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:

Alright, starting with your facts from the OP.

1. I'm an atheist.

2. The vast majority of people worldwide believe in God.

3. Despite all these religions and Gods, we STILL face a huge chaos in societies. An enormous one! ​

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?

You have a problem or something? — dimosthenis9

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.

That's only your opinion. Respected but I think I do indeed. It's my most precious value. — dimosthenis9

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:

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. — Corvus

to which dimosthenis9 replies with:

In fact we have the Tank of Logic in our side. Covering our back. — dimosthenis9

but not before admitting:

I always claim that these are my personal opinions, not necessary right. — dimosthenis9

Surely you can see how silly this looks.

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.

In every response I bomb you with “arguments” — dimosthenis9

Just thought I’d show you a proper use of scare quotes. Carry on!

People also talk of experiencing the numinous. You can get that visiting nature or listening to an orchestra play (there are endless possibilities).
— Tom Storm

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. — dimosthenis9

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.

Hope it goes well for you. I had a sore arm for a few days and some lethargy.

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). — Tom Storm

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.

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 an "new moral umbrella", as that to become enough to replace religion. — dimosthenis9

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.

moral development.
— praxis

Interesting phrase. What could that be in your opinion? And how could that happen also? — dimosthenis9

There are well-established theories on moral development. Google it.

It happens with learning and teaching, and also with reasoning and training.

Take care, and thanks for sharing this.

I took a brief peek at the first in the album and got the feeling that it's best to experience the album as a whole rather than as I did, just listening to #3 - Some People Worry About the Weather. I'll do that when I have more time.

There are so many names and references that I don't know in the work that I can't follow or derive much meaning out of it. For instance, I'm not even sure how to interpret the line 'Some People Worry About the Weather'. It kinda seems like a condemnation, such that people like myself are concerned with trivialities like the weather rather than getting involved in serious political issues. But it could also mean that some people are concerned with more serious issues, like global warming, rather than being "a minor autocrat whose single-minded devotion to the revolutionary cause was motivated by a distorted lack of self-esteem".

Anyway, I enjoy the general aesthetic, and much of the particular imagery, such as these parts:

above the nightstand that houses a few melted candles and an old
jewelry box where this former film student keeps a collection of
polaroid photographs

...

remember when
you scaled that monument on the bridge
drunkenly singing "La Marseillaise"
waving a roman candle
clutching the granite hilt of a sword
as you fired over the river

Could we create an alternative to this? 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. — dimosthenis9

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:

• Community
• Belonging
• Greater purpose
• Emotional support
• Social safety net
• Feel part of something greater than themselves

I'll add to the list:

• Identity
• Transcendence

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.

The risk from Dimosthenis9, Corvus and Philosophim is that they will create one more eccentric clique signalling ambiguously (even to themselves) about what they have and haven't bought into. That time is gone, I keep telling you. — Fine Doubter

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.

I listened to it twice and with a decidedly intuitive ear the second time round, I’d like to add, and the feeling invoked was mostly curious befuddlement. I could glean no clear message or feeling. I may simply lack the relevant base of knowledge or experience.

I don't understand why 1 Brother James new "Is Mysticism capable of being 'experienced' by the use of the Intellect?" discussion was jammed in here. This thread is four months old and covers mysticism in general. The new thread was addressing one specific issue associated with mysticism.

It doesn't make sense and it disrupts the discussion. — T Clark

The OP of the merged thread:

That is, can one's brain experience Mystical phenomena? I suggest it cannot, and my reason for saying this is that the term Mysticism is a label for that which the brain [being physical] cannot experience. And this naturally leads to the topic of "Intuition," which is a label for an aspect of the Soul, which is composed of Spiritual Energy. Can Intuition be proven via one's intellect? No, because no part of one's thinking is capable of perceiving Spiritual Energy.

Given this nonsense, the implication is that the moderating mergerer generally views mysticism as similarly nonsensical. Tellingly, they did not delete the topic or move it to the lounge but merged it into a topic that discusses mysticism in general.

Interesting. Joan of Arc comes to mind.

The monkey is a dog toy. That’s why half its face is chewed off.

About the dragon baby shoes, I was looking around in a Salvation Army store searching for still-life inspiration/subject matter and noticed the cute duo. Having recently read the much acclaimed short story Dead Baby Shoes, I immediately felt a composition beginning to form in my mind. I had found my muse and now all I needed was something to complete the stage. Heading for the register, I saw the heart vase and with an inaudible “yup” I grabbed it off the shelf without even stopping. I paid $6 for the shoes, the vase, two fancy-ass glass cups, and a small glass platter matching the fancy-ass cups.

The wilted daisy, signifying death and sorrow, was cut from out front.

Transience, or what @litewave said.

Emptiness.

I thought that I recall you mentioning recently that you got the VID from an impetuous hookup.

An unvaccinated person cannot be a threat if he doesn’t have a virus and takes all necessary precautions to avoid infection and spread the virus. — NOS4A2

Fixed.

What is important is to constantly educate ourselves and surround ourselves with people who have liberal educations because our social nature brings out the best or worse in us depending on the people we associate with. That is where religious people have a distinct advantage- they congregate regularly and intentionally focus their minds above their bases instincts. — Athena

The American Association for the Advancement of Science describes a liberal education in this way: "Ideally, a liberal education produces persons who are open-minded and free from provincialism, dogma, preconception, and ideology; conscious of their opinions and judgments; reflective of their actions; and aware of their place in the social and natural worlds." Liberally educated people are skeptical of their own traditions; they are trained to think for themselves rather than conform to higher authorities. So your advice here is rather contradictory, to pursue a liberal education which tends to erode 'traditional' views, yet you praise traditional views and conformity to 'higher authorities'.

Incidentally, studies from the Pew Research Center indicate that Liberals are about half as religious as Conservatives (those who uphold traditional values and norms).

They intentionally develop themselves and support each other in this endeavor. — Athena

They are strongly bonded, sharing traditional values, norms, rituals, etc., and that bond is the essential purpose, to be a unified tribe. Self-development is entirely beside the point, or intentionally suppressed, because self-development leads to self-determination.

praxis is the cornerstone of religions. The proof of the pudding is in the eating! — TheMadFool

Are religious folk renown for practicing what they preach? :lol:

So the question becomes, what is the cornerstone of religion?

But are the press and people correct? — Leghorn

Are they correct in being supportive of an amazing athlete? Of course.