You have to live in dread of becoming useless — Fine Doubter

If you say so.

I do the same too — dimosthenis9

But you're out of your depth among agnostics.

ignoring background knowledge of all kinds — Fine Doubter

Thus, Mr Dimosthenis9, we have had the fact that most people replaced "god" already. Some people, with better substitutes than the Kaiser Bill supporters did. Particular arguments kindly offered include:

Jack Cummins who said people can use their imagination (I think they can do this without your "animating")
Tom Storm: "People still have to decide for themselves regardless of theism"
Apollodorus: "Upbringing, education, and a legal system would be quite adequate to enforce proper conduct."
Tom Storm: "Atheists and theists share the same basis for morality. ... Your wider question about convincing people to be good I didn't answer since you made assumptions along the way which needed clarification. You can't convince people to be good"
Banno flagged up dishonest bases in religion (I would call what he is referring to a form of fundamentalism)
You then said "And who needs that dishonesty at the very end as to maintain it? Aren't people who actually need that "dishonesty" as to follow some rules?" and bad syntax is against site rules and I forgot to query it - my bad.
Then you say "theists get moral rules from some God and atheists don't? I don't think it's same base here" without offering any substance when it's the opposite of what we've all pointed out and showing no deep understanding of the role some gods had in some morals sometimes. It's as if you are just out to cynically take unfair advantage of some people's naivety by keeping them where they are at.
Banno: "Suppose there is a "fundamental base"; it remains that one must chose to follow it, or no.
On what basis could one make the choice, without already having made that choice?
Hence, as I suppose you might agree, the point is not to follow some fundamental moral system, but to become a better person.
Hence, Virtue Ethics.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
What can replace god? Silence."
Apollodorus: "personally, when I judge the ethical value of a particular action, I decide whether that action is "good" or "bad" on the basis of upbringing. This tends to be my primary motivation in avoiding a particular action, for example, not the thought that I may be punished by God, though I can't rule out that possibility should I choose to take a different course of action.
I think children are quite good at learning what is right and what is wrong if they have parents who are themselves good role models.
It would need to start with basic things such as discipline, self-control, and cleanliness which is something that even animals can learn without any fear of God.
In those cases where upbringing and education fail to have the desired effect, there would be fear of the law or social disapproval." Note emphasis and limited scope of that.
~~~ Continued in next post ~~~

metaphysics — praxis

Real metaphysics is the property of all the public (Meinong deals with the optional religious module to this for which you need sound phenomenology, semiotics and hermeneutics, again public property). I for one am not interested in the special kinds on offer from eccentric tribes.

Ethics coming from Logic and rationality could be a possible "solution". Though I still have doubts that it could be enough — dimosthenis9

Of course it's enough because if you apply it in your own relationships with others you will be able to convey it by example, especially if you point them to resources outside yourself that we've mentioned and linked to. Your not spending enough time reading when we answered and putting too many uninformative replies too fast without real acknowledgement of ourss, led some of us to lose interest and others like me to fall behind, get nervous, etc. I told you to deal with 180 Proof later.

This is just "sketch"! — Alkis Piskas

Aha! Moral Rearmament! :wink: Let's hope it works better this time.

Interesting! Maybe during the Middle Ages? — Alkis Piskas

John Eriugena brought texts to Aachen in the nick of time before the Vikings (who were "berserk" at the time) destroyed most Irish records.

~~~ continued from previous ~~~
Jack Cummins: "In response to your query about how it is possible to convince someone to act in a way which is 'good' without the idea of God, I think that it is about appealing to the person's better nature. In many ways it is just about removing all the fear involved in religion based on divine wrath and punishment. In some ways it may be simpler to explain according to reason, as well as to emotive and intuitive aspects of the picture." He recommends petty matters not be focussed on.
NOS4A2: "I think one can appeal to the conscience no matter the content of one’s beliefs. I seem to carry around this unseen witness to keeps tabs on my own behavior."
Tom Storm: "I have learned to understand morality as performative ... not many care what a 'god wants' ... no one knows what God wants - it's subjective interpretation" and then "The decision is made via personal choice. God itself remains silent"
You then noted the point about conscience but don't seem to understand it is about their self respect. My best French teacher (when we were 16) sometimes talked to us about that (we still learned a lot of French) and it calmed down some of the hooligans a lot because he was appealing to their self respect. No mafia. No tanks.
This is when the shadow of the mafia looms and you haven't heard that 140 years ago it was the Kaiser Bill groupies themselves that told Nietzsche that God was dead (simultaneously paying lip service with forked tongue)
How would you debate the Weinberg quote (if at all) with Weinberg? Truth can be conveyed in all sorts of formats - whether he was a militant the rest of the time or not (I hadn't heard of him till that post)
Tom Storm: "The problem is religion as practiced ... the key point, religion is interpretation. How do you know which one is wrong? That itself requires interpretation." Big extra - and extraneous - hermeneutic, semiotic and phenomenological jobs on your hands not to mention quasi indexicality in mind reading.
Jorndoe: "Reality? Truth? Learning? We can pass moral judgment on religious texts, they therefore do not define morals."
The MadFool: "Epistemic/Innate Chance.
Ergo, Chance has replaced God in the mind of atheists.
:point: God does not play dice" (thread title)
The relevance of this is that we have to appeal to contingency. S J Gould was a great believer in contingency.
180 Proof: "contingent interplay, or transformations, of 'something into not-something into something-else' ad infinitum ... therefore, a derivative effect and not a cause of (chance) itself" This is the real environment that sustains us ever day. I for one am "grateful"
TheMadFool: "anekantavada - different strokes for different folks"
You: "Didn't know there were any wrong questions." Aha, I've got just the quote for you: "Only correct questioning allows things to speak" attributed to Droysen on p 201 of Geniusas and Fairfield eds. 2018
Note Droysen and 180 Proof are attentive to context.
Hanover highlights paradoxes evoked around Biblical literalism (or not)
I discussed moralising and the concept of a god as lawgiver which doesn't apply to all peoples so explicitly. I also said: "Epicurus warned most poignantly against superstition" and touched on trauma and triggers. I then said:
"What and who is, calls me to respect it / them: my own original version of is = ought ...
Virtues = going equipped.
Morals are to do with morale (Julian Baggini says)"
Then I argued against intensity and pressure from agitators like mafia with tanks.
I argued the sociological snags of identifying morals and morale with anything god-tinged. I went on:
"I find it fascinating to ponder the many usages of the term "square":
- in logic - "it squares" (is consistent)
- in aesthetics - geometry, which assists calculations and illustrates relationships
- in epistemology - stemming from the above, and consistency again
- in ethics of relationships, "have you squared it with the boss" and such like.
Imposing zero sum terms is bad interhuman arithmetic.
The opposite of a right is a wrong."
I tried to alert you against needless binaries / excluded middled / false dichotomies / all or nothing thinking, in interpretiung the course of history, which has always been very varied.
Banno: "Children match their behaviour to the adults around them. There is a vast literature regarding managing their behaviour and growing them into adults. None of it says that you can only do this by frightening them with supernatural parents."
Banno: "the notion that punishment is the only, or the best, or even one of, the ways to create kind, just, open, thoughtful people is untenable"
You: "Worldwide theists are still the vast majority and with that "moral guide"" - that is actually non-morals based solely on tribal power wielding - ugh. I can't believe you don't know what you are saying. I think you do know.
Me: "sound premises are essential. Learning is open to everyone, not specific tribes with foibles" however big a "majority rule" over my personal conscience they can enforce with their tanks and their mafia.
Banno: "there have been ethical, well-behaved, productive atheists for hundreds of years" - did you observe the oblique allusion to your "useful"?
You: "most people (even nowadays) have that need though" no they don't because there aren't gods / soundly interpreted religions - which by the way are a private affair and not yours to comment any more
You: "only thing that should be examined is if someone is good (social useful) or bad (social useless)" which the individual themselves must interpret individually for themselves and not you, nor your mafia, nor your tanks.
To Gregory's mention of gnostic dualism you say: "For sure It would make more sense" but not more sense than what. Some of us will think it will make our morals worse not better, for all that there's no problem with Gregory's mentioning it. Your thread, your question we respected: so show how things fit in.
"God's name" is too variable in senses and connotations to make real sense, was my next point.
I'll come back to the interesting debate about empty concepts which I haven't input my responses to yet. Hanover's subtle middle of the road points here (citing Nietzsche) are none the weaker in themselves, if we see their place properly.
180 proof has a terrific description of science - I must respond.
Praxis draws the meaning out from Tom's point for us.
You said people should be lied to.

Thus, Mr Dimosthenis9, we have had the fact that most people replaced "god" already. — Fine Doubter

That's only what you claim and nothing but a fact at all. Most people worldwide are theists. So for one more time at this thread, what are you talking about??

You then said "And who needs that dishonesty at the very end as to maintain it? Aren't people who actually need that "dishonesty" as to follow some rules?" and bad syntax is against site rules and I forgot to query it - my bad. — Fine Doubter

Flag me to the moderators for that.
My "bad syntax" doesn't seem to prevent you from understanding all of my meaning though. As you are desperately seeking for a "Logic fault" in every single post I make. Go on your effort.

In contradiction your excellent English syntax, doesn't help you much since at the half of your posts you jump from another issue to another, without making any point at the end.

Then you say "theists get moral rules from some God and atheists don't? I don't think it's same base here" without offering any substance when it's the opposite of what we've all pointed out and showing no deep understanding of the role some gods had in some morals sometimes — Fine Doubter

What exactly kind of substance you want me to offer you to that??

Of course it's enough because if you apply it in your own relationships with others you will be able to convey it by example, especially if you point them to resources outside yourself that we've mentioned and linked to. Your not spending enough time reading when we answered and putting too many uninformative replies too fast without real acknowledgement of ourss, led some of us to lose interest and others like me to fall behind, get nervous, etc — Fine Doubter

Logic was my initial proposal. But no I m not that sure that is enough. It's not that simple as you claim. Human creature is so complex that you can't be sure that Logic would be enough.
But even if it is enough after all (which I wish), the difficulty as to make most people think Logically is tremendous, as you notice everywhere around you.

I even had started a thread about it some time ago named "is Logic a matter of Intelligence?" that I had expressed many of my doubts that I express here.

led some of us to lose interest — Fine Doubter

Doesn't seem that case with you though.

.

No mafia. No tanks.
This is when the shadow of the mafia looms and you haven't heard that 140 years ago it was the Kaiser Bill groupies themselves that told Nietzsche that God was dead (simultaneously paying lip service with forked tongue) — Fine Doubter

I see you really liked the "Tank of Logic" phrase as to refer it repeatedly, though you misuse it and mix it with mafia as to make your false point.

Nietzsche told that. But no one listened to him.
He actually put the thread question "what can replace God?" muchhhh earlier than me!

: "Only correct questioning allows things to speak" — Fine Doubter

And who judges what " correct questioning" is?

By the way, you run out of arguments and you repost all the arguments made here from others against my position??
Arguments to most of them I replied already. You want me to do it again??
My English isn't that bad. Don't worry. I can read for myself.

You: "Worldwide theists are still the vast majority and with that "moral guide"" - that is actually non-morals based solely on tribal power wielding - ugh. I can't believe you don't know what you are saying. I think you do know — Fine Doubter

And again... What are you talking about?!? What is non - morals? All theists don't have morals? Or they have false morals?

individual themselves must interpret individually for themselves and not you, nor your mafia, nor your tanks. — Fine Doubter

Oh that tank again!! So hear this :

That "Tank" is making you so nervous,that's why all your anxiety as to write a "whole book" for a comment.
Don't worry it's normal.
It's impressive what damage you can achieve to a person if you spill just some drops of Logic inside his fundamental beliefs! I have watched it many times in my real life also. Not surprised at all.

You said people should be lied to. — Fine Doubter

I said it and I support it!
They aren't at the intellectual level yet as to handle the truth. It's still necessary. Like it or not.

You said people should be lied to.
— Fine Doubter

I said it and I support it!
They aren't at the intellectual level yet as to handle the truth. It's still necessary. Like it or not. — dimosthenis9

Exactly what lies do you want to spread?

So from everything that I wrote to that thread, that's what you got at the end?? That I want to replace God's lie with mine?!
Pfffff...

You make me regret for all the time I devoted to answer to every single post you made. And the patience I showed with you.
Your mind is locked there for good. Nothing to add anymore.

I don't get this, you said people should be lied to, and go further to say that you support lying to people, but when asked what specific lies you'd like to spread you get offended and shut-down.

Personally, I do not support deception of this kind. I'm curious though.

If it's simply that you're not sure what lies you'd like to spread then you could just clarify that.

I have to say, this makes me question your honesty in general. Do you lie and support lying to people on this forum?

I don't get this, you said people should be lied to, and go further to say that you support lying to people, but when asked what specific lies you'd like to spread you get offended and shut-down. — praxis

I don't want to spread any new lie to the world at all!
I just point out the obvious thing. That people aren't at the intellectual level of handling the truth.
It's the same thing with what I mentioned when I opened the thread. The reason that I find religion still necessary even nowadays. A necessary lie as not worse chaos to occur in societies.

If it's simply that you're not sure what lies you'd like to spread then you could just clarify that. — praxis

My proposal as to "replace" God was Logic. People wouldn't need lies if they could follow Logic, but apparently they can't. So where you notice exactly that I wanna replace a lie with another lie??

:up:

I cant believe you two knuckleheads (meant playfully!) this long to figure out he’s full of shit. I suppose you also think it a coincidence this “atheist” is dishonest and disingenuous in precisely the same way as every other religious clown that stumbles in here looking to prove some pet theistic point. Leave him be, he will find his place among the turds of this site. :naughty:

:up: I had him pegged as a disingenuous bloviator on p.2 after a few posts but sometimes whacking a piñata can be a useful object lesson. Boredom too seeks easy distractions. :smirk:

the same way as every other religious clown that stumbles in here looking to prove some pet theistic point. — DingoJones

Leave him be, he will find his place among the turds of this site. — DingoJones

All theists are clowns for you.
Please Let me be then.

It seems to me that theists behavior appears to be better because of their religion but what if the religion sucks the soul out of them and they act "good" in a mechanical way that is really not wholesome?

It seems to me that theists behavior appears to be better because of their religion but what if the religion sucks the soul out of them and they act "good" in a mechanical way that is really not wholesome? — Gregory

I have wondered about that also in the past. The only "answer" i gave is that I can't even be totally sure for my own reasons as atheist on why I'm trying to act good and if it's not happening also in a mechanical way cause of my strong social beliefs. But is it truly wholesome for me too? Not sure either.

Well as for theists as to be honest, I don't care much if they act good cause of mechanical way. Since they are social useful, I wouldn't go deeper. That's all I care about.

Mostly just fun & games and I don’t care if he’s being genuine or honest, though openly speaking of lying to others so they’ll behave the way you’d like them to behave is both pathetic and contemptible.

You are now actually discussing your own questions!

What about if to make yourself useful you could help people become less mechanical by thinking for themselves?

Have you experienced thinking for yourself? Using spatial imagination helps. Do you like the diagrams of M C Escher, or admiring the view from a mountaintop?

I'm alarmed by your concept of "use", seeing as you are going to become a leader. I think you should care for the "theists". Do you think atheists are superior?

What do you think of all this:

https://lishanchan.com/teaching/

This is a good point by praxis, and he hasn't mentioned the tanks or the mafia:

if he’s being genuine or honest, though openly speaking of lying to others so they’ll behave the way you’d like them to behave is both pathetic and contemptible. — praxis

People wouldn't need lies if they could follow Logic, but apparently they can't. — dimosthenis9

Seriously, this is where your and my leadership comes in, by example. If we examine it ourselves, we can pass it on. Alkis looked like he could help as well?

It's just that your unimaginative tone conveyed that you wanted to fatalistically piggy back on oppression.

To abandon hope for others, by proxy, when you are in a position of leadership, is nihilistic.

another issue to another, without making any point at the end — dimosthenis9

That's because I made several interrelated points, which you seem to be getting alright with surface reason, but your despair imposed on others then overrides. Others are despairing; but I will always be hopeful for others, as my heart attitude, whatever I do (a little or a lot).

Don't forget all the world's public can read here to gain wisdom on this interesting topic and case in discussing.

Flag me to the moderators for that. — dimosthenis9

No, I should have flagged it to you. We are getting quite a lot of your stance, but you might have been wanting to tell us more then and I failed to help. I just said, my bad.

kind of substance you want me to offer you to that? — dimosthenis9

Any that you might happen to have? A lot can be said in a line or two, you know.

what you got at the end?? That I want to replace God's lie with mine?! — dimosthenis9

If you didn't mean it in that sense, you could come back soon and clarify yourself - I have to do that sometimes.

Given that we don't know what "god" is, whose would it be?

a thread about it some time ago named "is Logic a matter of Intelligence? — dimosthenis9

Thank you, I'll look it up!

who judges what "correct questioning" is? — dimosthenis9

You do, based on context. It's responsible, enhances your feeling of self-worth, stretches your state of education, etc, then you can pass those things on to others.

you run out of arguments and you repost all the arguments made here from others against my position? — dimosthenis9

My arguments are intended to follow on from the discussion you have with others. Those were not against your earlier position which was logic, they were for it. Is this now the "switch" to supremacism?

Nietzsche wasn't embracing it (his sister edited his papers wrong * ); he was using quasi indexicality (indirect speech) on the ideas of the Bismarck and Kaiser Bill groupies, who adversely impacted my family. I agree on the need many people have to "revalue", a subject Husserl also touches on. How will they think how they want to do that, if you want them refused teaching?

How are you going to help your theist neighbours stop being less-than and become more-than? Through these very threads.

If you're not pulling a "switch" or pulling your punches then why not explain yourself as you go on.

mix it with mafia as to make your false point — dimosthenis9

Are you a reifier? All your phrases spoke volumes, consistent with this, hence mine was only a false point if you can come in and reword your proper sense, instead of getting distracted.

to most of them I replied already — dimosthenis9

If you could parse what you are saying as you say it, together with others' posts, or soon enough afterwards to nuance it, what you were doing was propose logic, get us to agree with you, and then say we're wrong, at the same time maintaining side-quarrels. I'm not in 100 % agreement with the tactic of some others to counter-sealion you, but my priority was to dialogue with you. In any case you could defuse their tactic and that would help me. I told you to prioritise the contributors and things will get clearer, easier.

If you want to change tack you can start a new thread and link this one; or even do it in this thread but say straight this is what you are doing, namely that the arguments of 180 Proof, Banno, and all the others in favour of your OP no longer interest you sufficiently: it happens but frankness is vital in forums.

Your social observation is not bad, but you are imposing your pall of despair on everybody with an iron fist. Yesterday you were going to launch a project. Honest logic doesn't mean switching, or pulling punches. Thinking out loud needs frankness and openness so people will know you're a sincere interlocutor.

Doesn't seem that case with you though. — dimosthenis9

I don't do cues. Would you assume some TPF members aren't here to exercise, and educate millions of readers?

{ * see Ben Macintyre, Forgotten Fatherland }

Religions and governments typically are though. — praxis

You mean "Churches" (religious/spiritual leaderships), right?

I'm not up to put in action a plan like that — dimosthenis9

I'm not either, of course. For one thing I don't know even where to start from! But, as I said, "I would like to start doing something about that." It's a kind of motivation and certainly a dream! :smile:

Your reasons are quite ... reasonable. And I don't think that not willing to sacrifice oneself or being a hero for any purpose means selfishness. In most cases, it just means "it's not worthwhile".

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. — dimosthenis9

I don't believe that one should "try" to be good. If ethics (I have described elsewhere what this term means to me) are part of one's reality and regular behavior, one usually thinks and acts ethically in a natural, efortless way. That is, most of the time, in general, as a rule.

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

So, it's a common vision, then! Well, it's a good start! :smile:

, cc.

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

Do you maybe mean "morality"?
(Morale is "the confidence, enthusiasm, and discipline of a person or group at a particular time" (common definition))

Moral Rearmament! :wink: Let's hope it works better this time. — Fine Doubter

"Moral Rearmament" ... That's very interesting! I mean, not the group itself (about the existence of which I had no idea), but that you have very successfully connected what I was taking about with it! :up:
But don't count on it ("to work better this time"). Because it ain't goin' to happen! :grin:

John Eriugena brought texts to Aachen in the nick of time before the Vikings (who were "berserk" at the time) destroyed most Irish records. — Fine Doubter

I just checked two sources and they both talk about Christan texts written in Greek. Nothing to do with Ancient Greek texts.
Also, this kind of information is often proven false. For instance, I read in https://talesoftimesforgotten.com that Arabs (mainly) and Jewish scholars have preserved Ancient Greek texts by translating them, etc. I found out later that nothing like that has happened!

New to this convo., but I only see God as needing replacement with another name for the same thing. Try "Omnimax." A lot has been attached to God that isn't exactly pure. People with nascent, for lack of a politer term, minds have tried to hijack the entire concept of God to their own ends.

But in its subtlest form, there's no reason that God/Omnimax need be replaced. As a religious interpretation, sure...the Omnimax isn't bound to any man's law or reasoning (though the two may indeed comply.)

Yet, still, nothing in Science has cast any aspersions on God, not as an inceptual concept, anyway.

What about if to make yourself useful you could help people become less mechanical by thinking for themselves? — Fine Doubter

I try to do that with the people around me. And just with discussion and telling them my opinions and thoughts.I m not even at the place to give anyone advices. Who am I to show them the "right path"? When actually I haven't even figured it out for my own self yet.

I'm alarmed by your concept of "use", seeing as you are going to become a leader. I think you should care for the "theists". Do you think atheists are superior? — Fine Doubter

I m not going to become leader to No one else except myself! Wrote it many times here,i don't have any "heroic instinct" inside me as to "save the world". At the end who told you that the "world" even wants to be saved???

Only a fool would think atheists as superior. For me all people are JUST different and nothing else. I don't judge them according to what they believe but according to what they do. And I don't categorize them either.

Seriously, this is where your and my leadership comes in, by example. If we examine it ourselves, we can pass it on. Alkis looked like he could help as well?

It's just that your unimaginative tone conveyed that you wanted to fatalistically piggy back on oppression.

To abandon hope for others, by proxy, when you are in a position of leadership, is nihilistic. — Fine Doubter

So you urge me to become a leader after all? You accuse me of all kind of bad things and now you want me to lead??! Why would you want such a "bad" and "dishonest" leader as you describe me??

And to lead to what exactly? I don't even think that I m capable of leadership after all! As all people I have vanity inside me, of course, but isn't that big as to think myself as a "world savor"!

No, I should have flagged it to you. We are getting quite a lot of your stance, but you might have been wanting to tell us more then and I failed to help. I just said, my bad. — Fine Doubter

It's ok. Not that I got offended. I know my English isn't perfect. But I think I make my point clear.

I agree on the need many people have to "revalue", a subject Husserl also touches on. How will they think how they want to do that, if you want them refused teaching? — Fine Doubter

Why would I want anyone to refuse teaching?? Teaching and reading is the shortest way to expand yourself. So why would I want such a thing??

How are you going to help your theist neighbours stop being less-than and become more-than? — Fine Doubter

Why exactly my theists neighbours to need any help at all? Why should I try to "change" them, if they believe in any kind of God and that makes them happy and acting good??
And what about my atheists neighbors?? Everything fine with them always??

I'm not in 100 % agreement with the tactic of some others to counter-sealion you, but my priority was to dialogue with you. In any case you could defuse their tactic and that would help me. I told you to prioritise the contributors and things will get clearer, easier. — Fine Doubter

I don't give a fuck as to try to convince someone discuss with me, when he has no arguments and only what he does is to insult. I m feeling bad with myself if i do that. Like underestimating myself getting involved with such people.

If someone wants to discuss with arguments he is welcome. If someone wants to act clever-ish with insults and tweeter lines, then the sooner he abandon this thread the better would be for me.
I value my time a lot as to waste it with silly insults into a forum.
By the way that doesn't go for you. We might disagree but your "insults" were light. I give you that.

Yesterday you were going to launch a project. Honest logic doesn't mean switching, or pulling punches. Thinking out loud needs frankness and openness so people will know you're a sincere interlocutor. — Fine Doubter

What kind of project was I about to launch?? I don't follow you here.

namely that the arguments of 180 Proof, Banno, and all the others in favour of your OP no longer interest you sufficiently: it happens but frankness is vital in forums. — Fine Doubter

All arguments interest me as long as they are arguments indeed! And not insults.

You keep mentioning Banno by the way. Banno came to the thread. Disagreed with me with some arguments and just left.
He probably didn't agree at anything I wrote, or he had other interesting topics to attend or whatever. He might even found my thread useless and idiot! Don't know. But the thing is that he didn't cause any unnecessary "mess". He just left with no insults or anything.
I totally respect that and I do the same.

{ * see Ben Macintyre, Forgotten Fatherland }
4h — Fine Doubter

Who is that? A TPF member?

I'm not either, of course. For one thing I don't know even where to start from! But, as I said, "I would like to start doing something about that." It's a kind of motivation and certainly a dream! :smile:

Your reasons are quite ... reasonable. And I don't think that not willing to sacrifice oneself or being a hero for any purpose means selfishness. In most cases, it just means "it's not worthwhile". — Alkis Piskas

Well yeah I wouldn't know when to start either!
As to be honest I think my way of thinking is kind of selfish indeed. But I m ok with that, I don't blame Egoism and selfishness the way most people do, and I find hypocrisy when someone does that. Egoism isn't always a bad thing. And I don't demand from anyone to sacrifice himself as to "save" the world.

I don't believe that one should "try" to be good. If ethics (I have described elsewhere what this term means to me) are part of one's reality and regular behavior, one usually thinks and acts ethically in a natural, efortless way. That is, most of the time, in general, as a rule. — Alkis Piskas

For me not always comes natural as to be honest.I m human with weaknesses, temptations etc and sometimes I have to give hard "fight" with myself as to "convince" him act good.

So, it's a common vision, then! Well, it's a good start! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

Yeah it is a start indeed.

:smile:

6dReplyOptions — Daniel

Heroin feels nice though. Im not promoting it! I still take methadone. But it makes you get contact with the non-material side of the universe. Isnt that universe proof of god? You can also adapt the view that the universe is the magic. That it is incomprehensible. That there is matter magical stuff inside matter, and that you gotta have resoect for all forms of life that have evolved in this eternal, magical universe. Big bang after big bang. Maybe in every big bang we live again. As ourselves but differently every time.