Deconversion and some doubts

[Silver]

If atheists where mindful of what theism contained they’d be more like Belaqua, than Gae.

It’s not all that surprising that most atheists seem to have an understanding of theism reserved almost exclusively to fundie evangelical views.

What I know is that theism is a cancer on society. If it had ever been the cure for anything remotely resembling sin, there would be significant evidence to show how their concept of sin has decreased. As it is, theism is nothing more than the selling of a cure for something that can be cured by reason and logic. If I was going to rely upon anything for theism, it would be Norse Mythology for one does not see Ice Giants roaming around for Odin promised to eradicate them. The same cannot be stated for Christianity and its imaginary sin problem.

What do we do with cancer? We attempt to remove it. The same should be done of theism that is the cancer on society.

[The Grand Nudger]

whose entire routine in these boards is a running game of “waaah, how can atheists be realists!”

No, after questioning people like yourself I understand exactly how atheists like yourself can be realist.

By defining moral statements like stealing as bad as descriptive rather than normative.

By elevating subjective good, to an objective good, by developing a measurable criteria for it. This as you indicated can be done for any subjective good, like good pizza.

By resolving the is/ought dilemma, by taking the ought out, and forming a morality of is.

See I understand it. I think it’s all silly, but I understand it nonetheless.

You might articulate it in a far more convoluted way, that I stated simply here, but it’s all the same.

- and all of that, is just you refusing to unclog your ears even once.

Called it from the getgo, didn’t I.

You guys think prophecy is indicative of divinity, right....well here I stand before you capable of predicting the future.

Or, maybe, there’s s simpler explanation for how I managed that trick, lol.

[GrandizerII]

Hence why Grandizer seems confused that many traditional theists, including Catholics and Easter orthodox, that subscribe to impassibility  don’t believe god has emotions or feelings, at least not the sort effected by anything we do or say, like worship.

Huh? That's not what what I was confused about. I was confused about why you would worship a god that was nothing more than an ideal (an abstract), not that some Christians believe god is impassible. An impassible but personal God would still receive your worship in some way.

---

I  gave you examples, which all you did was handwave and insist on your opinion that society has no sway on what people ought to do or not do.

And I pointed that you’re saying here is inaccurate, by indicating that sway you’re referring to is in regards to what people see as good and bad. Society has sway on what people think is true, in believing false things instead of true things, same from sway when it comes to morality.

Society can sway people to think that bad things are good things, and vice versa.

And also that good things are good, bad things are bad. At least it does something that you and I can easily attest to. What does your ideal abstract God do again?

The God that you worship is nothing more than an ideal, a passive impersonal entity that speaks no words and has no say in our affairs.

I find the Good to be intrusive, and personal,  even if seen as  no more than an existing ideal, like moral good, than an entity. As a dad, I find nothing more invasive, confrontational, demanding, of that of being a “good” father, failures produce guilt and tension. Good doesn’t have to change or move, or do anything. The invasive and penetrating effect it has is a result of how acute my recognition of it is.

Nice poetry, but the reason your abstract Good has such an effect is because you willed it to do so, lol. What it does ironically is contingent upon your will.

I’m just acknowledging what it is I see in front of me, not explaining how it is it got there. I don’t need to have an explanation of how the Sun got here in the morning, to recognize it in the morning.

As I thought, you continue to dodge this specific challenge. I know why you would not want to answer this, of course.

[Abaddon_ire]

If atheists where mindful of what theism contained they’d be more like Belaqua, than Gae.

Bel is not an atheist.

It’s not all that surprising that most atheists seem to have an understanding of theism reserved almost exclusively to fundie evangelical views.

You seem to think that merely using different words, you can cleverly disguise your rather obvious theism.

So pare it back to bare bones. You agreed that stealing is bad. Why is it bad? Because you simply decided so? Because society decided so? Some other reason?

[GrandizerII]

If atheists where mindful of what theism contained they’d be more like Belaqua, than Gae.

Bel is not an atheist.

It’s not all that surprising that most atheists seem to have an understanding of theism reserved almost exclusively to fundie evangelical views.

You seem to think that merely using different words, you can cleverly disguise your rather obvious theism.

So pare it back to bare bones. You agreed that stealing is bad. Why is it bad? Because you simply decided so? Because society decided so? Some other reason?

He has implied that he won't answer that. He just needs to recognize that stealing is bad, and that is that. Something along that line.

Oh, and Bel is an atheist, I thought?

[Acrobat]

If atheists where mindful of what theism contained they’d be more like Belaqua, than Gae.

Bel is not an atheist.

As far as I know Bel lacks a belief in God, which seems to be the minimum requirement for atheism.

It’s not all that surprising that most atheists seem to have an understanding of theism reserved almost exclusively to fundie evangelical views.

You seem to think that merely using different words, you can cleverly disguise your rather obvious theism.

I'm not trying to disguise my theism, I'm a theist. It's atheists who like to tell me my beliefs are not theistic, though you seem to indicate they're obviously theistic.

So pare it back to bare bones. You agreed that stealing is bad. Why is it bad? Because you simply decided so? Because society decided so? Some other reason?

I didn't decide that stealing is bad, nor did my society decide it's bad. Good and bad are matters of objective truth, not some arbitrary decisions. We recognize things that are bad, we don't decide it, just like I don't decide the sun is out this morning, I recognize it.

Perhaps the question could be what is my earliest recognition that stealing is bad, probably the first time i saw stealing, or had my stuff stolen. No one needed to tell me it was bad, as if someone didn't along the way, I wouldn't have recognized this.

As far as what makes bad things bad?
I don't have an enough answer for why it's bad. This is not dodging the question, its just that I'm not that sure about it.

Most people here would probably provide some sort of harm based, or consequentialist answer, and others another sort or the other. No matter what explanation/rationalization someone gives, it seems to me that our brains recognize whats bad about stealing by the same basis, even if none of us particulary understand those reasons, or how our minds derived this. The explanations we often provide appear to be made after the fact.

A toddler might recognize stealing is wrong, absent of any such theories. Its not based on any real sort of consequetialist rationalization, in fact there seem to very little processing done between recognizing stealing, and see it as bad. This seems to take place simultenously. And I dont think that changes as we get older either.

An accurate explanation would have to be able to take account of this, and none of the popular moral theories appear to do so, nor do I have much a good explanation to offer you.

[GrandizerII]

Bel is not an atheist.

As far as I know Bel lacks a belief in God, which seems to be the minimum requirement for atheism.

You seem to think that merely using different words, you can cleverly disguise your rather obvious theism.

I'm not trying to disguise my theism, I'm a theist. It's atheists who like to tell me my beliefs are not theistic, though you seem to indicate they're obviously theistic.

So pare it back to bare bones. You agreed that stealing is bad. Why is it bad? Because you simply decided so? Because society decided so? Some other reason?

I didn't  decide that stealing is bad, nor did my society decide it's bad. Good and bad are matters of objective truth, not some arbitrary decisions. We recognize things that are bad, we don't decide it, just like I don't decide the sun is out this morning, I recognize it.

Perhaps the question could be what is my earliest recognition that stealing is bad, probably the first time i saw stealing, or had my stuff stolen. No one needed to tell me it was bad, as if someone didn't along the way, I wouldn't have recognized this.

As far as what makes bad things bad?
I don't have an enough answer for why it's bad. This is not dodging the question, its just that I'm not that sure about it.

Most people here would probably provide some sort of harm based, or consequentialist answer, and others another sort or the other. No matter what explanation/rationalization someone gives, it seems to me that our brains recognize whats bad about stealing by the same basis, even if none of us particulary understand those reasons, or how our minds derived this. The explanations  we often provide appear to be made after the fact.

A toddler might recognize stealing is wrong, absent of any such theories. Its not based on any real sort of consequetialist rationalization, in fact there seem to very little processing done between recognizing stealing, and see it as bad. This seems to take place simultenously. And I dont think that changes as we get older either.

An accurate explanation would have to be able to take account of this, and none of the popular moral theories appear to do so, nor do I have much a good explanation to offer you.

A toddler might recognize that stealing is wrong perhaps because parents instill that thought in their children from an early age. Or it's evolutionary conditioning, I don't know.

[Acrobat]

As far as I know Bel lacks a belief in God, which seems to be the minimum requirement for atheism.


I'm not trying to disguise my theism, I'm a theist. It's atheists who like to tell me my beliefs are not theistic, though you seem to indicate they're obviously theistic.


I didn't  decide that stealing is bad, nor did my society decide it's bad. Good and bad are matters of objective truth, not some arbitrary decisions. We recognize things that are bad, we don't decide it, just like I don't decide the sun is out this morning, I recognize it.

Perhaps the question could be what is my earliest recognition that stealing is bad, probably the first time i saw stealing, or had my stuff stolen. No one needed to tell me it was bad, as if someone didn't along the way, I wouldn't have recognized this.

As far as what makes bad things bad?
I don't have an enough answer for why it's bad. This is not dodging the question, its just that I'm not that sure about it.

Most people here would probably provide some sort of harm based, or consequentialist answer, and others another sort or the other. No matter what explanation/rationalization someone gives, it seems to me that our brains recognize whats bad about stealing by the same basis, even if none of us particulary understand those reasons, or how our minds derived this. The explanations  we often provide appear to be made after the fact.

A toddler might recognize stealing is wrong, absent of any such theories. Its not based on any real sort of consequetialist rationalization, in fact there seem to very little processing done between recognizing stealing, and see it as bad. This seems to take place simultenously. And I dont think that changes as we get older either.

An accurate explanation would have to be able to take account of this, and none of the popular moral theories appear to do so, nor do I have much a good explanation to offer you.

A toddler might recognize that stealing is wrong perhaps because parents instill that thought in their children from an early age.

Not true at all. I have a two kids under 2. At not point am I worried that if I nor one else don't instill in them that stealing is wrong, that they will some how not know it is. Me and my wife are not anxious, worrying omg they're not going to know that stealing is bad unless we, or their school, community etc... instill that in them.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you call yourself a theist people are going to expect you to believe in a theist god, not in your desire to be a good father or a reality with narratives.

A theistic god, lol.

[GrandizerII]

A toddler might recognize that stealing is wrong perhaps because parents instill that thought in their children from an early age.

Not true at all. I have a two kids under 2. At not point am I worried that if I nor one else don't instill in them that stealing is wrong, that they will some how not know it is. Me and my wife are not anxious, worrying omg they're not going to know that stealing is bad unless we, or their school, community etc... instill that in them.

I'm not saying that kids won't intuit that something is wrong as they grow up and their cognitive capacities develop further. I'm saying that toddlers probably might not have that intuition properly developed yet.