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.

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.

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.

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.

:up:

... for me God and religions offer people a moral base as to act "good". — dimosthenis9

"If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then, brother, that person is a piece of shit." :halo:

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

I know that your last question isn't for me and I'm not trying to stop him answering it. Nearly all opponents these days were influenced partly by the apologetists (whose sole real argument effectively boils down to an argument from nuisance social phenomenon), who weren't there in my young day. Combining religion and morals in one question to reason about is far from uninteresting (which is why I'm coolly joining in), but I sense that your existential need and the binary position opponents have been subjected to by the agitators * make it more logical to highlight (give greater prominence to) the logic angle. 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. I made several further suggestions, what did you think of them? (Sorry if my "stream of consciousness" looked like spam! :wink: )

As for the history of good and evil in societies across periods of time, they just wax and wane, sometimes religion was in it one way, sometimes the other way, sometimes not at all.

{ * who were doing it to make tens of millions in money }

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. For instance, a link to discussing whether or not religion justifies morality. Even the Hebrew Bible shows it doesn't (pace Kierkegaard et al).

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.

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.

Even the Hebrew Bible shows it doesn't — 180 Proof

Jeremiah's point exactly - worsening oppressions right in the middle of Josiah's "Make Judah Great Again" campaign. Josiah who was so out of it he miscalculated and got shot when he needn't.

That's based in your opinion that I got pissed of course. Which has never happened. — dimosthenis9

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

Thank you for the sarcasm .You surely are a genuine interlocutor. — dimosthenis9

Not sarcasm. Advice.

You'll note, if you were reading carefully, that I said 'seem' in my comments. This is another nuance perhaps you don't recognise.

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? — dimosthenis9

Children match their behaviour to the adults around them. There is a vast literature regarding managing their behaviour and growing them into adults. None of it says that you can only do this by frightening them with supernatural parents.

The items I listed are not just preferences; they are factual. The wine is wine, the bread , bread; women can drive; homosexuality occurs in many species besides humans.

But yes, I do have a preference for government that is in touch with reality.

That was once a thing. Not so much anymore.

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.

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?

But even nowadays aren't religions the main "source" for morals that we give to kids? — dimosthenis9

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

What is the best argument to convince a kid (since we talk about them) to act "good"? — dimosthenis9

As if children responded well to rational discussion.

shouldn't we have an "alternative plan"? — dimosthenis9

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.

That this is unthinkable for you is curious.

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.

no self reflection, no self cultivation, no rational thinking. Just with ... aphorisms for theists and morals. And adding in all these the average low intellectual level that most people have worldwide — dimosthenis9

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.

Yeah, your way of thinking is skewed. A discussion isn't going to help.

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

Perhaps considering this might lead you to see the light.

Yeah, your way of thinking is skewed. A discussion isn't going to help. — Banno

Yes. Eccentric reasoning, it seems.

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.

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.

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.

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

If you gonna make people stop believing in religions then WHAT could replace God? — dimosthenis9

Great questions. A lot of times people leap on the moral aspect of religion. I think that what is even stronger than the moral aspect of religion, is the social element of religion. 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.

I think that's what some atheists miss when they focus on the "logic" of a religion. 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.

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.

Presently, there is no organized social alternative to this. I believe the internet has opened a way for people to socialize more easily, and the anonymity can replace the need for a place to confide in one's "sins". Still, it lacks the human touch. The weekly meeting that is virtually free to no cost to personally attend for most people.

Could we create an alternative to this? Perhaps an enterprising person could. 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.

Again, great discussion topic.

Presently, there is no organized social alternative to this. — Philosophim

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. Not to mention support groups for former priests and pastors/vicars/rabbis who have become atheists (a fairly common thing) and people who have left unforgiving fundamentalists groups eg Recovery From Religion. Three are also trans and gay friendly atheist communities. And then just about any social group and community is a secular one.

What they are, is more independent. They don't necessarily need a crowd of people around them. — Philosophim

Atheism's not about the numbers, it's the reasons and the lack of them.

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.

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!

If God is the creator of the world then there can be nothing ugly in the world. Everything must be beautiful because how can God sustain a positive ugliness thru his creative power? Does not his holiness prevent it. Now turn to the world and see there is much that is ugly and much that is good. Nothing all good can partake of this. A gnostic dualism would actually make more sense

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! — dimosthenis9

I responded directly to the issues the person raised. I can't help it if you didn't follow.

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. — 180 Proof

The issue of evidence that something (the universe) was created is an all-important one for it has bearing on the question of what kinds of explanations are plausible for the existence of the universe.

However, for the moment, disconnect the believability of an explanation from explanation itself and God, as an explanation, even though scoring low on the believability scale, comes into its own so to speak.

As for your interpretation of Chance vis-à-vis the existence of the universe, if, as you say, chance is not a cause, then atheists haven't been able to refute the god hypothesis that's offered as an explanation for why there is a universe at all. I probably misread you but the ball is in your court.