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
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
What I'm very interested in, what would you call someone who doesn't believe in gods but in souls? — SolarWind
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
... for me God and religions offer people a moral base as to act "good". — dimosthenis9
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
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
Even the Hebrew Bible shows it doesn't — 180 Proof
That's based in your opinion that I got pissed of course. Which has never happened. — dimosthenis9
Thank you for the sarcasm .You surely are a genuine interlocutor. — dimosthenis9
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
Is English not your first language? Taking the piss means taking the Mickey or poking fun with something — Tom Storm
Not sarcasm. Advice. — Tom Storm
But even nowadays aren't religions the main "source" for morals that we give to kids? — dimosthenis9
As if children responded well to rational discussion.What is the best argument to convince a kid (since we talk about them) to act "good"? — dimosthenis9
You missed the point of virtue ethics. The plan is to create better children.shouldn't we have an "alternative plan"? — dimosthenis9
No. But that this is unthinkable for you is curious. — Banno
As if children responded well to rational discussion. — Banno
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
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.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
there have been ethical, well-behaved, productive atheists for hundreds of years. If what you say is so, how could this be? — Banno
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
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
Presently, there is no organized social alternative to this. — Philosophim
What they are, is more independent. They don't necessarily need a crowd of people around them. — Philosophim
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
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
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
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
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
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! — dimosthenis9
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.