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.

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.

There are always those who want to eff the ineffable. They don't know what the eff they are talking about. — Fooloso4

:up: :smirk:

So are we sure that world would be a better place without religions?! — dimosthenis9

Given that our problems are man-made and consecrated / canonized by religion (i.e. the cure that infects us), make the world "a better place" for whom to do what?

If you gonna make people stop believing in religions then WHAT could replace God?

Replace h. sapiens.

How can you convince people to be "good" ???

(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 ...

So what else could take God's role to "give" the Ethics that people should follow??

Ethics are not "given" (re the Euthyphro) but is the reflective application – praxis – of empathy and fairness based on the constitutive eusociality of (our) species for adaptively striving against (our) atavistic, cognitive defects (i.e. reducing (our shared) miseries).

On the basis that you teach kids for example to "act good" cause God says so — dimosthenis9

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion." ~Steven Weinberg

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. — dimosthenis9

Yes, this is what many Christians teach and believe. All over the world. And then there's Islam... You are not following my point. Religions have interpretations of God's will. Many of these interpretations result in terrible harm and behavior.

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.

"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?

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??

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. — dimosthenis9

Christians are people. — dimosthenis9

Yes - that is my exact point.People practice religion and interpret it - how do you know which version is correct? Deciding on this means you are interpreting God's will.

Your question is what is morality without God? My response is that a god derived morality is people choosing a range of options they think god wants, with no consistency and often many harmful results. There is no single god based morality. It is a total mess of sects, decisions, branches, interpretations, various pastors/vicars/archbishops/popes and then there's the differing religions themselves.

Again, you seem not to be engaging with the key issue. The problem is religion as practiced. It is, for instance, official Catholic doctrine that no birth control must be practiced ever - no condoms or the pill. Immense harm comes from this. You say people 'make shit out of it' - that could be seen as a disrespectful way to describe people's sincere pious beliefs. Abortion; the status of women; homophobia; much religious doctrine holds dreadful positions on these issues. Just read The Bible, you'll see.

So why don't you blame the people who make these wrong interpretations and you blame religions? — dimosthenis9

Again you miss the key point religion is interpretation. How do you know which one is wrong? That itself requires interpretation.

You don't seem to understand my replies.

What can replace God?? — dimosthenis9

Reality? Truth? Learning?
We can pass moral judgment on religious texts, they therefore do not define morals.
If the diverse religious adherents didn't speak on their behalfs, the gods would become silent.

.If you gonna make people stop believing in religions then WHAT could replace God? How can you convince people to be "good" ??? — dimosthenis9

If you believe in rebirth, it automatically means that you want to preserve the future world.

Do you need a God for souls to exist?

Don't agree with Mr Steven. Not at all. — dimosthenis9

Read some histories of religion (re: e.g. Crusades, Inquisition, witch hunts, pogroms, "promised land" ethnic cleansings, "holy wars", supports for marital rape & genital mutilation & homophobia & slavery & human sacrifices ...) Weinberg's observation is an apt generalization.

Hmm..What about for us for start?

How we use (exploit, waste, despoil) the world is the problem that's at the root of all of our other problems, therefore we can't "make the world a better place" for ourselves as a species so long as we inhabit the world.

What can replace God?

What can replace Santa Claus? Magic? Faith? :roll:

I do. But I don't find them helpful to my question.
Unless If your answers like "replace homo" and "breed psychopathy out of species" have some kind of hidden message. Then no, didn't get it at all.

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.

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?

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?

What you mention is Human history not religion history. — dimosthenis9

Religion is human behaviour (this is your whole point) so religious history is human history. I can only imagine that you are having a joke with this ongoing argument. No one can miss the point this many times unless it's deliberate.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves shall we. What about our world suggests if not proves God? It appears, God started off as a creator deity.

Why have atheists rejected a creator? My best guess is that they've got an alternate answer for the fundamental question of metaphysics: why is there something rather than nothing? The short answer: Chance. The long answer: Epistemic/Innate Chance.

Ergo, Chance has replaced God in the mind of atheists.

:point: God does not play dice.

Why have atheists rejected a creator? My best guess is that they've got an alternate answer for the fundamental question of metaphysics: why is there something rather than nothing? The short answer: Chance. — TheMadFool

No. There is not any evidence that 'something & not-something' (i.e. atoms & void) were "created"; therefore, there's is not a "creator" or cause of 'something & not-something'. Best evidence: 'something & not-something' is just the brute fact. "Chance" merely describes the contingent interplay, or transformations, of 'something into not-something into something-else' ad infinitum and is, therefore, a derivative effect and not a cause of (chance) itself.

:fire:

NB: I am not an unbeliever (i.e. non-supernaturalist) because I am an naturalist; I am a naturalist because I am an unbeliever (i.e. non-supernaturalist).

I haven't even read any religion to support "go and kill others cause God wants". — dimosthenis9

:yawn:

Read some religious scriptures and, as I suggested before, histories of religions. Here's a link to a webpage listing quotes from the Hebrew & Christian scriptures commanding, in effect, "go and kill others cause God wants".

https://www.openbible.info/topics/killing_non_believers

Why have atheists rejected a creator? My best guess is that they've got an alternate answer for the fundamental question of metaphysics: why is there something rather than nothing? — TheMadFool

I am an atheist but I don't tend to trade in answers. And I don't buy the question: why is there something rather than nothing? It's not a question I have ever asked or have ever thought would be worth asking.

I am an atheist but I don't tend to trade in answers. And I don't buy the question: why is there something rather than nothing? It's not a question I have ever asked or have ever thought would be worth asking — Tom Storm

Well, the question is about you unless you're nothing! Nevertheless, anekantavada - different strokes for different folks.

Good that you're an atheist but remember, from a certain point of view, you do have a God although you may not think so or worship faer. This God is Chance.

. 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.

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.

I didn't provide interpretations, just quotes from the Bible. You're either wilfully ignorant or in denial or both, and welcome to it, friend. Whichever it is, good luck with that.

More on 'God commands killing ...'

e.g.

The Canaanites under Moses and Joshua (Numbers 21:2-3; Deuteronomy 20:17; Joshua 6:17, 21)

The Amalekites annihilated by Saul (1 Samuel 15)

https://www.bethinking.org/bible/old-testament-mass-killings

You don't provide anything else than aphorisms to religions.I studied Bible and at no point I got the meaning to "go and kill others". As millions of believers also. If you got that meaning then ok.
Wanna answer my initial questions also as to get at least what YOU think? Cause you have write everything except that!
Societies would be better without religions?
Can we provide people with better ways to act "moral" than religions do? And if yes how?
Simple answers with no "Homo sapiens" would be appreciated as to get your point. Ok you don't agree with me.Got that. Tell me at least your point!

Well, as demonstrated here, you were quite a poor student of religion. I've already pointed out that with or without religion, some people would still make the world the shithole for most of us it is now and has been for millennia. You're asking the wrong question, dimosthenis. To say as you have, in effect, that religion has not been used to immiserate our species is just flagrant ignorance. Has it also been used for good? Yeah. It's useful like alcohol (e.g. disinfectant), but religion is also more easily abused (e.g. booze). :party:

I don't think you are a genuine interlocutor so I will leave this to the sensible arguments of 180 Proof.

Take care

I'm out, man.

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.

Didn't know ... — dimosthenis9

Uh huh.

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.