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

So true.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

Sweden is one country. Developed one. Most people are above average worldwide intellectual level most probably also. When I mention in my opening thread that vast majority of people are theists I mean obviously worldwide. And below average intellectual level, obviously worldwide again.

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

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?

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

So you believe also that through all humanity history so far, morals haven't come out of religion?? And from where then??
Vast majority of people are theists. These people with what kind of morality they raise their kids?? They are theists but when it comes to morals, they follow a different path for raising their kids? What is even the most used phrases that parents say to their kids? "Be a good boy. God watches" "Do your pray before going to bed". That has nothing to do with morals aw??

Seems totally unreasonable someone to claim that religion has nothing to do with morals, to me at least.

You don't actually seem to be taking any of this seriously, and you're free to mock in return. — praxis

I don't mock anyone for his opinions. It's not my style and I respect every opinion as long as someone express it with a polite and not an insulting way.
Told you before I m not here for fun. I m genuinely interesting about these matters. That's why spammers get so much in my nerves.

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!

Atheists always focus on the bad things that religion brings (which are many I don't doubt), but they don't see any good that comes from them.
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??

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.

Many many theists act and behave good CAUSE of their belief! And I can't make that I don't see that, just cause I'm an atheist! As I attribute chaos in societies cause of religions! I should attribute the good attitude of many theists to religion also. It would be totally unfair if I didn't!

And after writing all that stuff and spend my time answering to you, just noticed your new ridiculous post, mocking me. Well I won't delete it. But it would better if you go and play with 180. No use to waste more of my time for you.

You wish. The only reason I respond you now is cause you are so damn sneaky and awful that you try to spoil my name! Shame on you.
No I m not a ex-banned member idiot.
Bye for good now!

Yes, I have a problem with the way you claim to value logic but do not express that value in action. — praxis

It is my last effort with you. SHOW me where I do that! Before you told me to ask you why you said so? And I DID. And you come again with empty hands!
So last chance. Show me or please stop spamming!

Surely you can see how silly this looks — praxis

You have a problem or something? When you know that there is no way to have and know the Absolute Truth then yes some of the things are just personal opinions and nothing else.

You want me to say that I hold the "Holly Truth Cup" and my opinions are always right?!?!?

It's Pure Logic. Wanna take you serious with comments like that??

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

Man please! Pretty please!! From the moment I opened that thread it consumes crucial time of my day responding to comments. Cause when I open a thread I m passionate about it and truly bothers me in my real life thought in general! And I don't just make joke and spam like others do.

You want me to tell you what when you tell me such things?!?! To agree that yes I don't follow Logic since you said so??

Take all my posts in that thread from the beginning and show me where the fuck I don't follow Logic or else please stop breaking my balls. Really please!
Now you just accused me, for not asking you why? Thing that you could do it immediately with your first post. But no, you preferred the silly "quote" joke and second post to just accuse me for no Logic! Are you serious??

Well I had itches in my fingers. I had to respond. Couldn't hold it.

Though as to be honest I also thought that I should wait to engage with you in another thread, since that's what we "agreed" . But I had to take it out of me. Sorry.. Hahah

That's only your opinion. Respected but I think I do indeed. It's my most precious value.

If you say so.

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

You are a total waste of time.

In every response I bomb you with arguments, which you never reply or respond. And all you do is repeating insults and implying how much "informed" your precious self is.

I'm tired of stripping your weak, lame, shitty arguments off (when you rarely offered some actually).
Arguments like "Bible urge people to go kill others!". Better shake your head a little.Might help!

I just wish you to act like that only here in TPF and not in your real life .For egoistic reasons as not to admit anything. That's what most people do. They deal a discussion as a fight to "who is right". And they don't give a fuck about getting useful outcomes!
Well if you act and discuss like that in real life also, then pity for the people around you.

In any case,i m done with you. Go play with someone else.

That is, people tend to fear the words: "I don't know". — 1 Brother James

True.

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

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. On the other hand, I m condemned to burn in the curiosity's hell.

From that aspect, I really don't know what this place would be if they didn't exist! — Alkis Piskas

Well my fear is that chaos would be even bigger. Since I already mentioned the low average humanity's intellectual level,even nowadays.

Buddhism which I consider in general a non-dogmatic and "practical" religion, — Alkis Piskas

I consider Buddhism also as the most practical religion of all.

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

I get your point,but for me when I say God I mean religions also.

So, to convince people to be "good", you have to convince them to apply common sense! So, simple? — Alkis Piskas

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

What if group solidarity is valued more than a principle like truth? Would that be a good thing or a bad thing? In a sense it could be, as you say, "socially useful", but useful to what end? — praxis

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

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

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

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

Well give all of us billions of level headed and kind hearted agnostics some room then. You sound like you are fixated on excluding the middles. — Fine Doubter

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

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

Are you an evangelist? — Fine Doubter

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

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

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

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

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

Philosophim appears to be claiming that there's no viable alternative to religion for non-religious people because they're not as dependent on social groups. Is that true? — praxis

I think he mostly means that since most atheists are usually more independent,they don't have so much the need to get united in large scale and under a new moral umbrella, as that to become enough to replace religion.And not that atheists don't have also the need for social groups in general. The key phrase in Philosophim opinion is " a large enough group". That's what I think at least, but maybe I got it wrong . Don't know. Philosophim could clarify that for us.

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

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

moral development. — praxis

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

Just dumbing ourselves down by handcuffing our minds to symbolic cradles doesn't entail we ought to do so any longer — 180 Proof

Man you gonna make me crazy. Wtf that's different from my initial PURPOSE of my thread? To explore IF and CAN we do something different in societies!? Where exactly is our disagreement for that??

You've no fucking clue what I "fail to realize" or understand. Two years ago I wrote — 180 Proof

What do you mean wrote? Where you wrote that? In TPF or you are a writer and that's from your book? (not that if you are that this would give you the authority to talk such dogmatic, but anyway). So what if you wrote that at the very end? What proves exactly? Help me here.

At least you have some real arguments after all this time. That's improvement.

God," to me, is a motivator for good — Hanover

To you and to MANY more people. That's why I find that kind of theists wayyy much "better" (social useful) than a dogmatic stubborn atheist! Who wants to force his non belief to everyone! (social useless!!).

The risk from Dimosthenis9, Corvus and Philosophim is that they will create one more eccentric clique signalling ambiguously (even to themselves) about what they have and haven't bought into. That time is gone, I keep telling you. — Fine Doubter

But we don't wanna create anything. Who are we as to "create" something? We just wonder if and what could take God's place. Especially with morals that comes from religions. All 3 of us though seem to agree that this is probably impossible. At a high amount of people at least.

ome religions don't have any — Fine Doubter

Bad or good I haven't heard not even one religion not to have morals. Even Satanism has.Evil morals!
Morals is not necessary something good. See our morals in societies too. Not all of them are-were good in human history.

Is that a buzz phrase? — Fine Doubter

Sorry didn't get that. Why this to be a buzz phrase?

God" (The empty name!) is a greater mystery used to explain the mystery of existence; of course, a mystery begs rather than answers a question and therefore does not explain anything. — 180 Proof

What seems that you fail to realize(or you don't wanna admit it) ,is that this "empty name" as you call it was full filling the desperate human need for some kind of explanation and answers to their existence. Fake answers? Lie? Yes I agree. But a necessary lie for humanity!

Most people STILL need that "lie" in their lives. Even if you and I don't. There are many more that they do! Can't blame or make fun of anyone for that. If he doesn't give you any troubles and he is acting "good", just respect him and move on!

Can religion be moral guidance? In theory yes, but in practice, it depends who you are talking to. — Corvus

Don't you believe that this was the case through all humanity history till even nowadays? Most people in societies weren't raised with some "religion moral guide"? Theists were always more. And even nowadays they still are. So a theist won't raise his kid according to his religion's " moral standards"?

It is not fair or accurate to accuse or praise a certain group of people in society. There are good atheists, so so ones, and bad ones, so are theists. — Corvus

Of course it isn't fair at all. You can't characterize a group of people in general as good or bad according to their belief or no-belief. I would never do that.

Can anything replace God? No, I don't think so. God is a special concept, and existence that human reason can never prove or understand. Nothing can replace God. Maybe they will try, but will fail or have already failed. In ancient times, life would have been far easy and simple, because people had no internet, no globalisation, no widespread religious scepticism. They believed in God, and God will take care of everything even afterlife in heaven. — Corvus

Roger that.

Now, people have lost that comfort zone. They fall into pessimism and nihilism and apocalyptic thoughts. When they die, they don't know what will happen to their soul. And even souls exist? Uncertainty. Fear. All these transform to extreme negative world views and depression. — Corvus

Since you mention it. That's another issue bothering me. The ongoing higher levels of depression that appear in societies. Could this be a result also of "losing God" and all the "comfort" that it brings as you already mentioned?? Don't get me wrong, I don't support that atheists are depressive.Hell no.
I just wonder if with the way that humanity moves into atheism (with no self cultivation at all, as I mentioned at previous posts) plays an important role for these higher levels of society depression. Don't know. Just wondering about it.

By the way. You answer to the OP with the way I prefer to be done. Specifically to the questions and with no unnecessary words at all. Just the "juice". That's what I appreciate.

Maybe some time another subject will bring out more useful aspects of each other. Take care. — Tom Storm

Maybe. You take care too.

A gnostic dualism would actually make more sense — Gregory

For sure It would make more sense.

What are you talking about? You responded to something that you got it totally wrong. Talking about communities in general like gay and irrelevant stuff like that.
What are you trying to imply now about responding directly to the issues? These weren't the issues at all.
It's obvious what you did. Just admit it and move on. The thing that you preferred the lame excuse though says a lot. So be then.