Finally an atheist proper, with views and questions

[Mister Agenda]

Our evolved senses and brains are known to give us an imperfect understanding of our environment, but we don't have to rely only on our innate gifts to explore reality, we have developed the methods of science and technology derived from the use of it to compensate for our flawed senses and brains.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, someone could reason from some other premise b while communicating a rationale for premise a, I would not be surprised to find that their communicated conclusion more closely followed from that silent premise b than the communicated premise a.

If it's true that the state and product of evolutionary processes calls human intuition into question that's an agreed fact in evidence to be reasoned from going forward, not against as convenient.

[Lucian]

-there's a fun confluence between the two notions, when I roll them around together.  A moral universe may produce gods of varying quality just as an evolutionary universe may produce truth machines of varying quality.

At some point I need to dig into the notion of possible worlds. To me at the moment it just seems like a fun game of imagination, but some Christian apologists I have read in the past seem to take them seriously when it comes to fine tuning. I just can’t see why an imagined world that may be mathematically sound at some points actually is a world that could have been. Any suggestions on reading about that before I come back to it sometime on the board? Amy Karofsky has pretty much been my only exposure

[Angrboda]

IMHO, the semantics of possible worlds is inadequately defined. If a god is defined as necessary, then he exists in all possible worlds, by definition. What do you call the possible worlds in which he doesn't exist? It's an interesting subject, as any encounter with the subject of counterfactuals is, but it's not sufficiently well-developed to be anything more than a can of worms.

[Lucian]

IMHO, the semantics of possible worlds is inadequately defined.  If a god is defined as necessary, then he exists in all possible worlds, by definition.  What do you call the possible worlds in which he doesn't exist?  It's an interesting subject, as any encounter with the subject of counterfactuals is, but it's not sufficiently well-developed to be anything more than a can of worms.

Roughly the same as me then. 

I am definitely not convinced it is any more than sheer imagination that the world could have actually been different. Sure we can think of a different world, we may even be able to model that world with physics to a limited extent, but I don’t currently see why that means it could actually have turned out that way. i might be getting hung up on two different meanings of “could” and “possible” here

Regarding whether it is sufficiently well developed or not, I will have to dig into in the future. I happily embrace sheer ignorance at the moment

[Lucian]

A further question. Robert Sapolsky in his book Determined mentions studies showing benefits of religion that seem to be grounded in the communal aspect of religious practices, especially in organised religion. I have considered whether I want to investigate attending a local humanist meeting or something to get some more community. My hobbies are niche and not something that there will be a local club or something for, so it seems an option, but frankly I am in danger of being a loner with a lot of books, and that isn't always fun. That said, I am worried it will be jumping from one group (Christianity) and into another (humanism). Does anyone have any experience of such a move to a humanist group after leaving religion and any wisdom on the benefits/drawbacks?

[Ahriman]

A further question. Robert Sapolsky in his book Determined mentions studies showing benefits of religion that seem to be grounded in the communal aspect of religious practices, especially in organised religion. I have considered whether I want to investigate attending a local humanist meeting or something to get some more community. My hobbies are niche and not something that there will be a local club or something for, so it seems an option, but frankly I am in danger of being a loner with a lot of books, and that isn't always fun. That said, I am worried it will be jumping from one group (Christianity) and into another (humanism). Does anyone have any experience of such a move to a humanist group after leaving religion and any wisdom on the benefits/drawbacks?

I joined something similar to a cultist group after leaving Catholicism. Everyone at Mass always seemed happy and well put together, while the cultists seemed more despondent. I can read people's energies very well and my new friends didn't seem depressed, but something was definitely wrong. I have no way of knowing if those people would've benefited from God or religion being a part of their lives.

[Lucian]

A further question. Robert Sapolsky in his book Determined mentions studies showing benefits of religion that seem to be grounded in the communal aspect of religious practices, especially in organised religion. I have considered whether I want to investigate attending a local humanist meeting or something to get some more community. My hobbies are niche and not something that there will be a local club or something for, so it seems an option, but frankly I am in danger of being a loner with a lot of books, and that isn't always fun. That said, I am worried it will be jumping from one group (Christianity) and into another (humanism). Does anyone have any experience of such a move to a humanist group after leaving religion and any wisdom on the benefits/drawbacks?

I joined something similar to a cultist group after leaving Catholicism. Everyone at Mass always seemed happy and well put together, while the cultists seemed more despondent. I can read people's energies very well and my new friends didn't seem depressed, but something was definitely wrong. I have no way of knowing if those people would've benefited from God or religion being a part of their lives.

I seem to recall discussing with a fair few Christians their problems showing their real struggles when at church. I have bipolar disorder, so lots of really long enjoyable depressive phases with a few very pleasant times (as long as I am careful). Pretty much felt like I had to hide that depression at church so as to not be a downer. Difficult to tell whether the joy and "got it togetherness" we see in people at church is real.
I am assuming you left the group you ended up in?

[Ahriman]

I joined something similar to a cultist group after leaving Catholicism. Everyone at Mass always seemed happy and well put together, while the cultists seemed more despondent. I can read people's energies very well and my new friends didn't seem depressed, but something was definitely wrong. I have no way of knowing if those people would've benefited from God or religion being a part of their lives.

I seem to recall discussing with a fair few Christians their problems showing their real struggles when at church. I have bipolar disorder, so lots of really long enjoyable depressive phases with a few very pleasant times (as long as I am careful). Pretty much felt like I had to hide that depression at church so as to not be a downer. Difficult to tell whether the joy and "got it togetherness" we see in people at church is real.
I am assuming you left the group you ended up in?

Yes, I left, after spending a few years in the group. The financial cost of being in the group had become prohibitively expensive, otherwise I would've stayed. The joy of the people at church is real, although they might just be naturally joyful people and it might not have anything to do with being religious. I've never heard of a group you could join that would be straight up humanist.

[Lucian]

The perceived joy of some people at some times in church is real, and some of that (I think) is due to the environment, expectation, music, singing etc.
Re straight up humanist groups - just look up “humanist group” and your town