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

This is true, but I would stress more the average ethical than the intellectual level, which seems to get lower with time. And I believe that religion is not only useful but even necessary. Among other things, in order to increase the average ethical level. This in turn will make for a better life for everyone, materially and spiritually. Ethics and rationality produce order. Lack of them produce disorder and chaos.
But, as I will describe below, very little of this is actually applied and it can have a value and purpose only if correctly applied.

***

As far as hypocrisy and differences between atheists and theists are concerned, I can ascertain, mainly from personal experience, the following:

Hypocrisy and immorality exist everywhere, among atheists as among theists.
Theists have more tendency to hate and fight atheists than the other way around.
Theists try to convince and convert atheists or be imposed on them, but rarely the other way around.
Theists show much more contempt and lack of respect towards atheists than the other way around. (Their customs exercised in public, e.g. joining hands around a table in a prayer and citing quotes from Gospels (or Torah, etc.) are classic examples of this, esp. when they do this in front of people of and other faith!)
Theists (in their great majority) believe that their religion is better than other religions and sometimes even that it is the only religion, calling other faiths as infidels! Religious wars are still happening today since the time of Moses. (All this is part of the insanity that religions have and still can create to people, when used as a means of suppresion and domination.) Such things are totally unknown among atheists.
Theists would be in a much better place and much more enviable if they had studied and/or were taught the philosophy, scripts, literature, tenets, beliefs, etc. of their religiion in the right way. In my life, I have known some of them who have done so and I had envied them.
Atheists are more true to themselves and to others than are theists.
Atheists can think and reason for themselves better, based on their own realities, than can theists.
Atheists may not believe in God (or a god), but this doesn't mean they cannot be "religious" (in the sense I explained earlier).

Important note: All of the negative things I mentioned above about theists are not inherent to theism. They happen because of the wrong or even inexistent teaching of the religions, as well as the wrong purpose they have been used for.

***

Back to the question of the topic "What can replace God?", after all this has been said:
Religions that teach people a philosophy of life, ethics and principles of moral conduct and their immense importance in life, based on common sense and rational thinking, as well as accompanying real examples and applications in everyday life.

Don't worry I don't have any hidden agenda to create any new spiritual movement and "fish" followers here. Not my style. — dimosthenis9

That’s not what I’m suggesting. I’m pointing that you apparently believe that the vast majority of people require shepherding, due to their “intellectual level”, and the shepherds to date are doing a piss-poor job of it, and yet you have no idea of how to do it better, or how to take control. You haven’t even expressed any vision of a better future. In the end, it seems that you’re simply looking for control.

. In the end, it seems that you’re simply looking for contro — praxis

Control over whom? From all you wrote above, it seems that I'm simply looking for answers.
If exist any.

You haven’t even expressed any vision of a better future. — praxis

My vision is a world where vast majority worldwide to be logical people, who would respect whatever others want to believe.
My vision is most people to follow one simply EASY fucking rule "do whatever you want as long as not giving problems to others!"
But again whom am I to enforce my so called "vision" to anyone? Martin Luther King?

I would stress more the average ethical than the intellectual level, which seems to get lower with time — Alkis Piskas

I know they are different, but don't you think these two are strongly connected also?

. Among other things, in order to increase the average ethical level — Alkis Piskas

I would put it "to prevent average ethical level from moving down lower!"

Hypocrisy and immorality exist everywhere, among atheists as among theists. — Alkis Piskas

Fact.

Theists have more tendency to hate and fight atheists than the other way around. — Alkis Piskas

I disagree on that. I think depends from the individual. Seems more or less the same to me.

Theists try to convince and convert atheists or be imposed on them, but rarely the other way around. — Alkis Piskas

Same as above for me.

enviable if they had studied and/or were taught the philosophy, scripts, literature, tenets, beliefs, etc. of their religiion in the right way. In my life, I have known some of them who have done so and I had envied them. — Alkis Piskas

Fact.

Atheists can think and reason for themselves better, based on their own realities, than can theists. — Alkis Piskas

I think as the rest from the above one as you can imagine.

Religions that teach people a philosophy of life, ethics and principles of moral conduct and their immense importance in life, based on common sense and rational thinking, as well as accompanying real examples and applications in everyday life — Alkis Piskas

Are you suggesting a different "form" of religions over future?? Like church "evolution" ? Or got it wrong?

Control over whom? — dimosthenis9

Those of the appropriate "intellectual level", as you've repeatedly referred to them.

From all you wrote above, it seems that I'm simply looking for answers. — dimosthenis9

From the beginning of this topic in the OP you ask "So what else could take God's role to "give" the Ethics that people should follow?". So you're basically asking how to control people. Ethics are moral principles that govern behavior. You're not asking how to develop virtue, in others or yourself. The concept of moral development seemed completely alien to you when I mentioned it.

My vision is a world where vast majority worldwide to be logical people, who would respect whatever others want to believe. — dimosthenis9

This is a contradiction because logic is reasoning according to strict rules of validity so whatever is proved to be invalid (fallacious) would be rejected.

My vision is most people to follow one simply EASY fucking rule "do whatever you want as long as not giving problems to others!" — dimosthenis9

You'd have to flesh that out a bit more but it definitely shows that your "vision" is about controlling others, rather than others of a particular "intellectual level", or yourself, developing virtue.

So you're basically asking how to control people. Ethics are moral principles that govern behavior. You're not asking how to develop virtue, in others or yourself. The concept of moral development seemed completely alien to you when I mentioned it — praxis

What's your point here? I don't get it. That ethics is a bad thing? That a society can exist without any kind of Ethics? What different is moral development than moral principles? If moral principles get better isn't that moral development? I don't understand your distinction here.

logic is reasoning according to strict rules of validity — praxis

For sure Logic is much more than that. It's the art of searching the truth with the most appropriate
way.

your "vision" is about controlling others, rather than others of a particular "intellectual level", or yourself, developing virtue. — praxis

Now I see that your mind "locked" in another thing with me. After accusing me for all different kind of things, now we have a new one.
Do you think I belong to Scientology or some kind of another hidden illuminati organization and I'm here in TPF as to collect members?
Or that I m some kind of Messiah??
How you develop virtue? My "recipe" says that improving intellectual level is extra crucial for that.
What yours say?

From the beginning of this topic in the OP you ask "So what else could take God's role to "give" the Ethics that people should follow?". So you're basically asking how to control people. Ethics are moral principles that govern behavior. You're not asking how to develop virtue, in others or yourself. The concept of moral development seemed completely alien to you when I mentioned it
— praxis

What's your point here? I don't get it. — dimosthenis9

That you're looking for a way to control people's behavior. You want to "take God's role" in order to "give the ethics [moral principles that govern behavior] that people should follow". Presumably, you don't want to give just any ethics, you want to give ethics that you approve of, right? What's good for the goose is good for the gander low average intellectuals, as they say in the old country.

For sure Logic is much more than that. It's the art of searching the truth with the most appropriate way. — dimosthenis9

Hmmm :chin: , what country did you say you're from?

Now I see that your mind "locked" in another thing with me. After accusing me for all different kind of things, now we have a new one. — dimosthenis9

Are you saying that you've reconsidered and no longer wish to take God's role? That would be good news.

Hmmm :chin: , what country did you say you're from? — praxis

I didn't. Greece.

Are you saying that you've reconsidered and no longer wish to take God's role? That would be good news — praxis

Yeah. Changed my mind. Too much responsibility for me, my schedule is already full.

I would stress more the average ethical than the intellectual level, which seems to get lower with time
— Alkis Piskas

I know they are different, but don't you think these two are strongly connected also? — dimosthenis9

Yes, certainly they are connected, but intelligence does not imply ethics. Ethics, pure ethics (as a system, a philosophy), on the other hand, imply intelligence, or more precisely, "rationality". (In the same way that intelligence does not imply philosophical thinking, but the other way around is true.) Indeed, I consider ethics strongly related to rationality. (As you can see, I ended my message saying, regarding ethics, "based on common sense and rational thinking" .)

I would put it "to prevent average ethical level from moving down lower! — dimosthenis9

Alright, but this is not so optimistic! :grin:

Theists have more tendency to hate and fight atheists than the other way around.
— Alkis Piskas
I disagree on that. I think depends from the individual. Seems more or less the same to me. — dimosthenis9

Yes, it depends on the individual. And indeed, Christians were persecuted a lot in the beginnings of Christiainism. Also, what I mentioned was mainly based on my experience with and facts about the Greek Orthodoxy, which is the most fanatic, hardcore Christian group of all.

Theists try to convince and convert atheists or be imposed on them, but rarely the other way around.
— Alkis Piskas
Same as above for me. — dimosthenis9

In the religious world I live, it is true. What is your religious "world"?

Are you suggesting a different "form" of religions over future?? Like church "evolution" ? Or got it wrong? — dimosthenis9

No, you have got it right! And you have put it nicely. :smile:

Thank you, sorry I didn't understand that well enough. Now we are nearer bases for discussions.

Good observations. Just because no-one "concludes" the argument doesn't invalidate anything. It's a matter of complementing each others' individual provisional decisions re prioritisation.

what exactly excuse — dimosthenis9

The people I mentioned had those. I think you have foundations for logic. These need spelling out.

because you are addressing many people besides those, and you invited us all in your OP.

Is this like a material dialectic jagganauth? :wink:

the most fanatic, hardcore Christian group of all — Alkis Piskas

This "ranking" probably varies with different countries and ethnic heritages - but not to contradict you. I am aware of infinite variation in quality among eastern orthodox. Under all "badges" small details in theology, instead of being evaluated in their own right, sometimes extrapolated to the most horrendous bad dynamics (spreading across official boundaries).

(I am still catching up from page 6) Praxis is saying in response to your OP what I was wishing to say which is that when we bring our well thought out virtues with us we can feed further into the loop of well thought-out thinking and virtuous action.

From a commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics I have by Oesterle, it appears those are mainly mental ones like proportion, contemplation, quality of initiative, continence, knowledge, right appetite, speculative virtues, art, prudence, equity, justice, right, temperance, perseverance, magnanimity, fortitude, measure, reason, discretion, attention to detail, principle, efficient causes, and the like.

To quote an apostle you don't follow, "against these there is no law".

Like church "evolution" — dimosthenis9

Don' t try too hard! I've seen it done, and it ain't pretty! Uncouple, de-link, I say again.

ostensible talk of "god" is usually really talk of a "god pretext"

an intermediary or higher authority that requires faith, and that authority holds all the cards — praxis

Like the dimosthenes9 quoted which enforces the "tank" effect for example. I know someone whose family were mafia in those parts.

As for "faith" this has to be taken apart in infinite detail. If someone stronger than me claims I have breached "faith" in their absolute imposition on my faculty to discern, I want to dissociate myself from them for the sake of my integrity. They can't demonstrate honestly that there isn't better "faith" than what they are substituting for my stolen discretion and initiative.

Because the OP proposed logic, and because logic works when it is based on honesty plus background knowledge, this is why we are offering informative answers.

the most fanatic, hardcore Christian group of all — Alkis Piskas

This "ranking" probably varies with different countries and ethnic heritages — Fine Doubter

I don't know if you have followed the thread. I have cleared in my comments and the information I delivered that they were based on personal experience and historical facts regarding the Greek Othdodox Church, which is the prevailing religion in my country and it is the one that became the dominant religion, since the beginnings of the Byzantine period (Eastern Roman Empire), and tried to destroy whatever remained from the ancient Greek Civilization, with everything that this entails. (Fortunately, the Catholic Church, in the Western Roman Empire, preserved a big part of the history and wisdom of that civilization and even gave it a new birth in the Renaissance. Considering these facts and also the masterpieces created during Renaissance and thereof, show the huge difference in intelligence and spriritual levels between these two Churches and faiths, although they are both Christian! There are no bad religions. There are only bad people who are reqpresenting it (Churches, power) and using it for wrong purposes.)

Alleged talk of "god" or "religion" is really talk of the "god or religion pretext" with lots of "god or religion subtexts". I have read your poignant autobiography; what JP II proclaimed was enforced cliqueyness (after a very different start I later became a refugee from the "armada").

celestial dictator — Corvus

An image of a "tank" enforced by "mafia" was perhaps not the sole metaphor OP intended? A fuller and more explicit range including a self-effacing divinity that respects our discretion to explore honesty actively, would have convinced better. I've seen people arise proposing to weaponise religion on grounds of this kind and I've always seen the bad effects ensue. Non-weaponised religion is a very different affair. (Some churches are a mixture.) If wouldbe religious leaders just say they are going to devise the "celestial dictator" model we ought to be on the alert.

Don't be so frightened of 180 Proof. If you study what the rest of us are saying first, you will understand where and how his expressions fit in.

think and act like that. No problem at all to the theists who don't — dimosthenis9

Thus to follow up your OP, how can agnostics of goodwill and religion-adherents of goodwill complement each others' efforts to strengthen public and individual morale? The very wide range of answers almost all of us have already given draw on background knowledge, honesty, reason, Nicomachean virtues, and the like. Do any of those still exist among some sectors in your country?

The things that destroy philosophy, reason, science and knowledge on all subjects are:

- conflating the several separate phases in perceiving
- conflating the according of value with judging
- denying imagination and all inference
- reifying (saying that the word is the thing)
- ignoring background knowledge of all kinds including what is not in the "canonical silo"

If all of us pay a better degree of attention to most of those most of the time, we'll be at cross purposes less often. Develop spatial thinking. The mathematics of morale is not zero-sum.

Leaving it open to attribute sources of morals to a reified cardboard god, in the format of a just-so story (the standard format that was always meant to be taken as a riddle or paradox) could be the way a self-effacing god worth its salt set "authoritative interpreters" up to be challenged on their veracity.

Faith can only act as "crutch". — Alkis Piskas

According to me I need to mix first with people who will (by their demeanour and sound hermeneutic in life) help me identify basis for my belief. "Faith" might have to come if I'm ever in a tight spot and I'll need what I'm calling "belief" first. I believe the kind of belief I'm mentioning is something agnostics can give themselves in their own context. It is the wholesome and requisite / absolutely necessary component in healthy religion if or when that ever occurs. This is quite fascinating as some holy texts seem to use only one word for both (whether in original or translation I'm not sure), yet I'm convinced both distinct things were always "intended".

tried to destroy whatever remained from the ancient Greek Civilization, with everything that this entails. (Fortunately, the Catholic Church, in the Western Roman Empire, preserved a big part of the history and wisdom of that civilization and even gave it a new birth in the Renaissance. Considering these facts and also the masterpieces created during Renaissance and thereof, show the huge difference in intelligence and spriritual levels between these two Churches and faiths, although they are both Christian! There are no bad religions. There are only bad people who are representing it (Churches, power) and using it for wrong purposes.) — Alkis Piskas

Thank you, I was underestimating the impact of the events around Justinian and the iconoclasts. There was big evil around Cyril of Alexandria (involving equivocity in ontology) but I suppose he is just as much eastern as western. The earlier Irish preserved Greek learning (alongside a few elements outside christendom). I'm particularly worried by the last (up to) 100 yrs. of Irish and Americans (as to religion) among others. Creating a new "expression" or "emergence" or "shaping", or envisaging an "armada" is a way of entrenching dumbing-down and ramping up intensity. Some long standing western traditions seemed to stay the same and radically destroyed their basis at the same time. Almost all the western traditions are distorted by ingrained fundamentalism. Small details of theology which are easier to promulgate now, are resulting in huge abuse. Some (eastern adherents) I know of are rediscovering relative authenticity vis-a-vis eastern orthodox and some of them aren't.

No, but you might on your own patch.

Indeed, I consider ethics strongly related to rationality. (As you can see, I ended my message saying, regarding ethics, "based on common sense and rational thinking" .) — Alkis Piskas

We agree on that. That's why i mentioned when I opened the thread that Ethics coming from Logic and rationality could be a possible "solution". Though I still have doubts that it could be enough.

In the religious world I live, it is true. What is your religious "world"? — Alkis Piskas

We both live in the same religious world,apparently. I get what you mean, but don't be so hard with us.i don't think that most Greek orthodox Christians are so hardcore. Well of course there are many though.

No, you have got it right! And you have put it nicely — Alkis Piskas

That's really interesting. In fact i double checked that you meant that, cause it was exactly a thought that came to me the previous days while I was debating here.

But I get enough accusations already and I had decided not to share it here. As you notice some believe that I have a "secret" plan as to create a new dogmatic group. But now that you implied the same, you pushed my buttons and found it "karma"-ish, seeing my thought written by someone else just a couple days after.

So I was thinking how could religion could be in 100 or 200 years from now.
Behind religions there is a billion dollar business and a huge amount of power that some people have.

Let's suppose that more and more people become atheists in the future (very possible) and they turn their back to religion.
Is there a way Religions to give up so easily, their precious money and all the power they got? As I mentioned at another post, religion makes every possible "effort" to remain alive every time science gives "it" trouble. What if scientific discoveries at the long future present "facts" that will make God's existence absolutely impossible?? Religion will say "oh ok. There is no God after all.Now there is no reason to exist. So we close! Thanks for your preference all these years. Bye!"?

For me the only way as religion to remain alive would be a "church evolution" similar to what you suggested. Its transformation into an ideological community based on Logic(?) hopefully that it will push people to follow "good" based on rational thinking and common sense. Like a new form of church.
At the end everything through history evolves. Nothing stays stable. So why not that to be the next "evolution step" for church too?
But again it's only a longgg guess and a thought I had.

Is this like a material dialectic jagganauth? :wink: — Fine Doubter

I have no idea what this is.

Don' t try too hard! I've seen it done, and it ain't pretty! Uncouple, de-link, I say again. — Fine Doubter

I just commented on what Piskas wrote, and you mention that. Imagine what you will write when you see my new response to Piskas. I am gonna wear my helmet.

how can agnostics of goodwill and religion-adherents of goodwill complement each others' efforts to strengthen public and individual morale? The very wide range of answers almost all of us have already given draw on background knowledge, honesty, reason, Nicomachean virtues, and the like. Do any of those still exist among some sectors in your country? — Fine Doubter

I don't get what you mean. You imply that actually it is impossible to complement each other or you mean that this can be done through knowledge, reason honesty etc? If you mean the second I agree with you.
Yeah don't worry for my country. Still exist.

Leaving it open to attribute sources of morals to a reified cardboard god, in the format of a just-so story (the standard format that was always meant to be taken as a riddle or paradox) could be the way a self-effacing god worth its salt set "authoritative interpreters" up to be challenged on their veracity. — Fine Doubter

Didn't get what's your final point is here either.

Deus, sive Natura. — Benedictus de Spinoza

That is something useful indeed.

There was big evil around Cyril of Alexandria (involving equivocity in ontology) but I suppose he is just as much eastern as western. — Fine Doubter

Right, Cyril of Alexandria was not with eastern church Most probably not the western either. However, he was contermporary to Theodosius II who in 448 had ordered that all anti-Christian books be burned. I don't know if that included ethnic (pagan) books or just heretical books. But at the period (440–450) there was a massive destruction of Greek monuments, altars and temples. And ea little earlier than that, in 365, with a Judgment, inexhaustible piles of books, all Greek literary, philosophical and scientific books were burned in the squares of the urban centers.

The earlier Irish preserved Greek learning (alongside a few elements outside christendom) — Fine Doubter

Interesting! Maybe during the Middle Ages?

Almost all the western traditions are distorted by ingrained fundamentalism. — Fine Doubter

There you are! That's a word I never use but I recognize it well when I see it! :smile:

Some (eastern adherents) I know of are rediscovering relative authenticity vis-a-vis eastern orthodox and some of them aren't. — Fine Doubter

I don't know if this has anything to do with it, but quite a long time ago, I read a book called "Mystic Theology" by a known Greek Orthodox mystic who lived in early 1st c. and I was really amazed. It was so close to the Eastern philosophy! (In fact, some people characterize it as Greek Zen). Guess what. This and other books of his were excluded from the official Greek Orthodox literature by the Church! If more books like that (and other works of the same author) were written, accepted and promoted for study, the whole Christianity would be totally different today!

I don't think that most Greek orthodox Christians are so hardcore — dimosthenis9

You maybe right about that. It's something personal, i.e., it depends on the cases one has encounteredin his life. I personally, avoid to speak about religion or even religious matters with anyone who is deeply religious.

That's really interesting. In fact i double checked that you meant ... — dimosthenis9

Right. I did mean that. "Different 'form' of religion" and "church 'evolution'" are what is needed. And not only this, but they have inspired me a lot, to a point that I would like to start doing something about that. And I had in mind to talk to you about it. I have suddenly realized that you have created a really great topic and that God must indeed be replaced! :grin: This is a huge topic!
(Yet, I am not sure if it "talks" to you as it does to me ...)

But I get enough accusations already and I had decided not to share it here. As you notice some believe that I have a "secret" plan as to create a new dogmatic group. — dimosthenis9

:grin: That's really funny!
But what a coincidance! It's not far from what I have just described. (No docmatic, by any means, though!)

So I was thinking how could religion could be in 100 or 200 years from now. — dimosthenis9

Oh, that's way too long! We have to live to see it happening! :smile:

Behind religions there is a billion dollar business and a huge amount of power that some people have. — dimosthenis9

Remember how I ended my last message? You don't have, I copy-paste it here for you :smile: : ("Religions that teach people a philosophy of life, ethics and principles of moral conduct and their immense importance in life, based on common sense and rational thinking, as well as accompanying real examples and applications in everyday life."
Well, I thought something easier than creating actual "religions" (too complicated). Create "religious groups", which are built around a basic ethics system and a set of priciples, and which will act to support and help each other and other groups or individuals to a better life. A better life for all, in general, physically (materially) and spiritually, always based on common sense. Discussions will also be in the daily agenda! (Well, I have not workded it out well yet. This is just "sketch"! :smile: )

I read a book called "Mystic Theology" by a known Greek Orthodox mystic who lived in early 1st c. and I was really amazed. It was so close to the Eastern philosophy! (In fact, some people characterize it as Greek Zen). Guess what. The book were excluded from the official Greek Orthodox literature by the Church! If more books like that (and other works of the same author) were written, accepted and promoted for study, the whole Christianity would be totally different today! — Alkis Piskas

If any system, be it a belief system or form of government, were supportive of independence, self realization, reduction of existential anxiety, new perspectives, enlightenment, etc. then it would not be against mysticism. Religions and governments typically are though. Even in Zen it’s the rare case where mysticism is practiced with any real diligence.

I personally, avoid to speak about religion or even religious matters with anyone who is deeply religious. — Alkis Piskas

I do the same too.

An not only this, but this has inspired me a lot, to a point that I would like to start doing something about that. and I had in mind to talk to you about that. I have suddenly realized that you have created really great topic and that God must indeed be replaced! :grin: This is a huge topic!
(Yet, I am not sure if it "talks" to you as it does to me ...) — Alkis Piskas

It "yells" to me. Not only "talks". But inside my head. That's why I opened the thread
. As for "doing" something about it. I'm not up to put in action a plan like that for 2 reasons:

1. I'm totally sure that this won't change anything, at my living time at least. You could say that at least I would have helped to put a little "stone" as changing things to long future.
And here comes the 2nd reason

I m not that altruist at all as to "sacrifice" my life and time for a thing that the "change" of it(if it ever happens actually) I will never experience. And that would have costed me psychologically and in other fields also (cause I know it will, since I know some things about myself).
You will say. "that's total selfish". Absolutely is!
But I guess I don't have the "hero instinct" inside me. And I don't know if I'm not even that "good" person.
I m a guy who tries hard to act "good" but at which level of "goodiness" or "badiness" I'm at the end,i have no idea about it.

It's not far from what I have just described. — Alkis Piskas

It's not far at all!

Create "religious groups", which are built around a basic ethics system and a set of priciples, and which will act to support and help each other and other groups or individuals to a better life. A better life for all, in general, physically (materially) and spiritually, always based on common sense. Discussions will also be in the daily agenda! (Well, I have not workded it out well yet. This is just "sketch" — Alkis Piskas

It is almost exactly what I had in my mind.
Discussions would be the MAIN agenda basically.

Cyril of Alexandria ... the western — Alkis Piskas

He is a "Doctor" of it no less.

what's your final point — dimosthenis9

that morals and morale are what's important to God and not religion.

no idea what this is — dimosthenis9

a jagganauth is your vaunted "tank" and material dialectic is what Gramsci was into and gets bigger all the time.

Create "religious groups", which are built around a basic ethics system and a set of priciples, and which will act to support and help each other and other groups or individuals to a better life. A better life for all, in general, physically (materially) and spiritually, always based on common sense. Discussions will also be in the daily agenda! (Well, I have not workded it out well yet. This is just "sketch"
— Alkis Piskas

It is almost exactly what I had in my mind.
Discussions would be the MAIN agenda basically. — dimosthenis9

Mutual support, basic ethics, common sense, discussion... what you describe is basically typical family life. That is already well established. It still has one of the main limitations that religions do, which is that the group is of limited size and there will always be an out-group which helps to reify the family identity.

Religions require an ultimate authority and a metaphysics to which that authority has special access. That's the basic recipe for faith.

at which level of "goodiness" or "badiness" I'm at the end — dimosthenis9

You have to live in dread of becoming useless :gasp:

basic recipe for faith — praxis

But only institutional faith, which is so often a distraction from the real thing, as both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche lamented

what you describe is basically typical family life. That is already well established. — praxis

Really wish most families "worked" like that. World would be much better. But most families are far from that.

Religions require an ultimate authority and a metaphysics to which that authority has special access. That's the basic recipe for faith. — praxis

True.