'm an atheist! As I attribute chaos in societies cause of religions! I should attribute the good attitude of many theists to religion also. It would be totally unfair if I didn't!
And after writing all that stuff and spend my time answering to you, just noticed your new ridiculous post, mocking me. Well I won't delete it. But it would better if you go and play with 180. No use to waste more of my time for you.
We can look at data for clues. I just looked up some statistics and out of similar size nations, Sweden is the least religious (17% feel it is important in daily life) and Somalia is the most (100% feel it is important in daily life). Which country would you rather take your family on vacation?
Quoting dimosthenis9
I've pointed out that the functional value of religion is in maintaining a strongly bound community. If you look at the etymology it's in the very name, religare "to bind fast". A tightly bound community is a well-established survival strategy. The world has changed a lot over time, however, and what was once a good strategy may not be well adapted to the current situation. Our craving for fat and sugar, for example, isn't well adapted to our current lifestyles.
Quoting dimosthenis9
I think several members have been trying to disabuse you of the notion that religion is about morality. It seems pointless to keep trying.
Quoting dimosthenis9
You don't actually seem to be taking any of this seriously, and you're free to mock in return.
You pick and compare two extreme national cases, and without any other criteria(social, economic, historical etc) except that their religion belief, as to show how better things in atheists countries are .I find it really wrong and misleading but anyway still I will answer you.
Sweden is one country. Developed one. Most people are above average worldwide intellectual level most probably also. When I mention in my opening thread that vast majority of people are theists I mean obviously worldwide. And below average intellectual level, obviously worldwide again.
Quoting praxis
And that is Exactly the reason I opened that thread. As to explore IF and what we could do different nowadays as to unwrap morals from religion in modern societies. Where is our disagreement on that?
Quoting praxis
So you believe also that through all humanity history so far, morals haven't come out of religion?? And from where then??
Vast majority of people are theists. These people with what kind of morality they raise their kids?? They are theists but when it comes to morals, they follow a different path for raising their kids? What is even the most used phrases that parents say to their kids? "Be a good boy. God watches" "Do your pray before going to bed". That has nothing to do with morals aw??
Seems totally unreasonable someone to claim that religion has nothing to do with morals, to me at least.
Quoting praxis
I don't mock anyone for his opinions. It's not my style and I respect every opinion as long as someone express it with a polite and not an insulting way.
Told you before I m not here for fun. I m genuinely interesting about these matters. That's why spammers get so much in my nerves.
Naturally I compared the lowest to the highest, and I prefaced it by saying that it only offers a clue. Still, you have to admit that it would be odd if the more stable country turned out to be 100% claiming that religion felt important in their daily lives compared to one with 17%.
Quoting dimosthenis9
We don’t need to unwrap morals from religion in modern societies. Also, you’re looking to supplant God, as the title of this topic indicates. You’d hardly be the first to want that. People have been jockeying for that position since the whole rigmarole began. [always wanted to use ‘rigmarole’ in a sentence like that :blush: ]
Quoting dimosthenis9
You seem to be implying that religion has existed though-out humans history and helped to shaped our evolution.
Quoting dimosthenis9
I said it’s not about morality. I didn’t say that it has nothing to do with morality. Again, I’m claiming that it’s about strongly binding a community. Morals are an important part of that, but the narrative can shift to rationalize whatever a religious authority requires.
A more apples to apples comparison is, ceteris paribus, the US (72% religious) to Sweden (17% religious) and the respective level of living standards in each country according to the UNDP wherein it's been reported for many decades to be higher in Sweden (as well as all of very secular Scandanavia (6 countries, ave. 27% religious)) than in the significantly less secular US.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/523631
You are right not to judge and I don't either. Besides, in way, we all live in some kind of illusion or other! But I know, from personal experience, that most of them --there are exceptions, of course-- usually don't act in accordance with what they say or believe. They live in a conflict. E.g. they speak about "love", "a loving God", Jesus, etc. but in their life they don't show such traits. In fact, most of them exhibit more hate than love. Then, they expect that God will help them in their problems, but alas! they still suffer. And so on, and so on. This is not solving existential problems! And this is not a judgement but simple observation.
You can tell is someone has solved (most of) his existential problems: he (for brevity) is mostly stable in his behaviour, he acts according to his beliefs and words, he has a solid reality, he is quite rational, etc. And all this, because he has solved his problems by himself and not by using, depending on and believing in some imaginary entity, and/or the Bible, the Churh and in general a religion. Faith is not knowledge and a solution. Faith can only act as "crutch".
Quoting dimosthenis9
Yes, this is what I also believe; I only expressed it differently!
Quoting dimosthenis9
Well, as I described above, believing in God (or a "god") does not make someone necessarily religious, in the sense that I descibed above, which is the essence of "religiousness", although dictionaries short-sightedly define the term as "relating to or believing in a religion", i.e. something that has "no bones and flesh" and means very little in terms of human knowledge and behaviour.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Right!
Quoting dimosthenis9
I agree. (I think I already did! :smile:)
Hasn't it? For sure existed and for sure played important role in our evolution also. When humans didn't have some kind of God to comfort their misery?? Even when that God was "fire" or "lighting".
Your opinion is that religion didn't play any role to our humanity evolution so far? All these stories,myths, anxieties, binding, "divine" punishments, huge temples etc etc didn't shape also our evolution?
Quoting praxis
Ok let's forget morals for a while then. That strongly binding that you admit that religion offers, has no good at all for you?? It doesn't offer anything good in societies? These communities are doing only harm then?
Some religious people ....not all. It it irrational to say "All religious people are such and such..." or without the quantifier "Some", but to say "Religious people are such and such" is not a confirmed comment, because there are bound to be other religious people who are not. The writer of the text has not produced any concrete evidence to prove that he / she had gone around the whole world, investigated all the religious people, and came to the conclusion.
Again, Augustine is a person who lived in the ancient or medieval times. I am not sure if we could take 100% of what the text is saying as infallible truth. I don't know who even wrote it, and even if I knew the author, why should I believe the text? I have never met the person called Augustine, and never had any conversation with him either, so it would be impossible for me to pass any judgments about him by reading some text about Augustine.
The problem is that the insufficient evidence to support them doesn't follow that all of them are wrong, irrational, pathological or dangerous. Maybe some are, but not all.
I am not saying one way or the other, but simply saying that the arguments from the atheists are not infallibly conclusive on their claims. Whatever they say, it is some comments on what they experienced, heard, read, so it could be anything such as, they got bitter on their personal experience from the past their attending the churches or temples, or indeed what they claim had been the case in the real world, who knows?
But one thing clear is that it does not cover the whole religious people, and the religions in the whole world and in the whole history as a universal necessity. Therefore they are not conclusive claims to qualify as truths.
Exactly! The stubborn atheists accuse theists of telling lies to themselves. As if they never do that. As if they are always honest with themselves! They might lie to themselves for dozens other issues but since that lies don't concern God, it's all fine by them!
Quoting Alkis Piskas
I know what you mean. I m familiar also with some hypocrites theists as you mention here. My only objection here is that, at least for me, not sure that most theists are like that indeed.
Imo like in other cases, it's just that this percentage of hypocrites theists make all the "buzz".All the" noise". Normal theists are usually more low profile people.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Glad that someone else believes that too. Weren't many on this thread. Most atheists here reacted so "schocked" and found that so "outrageous"!
If I was telling them that " Red Living Marshmallows" will take over earth wouldn't care so much. But the hate they have for anything theistic is so big that they get blinded. Some of them at least,not all atheists of course.
At the very end. The facts talk on their own. No need for me and you to point it out.
Religion is still dominate in humanity - Fact
People maintain religion cause they still need it! Or else wouldn't be any! So simple as that.
It is true that all the arguments I wrote are pretty general or opaque. I guess the points of what really wanted these authors I quoted are two: A) free will and free thinking without depending in a subterfuge like God. B) A good criticism of church or all religious entities which somehow seems to be dangerous due to their practices and roles.
We can be agree here with the point that not all religious people are the "same" but sadly, there are a big percentage who act like this way. Most of them feel completely disappointed if you or me critique the image of "God" and the role of religion in schools (which are pretty chaotic and I demand for a secular education system so urgently)
It is interesting when they say they have the right to believe in God. Sure they have! But at the same time I have the right to opposing their dogma then.
There is a big problem since the moment where they try to impose their religious ideas or beliefs. This happens a lot acting the church or religious entities as lobbies which can control the citizens and power. I guess this is why those authors said how dangerous they can be.
But there are also genuine religious people who are happy about their religion and got a lot of positivities out of their faiths and religions. For a example, I know my friend who is doing well in his life after taking up a religion doing better and happier in his life. Before that, he had been suicidal and utterly miserable.
I read about the religious charities in some places, who have been preparing free meals for the homeless people in the street, feeding them everyday with the volunteers help saving many lives for many years. This is not some 1500 year ago, but it was a few months ago. I was in the city, and witnessed them serving the free meals to the homeless people in the streets, and also read about them.
They are not irrational, pathological, violent and dangerous, are they? For them those negative remarks would be totally unfair and unjustified, anyone would say.
So simply saying that all religious people are insane irrational and dangerous is not correct. That is my point.
Agreed that of course there are persons who truly believe and care about religion. It is true. But I guess the real target here is the church or episcopal institutions. I totally think that those are simply powerful lobbies that work for politicians (conservative most of them). If you live in a tiny town and somehow you want to be the mayor or council you will need to work or debate with the church in the town because it has a lot of power of influence.
My point here: I respect and understand all the individuals who truly believe in God and they act in this way. On the other hand, I not respect the Church as an entity at all... I guess they should not be part of important things as homosexuality or educational system. This is why it can seen as dangerous by atheist like me.
Being religious does not mean that one has to be tied to churches or temples or any organisations. One can be perfectly and rightly religious just sitting in one's own room, and be religious happily reading the holy scripts, meditating and praying to one's own God.
Well... I guess when you want to be baptized you have to pass through a church or institution. You cannot be part of "God's blessing" if a priest does not make the average "ritual" in the church.
Also, most of the people just go to church in Sunday and hear a lecture.
It is weird to see a person who reads the Bible in their own home or room but... Yes I agree with you that these people can exist.
Replacing something is a matter of finding something to perform the same function as the replaced object. So whether or not we can replace God depends on what we think religious belief is for.
It follows then that if what we want is motivation to be good, we must find something that makes people good. There's an issue with that though: we do not have any generally agreed upon definition of what is good, and we don't even know whether good and evil exist. But for the sake of answering your question, let's define good as what is accepted by society.
The answer is simple then: the envy to conform, empathy and emotion. When one conforms, one respects societal norms, when one feels empathy, one is not willing to hurt another with the help of emotions like guilt, pity etc. In fact, the first motivatior is the actual wa religion makes us moral, for when religion sets the norm and children are raised to respect it, the people conform to what the religion wants, one can look at Middle Ages Europe for an example.
We fall back into limitless possibility at the end of our days.
Isn't that good enough?
That's a crucial point-problem ,as to find something replace "God's morals". You do good bolding that. These vague terms make even more problematic our common social understanding.
Quoting Hello Human
I wrote many times before about the vague meanings of "good" and "bad". As you say, I use them here for the sake of the thread. As to understand each other in an accepted way by society.
Quoting Hello Human
Another crucial key here. Empathy plays huge role in morals for me .Not to say the biggest one.
So how you cultivate empathy to most people without religion? Educational system focused on that like suggested could be a very good start.
I don't think though Javi suggested especially education system for empathy as to be fair and not to change his words.
But for me Empathy classes should get into every school around the planet. It is a great help if we wanna build better societies.
I m not sure I got your meaning totally here. If you could explain it a little more.
I personally think that a secular educational system would provide open minded people and a great developed society.
I personally believe that Education system should get a whole grounded transformation and redesigned focusing on the most useful social values, as to provide "better","happier" people. And happier societies as a result afterwards. But it's a biggg discussion.
A discussion for another thread maybe.
Creation & Evolution In Public Education
The difficulty, as I see it, is if religion is presented as an alrernative to science. It can't be helped since both seem to make claims in same areas like how animals and humans came into existence and let's not forget to mention their pronouncements on how old the earth is. This probably just the tip of the iceberg.
I'm not sure but a practical workaround for this vexing issue of religion vs science in the educational system could be to introduce an entirely new, much needed and till date neglected, subject - ethics. Creationism could be taught as part of Christian, Judean, andMoslem ethics; it does appear to be necessary for the morality of these religions to make sense. The ethics curriculum however would be A1 if other ethical systems like Buddhism, utilitarianism and deontology are included.
Creationism would be taught and it wouldn't be at loggerheads with science. Win-win! :chin:
Søren Kierkegaard was a total lone individual facing God, and in communication with the divine being in his house, reading the Bible, praying, meditating, writing and philosophising. He stopped going to church at one point after the bitter fallout with them, I gather. Can be done.
Unfortunately that's what happens even nowadays. Religion makes a desperate effort to remain "alive" every time science comes with something new that might be used as an anti-God argument. And when they fail to do that then they give different explanations in existential questions like creature etc.
It is indeed the tip of the iceberg though.
Quoting TheMadFool
Really interesting and kind of radical what you mentioned here. Never actually thought that before.
Creationism is indeed vital for these religions and am I the only one to notice that it can offer a "bridge" or at least a small common base as theists and atheists unite in some issues at least?
Though I really like the phrase "Ethics curriculum" (in fact it could be a great name for a school class), not sure what you mean with the rest of the meaning. You say that creationism can't apply in Buddhism or I got it wrong??
Now you came with some real arguments. I salute that.
I promise I was thinking about Kierkegaard as a good example of individual and "being apart of the church" too. K was a very important philosopher, they way he changed the interpretation of the Bible in his books like "the concept of anxiety" impact me even when I am an atheist. It is completely worthy. I remember one phrase of Sartre: "Kierkegaard could have been the most complete philosopher if he wasn't so religious"
I am agree with you. It can be done but... We never had another philosopher as Kierkegaard again...
All conflicts that fall along religious lines would require new basis. People can always find ways to draw lines around their tribe, but the lack of long standing perceived differences would make it that much harder to see others as less or different than oneself. Which is the truth I think the world is missing. 5 minutes before we all fall asleep, we all want the same things.
Your habit of polarizing what people say is irritating, irrational, and unproductive.
We’ve already been over the benefits it offers and you’ve agreed that those benefits are available without religion.
The benefit of dubious value is how religion is used (or abused) by its leaders. It’s a great benefit for leaders to have loyal, uncritical, and submissive followers. You know this, if only instinctively, and that’s why you’re looking to replace God rather than let him die a natural death.
Yeah as if I have the power to replace anything. If God is about to find a natural death cause of deep aging. So be then.
That's a possible alternative indeed.
People contrive spiritual/religious crap all the time to exploit gullible followers, and you’ve been talking about influencing low “average intellectual level” folks from the start.
It's always people's decision after all if they will choose good or bad. The thing is the "excuse" someone gives to himself for that choice,and for many people is God.
I would say "people already decide what is good on their own and pretend that is God's will"
Quoting Cheshire
Well put here.
Don't worry I don't have any hidden agenda to create any new spiritual movement and "fish" followers here. Not my style.
So true.
This is true, but I would stress more the average ethical than the intellectual level, which seems to get lower with time. And I believe that religion is not only useful but even necessary. Among other things, in order to increase the average ethical level. This in turn will make for a better life for everyone, materially and spiritually. Ethics and rationality produce order. Lack of them produce disorder and chaos.
But, as I will describe below, very little of this is actually applied and it can have a value and purpose only if correctly applied.
***
As far as hypocrisy and differences between atheists and theists are concerned, I can ascertain, mainly from personal experience, the following:
Hypocrisy and immorality exist everywhere, among atheists as among theists.
Theists have more tendency to hate and fight atheists than the other way around.
Theists try to convince and convert atheists or be imposed on them, but rarely the other way around.
Theists show much more contempt and lack of respect towards atheists than the other way around. (Their customs exercised in public, e.g. joining hands around a table in a prayer and citing quotes from Gospels (or Torah, etc.) are classic examples of this, esp. when they do this in front of people of and other faith!)
Theists (in their great majority) believe that their religion is better than other religions and sometimes even that it is the only religion, calling other faiths as infidels! Religious wars are still happening today since the time of Moses. (All this is part of the insanity that religions have and still can create to people, when used as a means of suppresion and domination.) Such things are totally unknown among atheists.
Theists would be in a much better place and much more enviable if they had studied and/or were taught the philosophy, scripts, literature, tenets, beliefs, etc. of their religiion in the right way. In my life, I have known some of them who have done so and I had envied them.
Atheists are more true to themselves and to others than are theists.
Atheists can think and reason for themselves better, based on their own realities, than can theists.
Atheists may not believe in God (or a god), but this doesn't mean they cannot be "religious" (in the sense I explained earlier).
Important note: All of the negative things I mentioned above about theists are not inherent to theism. They happen because of the wrong or even inexistent teaching of the religions, as well as the wrong purpose they have been used for.
***
Back to the question of the topic "What can replace God?", after all this has been said:
Religions that teach people a philosophy of life, ethics and principles of moral conduct and their immense importance in life, based on common sense and rational thinking, as well as accompanying real examples and applications in everyday life.
That’s not what I’m suggesting. I’m pointing that you apparently believe that the vast majority of people require shepherding, due to their “intellectual level”, and the shepherds to date are doing a piss-poor job of it, and yet you have no idea of how to do it better, or how to take control. You haven’t even expressed any vision of a better future. In the end, it seems that you’re simply looking for control.
Control over whom? From all you wrote above, it seems that I'm simply looking for answers.
If exist any.
Quoting praxis
My vision is a world where vast majority worldwide to be logical people, who would respect whatever others want to believe.
My vision is most people to follow one simply EASY fucking rule "do whatever you want as long as not giving problems to others!"
But again whom am I to enforce my so called "vision" to anyone? Martin Luther King?
I know they are different, but don't you think these two are strongly connected also?
Quoting Alkis Piskas
I would put it "to prevent average ethical level from moving down lower!"
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Fact.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
I disagree on that. I think depends from the individual. Seems more or less the same to me.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Same as above for me.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Fact.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
I think as the rest from the above one as you can imagine.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Are you suggesting a different "form" of religions over future?? Like church "evolution" ? Or got it wrong?
Those of the appropriate "intellectual level", as you've repeatedly referred to them.
Quoting dimosthenis9
From the beginning of this topic in the OP you ask "So what else could take God's role to "give" the Ethics that people should follow?". So you're basically asking how to control people. Ethics are moral principles that govern behavior. You're not asking how to develop virtue, in others or yourself. The concept of moral development seemed completely alien to you when I mentioned it.
Quoting dimosthenis9
This is a contradiction because logic is reasoning according to strict rules of validity so whatever is proved to be invalid (fallacious) would be rejected.
Quoting dimosthenis9
You'd have to flesh that out a bit more but it definitely shows that your "vision" is about controlling others, rather than others of a particular "intellectual level", or yourself, developing virtue.
What's your point here? I don't get it. That ethics is a bad thing? That a society can exist without any kind of Ethics? What different is moral development than moral principles? If moral principles get better isn't that moral development? I don't understand your distinction here.
Quoting praxis
For sure Logic is much more than that. It's the art of searching the truth with the most appropriate
way.
Quoting praxis
Now I see that your mind "locked" in another thing with me. After accusing me for all different kind of things, now we have a new one.
Do you think I belong to Scientology or some kind of another hidden illuminati organization and I'm here in TPF as to collect members?
Or that I m some kind of Messiah??
How you develop virtue? My "recipe" says that improving intellectual level is extra crucial for that.
What yours say?
That you're looking for a way to control people's behavior. You want to "take God's role" in order to "give the ethics [moral principles that govern behavior] that people should follow". Presumably, you don't want to give just any ethics, you want to give ethics that you approve of, right? What's good for the goose is good for the [s]gander[/s] low average intellectuals, as they say in the old country.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Hmmm :chin: , what country did you say you're from?
Quoting dimosthenis9
Are you saying that you've reconsidered and no longer wish to take God's role? That would be good news.
I didn't. Greece.
Quoting praxis
Yeah. Changed my mind. Too much responsibility for me, my schedule is already full.
Yes, certainly they are connected, but intelligence does not imply ethics. Ethics, pure ethics (as a system, a philosophy), on the other hand, imply intelligence, or more precisely, "rationality". (In the same way that intelligence does not imply philosophical thinking, but the other way around is true.) Indeed, I consider ethics strongly related to rationality. (As you can see, I ended my message saying, regarding ethics, "based on common sense and rational thinking" .)
Quoting dimosthenis9
Alright, but this is not so optimistic! :grin:
Quoting dimosthenis9
Yes, it depends on the individual. And indeed, Christians were persecuted a lot in the beginnings of Christiainism. Also, what I mentioned was mainly based on my experience with and facts about the Greek Orthodoxy, which is the most fanatic, hardcore Christian group of all.
Quoting dimosthenis9
In the religious world I live, it is true. What is your religious "world"?
Quoting dimosthenis9
No, you have got it right! And you have put it nicely. :smile:
Good observations. Just because no-one "concludes" the argument doesn't invalidate anything. It's a matter of complementing each others' individual provisional decisions re prioritisation.
Quoting dimosthenis9 The people I mentioned had those. I think you have foundations for logic. These need spelling out.
because you are addressing many people besides those, and you invited us all in your OP.
Is this like a material dialectic jagganauth? :wink:
This "ranking" probably varies with different countries and ethnic heritages - but not to contradict you. I am aware of infinite variation in quality among eastern orthodox. Under all "badges" small details in theology, instead of being evaluated in their own right, sometimes extrapolated to the most horrendous bad dynamics (spreading across official boundaries).
(I am still catching up from page 6) Praxis is saying in response to your OP what I was wishing to say which is that when we bring our well thought out virtues with us we can feed further into the loop of well thought-out thinking and virtuous action.
From a commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics I have by Oesterle, it appears those are mainly mental ones like proportion, contemplation, quality of initiative, continence, knowledge, right appetite, speculative virtues, art, prudence, equity, justice, right, temperance, perseverance, magnanimity, fortitude, measure, reason, discretion, attention to detail, principle, efficient causes, and the like.
To quote an apostle you don't follow, "against these there is no law".
Quoting dimosthenis9
Don' t try too hard! I've seen it done, and it ain't pretty! Uncouple, de-link, I say again.
Like the dimosthenes9 quoted which enforces the "tank" effect for example. I know someone whose family were mafia in those parts.
As for "faith" this has to be taken apart in infinite detail. If someone stronger than me claims I have breached "faith" in their absolute imposition on my faculty to discern, I want to dissociate myself from them for the sake of my integrity. They can't demonstrate honestly that there isn't better "faith" than what they are substituting for my stolen discretion and initiative.
Because the OP proposed logic, and because logic works when it is based on honesty plus background knowledge, this is why we are offering informative answers.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Quoting Fine Doubter
I don't know if you have followed the thread. I have cleared in my comments and the information I delivered that they were based on personal experience and historical facts regarding the Greek Othdodox Church, which is the prevailing religion in my country and it is the one that became the dominant religion, since the beginnings of the Byzantine period (Eastern Roman Empire), and tried to destroy whatever remained from the ancient Greek Civilization, with everything that this entails. (Fortunately, the Catholic Church, in the Western Roman Empire, preserved a big part of the history and wisdom of that civilization and even gave it a new birth in the Renaissance. Considering these facts and also the masterpieces created during Renaissance and thereof, show the huge difference in intelligence and spriritual levels between these two Churches and faiths, although they are both Christian! There are no bad religions. There are only bad people who are reqpresenting it (Churches, power) and using it for wrong purposes.)
Alleged talk of "god" or "religion" is really talk of the "god or religion pretext" with lots of "god or religion subtexts". I have read your poignant autobiography; what JP II proclaimed was enforced cliqueyness (after a very different start I later became a refugee from the "armada").
Quoting Corvus
An image of a "tank" enforced by "mafia" was perhaps not the sole metaphor OP intended? A fuller and more explicit range including a self-effacing divinity that respects our discretion to explore honesty actively, would have convinced better. I've seen people arise proposing to weaponise religion on grounds of this kind and I've always seen the bad effects ensue. Non-weaponised religion is a very different affair. (Some churches are a mixture.) If wouldbe religious leaders just say they are going to devise the "celestial dictator" model we ought to be on the alert.
Don't be so frightened of 180 Proof. If you study what the rest of us are saying first, you will understand where and how his expressions fit in.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Thus to follow up your OP, how can agnostics of goodwill and religion-adherents of goodwill complement each others' efforts to strengthen public and individual morale? The very wide range of answers almost all of us have already given draw on background knowledge, honesty, reason, Nicomachean virtues, and the like. Do any of those still exist among some sectors in your country?
The things that destroy philosophy, reason, science and knowledge on all subjects are:
- conflating the several separate phases in perceiving
- conflating the according of value with judging
- denying imagination and all inference
- reifying (saying that the word is the thing)
- ignoring background knowledge of all kinds including what is not in the "canonical silo"
If all of us pay a better degree of attention to most of those most of the time, we'll be at cross purposes less often. Develop spatial thinking. The mathematics of morale is not zero-sum.
Leaving it open to attribute sources of morals to a reified cardboard god, in the format of a just-so story (the standard format that was always meant to be taken as a riddle or paradox) could be the way a self-effacing god worth its salt set "authoritative interpreters" up to be challenged on their veracity.
According to me I need to mix first with people who will (by their demeanour and sound hermeneutic in life) help me identify basis for my belief. "Faith" might have to come if I'm ever in a tight spot and I'll need what I'm calling "belief" first. I believe the kind of belief I'm mentioning is something agnostics can give themselves in their own context. It is the wholesome and requisite / absolutely necessary component in healthy religion if or when that ever occurs. This is quite fascinating as some holy texts seem to use only one word for both (whether in original or translation I'm not sure), yet I'm convinced both distinct things were always "intended".
Thank you, I was underestimating the impact of the events around Justinian and the iconoclasts. There was big evil around Cyril of Alexandria (involving equivocity in ontology) but I suppose he is just as much eastern as western. The earlier Irish preserved Greek learning (alongside a few elements outside christendom). I'm particularly worried by the last (up to) 100 yrs. of Irish and Americans (as to religion) among others. Creating a new "expression" or "emergence" or "shaping", or envisaging an "armada" is a way of entrenching dumbing-down and ramping up intensity. Some long standing western traditions seemed to stay the same and radically destroyed their basis at the same time. Almost all the western traditions are distorted by ingrained fundamentalism. Small details of theology which are easier to promulgate now, are resulting in huge abuse. Some (eastern adherents) I know of are rediscovering relative authenticity vis-a-vis eastern orthodox and some of them aren't.
We agree on that. That's why i mentioned when I opened the thread that Ethics coming from Logic and rationality could be a possible "solution". Though I still have doubts that it could be enough.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
We both live in the same religious world,apparently. I get what you mean, but don't be so hard with us.i don't think that most Greek orthodox Christians are so hardcore. Well of course there are many though.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
That's really interesting. In fact i double checked that you meant that, cause it was exactly a thought that came to me the previous days while I was debating here.
But I get enough accusations already and I had decided not to share it here. As you notice some believe that I have a "secret" plan as to create a new dogmatic group. But now that you implied the same, you pushed my buttons and found it "karma"-ish, seeing my thought written by someone else just a couple days after.
So I was thinking how could religion could be in 100 or 200 years from now.
Behind religions there is a billion dollar business and a huge amount of power that some people have.
Let's suppose that more and more people become atheists in the future (very possible) and they turn their back to religion.
Is there a way Religions to give up so easily, their precious money and all the power they got? As I mentioned at another post, religion makes every possible "effort" to remain alive every time science gives "it" trouble. What if scientific discoveries at the long future present "facts" that will make God's existence absolutely impossible?? Religion will say "oh ok. There is no God after all.Now there is no reason to exist. So we close! Thanks for your preference all these years. Bye!"?
For me the only way as religion to remain alive would be a "church evolution" similar to what you suggested. Its transformation into an ideological community based on Logic(?) hopefully that it will push people to follow "good" based on rational thinking and common sense. Like a new form of church.
At the end everything through history evolves. Nothing stays stable. So why not that to be the next "evolution step" for church too?
But again it's only a longgg guess and a thought I had.
I have no idea what this is.
Quoting Fine Doubter
I just commented on what Piskas wrote, and you mention that. Imagine what you will write when you see my new response to Piskas. I am gonna wear my helmet.
Quoting Fine Doubter
I don't get what you mean. You imply that actually it is impossible to complement each other or you mean that this can be done through knowledge, reason honesty etc? If you mean the second I agree with you.
Yeah don't worry for my country. Still exist.
Quoting Fine Doubter
Didn't get what's your final point is here either.
Right, Cyril of Alexandria was not with eastern church Most probably not the western either. However, he was contermporary to Theodosius II who in 448 had ordered that all anti-Christian books be burned. I don't know if that included ethnic (pagan) books or just heretical books. But at the period (440–450) there was a massive destruction of Greek monuments, altars and temples. And ea little earlier than that, in 365, with a Judgment, inexhaustible piles of books, all Greek literary, philosophical and scientific books were burned in the squares of the urban centers.
Quoting Fine Doubter
Interesting! Maybe during the Middle Ages?
Quoting Fine Doubter
There you are! That's a word I never use but I recognize it well when I see it! :smile:
Quoting Fine Doubter
I don't know if this has anything to do with it, but quite a long time ago, I read a book called "Mystic Theology" by a known Greek Orthodox mystic who lived in early 1st c. and I was really amazed. It was so close to the Eastern philosophy! (In fact, some people characterize it as Greek Zen). Guess what. This and other books of his were excluded from the official Greek Orthodox literature by the Church! If more books like that (and other works of the same author) were written, accepted and promoted for study, the whole Christianity would be totally different today!
You maybe right about that. It's something personal, i.e., it depends on the cases one has encounteredin his life. I personally, avoid to speak about religion or even religious matters with anyone who is deeply religious.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Right. I did mean that. "Different 'form' of religion" and "church 'evolution'" are what is needed. And not only this, but they have inspired me a lot, to a point that I would like to start doing something about that. And I had in mind to talk to you about it. I have suddenly realized that you have created a really great topic and that God must indeed be replaced! :grin: This is a huge topic!
(Yet, I am not sure if it "talks" to you as it does to me ...)
Quoting dimosthenis9
:grin: That's really funny!
But what a coincidance! It's not far from what I have just described. (No [s]docmatic[/s], by any means, though!)
Quoting dimosthenis9
Oh, that's way too long! We have to live to see it happening! :smile:
Quoting dimosthenis9
Remember how I ended my last message? You don't have, I copy-paste it here for you :smile: : ([i]"Religions that teach people a philosophy of life, ethics and principles of moral conduct and their immense importance in life, based on common sense and rational thinking, as well as accompanying real examples and applications in everyday life."[/i]
Well, I thought something easier than creating actual "religions" (too complicated). Create "religious groups", which are built around a basic ethics system and a set of priciples, and which will act to support and help each other and other groups or individuals to a better life. A better life for all, in general, physically (materially) and spiritually, always based on common sense. Discussions will also be in the daily agenda! (Well, I have not workded it out well yet. This is just "sketch"! :smile: )
If any system, be it a belief system or form of government, were supportive of independence, self realization, reduction of existential anxiety, new perspectives, enlightenment, etc. then it would not be against mysticism. Religions and governments typically are though. Even in Zen it’s the rare case where mysticism is practiced with any real diligence.
I do the same too.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
It "yells" to me. Not only "talks". But inside my head. That's why I opened the thread
. As for "doing" something about it. I'm not up to put in action a plan like that for 2 reasons:
1. I'm totally sure that this won't change anything, at my living time at least. You could say that at least I would have helped to put a little "stone" as changing things to long future.
And here comes the 2nd reason
I m not that altruist at all as to "sacrifice" my life and time for a thing that the "change" of it(if it ever happens actually) I will never experience. And that would have costed me psychologically and in other fields also (cause I know it will, since I know some things about myself).
You will say. "that's total selfish". Absolutely is!
But I guess I don't have the "hero instinct" inside me. And I don't know if I'm not even that "good" person.
I m a guy who tries hard to act "good" but at which level of "goodiness" or "badiness" I'm at the end,i have no idea about it.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
It's not far at all!
Quoting Alkis Piskas
It is almost exactly what I had in my mind.
Discussions would be the MAIN agenda basically.
He is a "Doctor" of it no less.
Quoting dimosthenis9
that morals and morale are what's important to God and not religion.
Quoting dimosthenis9
a jagganauth is your vaunted "tank" and material dialectic is what Gramsci was into and gets bigger all the time.
Mutual support, basic ethics, common sense, discussion... what you describe is basically typical family life. That is already well established. It still has one of the main limitations that religions do, which is that the group is of limited size and there will always be an out-group which helps to reify the family identity.
Religions require an ultimate authority and a metaphysics to which that authority has special access. That's the basic recipe for faith.
You have to live in dread of becoming useless :gasp:
But only institutional faith, which is so often a distraction from the real thing, as both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche lamented
Really wish most families "worked" like that. World would be much better. But most families are far from that.
Quoting praxis
True.
If you say so.
But you're out of your depth among agnostics.
Quoting Fine Doubter
Thus, Mr Dimosthenis9, we have had the fact that most people replaced "god" already. Some people, with better substitutes than the Kaiser Bill supporters did. Particular arguments kindly offered include:
Jack Cummins who said people can use their imagination (I think they can do this without your "animating")
Tom Storm: "People still have to decide for themselves regardless of theism"
Apollodorus: "Upbringing, education, and a legal system would be quite adequate to enforce proper conduct."
Tom Storm: "Atheists and theists share the same basis for morality. ... Your wider question about convincing people to be good I didn't answer since you made assumptions along the way which needed clarification. You can't convince people to be good"
Banno flagged up dishonest bases in religion (I would call what he is referring to a form of fundamentalism)
You then said "And who needs that dishonesty at the very end as to maintain it? Aren't people who actually need that "dishonesty" as to follow some rules?" and bad syntax is against site rules and I forgot to query it - my bad.
Then you say "theists get moral rules from some God and atheists don't? I don't think it's same base here" without offering any substance when it's the opposite of what we've all pointed out and showing no deep understanding of the role some gods had in some morals sometimes. It's as if you are just out to cynically take unfair advantage of some people's naivety by keeping them where they are at.
Banno: "Suppose there is a "fundamental base"; it remains that one must chose to follow it, or no.
On what basis could one make the choice, without already having made that choice?
Hence, as I suppose you might agree, the point is not to follow some fundamental moral system, but to become a better person.
Hence, Virtue Ethics.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
What can replace god? Silence."
Apollodorus: "personally, when I judge the ethical value of a particular action, I decide whether that action is "good" or "bad" on the basis of upbringing. This tends to be my primary motivation in avoiding a particular action, for example, not the thought that I may be punished by God, though I can't rule out that possibility should I choose to take a different course of action.
I think children are quite good at learning what is right and what is wrong if they have parents who are themselves good role models.
It would need to start with basic things such as discipline, self-control, and cleanliness which is something that even animals can learn without any fear of God.
In those cases where upbringing and education fail to have the desired effect, there would be fear of the law or social disapproval." Note emphasis and limited scope of that.
~~~ Continued in next post ~~~
Real metaphysics is the property of all the public (Meinong deals with the optional religious module to this for which you need sound phenomenology, semiotics and hermeneutics, again public property). I for one am not interested in the special kinds on offer from eccentric tribes.
Of course it's enough because if you apply it in your own relationships with others you will be able to convey it by example, especially if you point them to resources outside yourself that we've mentioned and linked to. Your not spending enough time reading when we answered and putting too many uninformative replies too fast without real acknowledgement of ourss, led some of us to lose interest and others like me to fall behind, get nervous, etc. I told you to deal with 180 Proof later.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Aha! Moral Rearmament! :wink: Let's hope it works better this time.
John Eriugena brought texts to Aachen in the nick of time before the Vikings (who were "berserk" at the time) destroyed most Irish records.
Jack Cummins: "In response to your query about how it is possible to convince someone to act in a way which is 'good' without the idea of God, I think that it is about appealing to the person's better nature. In many ways it is just about removing all the fear involved in religion based on divine wrath and punishment. In some ways it may be simpler to explain according to reason, as well as to emotive and intuitive aspects of the picture." He recommends petty matters not be focussed on.
NOS4A2: "I think one can appeal to the conscience no matter the content of one’s beliefs. I seem to carry around this unseen witness to keeps tabs on my own behavior."
Tom Storm: "I have learned to understand morality as performative ... not many care what a 'god wants' ... no one knows what God wants - it's subjective interpretation" and then "The decision is made via personal choice. God itself remains silent"
You then noted the point about conscience but don't seem to understand it is about their self respect. My best French teacher (when we were 16) sometimes talked to us about that (we still learned a lot of French) and it calmed down some of the hooligans a lot because he was appealing to their self respect. No mafia. No tanks.
This is when the shadow of the mafia looms and you haven't heard that 140 years ago it was the Kaiser Bill groupies themselves that told Nietzsche that God was dead (simultaneously paying lip service with forked tongue)
How would you debate the Weinberg quote (if at all) with Weinberg? Truth can be conveyed in all sorts of formats - whether he was a militant the rest of the time or not (I hadn't heard of him till that post)
Tom Storm: "The problem is religion as practiced ... the key point, religion is interpretation. How do you know which one is wrong? That itself requires interpretation." Big extra - and extraneous - hermeneutic, semiotic and phenomenological jobs on your hands not to mention quasi indexicality in mind reading.
Jorndoe: "Reality? Truth? Learning? We can pass moral judgment on religious texts, they therefore do not define morals."
The MadFool: "Epistemic/Innate Chance.
Ergo, Chance has replaced God in the mind of atheists.
:point: God does not play dice" (thread title)
The relevance of this is that we have to appeal to contingency. S J Gould was a great believer in contingency.
180 Proof: "contingent interplay, or transformations, of 'something into not-something into something-else' ad infinitum ... therefore, a derivative effect and not a cause of (chance) itself" This is the real environment that sustains us ever day. I for one am "grateful"
TheMadFool: "anekantavada - different strokes for different folks"
You: "Didn't know there were any wrong questions." Aha, I've got just the quote for you: "Only correct questioning allows things to speak" attributed to Droysen on p 201 of Geniusas and Fairfield eds. 2018
Note Droysen and 180 Proof are attentive to context.
Hanover highlights paradoxes evoked around Biblical literalism (or not)
I discussed moralising and the concept of a god as lawgiver which doesn't apply to all peoples so explicitly. I also said: "Epicurus warned most poignantly against superstition" and touched on trauma and triggers. I then said:
"What and who is, calls me to respect it / them: my own original version of is = ought ...
Virtues = going equipped.
Morals are to do with morale (Julian Baggini says)"
Then I argued against intensity and pressure from agitators like mafia with tanks.
I argued the sociological snags of identifying morals and morale with anything god-tinged. I went on:
"I find it fascinating to ponder the many usages of the term "square":
- in logic - "it squares" (is consistent)
- in aesthetics - geometry, which assists calculations and illustrates relationships
- in epistemology - stemming from the above, and consistency again
- in ethics of relationships, "have you squared it with the boss" and such like.
Imposing zero sum terms is bad interhuman arithmetic.
The opposite of a right is a wrong."
I tried to alert you against needless binaries / excluded middled / false dichotomies / all or nothing thinking, in interpretiung the course of history, which has always been very varied.
Banno: "Children match their behaviour to the adults around them. There is a vast literature regarding managing their behaviour and growing them into adults. None of it says that you can only do this by frightening them with supernatural parents."
Banno: "the notion that punishment is the only, or the best, or even one of, the ways to create kind, just, open, thoughtful people is untenable"
You: "Worldwide theists are still the vast majority and with that "moral guide"" - that is actually non-morals based solely on tribal power wielding - ugh. I can't believe you don't know what you are saying. I think you do know.
Me: "sound premises are essential. Learning is open to everyone, not specific tribes with foibles" however big a "majority rule" over my personal conscience they can enforce with their tanks and their mafia.
Banno: "there have been ethical, well-behaved, productive atheists for hundreds of years" - did you observe the oblique allusion to your "useful"?
You: "most people (even nowadays) have that need though" no they don't because there aren't gods / soundly interpreted religions - which by the way are a private affair and not yours to comment any more
You: "only thing that should be examined is if someone is good (social useful) or bad (social useless)" which the individual themselves must interpret individually for themselves and not you, nor your mafia, nor your tanks.
To Gregory's mention of gnostic dualism you say: "For sure It would make more sense" but not more sense than what. Some of us will think it will make our morals worse not better, for all that there's no problem with Gregory's mentioning it. Your thread, your question we respected: so show how things fit in.
"God's name" is too variable in senses and connotations to make real sense, was my next point.
I'll come back to the interesting debate about empty concepts which I haven't input my responses to yet. Hanover's subtle middle of the road points here (citing Nietzsche) are none the weaker in themselves, if we see their place properly.
180 proof has a terrific description of science - I must respond.
Praxis draws the meaning out from Tom's point for us.
You said people should be lied to.
That's only what you claim and nothing but a fact at all. Most people worldwide are theists. So for one more time at this thread, what are you talking about??
Quoting Fine Doubter
Flag me to the moderators for that.
My "bad syntax" doesn't seem to prevent you from understanding all of my meaning though. As you are desperately seeking for a "Logic fault" in every single post I make. Go on your effort.
In contradiction your excellent English syntax, doesn't help you much since at the half of your posts you jump from another issue to another, without making any point at the end.
Quoting Fine Doubter
What exactly kind of substance you want me to offer you to that??
Quoting Fine Doubter
Logic was my initial proposal. But no I m not that sure that is enough. It's not that simple as you claim. Human creature is so complex that you can't be sure that Logic would be enough.
But even if it is enough after all (which I wish), the difficulty as to make most people think Logically is tremendous, as you notice everywhere around you.
I even had started a thread about it some time ago named "is Logic a matter of Intelligence?" that I had expressed many of my doubts that I express here.
Quoting Fine Doubter
Doesn't seem that case with you though.
. Quoting Fine Doubter
I see you really liked the "Tank of Logic" phrase as to refer it repeatedly, though you misuse it and mix it with mafia as to make your false point.
Nietzsche told that. But no one listened to him.
He actually put the thread question "what can replace God?" muchhhh earlier than me!
Quoting Fine Doubter
And who judges what " correct questioning" is?
By the way, you run out of arguments and you repost all the arguments made here from others against my position??
Arguments to most of them I replied already. You want me to do it again??
My English isn't that bad. Don't worry. I can read for myself.
Quoting Fine Doubter
And again... What are you talking about?!? What is non - morals? All theists don't have morals? Or they have false morals?
Quoting Fine Doubter
Oh that tank again!! So hear this :
That "Tank" is making you so nervous,that's why all your anxiety as to write a "whole book" for a comment.
Don't worry it's normal.
It's impressive what damage you can achieve to a person if you spill just some drops of Logic inside his fundamental beliefs! I have watched it many times in my real life also. Not surprised at all.
Quoting Fine Doubter
I said it and I support it!
They aren't at the intellectual level yet as to handle the truth. It's still necessary. Like it or not.
Exactly what lies do you want to spread?
So from everything that I wrote to that thread, that's what you got at the end?? That I want to replace God's lie with mine?!
Pfffff...
You make me regret for all the time I devoted to answer to every single post you made. And the patience I showed with you.
Your mind is locked there for good. Nothing to add anymore.
I don't get this, you said people should be lied to, and go further to say that you support lying to people, but when asked what specific lies you'd like to spread you get offended and shut-down.
Personally, I do not support deception of this kind. I'm curious though.
If it's simply that you're not sure what lies you'd like to spread then you could just clarify that.
I have to say, this makes me question your honesty in general. Do you lie and support lying to people on this forum?
I don't want to spread any new lie to the world at all!
I just point out the obvious thing. That people aren't at the intellectual level of handling the truth.
It's the same thing with what I mentioned when I opened the thread. The reason that I find religion still necessary even nowadays. A necessary lie as not worse chaos to occur in societies.
Quoting praxis
My proposal as to "replace" God was Logic. People wouldn't need lies if they could follow Logic, but apparently they can't. So where you notice exactly that I wanna replace a lie with another lie??
I cant believe you two knuckleheads (meant playfully!) this long to figure out he’s full of shit. I suppose you also think it a coincidence this “atheist” is dishonest and disingenuous in precisely the same way as every other religious clown that stumbles in here looking to prove some pet theistic point. Leave him be, he will find his place among the turds of this site. :naughty:
Quoting DingoJones
All theists are clowns for you.
Please Let me be then.
It seems to me that theists behavior appears to be better because of their religion but what if the religion sucks the soul out of them and they act "good" in a mechanical way that is really not wholesome?
I have wondered about that also in the past. The only "answer" i gave is that I can't even be totally sure for my own reasons as atheist on why I'm trying to act good and if it's not happening also in a mechanical way cause of my strong social beliefs. But is it truly wholesome for me too? Not sure either.
Well as for theists as to be honest, I don't care much if they act good cause of mechanical way. Since they are social useful, I wouldn't go deeper. That's all I care about.
Mostly just fun & games and I don’t care if he’s being genuine or honest, though openly speaking of lying to others so they’ll behave the way you’d like them to behave is both pathetic and contemptible.
What about if to make yourself useful you could help people become less mechanical by thinking for themselves?
Have you experienced thinking for yourself? Using spatial imagination helps. Do you like the diagrams of M C Escher, or admiring the view from a mountaintop?
I'm alarmed by your concept of "use", seeing as you are going to become a leader. I think you should care for the "theists". Do you think atheists are superior?
What do you think of all this:
https://lishanchan.com/teaching/
This is a good point by praxis, and he hasn't mentioned the tanks or the mafia:
Quoting praxis
Seriously, this is where your and my leadership comes in, by example. If we examine it ourselves, we can pass it on. Alkis looked like he could help as well?
It's just that your unimaginative tone conveyed that you wanted to fatalistically piggy back on oppression.
To abandon hope for others, by proxy, when you are in a position of leadership, is nihilistic.
That's because I made several interrelated points, which you seem to be getting alright with surface reason, but your despair imposed on others then overrides. Others are despairing; but I will always be hopeful for others, as my heart attitude, whatever I do (a little or a lot).
Don't forget all the world's public can read here to gain wisdom on this interesting topic and case in discussing.
Quoting dimosthenis9
No, I should have flagged it to you. We are getting quite a lot of your stance, but you might have been wanting to tell us more then and I failed to help. I just said, my bad.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Any that you might happen to have? A lot can be said in a line or two, you know.
Quoting dimosthenis9
If you didn't mean it in that sense, you could come back soon and clarify yourself - I have to do that sometimes.
Given that we don't know what "god" is, whose would it be?
Quoting dimosthenis9
Thank you, I'll look it up!
Quoting dimosthenis9
You do, based on context. It's responsible, enhances your feeling of self-worth, stretches your state of education, etc, then you can pass those things on to others.
Quoting dimosthenis9
My arguments are intended to follow on from the discussion you have with others. Those were not against your earlier position which was logic, they were for it. Is this now the "switch" to supremacism?
Nietzsche wasn't embracing it (his sister edited his papers wrong * ); he was using quasi indexicality (indirect speech) on the ideas of the Bismarck and Kaiser Bill groupies, who adversely impacted my family. I agree on the need many people have to "revalue", a subject Husserl also touches on. How will they think how they want to do that, if you want them refused teaching?
How are you going to help your theist neighbours stop being less-than and become more-than? Through these very threads.
If you're not pulling a "switch" or pulling your punches then why not explain yourself as you go on.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Are you a reifier? All your phrases spoke volumes, consistent with this, hence mine was only a false point if you can come in and reword your proper sense, instead of getting distracted.
Quoting dimosthenis9 If you could parse what you are saying as you say it, together with others' posts, or soon enough afterwards to nuance it, what you were doing was propose logic, get us to agree with you, and then say we're wrong, at the same time maintaining side-quarrels. I'm not in 100 % agreement with the tactic of some others to counter-sealion you, but my priority was to dialogue with you. In any case you could defuse their tactic and that would help me. I told you to prioritise the contributors and things will get clearer, easier.
If you want to change tack you can start a new thread and link this one; or even do it in this thread but say straight this is what you are doing, namely that the arguments of 180 Proof, Banno, and all the others in favour of your OP no longer interest you sufficiently: it happens but frankness is vital in forums.
Your social observation is not bad, but you are imposing your pall of despair on everybody with an iron fist. Yesterday you were going to launch a project. Honest logic doesn't mean switching, or pulling punches. Thinking out loud needs frankness and openness so people will know you're a sincere interlocutor.
Quoting dimosthenis9
I don't do cues. Would you assume some TPF members aren't here to exercise, and educate millions of readers?
{ * see Ben Macintyre, Forgotten Fatherland }
You mean "Churches" (religious/spiritual leaderships), right?
I'm not either, of course. For one thing I don't know even where to start from! But, as I said, "I would like to start doing something about that." It's a kind of motivation and certainly a dream! :smile:
Your reasons are quite ... reasonable. And I don't think that not willing to sacrifice oneself or being a hero for any purpose means selfishness. In most cases, it just means "it's not worthwhile".
Quoting dimosthenis9
I don't believe that one should "try" to be good. If ethics (I have described elsewhere what this term means to me) are part of one's reality and regular behavior, one usually thinks and acts ethically in a natural, efortless way. That is, most of the time, in general, as a rule.
Quoting dimosthenis9
So, it's a common vision, then! Well, it's a good start! :smile:
Quoting Fine Doubter
Do you maybe mean "morality"?
(Morale is "the confidence, enthusiasm, and discipline of a person or group at a particular time" (common definition))
Quoting Fine Doubter
"Moral Rearmament" ... That's very interesting! I mean, not the group itself (about the existence of which I had no idea), but that you have very successfully connected what I was taking about with it! :up:
But don't count on it ("to work better this time"). Because it ain't goin' to happen! :grin:
I just checked two sources and they both talk about Christan texts written in Greek. Nothing to do with Ancient Greek texts.
Also, this kind of information is often proven false. For instance, I read in https://talesoftimesforgotten.com that Arabs (mainly) and Jewish scholars have preserved Ancient Greek texts by translating them, etc. I found out later that nothing like that has happened!
But in its subtlest form, there's no reason that God/Omnimax need be replaced. As a religious interpretation, sure...the Omnimax isn't bound to any man's law or reasoning (though the two may indeed comply.)
Yet, still, nothing in Science has cast any aspersions on God, not as an inceptual concept, anyway.
I try to do that with the people around me. And just with discussion and telling them my opinions and thoughts.I m not even at the place to give anyone advices. Who am I to show them the "right path"? When actually I haven't even figured it out for my own self yet.
Quoting Fine Doubter
I m not going to become leader to No one else except myself! Wrote it many times here,i don't have any "heroic instinct" inside me as to "save the world". At the end who told you that the "world" even wants to be saved???
Only a fool would think atheists as superior. For me all people are JUST different and nothing else. I don't judge them according to what they believe but according to what they do. And I don't categorize them either.
Quoting Fine Doubter
So you urge me to become a leader after all? You accuse me of all kind of bad things and now you want me to lead??! Why would you want such a "bad" and "dishonest" leader as you describe me??
And to lead to what exactly? I don't even think that I m capable of leadership after all! As all people I have vanity inside me, of course, but isn't that big as to think myself as a "world savor"!
Quoting Fine Doubter
It's ok. Not that I got offended. I know my English isn't perfect. But I think I make my point clear.
Quoting Fine Doubter
Why would I want anyone to refuse teaching?? Teaching and reading is the shortest way to expand yourself. So why would I want such a thing??
Quoting Fine Doubter
Why exactly my theists neighbours to need any help at all? Why should I try to "change" them, if they believe in any kind of God and that makes them happy and acting good??
And what about my atheists neighbors?? Everything fine with them always??
Quoting Fine Doubter
I don't give a fuck as to try to convince someone discuss with me, when he has no arguments and only what he does is to insult. I m feeling bad with myself if i do that. Like underestimating myself getting involved with such people.
If someone wants to discuss with arguments he is welcome. If someone wants to act clever-ish with insults and tweeter lines, then the sooner he abandon this thread the better would be for me.
I value my time a lot as to waste it with silly insults into a forum.
By the way that doesn't go for you. We might disagree but your "insults" were light. I give you that.
Quoting Fine Doubter
What kind of project was I about to launch?? I don't follow you here.
Quoting Fine Doubter
All arguments interest me as long as they are arguments indeed! And not insults.
You keep mentioning Banno by the way. Banno came to the thread. Disagreed with me with some arguments and just left.
He probably didn't agree at anything I wrote, or he had other interesting topics to attend or whatever. He might even found my thread useless and idiot! Don't know. But the thing is that he didn't cause any unnecessary "mess". He just left with no insults or anything.
I totally respect that and I do the same.
Quoting Fine Doubter
Who is that? A TPF member?
Well yeah I wouldn't know when to start either!
As to be honest I think my way of thinking is kind of selfish indeed. But I m ok with that, I don't blame Egoism and selfishness the way most people do, and I find hypocrisy when someone does that. Egoism isn't always a bad thing. And I don't demand from anyone to sacrifice himself as to "save" the world.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
For me not always comes natural as to be honest.I m human with weaknesses, temptations etc and sometimes I have to give hard "fight" with myself as to "convince" him act good.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Yeah it is a start indeed.
:smile:
Heroin feels nice though. Im not promoting it! I still take methadone. But it makes you get contact with the non-material side of the universe. Isnt that universe proof of god? You can also adapt the view that the universe is the magic. That it is incomprehensible. That there is matter magical stuff inside matter, and that you gotta have resoect for all forms of life that have evolved in this eternal, magical universe. Big bang after big bang. Maybe in every big bang we live again. As ourselves but differently every time.
Any kind of brand that is supported by a particular group, I suppose. It could be a religious, political, or business brand. Any brand wants you to be as dependent on that brand as possible and therefore has an interest in its subscribers not developing, because self-development in morals or enlightenment, or even physical health, leads to independence. Just look at the animals that we literally brand. We want them to be tame, predictable, and just healthy and capable enough to service our needs.
A drug dealer (legal or illegal) or medical professional doesn't want you to get your act together and stop buying their product or service. A capitalist society wants to teach its citizens how to pursue status and material gain, not well-being. Religious leaders want to spoon-feed their followers' meaning. They don't want them to find it for themselves because then they'd lose their support and the tradition would collapse.
In religion, Zen is a good example of what I mean because it's regarded as an austere tradition that focuses on training (meditation) and experiential intuition. Some people don't even consider it a religion. If this were really true then why isn't the training better than it typically is?
I'm currently working through a book on Zen training called Hidden Zen, by Meido Moore. Best book on meditation techniques I've ever seen, with in-depth instructions on breathing, posture, the works. In the introduction of the book, he explains the reasons for publishing it, starting with the claim that many of the practices within it are not commonly taught. In one part he writes, "Aside from the sparsity of teaching resources, a real danger of incomplete Zen of this kind is that it can easily devolve into a mere collection of trappings largely stripped of their inner function. It may ultimately become a burden rather than an aid, a kind of vaguely Buddhist identity rather than a dynamic path of liberation." I've been involved with a few Zen sanghas and I can attest to this "incomplete Zen."
The title of the book refers to these withheld or forgotten techniques. WTF, right!? The same principle working as it does in the field of medicine. Cure the patient, or show them how to help themselves, and they stop showing up for treatment. Give them just enough so they'll keep coming back, hide the rest.
This is true for some coersive, suppressing institutions that try to prevent people's self-development, independent thought etc. Medicine is a typical example, as you said. Church too. But you cannot generalize it and apply it to all the groups ("brands as you call them) on earth!
Quoting praxis
Who says that Zen is a religion? It is a school of Mahayana Buddhism. I personally consider it a practical religious philosophy, as most of the Buddhist schools.
Quoting praxis
What do you mean by "better than it typically is" mean? What does "typically" represend and Where does it result from? Have you been trained in Zen quite a lot and are not satisfied with the results? And what about million people who live on Zen principles and are practicing it?
Quoting praxis
Reading a book about a subject is great but one cannot expect or even "see" results if this subject involves training, and particularly an intensive and long one. In this case, one has to find out what other people who have obtained results say about them.
Meido Moore has obtained results. He’s been practicing practically his whole life, in Japan and the US. And as I’ve said, in my experience with Zen centers in the LA area, what he says holds true.
??
Sharing your views is a kind of mutual leading by example. I didn't say change people (that's their job, if and as much or as little as they want to), I said teach which is what we do when we do exactly what we do. To set a mutual example and pick a mutual example up from each other and give our contribution individual flavour. Why give up hope, when you already know this works? Essentially it's only tanks, lies, and mafia that most of us disagreed with you on. I was frightened by your lack of care for all the theists in your country because you think they deserve tanks, and mafia, and lies, rather than your sitting down with them discussing.
Even 180 Proof had constructive ideas. His message I think was to leave religion out of it if others want to leave religion out of it. Which was the central issue in your OP. When the tone is temporarily over the top you can come back to him later if at all. Normally most of us perhaps like Banno would assume that if you didn't react you had accepted our answers anyway. But you kept insisting that we were contradicting you. Your mode of discourse confused me and some others at some point or points.
I should have italicised Forgotten fatherland, it's Macintyre's book. Nietzsche's brother in law Forster sold plots of swamp in Paraguay. The Forsters' associates used twisted versions of Nietzsche's loose notes to drum up business for the Nazis, though Hitler himself is thought not to have bothered with either those, nor the real thing.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
According to Julian Baggini morals are to do with morale (as I twigged before I read that). Not hubris or mania.
A "god" that was to do with morals with religious connotations would only be worthwhile if it / he was respectful of your morale that is to say good heart in your well-respected individual self - suppose you are a gentle person or grieving, or just plain honest and straightforward (and I'm all four) - and not one that wants to whip up hubris and mob mania (subtext: lies, tanks and mafia :rofl: ). The media have been full of the latter these 30 years and it's unsurprising some react sharply.
How do money-spinners want to de-moralise pretend christians or designer outlet "zen" customers? Sell them something that specifically isn't the real thing!
A material dialectic is a pincer movement. I was - so it happens - on the inside of one of those for 28 years! :rofl:
My personal description of discipline is that by bringing together:
- acutely perceptive analysis of what is practical (e.g if one has a physical handicap)
- identifying exactness as to issues involved
- a quality of attention to detail
then applying individual initiative . . .
we arrive at a discipline in specific affairs that works and carries on working (maybe with ongoing tweaks). People with specific learning differences may need more practice runs before "internalising" this enough for it to be semi-conscious. It can be enjoyable and good for self-respect to consciously and "mindfully" rehearse the procedures. It reminds me of the way my mum would chant "knit 1 purl 1" when knitting. Or piano learners call the notes as they play them. Ones faculties are like ducks - we can get them in a row!
A non-intense and non-scary view of initiative, and ample analysis beforehand, and refusal of any shame afterwards if needing to repeat the procedure umpteen times, are the keys. My workplace coach showed me to "chunk down" all issues to make them possible to handle mentally and physically.
I am afraid that you are trying to justify your mistake, making it much bigger than what it was, instead of just accepting the --again, minor-- correction I did. (Indeed, it looks like just a typo.)
In the United States combined with other powers, money is the reason chaos has been made greater in societies claiming to have a "god" and my acquaintances are in grave danger in direct connection with this sort of thing. I have spent a lot of time looking into this. The detail would to have to be made suited to a worldwide largely agnostic readership.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Aha, interesting point. This is where we need to expand on our own understanding, then others will catch hold of it when we are conversing with them.
Straight and crooked thinking by R H Thouless pubd 1953 inspired me. Also works on the thought of Husserl, and on semiotics, and on historical linguistics, geology and astronomy, as case studies.
https://www.julianbaggini.com/
Indeed did I not add three paragraphs in explanation?
I try to do that in my real life and it's enough for me.
Quoting Fine Doubter
That's only your conclusion and I have no idea how you ended up there with all I have written. But anyway.
Quoting Fine Doubter
Yeah extra constructive I would add!
Quoting Fine Doubter
But I reacted and responded. So what are you talking about again?
Quoting Fine Doubter
I have wrote it again in another thread. Nietzsche would spit on Hitler's face if he was alive.
Quoting Fine Doubter
So you have to teach Logic into people. And the best place that to happen is schools. Education. For me as I told to javi also, classes like philosophy dealing with matters of logic, and working on yourself, happiness etc should have been since junior school! And never stop till University. Taken as the most serious lesson and not just like classes for "fun" like music. But the most important class. If we actually wanna change something in societies.
Quoting Fine Doubter
Don't worry. At the end all humanity, theists atheists, one common God worship. Money!