Alright, starting with your facts from the OP.

1. I'm an atheist.

2. The vast majority of people worldwide believe in God.

3. Despite all these religions and Gods, we STILL face a huge chaos in societies. An enormous one! ​

Given these facts, that the vast majority of people in the world are religious and that there is enormously huge chaos in societies, it seems reasonable to speculate that religion is doing nothing to alleviate this enormously huge chaos, and may in fact be significantly contributing to it.

If that's a valid theory, why the hell would we want to try figuring out a replacement?

You have a problem or something? — dimosthenis9

Yes, I have a problem with the way you claim to value logic but do not express that value in action. It is an incongruity that creates distrust, in me at least.

A fact is a statement that can be proven true or false. An opinion is an expression of a person's feelings that cannot be proven. Opinions can be based on facts or emotions and sometimes they are meant to deliberately mislead others.

That's only your opinion. Respected but I think I do indeed. It's my most precious value. — dimosthenis9

That is exactly what someone who doesn't care about the truth says. If you were interested in the truth you might ask me to substantiate my claim or try to disprove it yourself, but no, you just say that it's my opinion.

Scrolling backward, a few notable items from the previous page:

If one wants to make a claim or statements regarding the OP, do so, but back it up from a logical point of view with universally valid reasoning and evidential facts on why the claims or statements are relevant and logical and therefore it is true. That is philosophy. — Corvus

to which dimosthenis9 replies with:

In fact we have the Tank of Logic in our side. Covering our back. — dimosthenis9

but not before admitting:

I always claim that these are my personal opinions, not necessary right. — dimosthenis9

Surely you can see how silly this looks.

It’s suspicious that from the start you praise the value of logic or reasoning according to strict rules of validity, and yet in action behave as though you don’t value it at all.

In every response I bomb you with “arguments” — dimosthenis9

Just thought I’d show you a proper use of scare quotes. Carry on!

People also talk of experiencing the numinous. You can get that visiting nature or listening to an orchestra play (there are endless possibilities).
— Tom Storm

Of course you can. But some people can't.Or that isn't enough for them. And they need God as to feel that way. So what's the problem if they do? I can't see any. — dimosthenis9

In religion there is necessarily an intermediary or higher authority that requires faith, and that authority holds all the cards. Maybe you’re familiar with the proverb that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. In any case, the same suppression of independence applies here as it does to moral development, or any other aspect that leads to independence, so transcendence, the actual experience of it, is not encouraged, and in many cases is deliberately suppressed.

Hope it goes well for you. I had a sore arm for a few days and some lethargy.

Transcendence? I am not sure if that's anything but a poetic abstract, but I know what people mean. 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

Whatever you like to call it, the key affect being the reduction of existential anxiety, something commonly believed to be exclusive to the religious realm.

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 an "new moral umbrella", as that to become enough to replace religion. — dimosthenis9

Philosophim never used the phrase "new moral umbrella". I know what you mean but you appear to be quoting him. The scare quotes are unnecessary and misleading the way you use them here. Anyway, you're talking about two different dynamics, morality and, I guess, group scale. However, I think what Philosophim is actually referring to is how tightly bonded a group is, so scale is largely irrelevant, and morality or shared values/norms strengthen community bonding.

Assuming that the real trick to religion is strongly binding a community, rather than offering morality at scale or whatever, is that a good thing? You've agreed that the components of religion, like community, purpose, meaning, ritual, narrative, transcendence, etc. are all available without religion. 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? Religion is notoriously useful to charismatic leaders for whatever their agenda may be.

moral development.
— praxis

Interesting phrase. What could that be in your opinion? And how could that happen also? — dimosthenis9

There are well-established theories on moral development. Google it.

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

Take care, and thanks for sharing this.

I took a brief peek at the first in the album and got the feeling that it's best to experience the album as a whole rather than as I did, just listening to #3 - Some People Worry About the Weather. I'll do that when I have more time.

There are so many names and references that I don't know in the work that I can't follow or derive much meaning out of it. For instance, I'm not even sure how to interpret the line 'Some People Worry About the Weather'. It kinda seems like a condemnation, such that people like myself are concerned with trivialities like the weather rather than getting involved in serious political issues. But it could also mean that some people are concerned with more serious issues, like global warming, rather than being "a minor autocrat whose single-minded devotion to the revolutionary cause was motivated by a distorted lack of self-esteem".

Anyway, I enjoy the general aesthetic, and much of the particular imagery, such as these parts:

above the nightstand that houses a few melted candles and an old
jewelry box where this former film student keeps a collection of
polaroid photographs

...

remember when
you scaled that monument on the bridge
drunkenly singing "La Marseillaise"
waving a roman candle
clutching the granite hilt of a sword
as you fired over the river

Could we create an alternative to this? The irony of course is since many atheists are independent and don't need that social group as much, they're less likely to form and congregate a large enough group that could gain the attention it needs as a viable alternative to church.
— Philosophim

Never thought that before. Sounds totally reasonable though. So at the end, they might turn themselves into the biggest obstacle for their fight against religions?? Right? That is a fucking huge irony for sure. — dimosthenis9

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? First let's look at what religion offers, as defined by Philosophim:

• Community
• Belonging
• Greater purpose
• Emotional support
• Social safety net
• Feel part of something greater than themselves

I'll add to the list:

• Identity
• Transcendence

None of the above is only found in religion. In fact, religion constrains possibilities in many of these aspects, and most alarmingly tends to constrain moral development.

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

Yup, to build a strong tribal identity there needs to be others or an out-group, so there can never be a universal bonding in this model. However the essential elements of what a belief system is comprised of and the community and meaning it offers doesn’t need to come in the form of a particular religion, political party, or whatever. I think that may be what Tom Storm was suggesting.

I listened to it twice and with a decidedly intuitive ear the second time round, I’d like to add, and the feeling invoked was mostly curious befuddlement. I could glean no clear message or feeling. I may simply lack the relevant base of knowledge or experience.

I don't understand why 1 Brother James new "Is Mysticism capable of being 'experienced' by the use of the Intellect?" discussion was jammed in here. This thread is four months old and covers mysticism in general. The new thread was addressing one specific issue associated with mysticism.

It doesn't make sense and it disrupts the discussion. — T Clark

The OP of the merged thread:

That is, can one's brain experience Mystical phenomena? I suggest it cannot, and my reason for saying this is that the term Mysticism is a label for that which the brain [being physical] cannot experience. And this naturally leads to the topic of "Intuition," which is a label for an aspect of the Soul, which is composed of Spiritual Energy. Can Intuition be proven via one's intellect? No, because no part of one's thinking is capable of perceiving Spiritual Energy.

Given this nonsense, the implication is that the moderating mergerer generally views mysticism as similarly nonsensical. Tellingly, they did not delete the topic or move it to the lounge but merged it into a topic that discusses mysticism in general.

Interesting. Joan of Arc comes to mind.

The monkey is a dog toy. That’s why half its face is chewed off.

About the dragon baby shoes, I was looking around in a Salvation Army store searching for still-life inspiration/subject matter and noticed the cute duo. Having recently read the much acclaimed short story Dead Baby Shoes, I immediately felt a composition beginning to form in my mind. I had found my muse and now all I needed was something to complete the stage. Heading for the register, I saw the heart vase and with an inaudible “yup” I grabbed it off the shelf without even stopping. I paid $6 for the shoes, the vase, two fancy-ass glass cups, and a small glass platter matching the fancy-ass cups.

The wilted daisy, signifying death and sorrow, was cut from out front.

Transience, or what @litewave said.

Emptiness.

I thought that I recall you mentioning recently that you got the VID from an impetuous hookup.

An unvaccinated person cannot be a threat if he doesn’t have a virus and takes all necessary precautions to avoid infection and spread the virus. — NOS4A2

Fixed.

What is important is to constantly educate ourselves and surround ourselves with people who have liberal educations because our social nature brings out the best or worse in us depending on the people we associate with. That is where religious people have a distinct advantage- they congregate regularly and intentionally focus their minds above their bases instincts. — Athena

The American Association for the Advancement of Science describes a liberal education in this way: "Ideally, a liberal education produces persons who are open-minded and free from provincialism, dogma, preconception, and ideology; conscious of their opinions and judgments; reflective of their actions; and aware of their place in the social and natural worlds." Liberally educated people are skeptical of their own traditions; they are trained to think for themselves rather than conform to higher authorities. So your advice here is rather contradictory, to pursue a liberal education which tends to erode 'traditional' views, yet you praise traditional views and conformity to 'higher authorities'.

Incidentally, studies from the Pew Research Center indicate that Liberals are about half as religious as Conservatives (those who uphold traditional values and norms).

They intentionally develop themselves and support each other in this endeavor. — Athena

They are strongly bonded, sharing traditional values, norms, rituals, etc., and that bond is the essential purpose, to be a unified tribe. Self-development is entirely beside the point, or intentionally suppressed, because self-development leads to self-determination.

praxis is the cornerstone of religions. The proof of the pudding is in the eating! — TheMadFool

Are religious folk renown for practicing what they preach? :lol:

So the question becomes, what is the cornerstone of religion?

But are the press and people correct? — Leghorn

Are they correct in being supportive of an amazing athlete? Of course.

I don’t know if I’d say “overcame” but yes. She’s a national hero so I’d expect the press be sympathetic and supportive.

I don’t know what happened. I’m simply saying that withdrawing can have undesirable consequences that can be feared.

In Simone’s case, what did she fear? — Leghorn

I haven’t been following the Olympics this year, or this story, but I would guess there’s fear in the consequences of withdrawing from events, like losing sponsors and the risk of generally damaging her career. I’m inclined to sympathize, personally.

Trumps got a bit of that fancy *Hitler Magic*. His zombie hordes even stormed the nation’s capital for him.

Just one of the first links in a google search:

Watching My Child Experience Racism in a Country of Contentment

Also offered for your amusement:

Implicit Association Test

There have been studies, btw, which correlate IAT results and real-world situations that significantly affect people's lives, even for those who may consider themselves without bias.

As I've said, believing in stereotypes to be "reasonably accurate" then makes some people to believe in stereotypes and they don't take people as individuals. — ssu

This is silly, as though if a person ‘believes in stereotypes’ they’re slaves to them and can’t distinguish individuals.

Who cares, if it's reasonably accurate. And racism creeps easily to those often funny stereotypes. — ssu

Stereotyping itself is not the reason that racism exists, obviously. Stereotyping does exist though, so it’s best to try dealing with it intelligently, taking control of the narrative as they say in PR talk, rather than ignoring it.

If there is a lot of social cohesion, those stereotypes won't matter so much: people try to behave honorably towards strangers. If there is a rift or hostility between groups of people and there is a lack of social cohesion, it will immediately show. — ssu

It may sound odd but a powerful method for achieving social cohesion is for leaders to identify others. A charismatic leader may intentionally create a rift, or exploit an existing one, in order to help galvanize a group identity. ‘The chosen ones’, or those that share our values, norms, purposes, etc., don’t need to behave honorably towards the others because they are lesser. Unscrupulous leaders of this kind don’t want you to believe in stereotypes. They want you to be color-blind. It’ll make it easier to fool you.

@ssu doesn’t believe in Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, or stereotyping, so this is all just fairytales to him.

Please explain.

But let's say we have a marginalized group like "middle-age to eldelry single males with low income". Not easy for them to get into higher paying jobs or to get rental flats. Lot of problems in this group at least in my country. Yet is it better to refer them as a group as "MATESMaWLI?" So in order to help MATESMaWLI-persons, we have to make this divide between MATESMaWLI and other men? — ssu

Here in 'Merika we have this natural talent called “stereotyping”. With a mere glance we can all but instantly assess a complete stranger. With attributes such as age, weight, fitness, bearing, and attire, we can estimate social status, and perhaps much more, practically instantly. If there were a corresponding label for a particular set of attributes and the social status they’re associated with, a label like “MATESMaWLI”, for example, then that label would come to mind. It would come to mind regardless if anyone wanted it to, if they possessed knowledge of the term. In America we call poor single middle-age men losers. Good thing I’m married!

Yet isn't the problem that your talking about groups, focusing and upholding groups and not individuals? — ssu

I wrote:

the problem is a marginalized group being taken advantage of — praxis

Then it's confusing. Because then those who say they are fighting racism are basically also upholding it. — ssu

To reiterate an earlier point, the problem isn't applying "pseudoscientific taxonomies", the problem is a marginalized group being taken advantage of. How can trying to prevent a group of people from being taken advantage of be taking advantage of them? Politicizing the issue to garner public support and gain a position of power, all the while not having any intention of significantly helping the marginalized group, could be one way. That's the way that Trumpets like NOS prefer see it, I presume.

It was so long ago and forgettable, hmm, let me see… something about fake taxes applying to people? Was that it?

Please allow me to rephrase. Your inquiry appears to be pointless. What is the point?

So your inquiry was pointless.

And what, pray tell, are you not applying it to? Human beings.

Now that that’s cleared-up, where were we going with that?