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. — Tom Storm

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!

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. — Philosophim

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.

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. — Philosophim

Exactly!All these offered much more good to humanity than bad. That's what I believe at least!

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 — Philosophim

I don't have to add anything here. Just repost it as to "bold" it even more!

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. — 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.

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. — 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.

Yes those are the hazard causers, not anyone's religious or non-religious badges. In my view of logic, sound premises are essential. Learning is open to everyone, not specific tribes with foibles. — Fine Doubter

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.

there have been ethical, well-behaved, productive atheists for hundreds of years. If what you say is so, how could this be? — Banno

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.

No. But that this is unthinkable for you is curious. — Banno

Yes it seems hard to believe that. Worldwide theists are still the vast majority and with that "moral guide" they raise their kids too.

As if children responded well to rational discussion. — Banno

That seems like a good alternative, in my eyes at lest. Why not?

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. — 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.

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?

Is English not your first language? Taking the piss means taking the Mickey or poking fun with something — Tom Storm

No it's not. I thought you meant that I got pissed of with something,like got in my nerves.

Not sarcasm. Advice. — 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.

Why don't you extend Epicurus' advice and not only don't revolve yourself unnecessarily around gods (you'll pick up your own sense of this) but not around their opponents either. Agnosticism satisfies the conditions both of belief, and of non-belief. — Fine Doubter

Well in fact that's kind of what I try to do indeed.

You're still peddling fatuous nonsense so I want to make sure that's as conspicuous as possible, or at least contribute to flogging your ignorance — 180 Proof

Oh that's what you do here.Ok go on then.

Oh you again? With a great video - argument that time. Nice. Thought you were still "outta here".

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. — Fine Doubter

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.

What I'm very interested in, what would you call someone who doesn't believe in gods but in souls? — SolarWind

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.

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. — TheMadFool

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.

Sorry with all that spamming I missed it and now I read it.

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. — 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.

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? — TheMadFool

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.

No - I'm saying that you may not be genuine because you appear to be taking the piss — Tom Storm

That's based in your opinion that I got pissed of course. Which has never happened.

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. — Tom Storm

Thank you for the sarcasm .You surely are a genuine interlocutor.

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".

It seems like you are taking the piss. — Tom Storm

You accused me of not being genuine interlocutor and I m the one who takes the piss also?! Ok.

I suggest you embrace a religion as soon as you can since you are already mounting a standard apologist's argument and style. — Tom Storm

That's not gonna happen.

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.

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.

I don't think you are a genuine interlocutor — Tom Storm

Interlocutors should agree with you as to be genuine? I respect your opinion just don't agree with what you support. Take care also.

Well, as demonstrated here, you were quite a poor student of religion — 180 Proof

If you say so.

I've already pointed out that with or without religion, people would make the world the shithole it is for most of us. Yo — 180 Proof

So things would be the same for you.Ok at least I got where you stand now.

You're asking the wrong question. — 180 Proof

Didn't know there were any wrong questions.

Yeah. It's useful like alcohol (e.g. disinfectant), but religion is also more easily abused (e.g. booze). — 180 Proof

At least we agree on that.

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!

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.

. No one can miss the point this many times unless it's deliberate — Tom Storm

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.

We can pass moral judgment on religious texts, they therefore do not define morals — jorndoe

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?

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?

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.

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 ...) — 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.

Yes, this is what many Christians teach and believe — Tom Storm

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.

Many of these interpretations result in terrible harm and behavior. — 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??

"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 — 180 Proof

Don't agree with Mr Steven. Not at all.

Ethics are not "given" (re the Euthyphro) but is the reflective application – — 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"

(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 ... — 180 Proof

These are the only ways to convince someone be "good"? Hmm.. Ok.

make the world "a better place" for whom to do what? — 180 Proof

Hmm..What about for us for start?

There actually is an answer to this: Gaiasm. — hypericin

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.

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. — Jack Cummins

Educational system should turn into that direction I think.

I also think any moral system based on fear is not a moral system. That's mafia morality. — Tom Storm

Still a necessary mafia.

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). — 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.

. I would prefer some religion to Juche socialism. — NOS4A2

What is Juche socialism?

I seem to carry around this unseen witness to keeps tabs on my own behavior — 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.

I fail to see how God helps in any way on this matter — Tom Storm

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.

Suppose there is a "fundamental base"; it remains that one must chose to follow it, or no. — Banno

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.

On what basis could one make the choice, without already having made that choice? — 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?

Hence, as I suppose you might agree, the point is not to follow some fundamental moral system, but to become a better person. — 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?

What can replace god? Silence — Banno

God seems to me pretty silent already all these years.

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. — Apollodorus

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"?

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). — Tom Storm

So you think that even without religions things would be the same more or less ? No better or worse?

As above. Atheists and theists share the same basis for morality. — 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 don't agree. The problem is not lack of evidence. The problem is belief in the face of the evidence — Banno

I'm not sure I got your point here. So you think that any kind of belief is problematic and not just religions?

It's the basic dishonesty of religion that renders it culpable. — 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?

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.