What are you talking about? You responded to something that you got it totally wrong. Talking about communities in general like gay and irrelevant stuff like that.
What are you trying to imply now about responding directly to the issues? These weren't the issues at all.
It's obvious what you did. Just admit it and move on. The thing that you preferred the lame excuse though says a lot. So be then.

Huh? Let's move on dimo. Maybe some time another subject will bring out more useful aspects of each other. Take care.

A gnostic dualism would actually make more sense — Gregory

For sure It would make more sense.

Maybe some time another subject will bring out more useful aspects of each other. Take care. — Tom Storm

Maybe. You take care too.

The fact that this has been presented thus by apologetists hasn't helped anyone's morals. The bad effects of ambition to apologetism strengthen my argument that Dimosthenes9 should go the logic route. — Fine Doubter

I see the word "logic". It's all good here!

For my replies to the OP,

1. I think religion should be a personal matter. It is not something to be forced down to anyone's throat saying, this is good, or .. so forth so fifth. If one wants to have religion, let them have whatever religion that suits, and it will make them happy. When the majority of individuals are happy in a society, the whole society would be happier.

Can religion be moral guidance? In theory yes, but in practice, it depends who you are talking to. It is not fair or accurate to accuse or praise a certain group of people in society. There are good atheists, so so ones, and bad ones, so are theists. There are atheists who pretend to be theists, vice versa. Some agnostics will become theists or convince themselves atheists who knows? People change through time.

2. Can anything replace God? No, I don't think so. God is a special concept, and existence that human reason can never prove or understand. Nothing can replace God. Maybe they will try, but will fail or have already failed. In ancient times, life would have been far easy and simple, because people had no internet, no globalisation, no widespread religious scepticism. They believed in God, and God will take care of everything even afterlife in heaven.
Now, people have lost that comfort zone. They fall into pessimism and nihilism and apocalyptic thoughts. When they die, they don't know what will happen to their soul. And even souls exist? Uncertainty. Fear. All these transform to extreme negative world views and depression. Nothing will replace God. Do they need God? I think it is, again, a personal issue. People will only believe in God, if they had personal experience of God or religious events. Otherwise it would be unlikely the faith and beliefs could arise via intellectual or ethical inculcations.

"God" (The empty name!) is a greater mystery used to explain the mystery of existence; of course, a mystery begs rather than answers a question and therefore does not explain anything. Woo of the gaps. Cosmic lollilop. Even an anti-anxiety placebo. Anything but an explanation. :halo:

"God" (The empty name!) is a greater mystery used to explain the mystery of existence; of course, a mystery begs rather than answers a question and therefore does not explain anything. Woo of the gaps. Cosmic lollilop. Even an anti-anxiety placebo. Anything but an explanation. — 180 Proof

Question: Why is the expansion of the universe accelerating?

Accepted answer: Dark Energy

Real answer: We don't know

I suppose we're so desperate for answers that an empty word is enthusiastically accepted than no answer.

I can see where you're coming from.

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 ... many people ... 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

On the one hand I think churches used to be a place to sing together (more rare in the last 15 years). I also agree it's tough leaving anything.

As a youngster I didn't have that goal for the church, and in recent years I've gone back to that attitude. In between, I joined the "church within a church" where I thought these goals would be fulfilled (your spiel sounds like their advertising).

I left that because of underhand goings-on, dumbing down and being strung along so that I could provide cover. I'm not going to venture a percentage as to how general this is in churches, but I hear of a lot of churches that have the "church within a church". To turn round your point about questioning God 180 degrees, in my observation to question those bonds is not to question God.

Let's say it has been happening like you say sometimes. You can't say how general that is either. So yours is a valid but perhaps, at the practical level, a weak argument. I've known the values you say in a local history society (minus probably the confessing) and I imagine they occur in plane spotters' clubs or model making societies.

For the thrust of OP's main point it doesn't matter whether religion dwindles or changes, it's about how we can roll out morale-building mores to the public and not cliquey eccentric tribes which was how most churches were functioning sociologically, and on honest rational grounds. While there was a bit more religion in my young day, the agnostics obviously felt fully entitled to take part in morals.

If it's the non-religious that are just as prone to poor logic as the churchgoers are, we ought to teach them good logic and not pretend only we churchgoers are entitled to have logic (of sometimes poor calibre).

Nothing can replace God. — Corvus

I want to nuance your statement because there are too many definitions or usages of "god". In Nietzsche's milieu we know something of the concept the oppressive bourgeoisie vaunted. Believe you me, it is too fluid, there is what is not called a god that is a god but not a good one, and every conceivable variation. Interposing an empty concept as 180 Proof rightly calls it is the exact opposite of the honest logic required. If you aren't an inspired evangelist (and probably even if you are) how are you going to make this inconvenient and confusing incumbrance catch on?

That was only a specific cultural timewarp when morals piggy backed on gods, it doesn't apply in the present tense.

I'll count myself out anyway because I look for my gods myself if I fancy having any, and I don't package deal / portmanteau as between my gods and my morals. Any divinity worth its salt will not give you brownie points for flourishing the lip service you give it. You and Philosophim sound like you are trying to achieve the opposite of what was in the OP.

Can religion be moral guidance? In theory yes, but in practice, it depends who you are talking to. — Corvus

Don't you believe that this was the case through all humanity history till even nowadays? Most people in societies weren't raised with some "religion moral guide"? Theists were always more. And even nowadays they still are. So a theist won't raise his kid according to his religion's " moral standards"?

It is not fair or accurate to accuse or praise a certain group of people in society. There are good atheists, so so ones, and bad ones, so are theists. — Corvus

Of course it isn't fair at all. You can't characterize a group of people in general as good or bad according to their belief or no-belief. I would never do that.

Can anything replace God? No, I don't think so. God is a special concept, and existence that human reason can never prove or understand. Nothing can replace God. Maybe they will try, but will fail or have already failed. In ancient times, life would have been far easy and simple, because people had no internet, no globalisation, no widespread religious scepticism. They believed in God, and God will take care of everything even afterlife in heaven. — Corvus

Roger that.

Now, people have lost that comfort zone. They fall into pessimism and nihilism and apocalyptic thoughts. When they die, they don't know what will happen to their soul. And even souls exist? Uncertainty. Fear. All these transform to extreme negative world views and depression. — Corvus

Since you mention it. That's another issue bothering me. The ongoing higher levels of depression that appear in societies. Could this be a result also of "losing God" and all the "comfort" that it brings as you already mentioned?? Don't get me wrong, I don't support that atheists are depressive.Hell no.
I just wonder if with the way that humanity moves into atheism (with no self cultivation at all, as I mentioned at previous posts) plays an important role for these higher levels of society depression. Don't know. Just wondering about it.

By the way. You answer to the OP with the way I prefer to be done. Specifically to the questions and with no unnecessary words at all. Just the "juice". That's what I appreciate.

God" (The empty name!) is a greater mystery used to explain the mystery of existence; of course, a mystery begs rather than answers a question and therefore does not explain anything. — 180 Proof

What seems that you fail to realize(or you don't wanna admit it) ,is that this "empty name" as you call it was full filling the desperate human need for some kind of explanation and answers to their existence. Fake answers? Lie? Yes I agree. But a necessary lie for humanity!

Most people STILL need that "lie" in their lives. Even if you and I don't. There are many more that they do! Can't blame or make fun of anyone for that. If he doesn't give you any troubles and he is acting "good", just respect him and move on!

"God" (The empty name!) is a greater mystery used to explain the mystery of existence; of course, a mystery begs rather than answers a question and therefore does not explain anything. Woo of the gaps. Cosmic lollilop. Even an anti-anxiety placebo. Anything but an explanation. — 180 Proof

Assuming you are correct, why is that a reason to dispense with the acceptance of God?

Quoting Nietzsche:

"When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet. This morality is by no means self-evident… Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole.”

What then happens when we kill God? Two possibilities:

1. "For the game of creation, my brothers, a sacred yes is needed: the spirit now wills his own will."

or, the opposite:

2. "What I relate is the history of the next two centuries. I describe what is coming, what can no longer come differently: the advent of nihilism... For some time now our whole European culture has been moving as toward a catastrophe."

So, we either get the soaring will unencumbered by the fetters of religion, free to plot its own course toward a new personal morality or we sink into a sea of meaninglessness, unable to swim under our own power, with nothing to keep us afloat.

If #2 is what occurs, then a ressurection of God might be in order for some. That #1 will universally happen isn't borne out by the evidence. That some wish to return to the pre-death state is an understandable and reasonable choice.

Definitions tend to be overly general, but "God," to me, is a motivator for good. That you can't find a referent to the noun doesn't affect the meaning of that term.

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.

So a theist won't raise his kid according to his religion's "moral standards"? — dimosthenis9

A subset haven't been; and some religions don't have any. I'm pro "religions" as a vaguely general phenomenon (and I do urge members to apply quality criteria), I just want to stop the package dealing and piggy backing. If you don't know how to suggest morals, don't pooh pooh those who do know how to suggest them.

unnecessary words — dimosthenis9

Is that a buzz phrase?

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

But we don't wanna create anything. Who are we as to "create" something? We just wonder if and what could take God's place. Especially with morals that comes from religions. All 3 of us though seem to agree that this is probably impossible. At a high amount of people at least.

ome religions don't have any — Fine Doubter

Bad or good I haven't heard not even one religion not to have morals. Even Satanism has.Evil morals!
Morals is not necessary something good. See our morals in societies too. Not all of them are-were good in human history.

Is that a buzz phrase? — Fine Doubter

Sorry didn't get that. Why this to be a buzz phrase?

God," to me, is a motivator for good — Hanover

To you and to MANY more people. That's why I find that kind of theists wayyy much "better" (social useful) than a dogmatic stubborn atheist! Who wants to force his non belief to everyone! (social useless!!).

By the way. You answer to the OP with the way I prefer to be done. Specifically to the questions and with no unnecessary words at all. Just the "juice". That's what I appreciate. — dimosthenis9

:100: :pray:

What seems that you fail to realize(or you don't wanna admit it) ,is that this "empty name" as you call it was full filling the desperate human need for some kind of explanation and answers to their existence. — dimosthenis9

People infantilize themselves by making shit up aka woo-of-the-gaps, imaginary cosmic lollipops because that's always been far easier (safer) than fucking around and finding out what is and is not the case. Just dumbing ourselves down by handcuffing our minds to symbolic cradles doesn't entail we ought to keep doing so. Oh and sorry, dimo, you're confusing me with someone else, or just jizzing strawmen on my shoes :roll: ... You've no fucking clue what I "fail to realize" or understand. Two years ago I wrote

Pegasus
Elf
Hell
Ghost
Atlantis
Magic
Limbo
Angel
Paradise
Etc ...

Every time we use empty names like these in a sentence they mean something in a relevant language-game but not in others. "Meaning is usage", no? — 180 Proof

All "gods" are on that list above (i.e. members of the Null Set).

I suppose we're so desperate for answers that an empty word [name] is enthusiastically accepted than no answer. — TheMadFool

As Freddy Z says

Man would rather will nothingness than not will. — The Genealogy of Morals III. 28

NB: Science manifests as an intergenerational community of (dialectical, abductive, re)searchers which provides fallibilistic, testable, approximations and not "answers". (e.g. Dark Energy is not "the answer" any more than is quantum entanglement or natural selection.)

Scroll up.

Just dumbing ourselves down by handcuffing our minds to symbolic cradles doesn't entail we ought to do so any longer — 180 Proof

Man you gonna make me crazy. Wtf that's different from my initial PURPOSE of my thread? To explore IF and CAN we do something different in societies!? Where exactly is our disagreement for that??

You've no fucking clue what I "fail to realize" or understand. Two years ago I wrote — 180 Proof

What do you mean wrote? Where you wrote that? In TPF or you are a writer and that's from your book? (not that if you are that this would give you the authority to talk such dogmatic, but anyway). So what if you wrote that at the very end? What proves exactly? Help me here.

At least you have some real arguments after all this time. That's improvement.

Interposing an empty concept as 180 Proof rightly calls it is the exact opposite of the honest logic required. — Fine Doubter

Why do concepts have to be filled? If one is gagging for honest logic (whatever that is), and insisted concept must be filled with something, then the concept had been filled with the concept of "empty". Because it is empty, obviously he was not able to see it looking for something tangible and physical. Object and concept is not same, is it? (hey I better not give out too much hint here.)

Any divinity worth its salt will not give you brownie points for flourishing the lip service you give it. — Fine Doubter

I don't think anyone is here for some brownie points from divinity.

As Freddy Z says
Man would rather will nothingness than not will.
— The Genealogy of Morals III. 28
NB: Science manifests as an intergenerational community of (dialectical, abductive, re)searchers which provides fallibilistic, testable, approximations and not "answers". (e.g. Dark Energy is not "the answer" any more than is quantum entanglement or natural selection.) — 180 Proof

Basically, Something Is Better Than Nothing!

All "gods" are on that list above (i.e. members of the Null Set). — 180 Proof

"Freedom" is a member of the null set as well. Don't abandon Witty now! Meaning is use. These words do a whole lot in our world, identifiable referent or not.

Fake answers? Lie? Yes I agree. But a necessary lie for humanity! — dimosthenis9

Gennaion Pseudos

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.

Why do concepts have to be filled? — Corvus

They don't always, but we (and this is a public educative forum) have to look very hard at the rationale if reasoning is supposed to be based on that, and because OP and you and Philosophim want to overload me with your nebulous ideas charged with the label "morality" on the back of it, I'm going to have a say over it, as I hope almost all religious believers would, in the same circumstances. You don't sound honest about reasoning (which was OP's original "apparent" proposal), and that's immoral in itself. Effectively you've just admitted that for you, morality - a nebulous concept that you haven't characterised that has to be tied Gordian-like to another nebulous concept which you have graciously conceded to yourself doesn't have to be characterised - is an empty concept.

Those times I do do religion, I don't do it out of any need to be bossed.

Because it is empty, obviously he was not able to see it — Corvus

Please don't act stupid, you know you wouldn't expect us to actually want to sign a blank cheque.

To explore IF and CAN we do something different in societies!? Where exactly is our disagreement for that — dimosthenis9

You seem to be one of the ones that won't run with it. You sound like you're not interested in morality at all. Later I'm going to extract some extracts from this very thread and serve them up to you again like yesterday's greens :yum: I'll give you juice!

dogmatic stubborn atheist! Who wants to force his non belief to everyone! — dimosthenis9

Well give all of us billions of level headed and kind hearted agnostics some room then. You sound like you are fixated on excluding the middles. Haven't you read your Max Black?

Were you implying a subtext: "Who wants to force his immorality"? Were you?

180 Proof doesn't force anything. He gets in quick when you dump duplicitous "arguments" on us and leaves you with the hard work of figuring out why, should you be so moved. Most of us forum members are determined to stretch our minds for serious reasons. Have you ever read Consolation of Philosophy by Manlius Boethius?

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

It sounds like some bitter power hungry poisonous declaration against political enemies. We have been only engaging in a philosophical debate. What clique are you talking about? Is that all you see in the arguments?

So what?

Please don't act stupid, you know you wouldn't expect us to actually want to sign a blank cheque. — Fine Doubter

Why do you call it stupid? The reply was tailored exactly to the level of the questions asked, so that it could be understandable to the questioner.

Effectively you've just admitted that for you, morality - a nebulous concept that you haven't characterised that has to be tied Gordian-like to another nebulous concept which you have graciously conceded to yourself doesn't have to be characterised - is an empty concept. — Fine Doubter

I have never commented on morality along with religion in my life taking sides one way or the other. My point was, some concepts are inexplicable, and we should accept that. There are plenty of the other concepts which are inexplicable, unprovable, but we accept, because they affect us. Empty concepts does not mean that it is despicable, meaningless and has no value.

But a necessary lie for humanity!

Most people STILL need that "lie" in their lives. Even if you and I don't. There are many more that they do! Can't blame or make fun of anyone for that. If he doesn't give you any troubles and he is acting "good", just respect him and move on! — dimosthenis9

Can we pull this apart. Have you got boundaries or do you get walked over? Boundaries are your healthy exchange zone. Better gods and their better adherents want you to have individuality and responsibility for your reasoning and the health of your mind, and the bad ones and their bad adherents don't.

Don't dodge that because you have exempted yourself from having any gods yourself.

Are you an evangelist?

If religions are going out of fashion look for a basis for morals in reason. If some people have some sort of religion leave them to it. None of them are in a ghetto where they can't find out about morals on grounds of reason.

You are the one that needs to leave people be. Move on to honest logic and reason like you were "suggesting" with forked tongue.

I'm probably twice your age and I worked hard to get away from some duplicitous people who had elaborate excuses.