Deconversion and some doubts

[GrandizerII]

Nice strawman. I don’t believe in a rule maker, since I don’t view right and wrong as something created or made.

Are we next going to have a debate about what is meant by "created or made"? You've made it very clear in this thread that you believe in a Good that is akin to a rule-maker and that "explains" the moral oughts and ought nots. Without that Good, not even rape can be morally wrong.

I’m using ought in regards to what the term implies ie obligations and duties, unlike terms like should or wish.

Terms like "should" and "must" also imply obligations and duties. And society has been good at imposing these obligations and duties.

Saying I ought to do x, unlike saying i should or you wish I do x, implies I have an obligation of duty to do x. To use the term ought in place of where you might mean something like wish is just equivocating on your part.

I can see a difference between "should" and "wish"; I don't, however, see how "should", in this context, does not imply obligations/duties.

And no, societies don’t see themselves as  as moral rule makers, or as moral authorities, anymore so than they see themselves as makers of objective truth. They may see themselves as a political and legal authority but not a moral one. Pretty much all societies have seen morality as a matter of truth, not of their own making.

You seem to have a problem with separating "X is wrong" from "One ought not to do X", and this paragraph shows it very well. If you can't, for a second, condition yourself to separate the two statements from each other to see my POV, you will never get it.

Secondly people don’t see their societies as the creators or authority on right and wrong either. If your society put all its legal and political support behind the holocaust, you wouldn’t say okay that means the holocaust is a morally good thing, for the same reason you wouldn’t say the earth is flat, just because most of your society thinks it is.

And here, you do it again. So let's be clear here on what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that X may be intrinsically wrong, but that society generally creates the "oughts" and ought nots". Individuals can as well. But in neither of these cases, is the Good "saying" that "one ought not to do X", and if so, I haven't gotten a call from that Entity yet. All I know is that it's us humans who impose these "oughts".

Secondly granting society moral authority, would  be like granting the twitter verse moral authority. If you tried to derive right and wrong from twitter opinions, or social opinions, you’d be  more a cartoon, than a good person, a tool, rather than someone to be respected

Maybe try to learn the other person's POV better before arguing against it.

[EgoDeath]

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!

All I can really say is keep an open mind and keep educating yourself. Explore both sides of the issue as honestly as you can. I won't try to convince you one way or the other, plainly because you're not here, at least in this thread, to debate.

One thing I will demand, however, is that you be skeptical and rational about everything you read.

Follow this path and I can almost guarantee you'll find what you're looking for.

[Fireball]

Nice strawman. I don’t believe in a rule maker, since I don’t view right and wrong as something created or made.

Are we next going to have a debate about what is meant by "created or made"? You've made it very clear in this thread that you believe in a Good that is akin to a rule-maker and that "explains" the moral oughts and ought nots. Without that Good, not even rape can be morally wrong.

I’m using ought in regards to what the term implies ie obligations and duties, unlike terms like should or wish.

Terms like "should" and "must" also imply obligations and duties. And society has been good at imposing these obligations and duties.

Saying I ought to do x, unlike saying i should or you wish I do x, implies I have an obligation of duty to do x. To use the term ought in place of where you might mean something like wish is just equivocating on your part.

I can see a difference between "should" and "wish"; I don't, however, see how "should", in this context, does not imply obligations/duties.

And no, societies don’t see themselves as  as moral rule makers, or as moral authorities, anymore so than they see themselves as makers of objective truth. They may see themselves as a political and legal authority but not a moral one. Pretty much all societies have seen morality as a matter of truth, not of their own making.

You seem to have a problem with separating "X is wrong" from "One ought not to do X", and this paragraph shows it very well. If you can't, for a second, condition yourself to separate the two statements from each other to see my POV, you will never get it.

Secondly people don’t see their societies as the creators or authority on right and wrong either. If your society put all its legal and political support behind the holocaust, you wouldn’t say okay that means the holocaust is a morally good thing, for the same reason you wouldn’t say the earth is flat, just because most of your society thinks it is.

And here, you do it again. So let's be clear here on what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that X may be intrinsically wrong, but that society generally creates the "oughts" and ought nots". Individuals can as well. But in neither of these cases, is the Good "saying" that "one ought not to do X", and if so, I haven't gotten a call from that Entity yet. All I know is that it's us humans who impose these "oughts".

Secondly granting society moral authority, would  be like granting the twitter verse moral authority. If you tried to derive right and wrong from twitter opinions, or social opinions, you’d be  more a cartoon, than a good person, a tool, rather than someone to be respected

Maybe try to learn the other person's POV better before arguing against it.

Post more, bud. Your posts matter! 

[Acrobat]

Nice strawman. I don’t believe in a rule maker, since I don’t view right and wrong as something created or made.

Are we next going to have a debate about what is meant by "created or made"? You've made it very clear in this thread that you believe in a Good that is akin to a rule-maker and that "explains" the moral oughts and ought nots. Without that Good, not even rape can be morally wrong.

It seems that’s exactly what I have to do.

Created or Made, implies something that didn’t exist at one point, that was later brought into existence. It’s not applicable to something that has always existed.

I indicated that I subscribe to a platonic conception of Good. I don’t view Good as something created or made, but as something eternal and always existing. So when you accused me of believing in a rule-maker, this isn’t true, because I don’t believe in any moral rule that was created or made.

I’m using ought in regards to what the term implies ie obligations and duties, unlike terms like should or wish.

Terms like "should" and "must" also imply obligations and duties. And society has been good at imposing these obligations and duties.

Society is good at imposing legal laws, and punishment for breaking them when caught. But legal and moral are not synonymous. There are things that we view as immoral that are not illegal, such as cheating on your girlfriend.

Outside of legalities, society opinions resemble that of the opinions of twitter. You probably don’t care about any of your behaviors that I might personally find distasteful, just like I don’t.

You might hope that society possesses a greater sense of reverence for it’s supposed moral authority, when in reality it’s pretty impotent . One only has to think of the Trump era to see what I mean.

You seem to have a problem with separating "X is wrong" from "One ought not to do X", and this paragraph shows it very well. If you can't, for a second, condition yourself to separate the two statements from each other to see my POV, you will never get it.

To say X is morally wrong, implies that one ought not do X. If I tell my friend its morally wrong for him to cheat on his girlfriend, I don’t need to add therefore he ought not cheat, that is already expressed in indicating that it’s wrong. In fact adding an ought when saying it’s wrong would be redundant. The meaning of something morally wrong is contingent on it being something that ought not have been done.

This is everyday moral language, the basis for why the is/ought dilemma exists, etc..

Now some atheists like yourself might be trying to invent some new moral language in which you can make moral statements that don’t imply an ought, but this attempt is barely even coherent.

Here we’ll try and show that incoherency simply.

You dropped your wallet, I’m about to take it, and will likely get away unscathed.

Stealing your wallet is morally wrong. This implies that I ought not steal.

Now if you think you can render stealing here, as morally wrong without implying that I ought not steal, I’d like to hear you do so?

What makes stealing here morally wrong?

Are you just trying to use the term morally wrong as synonymous with something like causes harms to others?

If so, what does calling it immoral add to what your saying here, that indicating that it harms others doesn’t?

And here, you do it again. So let's be clear here on what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that X may be intrinsically wrong, but that society generally creates the "oughts" and ought nots".

That’s silly, if things are intrinsically wrong, why would individual societies need to create their own individual ought and ought nots?

Shouldn’t you ought not do things that are intrinsically wrong regardless of what your society thinks? Societies can endorse and support things that are intrinsically wrong, ought I go along with society, or my conscious here?

No society thinks that you ought not do wrong, because of society imposes this obligation on you. This imposing transcends society, is seen as binding even on those that are not a part of ones society too.

When I tell my friend he ought not cheat on his girlfriend, what I am not saying is that he shouldn’t cheat because societies says you ought not do so. I’m appealing to some morality that transcends any sort of social authority

[The Grand Nudger]

Your ought isn’t implied by the statement “stealing is wrong”. It’s bound up in an unspoken evaluative premise, and that....is the is ought dilemma.

That a person cannot derive an ought from an is without at least one evaluative premise.

This is what made your shenanigans ridiculous in the first place. Atheists can have the same is’s....and the same ought, and even the same evaluative premises that you do. No god is required.

[Acrobat]

Your ought isn’t implied by the statement “stealing is wrong”. It’s bound up in an unspoken evaluative premise, and that....is the is ought dilemma.

That a person cannot derive an ought from an is without at least one evaluative premise.

It is implied pretty much when everyone other than you and some handful of atheists perhaps, say stealing is morally wrong, lol.

When I tell my children something is morally wrong, I am in fact telling them these are things they ought not do, it’s a part of the meaning of saying it’s morally wrong.

Now I’m giving you room to define your distinct concept of morally wrong here.

If when you say stealing is morally wrong, doesn’t imply that I ought not steal what is it implying?

Is it merely implying something like, it causes harm to others?

If so what does calling it morally wrong imply that saying it causes harm to others doesn’t?

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, you’re working with a silent evaluative premise, which is whats required to go from is to ought. The is doesn’t imply anything on its own.

That’s the is ought dilemma.

As to your last question...nothing, in a harm based moral structure with a single metric.

They’re equivalent statements.

My turn, what does any of this have to do with a god?

[Acrobat]

Again, you’re working with a silent evaluative premise, which is whats required to go from is to ought. The is doesn’t imply anything on its own.

That’s the is ought dilemma.

As to your last question...nothing, in a harm based moral structure with a single metric.

They’re equivalent statements.

My turn, what does any of this have to do with a god?

If it’s equivalent, but only applicable to harm based moral structures, it’s silly to replace “ it causes harm to others” with “immoral”.

Saying that stealing causes harm to others, can be acknowledged by those who do and don’t subscribe to a harm based moral structure. It’s better communicates what it is your trying to say here, than replacing it with immoral, which adds no additional information, but only obscures it.

My turn, what does any of this have to do with a god?

It has nothing to do with anything you have in mind when it comes to the concept of God.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, you could call it silly that we have more than one word for a bunch of things....and sometimes we use one word for a bunch of things, even....but....we do.

You asked what the difference between saying something was wrong and saying it was harmful was, in a harm based moral structure.

Nothing

You may not like the answer, and ofc I’m dumbing this down for you massively, but there it is. That’s the answer.

In any case, if none of this has anything to do with god, then wtf was your earlier bullshit even about? Do -you- even know.......?

The OP is dealing with something that causes a bunch of anxiety, and your very serious argument is that the op nit believing in some silly god has something to do with suddenly running around stealing lollipops from babies because hey, why not.

[GrandizerII]

Are we next going to have a debate about what is meant by "created or made"? You've made it very clear in this thread that you believe in a Good that is akin to a rule-maker and that "explains" the moral oughts and ought nots. Without that Good, not even rape can be morally wrong.

It seems that’s exactly what I have to do.

Created or Made, implies something that didn’t exist at one point, that was later brought into existence. It’s not applicable to something that has always existed.

Oh, come on, you know what I meant. Jesus was the Begotten Son, yet no father really gave birth to him, because the term "begotten" isn't meant to be taken literally. Same thing with my usage of the term "maker" in this context.

I indicated that I subscribe to  a platonic conception of Good. I don’t view Good as something created or made, but as something eternal and always existing. So when you accused me of believing in a rule-maker, this isn’t true, because I don’t believe in any moral rule that was created or made.

But you believe in moral rules, and you believe in this entity called Good/God who is the "ought-giver". When I say "rule-maker", I don't mean for it to be taken literally.

Terms like "should" and "must" also imply obligations and duties. And society has been good at imposing these obligations and duties.

Society is good at imposing legal laws, and punishment for breaking them when caught. But legal and moral are not synonymous. There are things that we view as immoral that are not illegal, such as cheating on your girlfriend.

I'm not just talking about written laws. I'm especially talking about unwritten rules that are imposed on members of a society that have nothing to do with the legal aspect. And in fact, speaking of cheating, the backlash against Ashley Madison is a good example of how society imposes moral oughts on its members. Cheating is wrong because, for example, it involves deception and causes emotional harm to others (or whatever reason you wish to employ given whatever moral axioms are being adhered to). In today's society, this is a very bad thing, so our society says that you ought not to cheat on your partner. An ought was given, and it was given by society, by people just like you and me.

And in general, when you were a child, you were probably told by your parents that you ought not to steal, ought not to hurt others and ought to be kind to people. At school, teachers gave you oughts. At church and elsewhere as well. As you grew up, you started to reflect on some of these things and further realized what made something like stealing to be discouraged, and so you became your own ought-giver as well. But nowhere in any of these scenarios was there a God entity living in some weird realm telling you that you ought not to steal. Your inner voice stems from who you are, shaped by your genetics and experiences. It doesn't come from somewhere out there.

Outside of legalities, society opinions resemble that of the opinions of twitter.  You probably don’t care about any of your behaviors that I might personally find distasteful, just like I don’t.

But these socially-held opinions hold power, enough to have a serious impact on people. Case in point: the Me-Too movement (which I'm all for, to be clear).

You might hope that society possesses a greater sense of reverence for it’s supposed moral authority, when in reality it’s pretty impotent . One only has to think of  the Trump era to see what I mean.

Society is not a monolithic group of people who think all the same. It's a tangle of views of all sorts, but whereby one set of views seems to hold more power than some other set of views in a lot of cases, and some views are strongly based in reason while others are irrational. But nothing about this changes the fact that oughts come from members of this society, people like you and me.

You seem to have a problem with separating "X is wrong" from "One ought not to do X", and this paragraph shows it very well. If you can't, for a second, condition yourself to separate the two statements from each other to see my POV, you will never get it.

To say X is morally wrong, implies that one ought not do X. If I tell my friend its morally wrong for him to cheat on his girlfriend, I don’t need to add therefore he ought not  cheat, that is already expressed in indicating that it’s wrong. In fact adding an ought when saying it’s wrong would be redundant. The meaning of something morally wrong is contingent on it being something that ought not have been done.

Not necessarily. You could easily acknowledge that X is wrong but still not care about its wrongness enough to tell your friend they ought not to cheat. Either way, you are the one, in this example, giving an "ought not", not some Platonic Good entity.

This is everyday moral language, the basis for why the is/ought dilemma exists, etc..

Actually, the is-ought dilemma is that you can't logically get from "X is wrong because <insert reason>" to "one ought not to do X".

Now some atheists like yourself might be trying to invent some new moral language in which you can make moral statements that don’t imply an ought, but this attempt is barely even coherent.

Here we’ll try and show that incoherency simply.

You dropped your wallet, I’m about to take it, and will likely get away unscathed.

Stealing your wallet is morally wrong. This implies that I ought not steal.

Only if that's how you feel. Otherwise, stealing my wallet is wrong, and that's that.

Now if you think you can render stealing here, as morally wrong without implying that I ought not steal, I’d like to hear you do so?

No, I'm happy to tell you you ought not to steal my wallet, and I don't even need to give a moral reason for that. I could simply impose an ought not on you for purely practical or egotistical reasons. It's my damn wallet, and I want it back.

But if you stole my wallet, then it seems like you probably did not impose an "ought not to steal" on yourself.

What makes stealing here morally wrong?

I don't have a comprehensive answer to that. I just intuit that it's wrong (in most cases, at least). But a simplified answer will be something along the lines of you're taking away that which belongs to me and depriving me of that which I rely on for my survival.

Are you just trying to use the term morally wrong as synonymous with something like causes harms to others?

Better than saying X is wrong because some Entity arbitrarily says so.

If so, what does calling it immoral add to what your saying here, that indicating that it harms others doesn’t?

It probably doesn't, it's just one extra word to emphasize the consequences of doing X.

And here, you do it again. So let's be clear here on what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that X may be intrinsically wrong, but that society generally creates the "oughts" and ought nots".  

That’s silly, if things are intrinsically wrong, why would individual societies need to create their own individual ought and ought nots?

Because rules are created by rational beings, not by ideal/abstract entities. "X is wrong" does not mean "one ought not to do X" until/unless someone utters that statement.

Shouldn’t you ought not do things that are intrinsically wrong regardless of what your society thinks?

Of course. Did you see me say otherwise, or are you still misunderstanding me?

Societies can endorse and support things that are intrinsically wrong, ought I go along with society, or my conscious here?

If society is that shitty, you go along with your views of course. You become your own ought-giver. Easy.

No society thinks that you ought not do wrong, because of society imposes this obligation on you. This imposing transcends society, is seen as binding even on those that are not a part of ones society too.

Baseless claims.

When I tell my friend he ought not cheat on his girlfriend, what I am not saying is that he shouldn’t cheat because societies says you ought not do so. I’m appealing to some morality that transcends any sort of social authority

And based on that morality, you have set and imposed an ought not on your friend. The ought/ought not is coming from You.