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. — Corvus

ref your last three posts, if people don't have personal experience of god or religious events it is unlikely faith or beliefs would arise via intellectual or ethical inculcations:

though I know people that was true of, the question was the other way around. I've misread it a little, but your point isn't clear here. In your subsequent (shorter) posts you didn't make it clearer. I was certainly in the wrong for not asking you for clarification and you didn't seem to be querying the clarity or thrust of the other two I've cited.

Are you trying to say morality doesn't essentially come into religion, only sometimes incidentally? And that the main source of morality has to be direct from reason?

Are you trying to say morality doesn't essentially come into religion, only sometimes incidentally? And that the main source of morality has to be direct from reason? — Fine Doubter

I am one of the emotivist, who believes that morality depends on people's emotion, like from G.E. Moore ( https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moore/). That makes me a relativist as far as morality is concerned. So that leaves me have very little to say about morality in religion.

In morality, my interest is, linguistic aspect of it .i.e. when one makes a moral statement, I ask if it makes sense to say that. Is it logical to say that? That is all.

I think I said in my original post to the OP, if one asked me, if religion is foundation of morality, I said, it would depend on who you are talking about. There are all sorts and types of theists, atheists and agnostics, who could switch their sides any minute in their life for any unforeseen circumstances or thoughts popped into their minds or whatever the reasons. Moreover, there is no necessary apriori universal law to say that atheists will always act this way in certain circumstances, or theists will always act that way, and same for agnostics. No universal laws at all on these things.

Therefore just being / claiming that one is a theist, atheist or agnostic itself doesn't make or guarantee the being for morally good or bad. I thought that says clear enough about me I am a moral relativist and emotivist, who has not much to say about religion and morality.

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.

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? — praxis

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 a new moral umbrella, as that to become enough to replace religion.And not that atheists don't have also the need for social groups in general. The key phrase in Philosophim opinion is " a large enough group". That's what I think at least, but maybe I got it wrong . Don't know. Philosophim could clarify that for us.

None of the above is only found in religion. — praxis

Of course not. But religion is still the hugest social organization. That's why imo still dominate in morals.

moral development. — praxis

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

Are you an evangelist? — Fine Doubter

No I m not. Simple atheist as mentioned when I opened the thread.

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

At what point I haven't respected anyone who is theist or atheist as to tell me that?
Told you again my only criteria is "good" or "bad" in "social useful" and "social useless" terms. Not at all what someone believes or what not believes. Don't get at all, whom exactly you urge me to "leave alone".
Well Logic is my only belief. So now that I rethink maybe I m not atheist at all after all.
Logic is my God.

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

And you tell me that cause...? Since when age is a "argument validation" measurement? Or you mean that I am the duplicitous one? And what exactly excuse I have elaborated?
In any case if you want to "get away" from me. Go on. I m not gonna stop you. Promise!

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. — Fine Doubter

You fail to understand simple things.
I talk about dogmatic atheists who want to force. And not ALL atheists of course. Same as I would talk for dogmatic theists who want to force their belief to Atheists! So what are you talking about?

Last time I get involved as to explain such a simple thing from my arguments. Or else I would need to explain every word and day hasn't enough hours for that.

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.

Philosophim never used the phrase "new moral umbrella" — praxis

That's my phrase not his, as to make clear to everyone. It seemed that I was quoting him indeed the way I wrote it, true. I corrected it also to my previous post.

, I think what Philosophim is actually referring to is how tightly bonded a group is, — praxis

That too.But since they don't have such strong bonding together as theists do,they can't get organized in big numbers also. At least that's,what I got from his post. But again I might misunderstood it. Can't be sure.

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? — praxis

If you ask me .If that solidarity urges people to act "good", well hell Yes it would be a good thing then.
At the end what is the truth after all?? Can we know it? Can an atheist prove that there is no God? Can a theist prove that there is? We can never be dogmatic about issues like that.

Useful as to act "good" in societies, respect others,don't give others problems etc. I wrote again that good and bad have vague meanings. I just use them for my thread's purposes, as to make my point clear in what I mean.
Social useful and useless is only what exists, for me at least.

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

I haven't studied any of these theories that you mentioned as to be honest. But since their methods are learning, teaching, reasoning and training sound interesting. I will check on that.

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. — praxis

Exactly right. Which is why I responded with my list of secular community alternatives, some of which also address identity. 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).

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.

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. — praxis

That just sounds to me like a secular idea. I would have thought religions often increase existential anxiety - especially worrying about God's judgment, the afterlife, etc. In such a context, atheism may be understood as transcendent. Thoughts?

:up: Epicurus says as much: religion increases anxieties (e.g. fear of sin (guilt), divine judgment, afterlife / no afterlife, evil spirits, etc) more than it allegedly reduces them. In other words, "gods" are more nocebos than placebos; figaments of anxieties, not entities. Like organized crime – perhaps you agree – organized religion always exploits human weakness (i.e. gullibility, ignorance, selfishness, bigotry) through con games, extortion and co-option (corruption) of political-social systems.

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.

What can replace religion?

Easy: A C Grayling

:up:

What can replace religion? — Wheatley

A better secular education system too.

So what's the problem if they do? I can't see any. — dimosthenis9

Magical thinking, learned helplessness, reality / death-denial, trust in imaginary friends, fear of imaginary enemies, etc – you don't see any problems with adults cultivating and blinkered by such "god"-related/fixated emotional habits?

:100:

I feel that it is not philosophical arguments just to keep saying religion is bad, god is bad, the empty concepts and religious people are stupid, someone said this and that so it must be true .... so forth so fifth.  These types of comments are not adding anything to the philosophical points and arguments at all, apart from making the claimer look like an unphilosophical bystander devoid of logical sense.

Keep saying that just because some famous philosophers said such and such blah blah ..., or keep listing lots of links and words as if they are meaningful for anything, really doesn't impress me at all in philosophical arguments. At the end of the day, the most meaningful statements are the ones from the claimers own mind and intention out of his / her own reasoning regarding the OP or the topic. It would be good to have the links and quotes, only when they are extremely relevant and meaningful.

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.

Without that backing up, all the claims and statements mean nothing more than just personal emotional assertions and pleas which will be seen as the claimer's blindly ardent propagation of dogmas and prejudices to the others for some peculiar personal motives.

Suggesting and accusing the other posters for making up cliques or ganging up just because their views were similar to each other, or making emotion filled irrational comments in the discussions do not help either.

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

True! But I guess it is so difficult being rational with someone who believes in a celestial dictator as "God"
Facts, arguments, knowledge, statements, axioms, and other forms of logic, cannot fit with religion because those persons are already so influenced by a dogma which is so strong.

Magical thinking, learned helplessness, reality / death-denial, trust in imaginary friends, fear of imaginary enemies, etc – you don't see any problems with adults cultivating and blinkered by such "god"-related/fixated emotional habits? — 180 Proof

I see problems to the theists they think and act like that. No problem at all to the theists who don't!

You as many other atheists, seem to focus ALWAYS and ONLY to the bad things that religion brings. And you don't admit nothing good at all. You don't acknowledge any good to religion at all. And that's simply logical impossible! It is so simple as that after all.

Want it or not religion is still "alive" cause it also brings some good and is still useful to humanity. And maybe yes, the good things might be more, that's what I believe.Or else people would have abandoned it already.
Not saying that my belief is for sure right though.

god"-related/fixated emotional habits? — 180 Proof

Adults have even worse emotional habits and for hundreds other reasons . With religion or not. That's another topic though, and you can't blame religion for that too.

True! But I guess it is so difficult being rational with someone who believes in a celestial dictator as "God"
Facts, arguments, knowledge, statements, axioms, and other forms of logic, cannot fit with religion because those persons are already so influenced by a dogma which is so strong. — javi2541997

Sure. If you think so, then present it as arguments and back it up with reasoning and logic, rather than saying they are bad and stupid. Simply saying "it is so difficult being rational with someone who believes in a celestial dictator as God" doesn't sound to me very much rational either.

To assert that statement, and expect the others to accept as a logical comment, the claimer must define "rational" "god" "a celestial dictator" and "difficult" in full, and demonstrate why that is true and making sense. Before that, I wouldn't accept it as a rational statement at all.

Excellent video and right to the point of the thread. Not that I agree with everything is said there. But really really interesting.

Kind of spooky at the beginning. Thought Grayling just have read the thread and started talk(answering)..

rather than saying they are bad and stupid. — Corvus

I did not say they are bad and stupid... I just think they are brainwashed or similar. Some of the arguments I have according to the books I have read are the following ones:

Religious people often assume that those without a belief in the supernatural cannot find beauty and inspiration in this world. Non-believers know that meaning in this world is of their own making and not dictated by a higher being... (Elisabeth Cornwell, Evolutionary Psychologist, "I Don't Need God to be Inspired," Center for Inquiry - LA, 7 October 2012)

In case I haven't mentioned this before, I'm an atheist. I do not believe there is any mind/body separation. All we are is our brains. We are chemical reactions. We are stuff - Penn Jillette, Presto! How I Made Over 100 Pounds Disappear and Other Magical Tales, Simon & Schuster, 2016, p.125.

Augustine was an self-centered fantasist and an earth-centered ignoramus: he was guiltily convinced that god cared about his trivial theft from some unimportant pear trees, and quite persuaded -- by an analogous solipsism -- that the sun revolved around the earth.

New atheism:

making truth claims about the nature of reality, and are subsequently rejected on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to support them. New atheism further maintains that religion is not simply wrong, but irrational, pathological and uniquely dangerous. By promoting beliefs and behaviours that emphasize cosmically ordained rules, sanctions and ways of life, religion is believed to foster divisive tribal mentalities, creating prejudice, discrimination and violence

I did not say they are bad and stupid... I just think they are brainwashed or similar. Some of the arguments I have according to the books I have read are the following ones: — javi2541997

I didn't say that you did. I was just saying in general, not pointing to anyone in particular. Sorry if it was not clear.

Understandable then :up:

Like any drug, religion (gods-fetish) is both medicine and poison, tool and weapon, cure and illness. The latter, however, is much more easy to abuse than the former. I see the whole phenomena and its inherent tradeoffs which I've learned from many histories has not been worth the extraordinary costs to the 'well being' of most people since the invention of agriculture (vide Epicurus, Spinoza, Thomas Paine, Simone de Beauvoir, Karen Armstrong) You, on the other hand, are blinkered by half-truths and outright ignorance of the historical and psychosocial facts of religion. I'm hardly alone, dimo9, in noting you've no idea what you are talking about and, like a typical D-K, you're completely incorrigible.

You, on the other hand, are blinkered by half-truths and outright ignorance of the historical and psychosocial facts of religion. I'm hardly alone, dimo9, in noting you've no idea what you are talking about and, like a typical D-K, you're completely incorrigible. — 180 Proof

What exactly is half truth? From the facts I present in my beginning of the thread which are lies?

And I always claim that these are my personal opinions, not necessary right.
With the dogmatic way you talk. As if you are the "ultimate truth holder",you rape logic!
We agree on some matters, we disagree on others. And you can't just accept it.

I feel that it is not philosophical arguments just to keep saying religion is bad, god is bad, the empty concepts and religious people are stupid, someone said this and that so it must be true .... so forth so fifth.  These types of comments are not adding anything to the philosophical points and arguments at all, apart from making the claimer look like an unphilosophical bystander devoid of logical sense. — Corvus

I could have written that. Every single word .As the rest of your post also

The only thing it offers us, is to show us one more time, how dogmatic people are about their personal beliefs. Whatever it is.
Even well read people get blinded by their lust everyone to agree with their personal beliefs.
That's the only use, arguments like that have.

I could have written that. Every single word .As the rest of your post also

The only thing it offers us, is to show us one more time, how dogmatic people are about their personal beliefs. Whatever it is.
Even well read people get blinded by their lust everyone to agree with their personal beliefs.
That's the only use, arguments like that have. — dimosthenis9

Here we agree again on the fundamental points in philosophy. This is through our pure universal reasoning processes. I salute ~ :grin: :pray:

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

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

:100: :up: :wink: