No. Neither is not to. It's just a matter of choice.Nothing else. I can't see any complexity here.

We cannot escape it or write off it's power and attraction for us so easily. — Michael Zwingli

Not easily at all. But that doesn't mean that it isn't still the most important problem.

So... why do we not have examples of matriarchies to work with? — Banno

Cause it's still on the way. We will get there too some day. Not sure if we will be alive to witness it though.

The problem is the -archy part of both. — StreetlightX

I would consider the thread closed after this response.

There is nothing bad with lies which doesn't do any harm at all.
Ethics have made lying look like a "sin" but sometimes are necessary and much preferred than the "truth". At the end at many cases we don't even know what the "truth" is. We are just having opinions which we think that these are the only and absolute truth.

We always have to examine the "purpose" of the lie as to determine if it's ethical or not. Same with the truth. When truth is used just to make harm and cause sadness to others, well no that's neither ethical!

If my friend bought an expensive coat and asks me "do I look nice on it?" what's the point not to make him happy by telling him a lie even if I don't believe it?? At the end it's just a fucking coat, let him be happy about it. At that kind of questions,and in other cases too, I see no harm or something unethical with lies at all.

World is full of rude, impolite assholes that think they are "just honest" and they are proud about it.
I much prefer a polite "liar" than those wannabe "truth warriors".

Do we share at least the fundamental logical rules of inference with these beings, who perceive so differently? — Mersi

Well no. How to compare human logic with something else's logic? Since that "else" would be totally different? For me it's like trying to compare apples with oranges.

Logic of course depends on our experiences and our environment.It's the "data" used by logic. And sure played crucial role as human mind to learn to practice that "analyzing method". The ability to seek the truth with the most appropriate way in all kind of circumstances. For me is kind of simple:different creatures, different way of experiences, different logic.

If you include technology to perception, I think there are good reasons to suspect that there is more to the universe than what we can reveal about the world. We are human beings, not all-knowing creatures like God or something like that. So there must be a limit in what our senses and intellect tells us about the world. — Manuel

Yeah I mean with technology's aid also.Even our technology is limited cause it is our "creation". But we humans are incredibly curious creatures. So who knows one day.

It is difficult, it's almost impossible to get behind our ordinary intuitions which have been built-in to our mode of thinking for who knows how long. — Manuel

Extremely difficult. But not impossible imo.

Matter is much stranger than how it appears to common sense. Common sense tells us to think of matter in terms of solid, indestructible stuff. But this kind of matter is not the matter that exists in the world. In fact, "solid" stuff, is by far, much more rare than non-solid matter. — Manuel

That's so true indeed. Imo we examine matter in a very human-ish way. We almost always consider matter as something solid as you mentioned.But solid is only what we see. Our human eyes can see matter as solid.

You say that solid matters are rare. I say there isn't anything solid at all in all over universe. Everything is like huge "molecule-energy soup".
So could that be an indication that our brain's "matter" also is much more than what we can perceive?

A good deal of physics is trying to figure out how a few particles colliding could create certain strange effects. But if you consider a brain, you are speaking of billions of particles and a more complicated science, like biology — Manuel

So at the end is brain the only thing which gets involved in thinking? As NOS4A2 mentioned, at the end can brain "think" without heart, lungs etc?? For me seems kind of strange to separate mind (thinking etc) from all of the rest of the body.

Your approach is really different and interesting.

You ain't going to work out where thoughts are unless you are fairly clear as to what they are. — Banno

Man I can clearly picture you getting into a store, the employee welcomes you saying :
"Good morning, sir"
And you responding :
"Oh my friend first we have to clarify the definition of what good is. After what you define as morning since it's almost 12, so you could easily say noon. And last but not least to define what you mean with Sir. Since I could easily be a transgender woman dressed like a Sir! ".

No offense here, I hope. Just you are really obsessed with definitions, not that you do wrong. I find also definitions and wording extremely important for conducting a proper conversation with useful outcomes. But if we overdo it, at the end we won't be able to talk about anything!

For me in that case, let's see thinking here as "everything that our mind deals with" . As to have a base to understand each other.

BUT...
6. I hesitate to conclude the AI is conscious. — TheMadFool

I think maybe it would be better to say that AI imitates human thinking and not consciousness.

Consciousness requires the existence of subconscious and unconscious mind. It's just the tip of the iceberg. Thoughts already coexist and created in unconscious mind and then show up(some of them) in human consciousness.
That's the only reason, imo, that we can't say at AI robot for example has consciousness. It just does some form of "thinking".

Really interesting topic. To me it seems like the hardware-software case. I don't think thought can exist without brain. But I am not so sure that thought gets "produced" only there,in a specific part of the brain.

What always troubled me is how all this invisible world (thoughts, ideas, feelings etc) and whatever is going on in unconscious mind are stored inside the brain? And is indeed in the brain at a specific place (part) or spread all over it? If it is spread all over shouldn't something to exist as to keep all that "world" united? The world that we experience via consciousness??

Could ever be possible that this "place", where all these information exist, to be some kind form of energy ? Energy that passes through the brain but also "circles" all human body. Bringing on surface also conscious mind via brain's hardware of course.
I know sounds extreme. To myself also. It's just a desperate attempt my mind to wrap around these questions.

This is a bit like the sentiment “give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime — Benj96

Exactly. This sentiment says it all.

For me, the thing that we should be focus on is how to make less takers. And not more givers. To make social circumstances better as less people to need help from others.

Giving isn't the solution to the problem at all. It's just a last "humanity safety net" but it doesn't solve anything after all.
The main problem with charity is what Nietszche spotted. That when you feel compassion and you pity someone, then you urge the person to pity himself also!Like giving him more excuses than he already has. This is like making an endless circle go on and on.

There are many people who depend on charity and people who find that as the "easiest solution" in their lives. They convince even themselves that they aren't worthy for anything better.
The genuine taker actually feels shame when he receives help. His proud takes a punch! He doesn't want that. But he can't do otherwise.

Of course charity is important in societies and I don't support to stop helping others at any chance! But it shouldn't be the main purpose.
At the end you can't demand from anyone that has just one life to devote it to others! He should do that, only if he feels like it but you can't accuse anyone who doesn't think that way.

Each one face his own personal "chaos" you can't blame him for wanting to solve only his problems and not others also.
The genuine givers are those who act like that cause they CAN'T do otherwise. They would feel bad with themselves if they didn't. This comes natural to them. They don't do it as to point the finger to the others and show how "better" from the rest are. Those who do that are nothing more than hypocrites.
"The one who gives is the one who gains the most" after all as Nietzsche wrote.

Is the whole thing a creepy racist dog whistle? — Cheshire

No it isn't. Can't really see how someone would end up in such a conclusion.

we have to keep in mind that there are people like for instance in the rainforest that have zero Western education so by Western standpoint they are not intelligent and yet they have figured out a way to survive in the rainforest which is a very hard place to find nutrients and clean water despite its name — MAYAEL

I get what you mean, so I have to clarify that I don't consider "western logic" better than others.
Of course Logic depends also from the environment someone grew up and the things that he has experienced. For example human Logic wasn't the same in Homo sapiens as it is now. Logic, for me, follows human knowledge and science.And according to them it adjusts and transforms.

But even at the rainforest tribes that you mention. Won't there be any "Rainforest men" who would be more intelligent than others and in that way to practice their Logic better than others? For example finding more logical solutions as to find clean water more easily or hunt better or build better shelters etc. Imo even to their kind of Logic intelligence plays some role.

it requires somebody with extremely strong willpower to redirect the body and stop doing these self-damaging things — MAYAEL

I think you mentioned the key phrase here "strong willpower". It is extremely difficult I agree. But it can be done. Mind can rule over body in such issues. But it takes a hell of a fight for that!

I very very very rarely come across somebody it actually holds the same goal in mind I usually am disappointed as I watch people turn a blind eye to the most horrific perspectives just so they won't have to have anxiety for have to re contemplate and form an opinion on something — MAYAEL

I used to be disappointed also as you say. But the past years I am much more lenient with people. Human creatures are called to deal with a total chaos everywhere(societies, families, psychological matters, stereotypes etc etc) and as I mentioned it is a huge fight and the most difficult one.To fight with yourself and to challenge your own beliefs. I can understand why someone would want to avoid it. Even if I don't agree with that, still I can understand it.

Charity can't be used as an excuse for States not providing free healthcare. We can't expect the State's job to be done by charity organizations. Of course it's amazing anyone who does that(personally I admire them), but you can't expect all people to be so altruistic and act like that. One should offer charity only if he feels like doing it.

I didn't say people stop paying taxes totally. Of course State needs money as to provide free health care. It won't rain money suddenly. The thing is taxes to have actually some useful outcome. And what is more useful than free healthcare?

Nothing but I don't want. Thanks. I pay my taxes for that though. And I would be willing to pay even more if I knew that this gonna happen indeed!

Believe it.

You set the humanity bar far too low. For you is just good enough that 911 won't tell you at the phone :
"oh go fuck yourself man and die!".
As if afterwards won't ask you money for the taking care in USA also.

When you ask someone to pay for his health, Isn't that abandonment? When that someone has 0 money?Of course I don't know all health care systems all over the world. Some might be free already.

But for me health care should be totally free everywhere worldwide. Here in my country you have to pay if you don't have insurance (working insurance) . And only a small amount of health care services are totally free. Which aren't enough and not important either.

It is unthinkable that health care systems aren't totally free for everyone. At least the basic health care.
For me, It's one of greatest disgraces for humanity nowadays that with all that progress that has be done, not to open health care to every single person for free. Someone to be abandoned when his Life is at risk, cause of Money! It's another classic example of how humanity values Money over Life.

That someday would have to change. And for me the only way as I see it for health care to be free is through State's responsibility. I cant imagine how "free" and "private" could work together.

The position at 1 is to pause for thought — Fine Doubter

At the end that seems to scare the most people. To "pause for thought" cause then we have to face our thought - self. Not many are brave enough. That's why many prefer to keep "running" during the day 24h non stop.

Bad thinking in families or social classes isn't in genes — Fine Doubter

So that's good news for humanity. I tend to believe the same. Genes play sure some kind role but it might not be the most crucial one.

It took me 30 years to overcome shame and my schooling and family are fairly lucky. — Fine Doubter

For most people a whole lifetime isn't enough. The only what matters is that you got there eventually.

Sharing your views is a kind of mutual leading by example — Fine Doubter

I try to do that in my real life and it's enough for me.

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. — Fine Doubter

That's only your conclusion and I have no idea how you ended up there with all I have written. But anyway.

Even 180 Proof had constructive ideas — Fine Doubter

Yeah extra constructive I would add!

Normally most of us perhaps like Banno would assume that if you didn't react you had accepted our answers anyway. — Fine Doubter

But I reacted and responded. So what are you talking about again?

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. — Fine Doubter

I have wrote it again in another thread. Nietzsche would spit on Hitler's face if he was alive.

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. — 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.

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. — Fine Doubter

Don't worry. At the end all humanity, theists atheists, one common God worship. Money!

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". — Alkis Piskas

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.

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. — 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.

So, it's a common vision, then! Well, it's a good start! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

Yeah it is a start indeed.

What about if to make yourself useful you could help people become less mechanical by thinking for themselves? — Fine Doubter

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.

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? — 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.

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. — 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"!

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. — 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.

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? — 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??

How are you going to help your theist neighbours stop being less-than and become more-than? — 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??

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. — 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.

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. — Fine Doubter

What kind of project was I about to launch?? I don't follow you here.

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. — 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.

{ * see Ben Macintyre, Forgotten Fatherland }
4h — Fine Doubter

Who is that? A TPF member?

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? — Gregory

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.

the same way as every other religious clown that stumbles in here looking to prove some pet theistic point. — DingoJones

Leave him be, he will find his place among the turds of this site. — DingoJones

All theists are clowns for you.
Please Let me be then.

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. — praxis

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.

If it's simply that you're not sure what lies you'd like to spread then you could just clarify that. — 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??

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.

Thus, Mr Dimosthenis9, we have had the fact that most people replaced "god" already. — Fine Doubter

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??

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. — 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.

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 — Fine Doubter

What exactly kind of substance you want me to offer you to that??

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 — 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.

led some of us to lose interest — Fine Doubter

Doesn't seem that case with you though.

.

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) — 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!

: "Only correct questioning allows things to speak" — 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.

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 — Fine Doubter

And again... What are you talking about?!? What is non - morals? All theists don't have morals? Or they have false morals?

individual themselves must interpret individually for themselves and not you, nor your mafia, nor your tanks. — 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.

You said people should be lied to. — 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.

You have to live in dread of becoming useless — Fine Doubter

If you say so.

what you describe is basically typical family life. That is already well established. — praxis

Really wish most families "worked" like that. World would be much better. But most families are far from that.

Religions require an ultimate authority and a metaphysics to which that authority has special access. That's the basic recipe for faith. — praxis

True.

I personally, avoid to speak about religion or even religious matters with anyone who is deeply religious. — Alkis Piskas

I do the same too.

An not only this, but this has 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 that. I have suddenly realized that you have created 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 ...) — 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.

It's not far from what I have just described. — Alkis Piskas

It's not far at all!

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" — Alkis Piskas

It is almost exactly what I had in my mind.
Discussions would be the MAIN agenda basically.

That is something useful indeed.

Is this like a material dialectic jagganauth? :wink: — Fine Doubter

I have no idea what this is.

Don' t try too hard! I've seen it done, and it ain't pretty! Uncouple, de-link, I say again. — 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.

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? — 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.

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. — Fine Doubter

Didn't get what's your final point is here either.

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" .) — Alkis Piskas

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.

In the religious world I live, it is true. What is your religious "world"? — 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.

No, you have got it right! And you have put it nicely — 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.

Hmmm :chin: , what country did you say you're from? — praxis

I didn't. Greece.

Are you saying that you've reconsidered and no longer wish to take God's role? That would be good news — praxis

Yeah. Changed my mind. Too much responsibility for me, my schedule is already full.

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 — praxis

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.

logic is reasoning according to strict rules of validity — praxis

For sure Logic is much more than that. It's the art of searching the truth with the most appropriate
way.

your "vision" is about controlling others, rather than others of a particular "intellectual level", or yourself, developing virtue. — 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?

I would stress more the average ethical than the intellectual level, which seems to get lower with time — Alkis Piskas

I know they are different, but don't you think these two are strongly connected also?

. Among other things, in order to increase the average ethical level — Alkis Piskas

I would put it "to prevent average ethical level from moving down lower!"

Hypocrisy and immorality exist everywhere, among atheists as among theists. — Alkis Piskas

Fact.

Theists have more tendency to hate and fight atheists than the other way around. — Alkis Piskas

I disagree on that. I think depends from the individual. Seems more or less the same to me.

Theists try to convince and convert atheists or be imposed on them, but rarely the other way around. — Alkis Piskas

Same as above for me.

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. — Alkis Piskas

Fact.

Atheists can think and reason for themselves better, based on their own realities, than can theists. — Alkis Piskas

I think as the rest from the above one as you can imagine.

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 — Alkis Piskas

Are you suggesting a different "form" of religions over future?? Like church "evolution" ? Or got it wrong?

. In the end, it seems that you’re simply looking for contro — praxis

Control over whom? From all you wrote above, it seems that I'm simply looking for answers.
If exist any.

You haven’t even expressed any vision of a better future. — 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?