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. — dimosthenis9
Some may indeed have. They are usually those who have seriously studied their religion and/or have a religious/spiritual guide, usu. a priest. But the great majority, even those who "live by the bible" I believe, have not actually solved anything. They live in an illusory religious world, based on an illusory God. By "illusory God" I mean --and I'm referring speak for the prevailing religion in my country, Greek Orthodoxy-- the God as it is presented by the Church and the vast relevant Greek Orthodox literature, including the school books.Cause at least (even with wrong way, imo of course) they have answered to their existential questions! — dimosthenis9
Exactly. This is the proof that the religion of the masses has never been able to solve any problem, except from a blind obedience to the Word of God, the Church, the 10 commandments, etc. which act as an obstacle to Man's immorality and the excesses that Man is predisposed to, as well as a remedy to his primordial fears. Marx was not wrong stating that "Religion is the opium of the people". It kind of acts as a hypnotic, a drug!Despite all these religions and Gods, we STILL face a huge chaos in society — dimosthenis9
It depends what one means by a "better place" and what (kind of) religions one talks about. From a materialistic view, dogmatic religions (such as those I described above) provide some safety and control in a society. From that aspect, I really don't know what this place would be if they didn't exist! What I know is that, because exactly of their dogmatic and suppressive nature, they can't set Man free, neither lift him to a higher spiritual level and real knowledge. But there are a lot of religions, esp. Eastern ones, and most importantly Buddhism which I consider in general a non-dogmatic and "practical" religion, with many "schools", which are not considered "sects" or "heresies" to be fought as it happens with Christianity, and esp. Greek Orthodoxy, which pursues them!1. So are we sure that world would be a better place without religions? — dimosthenis9
I don't think that God must be replaced by anything, except maybe some Supreme Being, Infinity ... the name doesn't really matter. Because we don't need to speak about God to be religious! And by religious I mean mainly, having 1) spiritual values and views (transcendental knowledge, worldviews) that count more than material ones, and 2) moral values (ethics).2a. If you gonna make people stop believing in religions then WHAT could replace God? — dimosthenis9
"Good" means ethical (moral) and ethics have to do with behaving for the greater good. This is based on common sense. So, to convince people to be "good", you have to convince them to apply common sense! So, simple? Not at all. Common sense is something so difficult to apply that sometimes I wonder if there is such a thing! :smile: It means thinking and acting rationally. And we know that rationality is not people's cup of tea, and even if they were pursuing it, there is so much (mental) aberration in Man that that it is very difficult, if not impossible, for him to achieve a rational stablity!2b. How can you convince people to be "good"? — dimosthenis9
But the great majority, even those who "live by the bible" I believe, have not actually solved anything. They live in an illusory religious world, based on an illusory God. By — Alkis Piskas
From that aspect, I really don't know what this place would be if they didn't exist! — Alkis Piskas
Buddhism which I consider in general a non-dogmatic and "practical" religion, — Alkis Piskas
Because we don't need to speak about God to be religious! And by religious I mean mainly, having 1) spiritual values and views (transcendental knowledge, worldviews) that count more than material ones, and 2) moral values (ethics). — Alkis Piskas
So, to convince people to be "good", you have to convince them to apply common sense! So, simple? — Alkis Piskas
It means thinking and acting rationally. And we know that rationality is not people's cup of tea, and even if they were pursuing it, there is so much (mental) aberration in Man that that it is very difficult, if not impossible, for him to achieve a rational stablity! — Alkis Piskas
We do not "disagree" on interpreting the same, relevant facts. You conspicuously grasp much fewer of the 'facts of religion' than I (and quite a few others here) do; apparently, this thread discussion makes clear, you're so uninformed that you don't even recognize how uninformed you are and yet you're trying to discuss these matters with others who are much more informed. You don't "disagree" with me, dimo9; you just reject or misinterpret what you're unfamiliar with and don't understand. It's not "dogmatic" of me to repeat statements (you've) not shown to be untrue based on facts of matter or lapses in my logic. Of course, you are entitled to your "opinons" just as I am entitled to dispute those uninformed opinions (and vice versa), which is the basic etiquette of informal public discussion.We agree on some matters, we disagree on others. And you can't just accept it. — dimosthenis9
this thread discussion makes clear, you're so uninformed that you don't even recognize how uninformed you are and yet you're trying to discuss these matters with others who are much more informed. You don't "disagree" with me, dimo9; you just reject or misinterpret what you're unfamiliar with and don't understand. It's not "dogmatic" of me to repeat statements (you've) not shown to be untrue based on facts of matter or lapses in my logic. Of course, you are entitled to your "opinons" justcas I am entitled to dispute those uninformed opinions (and vice versa), which is the basic etiquette of informal public discussion. — 180 Proof
In every response I bomb you with “arguments” — dimosthenis9
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. — dimosthenis9
But I had to take it out of me. Sorry.. Hahah — dimosthenis9
That's only your opinion. Respected but I think I do indeed. It's my most precious value. — dimosthenis9
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. — Corvus
In fact we have the Tank of Logic in our side. Covering our back. — dimosthenis9
I always claim that these are my personal opinions, not necessary right. — dimosthenis9
That is exactly what someone who doesn't care about the truth says. If you were interested in the truth you might ask me to substantiate my claim or try to disprove it yourself, but no, you just say that it's my opinion. — praxis
Surely you can see how silly this looks — praxis
You have a problem or something? — dimosthenis9
Yes, I have a problem with the way you claim to value logic but do not express that value in action. — praxis
1. I'm an atheist.
2. The vast majority of people worldwide believe in God.
3. Despite all these religions and Gods, we STILL face a huge chaos in societies. An enormous one!
Given these facts, that the vast majority of people in the world are religious and that there is enormously huge chaos in societies, it seems reasonable to speculate that religion is doing nothing to alleviate this enormously huge chaos, and may in fact be significantly contributing to it.
If that's a valid theory, why the hell would we want to try figuring out a replacement? — praxis
But have you seen ever the world without religions as to be sure that less chaos would occur??
How can you be sure that mess without religion wouldn't be bigger?? I haven't seen it either. And that's why I mention that it's only my opinion and can't be sure! — dimosthenis9
Tell me please, you find logical that such a humanity "invention" as religions offer nothing good as people to keep it and maintain it till nowadays??Is it possible one issue like religion to have Only bad things?? — dimosthenis9
And yes I still believe that with the way people behave and their intellectual level religions offer a huge "moral pillow" to societies.
That pillow though, me personally as atheist, I don't find it good enough. And I wonder, then what else?? Suppose human stop advising religion and God for moral values. Then how can they be convinced to act good in societies??? Is it even possible? All these are my questions. — dimosthenis9
And after writing all that stuff and spend my time answering to you, just noticed your new ridiculous post, mocking me. — dimosthenis9
Sweden is the least religious (17% feel it is important in daily life) and Somalia is the most (100% feel it is important in daily life). Which country would you rather take your family on vacation? — praxis
A tightly bound community is a well-established survival strategy. The world has changed a lot over time, however, and what was once a good strategy may not be well adapted to the current situation — praxis
I think several members have been trying to disabuse you of the notion that religion is about morality. It seems pointless to keep trying. — praxis
You don't actually seem to be taking any of this seriously, and you're free to mock in return. — praxis
You pick and compare two extreme national cases, and without any other criteria(social, economic, historical etc) except that their religion belief, as to show how better things in atheists countries are .I find it really wrong and misleading but anyway still I will answer you. — dimosthenis9
And that is Exactly the reason I opened that thread. As to explore IF and what we could do different nowadays as to unwrap morals from religion in modern societies. Where is our disagreement on that? — dimosthenis9
So you believe also that through all humanity history so far, morals haven't come out of religion? — dimosthenis9
Seems totally unreasonable someone to claim that religion has nothing to do with morals, to me at least. — dimosthenis9
A more apples to apples comparison is, ceteris paribus, the US (72% religious) to Sweden (17% religious) and the respective level of living standards in each country according to the UNDP wherein it's been reported for many decades to be higher in Sweden (as well as all of very secular Scandanavia (6 countries, ave. 27% religious)) than in the significantly less secular US.Sweden is the least religious (17% feel it is important in daily life) and Somalia is the most (100% feel it is important in daily life). — praxis
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.