Deconversion and some doubts

[GrandizerII]

And the barrier between us thinking 2+2=5 is social conditioning. Understanding of mathematics has nothing to do with it. Even if you have a PhD in mathematics, once you begin to reject social conditioning, you are bound to accept some absurdity like 2+2=5. Is that what you're saying?

The fact is, people are conditioned to think that 2+2=4. But to say 2+2 equalling 4 is a product of conditioning (and nothing more) is a misstatement.

Let’s work with this analogy here.

If I have two apples and acquired two additional apples, I’ll have four in total.
So when I say 2+2 = 4, I am indicating something descriptive.

Now when someone says it’s wrong for me to keep/ steal your wallet, it’s not merely descriptive, they’re not just trying to tell me about the physical consequences of doing so, all of which I could be well aware of, but something prescriptive as well, they’re saying I ought not steal.

Do you believe that statement that I ought not steal is objectively true, as 2+2 = 4?

Suppose I am a moral nihilist, who believes there’s nothing truly right or wrong about anything, that there’s nothing morally wrong about me stealing your wallet, what facts am I denying here?

Ought is based on unwritten but agreed upon rules that ensure we live in a society that respects people's rights and thereby our own rights, because it's in our best interest that our (and other people's) rights be respected.

[Acrobat]

Let’s work with this analogy here.

If I have two apples and acquired two additional apples, I’ll have four in total.
So when I say 2+2 = 4, I am indicating something descriptive.

Now when someone says it’s wrong for me to keep/ steal your wallet, it’s not merely descriptive, they’re not just trying to tell me about the physical consequences of doing so, all of which I could be well aware of, but something prescriptive as well, they’re saying I ought not steal.

Do you believe that statement that I ought not steal is objectively true, as 2+2 = 4?

Suppose I am a moral nihilist, who believes there’s nothing truly right or wrong about anything, that there’s nothing morally wrong about me stealing your wallet, what facts am I denying here?

Ought is based on unwritten but agreed upon rules that ensure we live in a society that respects people's rights and thereby our own rights, because it's in our best interest that our (and other people's) rights be respected.

So it’s only on ought for those who agreed on these rules? Sort of like how Muslim cultures agree that woman ought to cover their faces, it’s only an ought for those who agreed to such a rule, but not for those like us that don’t?

Now perhaps you grant society moral authority, and the ability to assign to you moral obligations, I don’t.

[GrandizerII]

Ought is based on unwritten but agreed upon rules that ensure we live in a society that respects people's rights and thereby our own rights, because it's in our best interest that our (and other people's) rights be respected.

So it’s only on ought for those who agreed on these rules? Sort of like how Muslim cultures agree that woman ought to cover their faces, it’s only an ought for those who agreed to such a rule, but not for those like us that don’t?

Now perhaps you grant society moral authority, and the ability to assign to you moral obligations, I don’t.

You don't need to agree on any oughts, but if you don't follow the rules, odds are you will have to pay the consequences in some way. If you want to steal from someone, make sure you don't get caught, and make sure it's worth it.

Thankfully, in our society we tend to build oughts and ought nots on what we've been evolutionarily conditioned to see as oughts and ought nots. But we're not perfect, and there are some unfair rules as a result. And not everyone will agree to the same rules.

You can also set your own oughts and ought nots of course if you don't like the way society does it. Many people are fine with a combination of sources of oughts and ought nots.

[downbeatplumb]

https://www.livescience.com/24802-animal...-book.html

Some research suggests animals have a sense of outrage when social codes are violated. Chimpanzees may punish other chimps for violating certain rules of the social order, said Marc Bekoff, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and co-author of "Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals" (University Of Chicago Press, 2012).
Male bluebirds that catch their female partners stepping out may beat the female, said Hal Herzog, a psychologist at Western Carolina University who studies how humans think about animals.
And there are many examples of animals demonstrating ostensibly compassionate or empathetic behaviors toward other animals, including humans. In one experiment, hungry rhesus monkeys refused to electrically shock their fellow monkeys, even when it meant getting food for themselves. In another study, a female gorilla named Binti Jua rescued an unconscious 3-year-old (human) boy who had fallen into her enclosure at the Brookline Zoo in Illinois, protecting the child from other gorillas and even calling for human help. And when a car hit and injured a dog on a busy Chilean freeway several years ago, its canine compatriot dodged traffic, risking its life to drag the unconscious dog to safety.

Moral without god.

In fact I think that belief in god is an impediment to morality. Look at the most theistic countries in the world and you will always see less actual morality than in secular countries.
Its complex why but often it is that the religious laws are from a less enlightened period of our development as a species.

[LastPoet]

Hey guys!

I was raised Roman Catholic, at moments I was definitely believing some of this stuff. For example, I tried to stay away from masturbation (not really succeed ), thought that sex desires are somehow sinful and sex before marriage is bad. After moving out to college I went to church handful of times and after confronting my beliefs with my atheist (at the time) roommate I started to seeing how it all could be false.

It's been around 3 years I started deconverting and I'm still not fully atheist. I feel like religion is still capturing my mind. I know that to some of you some of this stuff might sound pretty silly, but maybe some of exbelievers will be able to help me to sort it out.

Okay, so for the starters I find almost no logical reason to believe in god. Like I can see how someone can find pro-theistic arguments convincing when they start from the position that deity exist, but all of them can be easily refuted.

But I have all these feelings. Like anything that is frowned upon by Catholic church is bad, that I know that Christianity is true, that I'm trying to delude myself from truth, that afterlife exists, that atheist are wrong... it's really messing with me. Like if it's all false, why than am I still experiencing this? I'm in my early twenties, I want to have the best time of my life, party, have sex and stuff But there is still this voice in the back of my head, and though I'm trying to do these things, they are accompanied by worries and guilt. I would like to be convinced that god doesn't exist and start living my only life, but I have this inner block. I'm in the constant battle with myself over this. Also I'm really confused and scared why I feel this way.

Can anyone relate? Any tips? If it's also okay in later posts I will question you about some of my doubts about atheism in later posts. Thanks!

Well, ex catholic here, but I denounced it very early at 11. I still tried protestantism, and seeing it as the same shit with a different odour, tried eastern religions (islam nope, just rehashed judaism and christianity). I went to seek eastern religions, but different they may be, still a conjunction of platitudes with ancient notions.

I still felt by 17 that voice in my head, turns out it was me, talking to myself, mostly right in hindsight. I can make a thread about human decision making and the inner thought that sometimes is right, sometimes is wrong and when we are wrong, scolds you for not doing the right thing. Very catholic.

Takes time, but by my 25th year, I couldn't care about god anymore and since religious people here in Portugal are very respectful, I felt ok. Yet I found that there aren't places with such luck, so I joined the war of calling them out for bullshit.

Worries you will forever have, about your family, your friends, I don't think its a bad thing. Guilt however is what the catolic church does to you.

[comet]

Hey guys!

I was raised Roman Catholic, at moments I was definitely believing some of this stuff. For example, I tried to stay away from masturbation (not really succeed ), thought that sex desires are somehow sinful and sex before marriage is bad. After moving out to college I went to church handful of times and after confronting my beliefs with my atheist (at the time) roommate I started to seeing how it all could be false.

It's been around 3 years I started deconverting and I'm still not fully atheist. I feel like religion is still capturing my mind. I know that to some of you some of this stuff might sound pretty silly, but maybe some of exbelievers will be able to help me to sort it out.

Okay, so for the starters I find almost no logical reason to believe in god. Like I can see how someone can find pro-theistic arguments convincing when they start from the position that deity exist, but all of them can be easily refuted.

But I have all these feelings. Like anything that is frowned upon by Catholic church is bad, that I know that Christianity is true, that I'm trying to delude myself from truth, that afterlife exists, that atheist are wrong... it's really messing with me. Like if it's all false, why than am I still experiencing this? I'm in my early twenties, I want to have the best time of my life, party, have sex and stuff But there is still this voice in the back of my head, and though I'm trying to do these things, they are accompanied by worries and guilt. I would like to be convinced that god doesn't exist and start living my only life, but I have this inner block. I'm in the constant battle with myself over this. Also I'm really confused and scared why I feel this way.

Can anyone relate? Any tips? If it's also okay in later posts I will question you about some of my doubts about atheism in later posts. Thanks!

doubt is good. religion does not own what god is or is not.  Keep them separated. weather you believe in a god thing or not has nothing to to with how foolish some religous people can be.

[SteelCurtain]

I think self talk is the biggest way to slough off the burden of religious guilt.

It's a long road, but with enough repetition, that indoctrination will have less effect. Intrusive thoughts met with cold logic will become less intrusive.

[Acrobat]

Can you get an ought from an is?

Not really, the ought is derived from a goal, a telos.

If I subscribe to some goal such as I ought not harm others. Then if x is harmful to others, it can be said that I ought not do x, as a result.

But if I had no such goal, there’s no ought to derive from x is harmful to others. It’s not based on x being harmful to others, that I ought not to do x, it’s based on the goal being not to harm others.

The questions I’m asking are in relationship to the nature of these goals/rules.

When pushed, most atheist I’ve spoken to indicate as the previous poster did, that such goals/rules are rooted in unwritten social/culture agreements, we make with others in our society. Implying that it requires our agreement to be bound by them, and that such oughts are not applicable to those who don’t. It’s not clear to me if you agree with this view?

When it comes to theism, many atheist seem to be under the impression, that theists believe that morality is derived from their holy books. That absent of whatever rules are listed in their scripture they nor anyone else could know right or wrong.

This is not true, very few theist hold to such a view, in fact it’s not even the view of the biblical writers.

Theist, including Plato, Aristotle, etc believe in a transcendent moral order.
The biblical writers believed in a moral law written with out hearts, which our conscience bears witness to, even for gentiles, and non-christians who have no scripture.

Theistic view are like what the Buddhist scholar Bodhi indicates here: “morality and ethical values are not mere decorative frills of personal opinion, not subjective superstructure, but intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality."

The theistic view is built on the view of reality as being a part of a teleological order, resembling a novel or story, and morality is ultimately built on this.

So when you appeal to folks like Plato in defense of your moral view, it’s a bit odd. I believe you’ve expressed some pantheistic leanings previously, an affinity for folks like Spinoza, so it is possible you do subscribe to a teleological view of reality, but I hope you can be clear here, so that we don’t talk past each other

[tackattack]

---

Firstly, it's not the same thing, finding wallet and not returning it is in fact a theft and is harmful to the owner. Keeping it is a bad thing. Having consensual sex (more and more do I regret briniging it up as an example) is not harmful to anyone, I would even tell that it is the opposite. 

What I am saying is that you telling me that I ought not do things that are harmful to others, is not much different than Catholics telling you, you ought not masterbate or have premarital sex.

Why ought I not do things that are beneficial or pleasing to me, just because it’s harmful to others? If it pleaseS me to do something that’s potentially harmful to you, why should I not do it, anymore so than you masterbate for the sake of pleasure?

---

Not just physical consequences. There's the damage to your own empathy to consider. The more you victimize others the easier and more tempting it gets. You are the sum of the choices you make. It's very easy to get into the habit of thievery. Best not to start unless you want to be a thief, even if you know you won't get caught. Choices aren't only about the moment, they're about who you are and who you're going to be.

Empathy is a pretty finicky son of a bitch, it’s much easier to feel it for the homeless you rarely have to deal with, than when they’re stinking up your streets. More easier to feel towards those that look like us, and have things in common with, than with those not like us. You show white people a video of a black person getting a needle, they feel less empathy than if it were injected into black skin, and vice versa.

Stealing your wallet, far more digestible then stealing my sisters purse.

So the idea that stealing your wallet damages my biological empathy, is perhaps not as true as you hope it would be.

---

Sorry I couldn't be bothered to get all the way caught up on the thread, but this caught me " saying is that you telling me that I ought not do things that are harmful to others"

One thing that we often forget is that what you ought to do should be good for your current self and others. Those "others" include your future selves. Is shooting cocaine awesome for me now. Sure, maybe but it will destroy me later, and might hurt those around me and if I'm caught...
Maybe that spin on the concept might help the conversation.

---

But isn't Christianity a party pooper?
So you have to reject God to have fun. Sin is glorious. Good for the head and the heart. Concept of "sin" is merely an attempt to criminalize human nature, to infuse shame into perfectly benign aspects of the human experience. Turning instincts into a disease just so some priests can profit off a futile, fictional cure.

---

It can be a party pooper. It teaches delayed gratification. You practice the same thing when you save up money for a motorcycle, or that new butt plug you've been wanting. A lot of Christian concepts do vilify instincts and biological human nature. Human nature without understanding, or direction is better than death, but not as beneficial as social constructs. I want to control the chaos that I can control, and understand what I can't. We all make far fewer decisions based on will than on instinct. I thought we all did this and it wasn't a bad thing? We obviously disagree as to the aims, means and direction of religions generally, but aside from the rare hedonist, I didn't think being less in control of your actions and decisions was anyone's goal.

[GrandizerII]

Can you get an ought from an is?

If I subscribe to some goal such as I ought not harm others. Then if x is harmful to others, it can be said that I ought not do x, as a result.

But if I had no such goal, there’s no ought to derive from x is harmful to others. It’s not based on x being harmful to others, that I ought not to do x,  it’s based on the goal being not to harm others.

And who do you think comes up with these goals, besides humans? Whatever divinely sanctioned "ought" there may be out there, it's not evident at all and isn't necessary. As far as us human beings are concerned, atheists and theists alike, our oughts develop from us, consciously/subconsciously, mainly societally/culturally but also individually. What is so hard to accept about this from a logical perspective? The world/system doesn't need to be perfect for it to be doing ok.