I disagree. Neither religion is "about morality" IMO.
— 180 Proof

Truth be told, you're absolutely right! Both christianity and buddhism are, first and foremost, about suffering and how one might liberate oneself from it - by being moral humans. — TheMadFool

This cannot be right because religions tend to constrain moral development. Shared values/norms means no independent values/norms. Everything depends on group dependence. It’s not primary about morality, salvation, or a reduction in suffering. All that can be better achieved without religion. At core it’s simply about tribal solidarity.

Unfortunatly the more she explained the deeper the puzzeled expression grew on the poor fellows face.
— praxis

I would say that's a good outcome for both the interlocutors, buddhist and christian. It's the WTF? moment every buddhist aspires to and wishes to elicit from would-be converts — TheMadFool

Many of the enlightened folk love to revel in their self-perceived superiority, it is true. :vomit:

I guess the big difference is that I possess the explicit concepts of cause & effect and Red does not, and he’s more locked into a conditioned pattern. Although it is true that Red conditions me, I consciously condition (train) him to a far greater extent. THAT, I submit, is human action.

other organisms are cause — boagie

Sure, for instance, if my dog Red bugs me enough to take him fetch'n, I'll take him fetch'n. He causes me to embark on a particular endeavor. Later out on the field, if I throw a frisbee it will cause Red to run like a bat outta hell after it. By throwing the plastic disk I intentionally cause Red to do something. If we're on the field and I don't throw the frisbee soon enough Red will often jump and take little nips at me. This often causes me to throw the frisbee.

Oh, and yeah, Red and I are both part of the world.

I remember being in a newcomer meeting at a Buddhist center years ago and a Latin dude with very weak English, and apparently a Christian background, struggling to ask how the soul fits into the Budhdist scheme of things. He asked as though it were a given and he just didn't yet know how it fit in. None of the teachers would touch the question, the big weenies. Finally another newcomer tried to explain no-self. She was a university student and quite knoledgeable about Buddhist philosophy. Unfortunatly the more she explained the deeper the puzzeled expression grew on the poor fellows face.

The world is cause, and organisms are ALL reactive creatures... — boagie

ALL reactive creatures are part of the world and are therefore causal, right?

I never served. My wife had a female student who enlisted and was deployed to Afghanistan. One night she was knocked unconscious and raped, most likely by an American soldier. Suffers permanent brain damage.

The US military has lots of women in it. — frank

A quick google search says around 14%. In the top ranks only 7%. So better for cannon fodder than leadership, apparently.

Women are loosing ground on our own soil, we’re certainly not going to help empower them anywhere else.

These people are supposed to care about children? Nope, just immiserating women. — StreetlightX

Afghan women are immiserated to the degree that the child mortality rate is the highest in the world. Nothing expresses the sanctity of life and the love of children like the highest child mortality rate on the globe.

Once again, l asked you which “liberal governments” you’re referring to and so far you’ve only specifically mentioned the United States, and the two articles that you’ve provided links to don’t show free speech abuse by this “liberal government”.

You thought, wrongly, that the HRW article pertained to the “liberal countries” I wrote about below, and not the authoritarian countries I wrote about above. That’s your misinformation, not mine. — NOS4A2

Again, I simply asked what “liberal governments” you were referring to and in response you mentioned something that the Surgeon General of the US said. This is certainly misleading, though I suppose that you may be doing this out of habit and not entirely consciously.

you accuse me of being against media literacy — NOS4A2

I stated that I can see how you would be against it. You must be against something in what I quoted above as you present it as evidence of free speech abuse. What exactly are you against in it then?

I simply asked which “liberal governments” you were referring to. In response you mentioned the US and something the surgeon general said. I then pointed out that the US is not listed for any free speech abuses by Human Rights Watch.

Here’s a map if you’re unsure. — NOS4A2

This is what it says about the US:

United States
Action: Proposed federal law, platform testimonies, failed state advisory group, state media literacy law, threat assessment, state media literacy initiatives and state lawsuits

Focus: Political ads, foreign disinformation, general misinformation, media literacy and deepfake videos

Confirmed by intelligence agencies, Russian meddling on social media during the 2016 U.S. presidential election has resulted in several piecemeal actions from the federal government.

First, Congress announced a bill in October 2017 that would require online platforms such as Facebook and Google to keep copies of ads, make them public and keep tabs on who is paying — and how much. Essentially, the legislation attempts to impose existing TV and radio ad regulations on social media companies.

Then, in November 2017, representatives from Facebook, Twitter and Google testified to a Senate judiciary committee on their role in spreading disinformation during the election. During that meeting, there was broad consensus that Russia did manipulate their platforms, but the platforms projected an appearance of control when it comes to monitoring fake accounts and ad buyers.

Meanwhile, the California state government passed a law in September 2018 that bolsters media literacy in public schools. It requires the Department of Education to list instructional materials and resources on how to evaluate trustworthy media. The law was inspired by a Stanford University student who found that most students can’t distinguish between sponsored content and news stories and comes amid several current and former attempts to improve media literacy in at least 24 states.

One of those states is Washington, where lawmakers are debating a media literacy bill that would establish a grant program for organizations working to include media literacy in school curricula. And in 2018, Massachusetts lawmakers passed a bill that mandates civic education with an emphasis on media literacy.

Also in California, Gov. Jerry Brown has vetoed a bill that would have created an advisory group aimed at monitoring the spread of misinformation on social media and coming up with potential solutions. The group, which Brown called “not necessary,” would have asked social media companies, NGOs and First Amendment scholars to present their findings by Dec. 31, 2019.

In mid-September 2018, two Democrats and one Republican representative sent a letter to the director of national intelligence asking the intelligence community to assess the possible national security threats posed by deepfake technology and present a report to Congress by the end of 2018. Lawmakers cited the potential for foreign adversaries to use deepfake videos against U.S. interests as a key reason to investigate them.

In January 2019, a company that created fake social media profiles to make millions of dollars in revenue settled a case with the New York state attorney, CNN reported. The settlement is the first case in which law enforcement has concluded that selling fake social media activity is illegal.

I can easily see how you would be against any legislation that seeks to address the threat of Russian interference in US elections, and that you would be against media literacy.

One example would be the United States. The surgeon general called misinformation an “urgent threat” and called on tech companies to take action. European countries have long been waging battle against social media companies over “misinformation”. — NOS4A2

In the Human Rights Watch article you linked to the US isn’t listed for any free speech abuses. It seems you are trying to spread misinformation, as usual.

But it is also quite ubiquitous across more liberal governments. For the last few years many of these states have pressured social media companies to censor “fake news” and “misinformation”, the newest bogeyman. In compliance, they have employed an army of busybodies and algorithms to root out speech that is not first approved by the state. — NOS4A2

Which “more liberal governments” are you referring to?

Here’s some maps if you’re unsure: https://features.hrw.org/features/features/covid/index.html?#censorship

They say it's the little things that make life worth living so that's where I'll start, with the little things:

Quarks, Protons, Electrons, Atoms – where would we be without this stuff?!
And scaling up a bit, thank you baby squids for being so damn cute.

Actual links would be helpful, and this "Please stop spamming inane shit" didn't show up when I searched for it.

Anyway, an accusation of trolling is essentially an ad hom if it's not warranted.

Can you show where you've experienced it on this forum?

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. — Alkis Piskas

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.

Religions and governments typically are though.
— praxis

You mean "Churches" (religious/spiritual leaderships), right? — Alkis Piskas

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.

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.

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?

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. — dimosthenis9

Exactly what lies do you want to spread?

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. — dimosthenis9

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.

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. The book 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! — Alkis Piskas

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.

Hypothetically speaking supposing there was an omniscient being - doesn’t have to be (a) god necessarily maybe a hyper intelligent AI or a genie or whatever but you could ask it one question - anything at all, what would it be? — Benj96

God - Do you believe in yourself?

Super AI - How do I legally make $10M in a week?

Genie - I'll take $1B, and no tricks!

Isn't this a kind of a caricature?
— praxis

Well, it's not really a caricature if you take under consideration how much work goes into maintaining the internet as we know it, although it seems like a caricature given the amount of information available on anything that has value.

If you zoom out and look at the internet, we had some highly monopolistic behavior in the market due to Microsoft in the 90's and 00's, right? Then, you had Google racing to the top, making the majority of their money through ad's, since their inception. Then there was Apple, working silently on their own goods, such as iPhones and Mac. And as of fairly recent you have Amazon, which is a giant marketplace for anything that is a product. — Shawn

I meant your depiction of mindless consumers.

Amazon is building one of their giant distribution centers just down the street from where I live, incidentally, taking the place of prime farmland.

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
— praxis

What's your point here? I don't get it. — dimosthenis9

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 gander low average intellectuals, as they say in the old country.

For sure Logic is much more than that. It's the art of searching the truth with the most appropriate way. — dimosthenis9

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

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. — dimosthenis9

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

Nope. :halo:

Isn't this a kind of a caricature? No one is merely a mindless consumer of cheap products.

I forgive you for doubting my virtue. :halo:

Really really want to dunk on BJ but I'm better than that. :halo:

Control over whom? — dimosthenis9

Those of the appropriate "intellectual level", as you've repeatedly referred to them.

From all you wrote above, it seems that I'm simply looking for answers. — 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.

My vision is a world where vast majority worldwide to be logical people, who would respect whatever others want to believe. — 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.

My vision is most people to follow one simply EASY fucking rule "do whatever you want as long as not giving problems to others!" — 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.

If I recall correctly, there are brown wizards in Lord of The Rings, so you could be Ciceronianus the Brown, though in Tolkien’s world that would be a demotion from white. Funny how that works.

Don't worry I don't have any hidden agenda to create any new spiritual movement and "fish" followers here. Not my style. — dimosthenis9

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.

Yeah as if I have the power to replace anything. — dimosthenis9

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.

Again, I’m claiming that it’s about strongly binding a community.
— 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? — dimosthenis9

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.

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. — dimosthenis9

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%.

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? — 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: ]

So you believe also that through all humanity history so far, morals haven't come out of religion? — dimosthenis9

You seem to be implying that religion has existed though-out humans history and helped to shaped our evolution.

Seems totally unreasonable someone to claim that religion has nothing to do with morals, to me at least. — 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.

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! — dimosthenis9

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?

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?? — 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.

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. — 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.

And after writing all that stuff and spend my time answering to you, just noticed your new ridiculous post, mocking me. — dimosthenis9

You don't actually seem to be taking any of this seriously, and you're free to mock in return.

I think this clown is a previously banned member. A Dunning-Kruger poster child. :smirk: — 180 Proof

:razz: