I don't judge if their solution is right (imo it's not at all).But even with "illusions" , as you say, they still gave some existential answers, to themselves — dimosthenis9

You are right not to judge and I don't either. Besides, in way, we all live in some kind of illusion or other! But I know, from personal experience, that most of them --there are exceptions, of course-- usually don't act in accordance with what they say or believe. They live in a conflict. E.g. they speak about "love", "a loving God", Jesus, etc. but in their life they don't show such traits. In fact, most of them exhibit more hate than love. Then, they expect that God will help them in their problems, but alas! they still suffer. And so on, and so on. This is not solving existential problems! And this is not a judgement but simple observation.

You can tell is someone has solved (most of) his existential problems: he (for brevity) is mostly stable in his behaviour, he acts according to his beliefs and words, he has a solid reality, he is quite rational, etc. And all this, because he has solved his problems by himself and not by using, depending on and believing in some imaginary entity, and/or the Bible, the Churh and in general a religion. Faith is not knowledge and a solution. Faith can only act as "crutch".

Well my fear is that chaos would be even bigger. — dimosthenis9

Yes, this is what I also believe; I only expressed it differently!

I get your point,but for me when I say God I mean religions [->religious] also. — dimosthenis9

Well, as I described above, believing in God (or a "god") does not make someone necessarily religious, in the sense that I descibed above, which is the essence of "religiousness", although dictionaries short-sightedly define the term as "relating to or believing in a religion", i.e. something that has "no bones and flesh" and means very little in terms of human knowledge and behaviour.

As most things in life, it is so simple after all indeed. But as most things in life also, the huge difficulty comes from putting that "plan" in action! — dimosthenis9

Right!

That's exactly what I mean when I support that humanity's average intellectual level, make religions still useful nowadays. — dimosthenis9

I agree. (I think I already did! :smile:)

You seem to be implying that religion has existed though-out humans history and helped to shaped our evolution — praxis

Hasn't it? For sure existed and for sure played important role in our evolution also. When humans didn't have some kind of God to comfort their misery?? Even when that God was "fire" or "lighting".
Your opinion is that religion didn't play any role to our humanity evolution so far? All these stories,myths, anxieties, binding, "divine" punishments, huge temples etc etc didn't shape also our evolution?

Again, I’m claiming that it’s about strongly binding a community. — praxis

Ok let's forget morals for a while then. That strongly binding that you admit that religion offers, has no good at all for you?? It doesn't offer anything good in societies? These communities are doing only harm then?

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. — javi2541997

Some religious people ....not all. It it irrational to say "All religious people are such and such..." or without the quantifier "Some", but to say "Religious people are such and such" is not a confirmed comment, because there are bound to be other religious people who are not. The writer of the text has not produced any concrete evidence to prove that he / she had gone around the whole world, investigated all the religious people, and came to the conclusion.

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.

Again, Augustine is a person who lived in the ancient or medieval times. I am not sure if we could take 100% of what the text is saying as infallible truth. I don't know who even wrote it, and even if I knew the author, why should I believe the text? I have never met the person called Augustine, and never had any conversation with him either, so it would be impossible for me to pass any judgments about him by reading some text about Augustine.

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 — javi2541997

The problem is that the insufficient evidence to support them doesn't follow that all of them are wrong, irrational, pathological or dangerous. Maybe some are, but not all.

I am not saying one way or the other, but simply saying that the arguments from the atheists are not infallibly conclusive on their claims. Whatever they say, it is some comments on what they experienced, heard, read, so it could be anything such as, they got bitter on their personal experience from the past their attending the churches or temples, or indeed what they claim had been the case in the real world, who knows?

But one thing clear is that it does not cover the whole religious people, and the religions in the whole world and in the whole history as a universal necessity. Therefore they are not conclusive claims to qualify as truths.

Besides, in way, we all live in some kind of illusion or other! — Alkis Piskas

Exactly! The stubborn atheists accuse theists of telling lies to themselves. As if they never do that. As if they are always honest with themselves! They might lie to themselves for dozens other issues but since that lies don't concern God, it's all fine by them!

They live in a conflict. E.g. they speak about "love", "a loving God", Jesus, etc. but in their life they don't show such traits. In fact, most of them exhibit more hate than love. — Alkis Piskas

I know what you mean. I m familiar also with some hypocrites theists as you mention here. My only objection here is that, at least for me, not sure that most theists are like that indeed.
Imo like in other cases, it's just that this percentage of hypocrites theists make all the "buzz".All the" noise". Normal theists are usually more low profile people.

Well my fear is that chaos would be even bigger.
— dimosthenis9
Yes, this is what I also believe; I only expressed it differently! — Alkis Piskas

That's exactly what I mean when I support that humanity's average intellectual level, make religions still useful nowadays.
— dimosthenis9
I agree. (I think I already did! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

Glad that someone else believes that too. Weren't many on this thread. Most atheists here reacted so "schocked" and found that so "outrageous"!

If I was telling them that " Red Living Marshmallows" will take over earth wouldn't care so much. But the hate they have for anything theistic is so big that they get blinded. Some of them at least,not all atheists of course.

At the very end. The facts talk on their own. No need for me and you to point it out.
Religion is still dominate in humanity - Fact
People maintain religion cause they still need it! Or else wouldn't be any! So simple as that.

It is true that all the arguments I wrote are pretty general or opaque. I guess the points of what really wanted these authors I quoted are two: A) free will and free thinking without depending in a subterfuge like God. B) A good criticism of church or all religious entities which somehow seems to be dangerous due to their practices and roles.
We can be agree here with the point that not all religious people are the "same" but sadly, there are a big percentage who act like this way. Most of them feel completely disappointed if you or me critique the image of "God" and the role of religion in schools (which are pretty chaotic and I demand for a secular education system so urgently)
It is interesting when they say they have the right to believe in God. Sure they have! But at the same time I have the right to opposing their dogma then.
There is a big problem since the moment where they try to impose their religious ideas or beliefs. This happens a lot acting the church or religious entities as lobbies which can control the citizens and power. I guess this is why those authors said how dangerous they can be.

Sure, it could be just their own opinion or experience. I can understand that. And in reality, there must have been such cases in some part of the world to some religious people. Fair enough.

But there are also genuine religious people who are happy about their religion and got a lot of positivities out of their faiths and religions. For a example, I know my friend who is doing well in his life after taking up a religion doing better and happier in his life. Before that, he had been suicidal and utterly miserable.

I read about the religious charities in some places, who have been preparing free meals for the homeless people in the street, feeding them everyday with the volunteers help saving many lives for many years. This is not some 1500 year ago, but it was a few months ago. I was in the city, and witnessed them serving the free meals to the homeless people in the streets, and also read about them.

They are not irrational, pathological, violent and dangerous, are they? For them those negative remarks would be totally unfair and unjustified, anyone would say.

So simply saying that all religious people are insane irrational and dangerous is not correct. That is my point.

Agreed that of course there are persons who truly believe and care about religion. It is true. But I guess the real target here is the church or episcopal institutions. I totally think that those are simply powerful lobbies that work for politicians (conservative most of them). If you live in a tiny town and somehow you want to be the mayor or council you will need to work or debate with the church in the town because it has a lot of power of influence.
My point here: I respect and understand all the individuals who truly believe in God and they act in this way. On the other hand, I not respect the Church as an entity at all... I guess they should not be part of important things as homosexuality or educational system. This is why it can seen as dangerous by atheist like me.

Agreed that of course there are persons who truly believe and care about religion. It is true. But I guess the real target here is the church or episcopal institutions. I totally think that those are simply powerful lobbies that work for politicians (conservative most of them). If you live in a tiny town and somehow you want to be the mayor or council you will need to work or debate with the church in the town because it has a lot of power of influence.
My point here: I respect and understand all the individuals who truly believe in God and they act in this way. On the other hand, I not respect the Church as an entity at all... I guess they should not be part of important things as homosexuality or educational system. This is why it can seen as dangerous by atheist like me. — javi2541997

Being religious does not mean that one has to be tied to churches or temples or any organisations. One can be perfectly and rightly religious just sitting in one's own room, and be religious happily reading the holy scripts, meditating and praying to one's own God.

One can be perfectly and rightly religious just sitting in one's own room, and be religious happily reading the holy scripts, meditating and praying to one's own God. — Corvus

Well... I guess when you want to be baptized you have to pass through a church or institution. You cannot be part of "God's blessing" if a priest does not make the average "ritual" in the church.
Also, most of the people just go to church in Sunday and hear a lecture.
It is weird to see a person who reads the Bible in their own home or room but... Yes I agree with you that these people can exist.

If you gonna make people stop believing in religions then WHAT could replace God? How can you convince people to be "good — dimosthenis9

Replacing something is a matter of finding something to perform the same function as the replaced object. So whether or not we can replace God depends on what we think religious belief is for.

It follows then that if what we want is motivation to be good, we must find something that makes people good. There's an issue with that though: we do not have any generally agreed upon definition of what is good, and we don't even know whether good and evil exist. But for the sake of answering your question, let's define good as what is accepted by society.

The answer is simple then: the envy to conform, empathy and emotion. When one conforms, one respects societal norms, when one feels empathy, one is not willing to hurt another with the help of emotions like guilt, pity etc. In fact, the first motivatior is the actual wa religion makes us moral, for when religion sets the norm and children are raised to respect it, the people conform to what the religion wants, one can look at Middle Ages Europe for an example.

God doesn't need replacing... but maybe the concept of God does. People have an annoying way of defining God and then politicizing that idea. Equating God with infinite possibility and deriving nothing from a 'personality' imposed upon it is a good place to start.
We fall back into limitless possibility at the end of our days.
Isn't that good enough?

There's an issue with that though: we do not have any generally agreed upon definition of what is good, and we don't even know whether good and evil exist. — Hello Human

That's a crucial point-problem ,as to find something replace "God's morals". You do good bolding that. These vague terms make even more problematic our common social understanding.

But for the sake of answering your question, let's define good as what is accepted by society. — Hello Human

I wrote many times before about the vague meanings of "good" and "bad". As you say, I use them here for the sake of the thread. As to understand each other in an accepted way by society.

when one feels empathy, one is not willing to hurt another with the help of emotions like guilt, pity etc. — Hello Human

Another crucial key here. Empathy plays huge role in morals for me .Not to say the biggest one.
So how you cultivate empathy to most people without religion? Educational system focused on that like suggested could be a very good start.

I don't think though Javi suggested especially education system for empathy as to be fair and not to change his words.
But for me Empathy classes should get into every school around the planet. It is a great help if we wanna build better societies.

Equating God with infinite possibility and deriving nothing from a 'personality' imposed upon it is a good place to start. — Proximate1

I m not sure I got your meaning totally here. If you could explain it a little more.

I personally think that a secular educational system would provide open minded people and a great developed society.

I personally believe that Education system should get a whole grounded transformation and redesigned focusing on the most useful social values, as to provide "better","happier" people. And happier societies as a result afterwards. But it's a biggg discussion.
A discussion for another thread maybe.

Education system — dimosthenis9

Creation & Evolution In Public Education

The difficulty, as I see it, is if religion is presented as an alrernative to science. It can't be helped since both seem to make claims in same areas like how animals and humans came into existence and let's not forget to mention their pronouncements on how old the earth is. This probably just the tip of the iceberg.

I'm not sure but a practical workaround for this vexing issue of religion vs science in the educational system could be to introduce an entirely new, much needed and till date neglected, subject - ethics. Creationism could be taught as part of Christian, Judean, andMoslem ethics; it does appear to be necessary for the morality of these religions to make sense. The ethics curriculum however would be A1 if other ethical systems like Buddhism, utilitarianism and deontology are included.

Creationism would be taught and it wouldn't be at loggerheads with science. Win-win! :chin:

Well... I guess when you want to be baptized you have to pass through a church or institution. You cannot be part of "God's blessing" if a priest does not make the average "ritual" in the church.
Also, most of the people just go to church in Sunday and hear a lecture.
It is weird to see a person who reads the Bible in their own home or room but... Yes I agree with you that these people can exist. — javi2541997

Søren Kierkegaard was a total lone individual facing God, and in communication with the divine being in his house, reading the Bible, praying, meditating, writing and philosophising. He stopped going to church at one point after the bitter fallout with them, I gather. Can be done.

The difficulty, as I see it, is if religion is presented as an alrernative to science. — TheMadFool

Unfortunately that's what happens even nowadays. Religion makes a desperate effort to remain "alive" every time science comes with something new that might be used as an anti-God argument. And when they fail to do that then they give different explanations in existential questions like creature etc.
It is indeed the tip of the iceberg though.

Creationism could be taught as part of Christian, Judean, andMoslem ethics; it does appear to be necessary for the morality of these religions to make sense. The ethics curriculum however would be A1 if other ethical systems like Buddhism, utilitarianism and deontology are included.

Creationism would be taught and it wouldn't be at loggerheads with science. Win-win! :chin: — TheMadFool

Really interesting and kind of radical what you mentioned here. Never actually thought that before.
Creationism is indeed vital for these religions and am I the only one to notice that it can offer a "bridge" or at least a small common base as theists and atheists unite in some issues at least?

Though I really like the phrase "Ethics curriculum" (in fact it could be a great name for a school class), not sure what you mean with the rest of the meaning. You say that creationism can't apply in Buddhism or I got it wrong??

Now you came with some real arguments. I salute that.

I promise I was thinking about Kierkegaard as a good example of individual and "being apart of the church" too. K was a very important philosopher, they way he changed the interpretation of the Bible in his books like "the concept of anxiety" impact me even when I am an atheist. It is completely worthy. I remember one phrase of Sartre: "Kierkegaard could have been the most complete philosopher if he wasn't so religious"
I am agree with you. It can be done but... We never had another philosopher as Kierkegaard again...

Never say never. :D

But first I doubt that vast majority of people will ever come to that level and second even if they do, thinking Logically maybe isn't enough at the end at all for convincing someone to be "good". So what else could take God's role to "give" the Ethics that people should follow?? — dimosthenis9

You'll notice no people are in constant conflict with their religion's ethical beliefs unless said religion is imposed on them by an authority. People already decide what is good and pretend God agrees with them. It works in reverse as well. If some one dislikes what others are doing, then their God dislikes it as well. It's a trick of the minds executive function to believe we are regularly communicating with anyone outside of our own mind; regarding a super being with a culturally specific ethical agenda.

All conflicts that fall along religious lines would require new basis. People can always find ways to draw lines around their tribe, but the lack of long standing perceived differences would make it that much harder to see others as less or different than oneself. Which is the truth I think the world is missing. 5 minutes before we all fall asleep, we all want the same things.

Again, I’m claiming that it’s about strongly binding a community.
— praxis

Ok let's forget morals for a while then. That strongly binding that you admit that religion offers, has no good at all for you?? It doesn't offer anything good in societies? These communities are doing only harm then? — dimosthenis9

Your habit of polarizing what people say is irritating, irrational, and unproductive.

We’ve already been over the benefits it offers and you’ve agreed that those benefits are available without religion.

The benefit of dubious value is how religion is used (or abused) by its leaders. It’s a great benefit for leaders to have loyal, uncritical, and submissive followers. You know this, if only instinctively, and that’s why you’re looking to replace God rather than let him die a natural death.

You know this, if only instinctively, and that’s why you’re looking to replace God rather than let him die a natural death. — praxis

Yeah as if I have the power to replace anything. If God is about to find a natural death cause of deep aging. So be then.
That's a possible alternative indeed.

Yeah as if I have the power to replace anything. — dimosthenis9

People contrive spiritual/religious crap all the time to exploit gullible followers, and you’ve been talking about influencing low “average intellectual level” folks from the start.

People already decide what is good and pretend God agrees with them. It works in reverse as well. — Cheshire

It's always people's decision after all if they will choose good or bad. The thing is the "excuse" someone gives to himself for that choice,and for many people is God.
I would say "people already decide what is good on their own and pretend that is God's will"

Which is the truth I think the world is missing. 5 minutes before we all fall asleep, we all want the same things. — Cheshire

Well put here.

Don't worry I don't have any hidden agenda to create any new spiritual movement and "fish" followers here. Not my style.

I would say "people already decide what is good on their own and pretend that is God's will" — dimosthenis9

I'm going a step further and suggesting it is a wide spread phenomena. I haven't found a theist that is in disagreement with God. The day God wants you to do something, you don't want to do is a new experience.

The day God wants you to do something, you don't want to do is a new experience — Cheshire

So true.