Deconversion and some doubts

[Jake]

Thank you very much for all the answers!

I need to clarify something - it's not about that I want to things that are against my morality - I don't think there is anything wrong with having sex, partying etc. However I can see how that me referring to this part of life might paint me as an immature individual. I'm not struggling with wanting to do things that I view as bad - I'm not doing these things, at least I try to. I'm struggling with some schemes of thinking that was put in my mind during bringing up that cause irrational feelings about things that I don't find immoral and I don't agree with them.

For example I have the same feelings about women. Rationally, from when I can remember I was always a feminist, but I have these thoughts that really women should be just mother to their children and stay in home. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with that - I just think that everyone should have freedom to have any life they want and there is no only one way to live it. Or I have these thoughts about other religions, that they are bad. I'm not really enthusiastic about any of them, but still in my mind there is some superiority to Catholicism. The same goes with gay folks.

---

Leaving the faith doesn’t mean your morals change because your morals don’t only come from faith.  If you want to party party .  If you don’t don’t . Stop making it about God because you were raised in it.

I think the it's not about faith that much but about indoctrination. I agree that morality doesn't come from faith (it might partially when you are a believer). I'm not making it about God because I don't really bielieve in one, but I'm kind of making it about religion. I was told from my youngest age that something is bad, I believed in it. It turned out that there isn't really anything wrong about it and I changed my mind. I still feel some guilt and fear of doing the bad thing - that's what I'm talking about.

---

Possibly one of the most childish posts I have seen on this site.

I mean seriously, you expect me to believe that the only reason you are not out there murdering, raping and pillaging is because of a crinkly old book that instructs you to do exactly that? That this is what you want to do? That tells me more about your character than you likely wished to reveal.

No, I was referring to things I’m tempted to do, and the barrier between doing it and not doing it, is that conscience voice, telling us that something is wrong.

I’m saying in those situations just snuff that voice out, reminding yourself that it’s a product of social of cultural conditioning, and should have no real authority over what you do or don’t do.

Do I think peoples behaviors would change if they truly believed this about that voice in their head, about our supposed moral compass, our conscious, etc..? Sure, but luckily for us most people don’t, and think it is a true voice of moral authority over their lives.

I'm not even sure how to respond to that. 

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. 

It shouldn't be that hard to find some whose "inner voice" is telling them to do something that we both would label as "bad" - Islamic suicide bombers are low-hanging fruit but I will grab it. Therefore we shouldn't rely on it, but rather as vulcanlogician wrote, we should try to make our judgment on the basis of critical thinking.

[Mister Agenda]

Once you start thinking for yourself, you are faced with having to figure out what's right and wrong for yourself, using all the sources available to you. That includes your conscience and empathy, what you were taught as a child, your reasoning, your peers, laws, and if you're up for it, centuries worth of moral philosophy If something the church taught you still seems good and right, keep it. If not, reject it. And if it seems neutral, your preference is good enough. And if it later seems that something you rejected was good after all, you can always put it back in your moral toolkit.

The truth is, no one can avoid responsibility for their own morality. Putting your morals in the hands of a god or church is itself a moral decision the person making it is responsible for. Your morals always, ultimately, come down to what YOU believe is right or wrong; even if what you think is right is doing whatever a priest tells you (what could go wrong?).

[Acrobat]

No, I was referring to things I’m tempted to do, and the barrier between doing it and not doing it, is that conscience voice, telling us that something is wrong.

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?

[Mister Agenda]

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.

[Acrobat]

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.

[downbeatplumb]

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.

The white person feeling less for a black person is because they find it harder to empathise with them.
The further a person or animal is from us the less we have in common and the more difficult it is to put ourselves in their position. Its why we feel more a cat being tormented than an alligator in a similar position.

So empathy DOES indeed cover it. And explains it better than magic whatever you believe in.

[Acrobat]

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.

The white person feeling less for a black person is because they find it harder to empathise with them.
The further a person or animal is from us the less we have in common and the more difficult it is to put ourselves in their position. Its why we feel more a cat being tormented than an alligator in a similar position.

So empathy DOES indeed cover it. And explains it better than magic whatever you believe in.

Biological empathy, accounts in part at least for why I feel less discomfort in stealing your wallet, than I do my sisters. It doesn’t account for why I ought not steal in either instance, or whatever beliefs of wrongness that might be attached to such an act.

One explanation, could be that we believe it’s wrong because society, cultural has programmed us into believing that we ought not do things that are harmful to others, like Catholics have programmed the OP into believing he ought not masterbate, or have premarital sex.

If we recognize this, it might be easier to snuff out the programmed beliefs, regardless of whether we’re talking about masterbation, or doing something pleasurable that comes at the expense of some strangers pain. I might feel guilty but if I keep reminding myself that this discomfort that I feel, is just a feeling, not much different than a tummy ache, I should be able to get over the hang ups of masterbation, as well as stealing your wallet.

[vulcanlogician]

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 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?

So what if someone figures out the truth? Does that give them the right to tell others what to do? Can you get an ought from an is?

It all comes down to wisdom. The fact is, 2+2=4. Maybe you ought to steal the wallet; it depends on the circumstances. But whatever the circumstances, 2+2=4. We can agree on that, right?

What is hard to explain to people is that once you figure out the equation... once you solve for x... you will also know whether you should steal the wallet or not. It isn't a matter of whim. It isn't a matter of opinion. You ought or you ought not steal the wallet. A wise man will deduce the correct answer and do the correct thing. The fool will do something else.

This doesn't make morality subjective or fictional. Let's say you are taking a math exam and one of the problems is: 8 + X = 9. Anyone can tell you that X=1, right?

But is this statement true?: You ought to answer X=1 to that particular problem.

Is that so unreasonable? X=1 is the right answer. The question is: why ought I give the right answer? Or in moral terms: why ought I do the right thing?

No law of nature is stopping you from answering X=300. But let's ask ourselves: what law of nature is keeping the answer from being 300. None. There is no such law of nature. The reason that the solution is X=1 has to do with logic... with reason.

Objection: Sure, the answer is X=1 (descriptively), but that doesn't necessarily mean I ought to give that answer. What if my math professor fails students who give correct answers on exams? Wouldn't it then be REASONABLE to answer something other than x=1? In that situation, one might argue, one ought to answer something else, right?

Sure, if you want to pass the math exam given to you by your contrarian math professor-- yes, you ought to answer something other than x=1. But that doesn't make the math problem subjective. If you want to be right, you will answer X=1. Likewise, with morality, if you want to be right you will not steal the wallet.

Plato is one of my favorite philosophers because he recognizes that there really is no difference between the descriptive and prescriptive. To Plato, people aren't immoral because they are inherently shitty. They are immoral because they lack the information to make correct choices. To Plato, once you have proper knowledge, the only thing left to do is "solve for x" and x will unfailingly tell you what you ought to do.

Of course, it's more complicated than that. Human beings aren't calculators. They're hungry and--sometimes--angry animals. According to Plato, there are three parts to the human soul. And each struggles to dominate the other two. And the one part that is capable of correctly "solving for x" is the smallest (and most easily overwhelmed) of the three.

Long story short: x hardly ever gets solved for correctly. It's a huge clusterfuck. Society ends up being run by the contrarian math professor types who reward wrong answers (like I spoke of before). And most people end up thinking that you can't really solve for x. To them, x is a matter of personal preference. Or maybe, if you can convince large numbers of people that x equals nine, then x may as well equal nine. Right?

Wrong. Nihilism is false. X can be solved for. And, in any given moral situation, we can do the right thing. There are variables at work. Sometimes the right thing to do is steal the wallet. But that's rare. Usually that isn't the case. Usually it's stuff like returning the wallet to its rightful owner that's the right thing to do (aka the right answer). But, in any case, there is a right answer, an objective answer, and all it takes is a little figuring out.

[HappySkeptic]

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!

As others have said, religions and cultures condition our emotional responses.  That can be a good thing (obey the law, assuming it is a good law, etc.), or it can be oppressive.

When I truly stopped believing, a weight was lifted.  I knew I didn't believe, and that heaven and hell are made-up.  Sure, a "what if you're wrong" thought popped into my head once in a while, but it didn't bother me too much.

Heaven is a ludicrous idea.  I would rather be true-dead than live an eternity in a place where nothing ever happens.  As for reincarnation, Buddhism was formed specifically out of the horror of the idea of an eternal cycle of rebirth and suffering (they wanted to escape it, not that it exists anyway).  Hell is a product of our own guilt, and can possibly be a place on Earth for some, but after death, not so much.

I am 99.987% sure there is no life after death.  On the off chance I'm wrong, what is the chances that the belief in some dogma, created by ignorant priests and religion-pushers from one particular sect, of all those on Earth, is the magic spell that allows everlasting happiness?  What arrogance!

[Fake Messiah]

Leaving the faith doesn’t mean your morals change because your morals don’t only come from faith. If you want to party party . If you don’t don’t . Stop making it about God because you were raised in it.

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.