AlexMercer when he wrote that:

He looks evil maybe we have something in common. I love the hair.

Yeah, Peter Hitchens is a d*ck. Hate that guy...

Lot more resistance to the idea of just not being into God or spirituality than I figured there'd be in this thread.

Indeed. Atheists are seemingly the last remaining minority group that can be openly ridiculed, scorned, and discriminated against with impunity (at least in the U.S.).

Yeah I mean I don't feel like I ever have been. But I guess I never really have discussions about this stuff anymore. That was all back when I was some sort of edgy teen. Beliefs haven't really changed - just tact...

I'm not sure about this, for a couple reasons. Maybe you could help me out.

Transgender people and their allies (for example) can definitely take issue with the "last remaining." Where I live, if you watch TV, it's hard to avoid seeing campaign ads for Republican politicians who promise to "end the radical left's assault on real women's athletics," etc.

But also - just to share the impression from my experience (having identified as an atheist for years in the past) - the open contempt and discrimination against atheists seems to be more of the "soft," eye-roll-inducing sort than of the systematic, "You are an inferior being, with no right to be who you are" sort. It's mainly exemplified in things like: having "One Nation Under God" on our currency and in the Pledge of Allegiance; having to put your hand on the Bible before testifying in court; the common knowledge that the voting public would probably not elect an atheist President; the crude and tacky (but often innocently, philosophically curious) questioning in conversation - "If there's no God, how do you tell right from wrong? What do you live for?"

So, yes, I think there's some annoying, pain-in-the-ass stuff to deal with on an everyday cultural level, as well as some disheartening political realities (mainly to do with the many-layered, pervasive bigotry of the political right), but I can't say I see a whole lot in the way of systemic inequality - say, denial of healthcare, denial of marital rights, or inequalities in employment, public education, and criminal justice.

100% agreed.

that sentiment has always been hilarious to me, because it says more about the person asking than anything else.

If the only thing keeping you from being a raping, serial killing thief is the threat of hell from a magical sky daddy, you aren't really moral, you're just scared and obedient.

Christians don't have morality, they're just following commands from their master.

Mostly I think what lies behind those questions is a lack of experience with philosophical self-reflection. Wondering about the general basis of morality, and about the general point of life - I think these are normal human thoughts, and a person coming to grips with them has to start somewhere. I doubt it happens all that often that people have these crazed, homicidal longings which just happen to be kept in check by some half-understood church talk.

Indeed. I was exaggerating but atheists still, in 2024, are taking a risk when they "out" themselves in modern America. To be clear, your example of transgender folks is spot on, and have it harder than any group (possibly more now, than ever)...but atheists are not far behind.

But, it's OK, as the radical right has boatloads of hatred to disperse to all and sundry, so all groups can stand in line to receive their 'fair' share of hatred.

100% spot-on.
Making decisions based solely on a fear of eternal torture, out of a motive for self-preservation, does not equate to 'morality'.

What does equate to morality? In your view.

I think Christians might feel hard done by that they get judged in a sentence or two while the opposing viewpoint gets a 27 minute video thesis to put its point across.

Well then any Christian is free to show up and express their own viewpoint.

It isn't as if we're discussing fresh, new ideas here lol

Well, I am an (Orthodox) Christian and I don't believe that atheists are immoral. Ιn slightly theological terms, I believe that every person is inherently good with a propensity to sin in this fallen world. More simply, I believe we all have a conscience that is influenced by many things, including our own will, the environment, the life and circumstances we've lived and so on. So... Yeah.

So, to answer Disembodied in two words, I feel most discussions of this sort do not concern me, in the sense that most atheist arguments I have come across are basically targetting superficial, modern, usually American (but certainly post-reformation, especially post-Calvinist) christianity. For the Orthodox, that sort of Christinaity is almost demonic and I would agree with a lot of the criticism levelled against it.

Two decades ago in say, the Metal-Rules forum, I would engage in such discussions but my experience is that most of these discussions are better held between very few people in real life, not an online forum.

Well, that's rather funny because there are Christians from other denominations who would make the same assessment of you and your beliefs.

If you were to have the sort of discussion that you're speaking of, you guys would argue about who's right until you're blue in the face, and none of you would be able to prove one way or the other.

Know how I know that? because it's the same shit that's been hotly debated for centuries now.

You'd think at some point god himself would just show up and dispel any and all arguments.

Christians can't even agree which beliefs and denomination is/are the right one(s), assuming there even is one

Sure, I am very aware of that, I've been a member of Christian forums. I answered Disembodied and yourself on something very specific (am I offended? why not speak up?). I am not really interested to provide a list of arguments why the Orthodox Church has a very serious and historically backed claim that it is in fact The Church, certainly not to someone who is not interested in hearing it and in a place and medium not suitable for that.

He's coming soon.

Your views are your own, and you're certainly entitled to them. I am only curious about one thing: do you honestly believe you'd feel the way same way if you were born somewhere else in the world and raised around other people? If you had been raised a Sunni Muslim in Indonesia, for instance, do you think that the historically backed claim put forth by the Orthodox Church would be enough to convince you of its truth and convert?

No antagonism or personal disrespect intended here whatsoever; I am just curious.

None perceived!

But I'd rather have this conversation in private if you don't mind. I'll put the answer in a spoiler, not to hijack an atheist thread. If you want to continue this further, you can answer me in private.

Who says fear is the only motivation a Christian has to believe or follow? It's not.

Appreciate it! There's a decent number of Orthodox believers in the area I live in now, although it's true that they aren't as widespread in the U.S.

If you'll allow me to check my understanding of what you said...

If we're inherently good and all our decisions are influenced by our past experiences, our thoughts and emotions, would you say there's no room for morality? What defines a "moral" or "good" decision and an "immoral" or "bad" one?

I don't think anyone will object to having this conversation in the atheism thread. If they do I would say "speak now or forever hold your peace"

For Christians who use that rhetoric to justify their morality it is.

I'd rather pass, if that's ok.

I'd be curious as well to see where people are on the basics of moral philosophy - what do you (and any others who are interested) think the meanings of "right" and "wrong" are? Not for the purpose of having an intense debate or anything, but just to share how we as individuals tend to navigate ethical dilemmas, what (tentative?) conclusions we may have arrived at in reflecting on what it means to be moral, etc.

I've been interested in the subject on-and-off since my early 20s. I went through a sort of utilitarian phase early on (e.g. Peter Singer), followed by a sort of half-assed pluralist/fictionalist thing, where the concept of morality is a "useful fiction" that it's nonetheless in our interest to take very seriously - as if there somehow really are "right answers," in principle discoverable by thought, when the most painful dilemmas (e.g. "Sophie's choice") arise.

I'd say my overall feeling about ethics these days is a weird mixture of, like, 95% unjustified complacence ("Eh, morally speaking, I'm mostly an all right person, no sense in striving really hard for further clarity"), 5% despairing incoherence ("There is nothing more incumbent on us as thinking beings than to understand our moral duty, but every serious proposal about what this means is no less defensible than its rivals").

I don't know if I have ethical dilemmas (probably not), but for practical purposes I'm gonna say right and wrong are whatever they are defined as in the place I'm living by the culture of the people living there. That's because I want to live in a functional society and fit into that society, and for that most of us need to live by the same ideas of what's right and wrong. I'm pretty sure that's the only time morality has any relevance in my life - I just don't think I make decisions based on what's right or wrong.



I'm not sure I understand how morality helps you in a "Sophie's choice" situation maybe you could explain that.

Sure thing. I'd say: Morality means not only having the will to do what's right and refrain from what's wrong, but also understanding (or having some reasonable view about) what right and wrong are - and that's where moral theory comes into play. So, what this means for "Sophie's choice" (and for moral dilemmas more generally) is that morality allows a person to grasp the aspects of an available decision that render it "better than" the alternative, that justify it as the decision there is most reason to make (or indeed an obligation to make) all-things-considered. In this case...



...moral theory comes into play (at least in an unspoken, implicit way) as Sophie makes considerations like: "If I take the Nazis at their word, then my selecting one child to be murdered ensures (or at least creates the better chance) that the other child will survive, whereas my refraining from this selection will ensure that both children are murdered. The reasons in favor of the first option are A, B, C...; the reasons for the second option are X, Y, Z..." The idea is that Sophie will have enough clarity to ascertain (let's say for discussion's sake) that A, B, and C are morally "weightier" than X, Y, and Z; consequently that Option 1 is preferable to Option 2; consequently that "I, Sophie, am obligated to choose Option 1." At that point, the dilemma would be theoretically resolved, as Sophie would know which of the two alternatives is right, which of the two she has most reason to choose. (Whether she has the will to actually carry out the decision she abstractly recognizes as correct - that's another question.)

Suppose (just for discussion's sake) that some version of utilitarianism is the correct moral theory. This could "simplify" Sophie's choice into a choice between "fewer children murdered" and "more children murdered" - a no-brainer, supposedly; all other considerations (e.g., "I would have to live with the knowledge that I played a part in the murder of my child") would warrant dismissal as morally irrelevant.

But there are rival moral theories which have it that utilitarianism is simply revealed as grotesque in these arguments. There might, for instance, be a virtue-ethics approach to Sophie's choice in which the question, "What sort of person would I be if I could permit the murder of my child in some extraordinary circumstance (and, if I could select one of my children at the other's expense)?" is not irrelevant but decisive.

People's theoretical leanings clash dramatically in these scenarios. Option 1's advocates might view Option 2's advocates as "unprincipled" and "merely sentimental," while Option 2's advocates might view Option 1's advocates as "coldly calculating" and "inhuman." Maybe this would just have to be a stalemate, or maybe moral theory could "advance" the discussion to the point where one approach must be admitted superior to the others. Myself, I'm not entirely sure if it's worth hoping that there is somehow a "right answer" to Sophie's choice.

I would also suggest that moral dilemmas might be less uncommon than this example makes them out to be. This is a dilemma where opposing moral intuitions seem to clash in an extremely wrenching and violent way, so maybe the difference between this and other scenarios is one of degree instead of kind. Evaluating pros and cons, reasons-for and reasons-against, seems to be inherent to any decision we make. Not every "reason" that pops into our head is necessarily a weighty one ("I'm not in the mood," "People will look at me funny"), and moral theory might help us filter out the less weighty ones. Think, for instance, of any time we're debating whether to say something dishonest when we know that the alternative will lead to hurt feelings - we could say that this is a moral dilemma, but on a rather small scale.

Apologies for getting pretty far off the topic of atheism!

I'm going to argue that no atheist thinks Christianity is as big a fucking joke as Christians do. Even I don't disrespect it nearly as much as the biggest representative of American Christians does.



LMAO

every American conservative came in their pants upon seeing that image

I've tried being a believer twice. I was nudged into Christianity as a little kid by my mom, then stopped at around 20-some years old. I didn't feel like I was totally committed, and I saw people in my life that said they were but didn't act like it, and I didn't want to be like them. A few years ago, I tried again after a really weird body experience scared the hell out of me. I went to a local church for 2 years and tried to really dedicate myself to Christianity. It didn't work out, this time what sealed it was my prayers weren't getting answered. They were prayers for things that I felt God would answer, because they were things that were good for me, I asked for determination, courage, things like that. Nothing happened. It took me the second time to truly realize that all religions are nothing but lies created by others and lying to yourself to convince it's real. It's make-believe fairy tale nonsense with no truth in it.

Belief isn't a choice, it's a compulsion. It's largely beyond your control, contrary to what some may believe.

If you believed your hair was on fire, truly believed it to be so...in spite of the fact that everyone around you can see that your hair is, in fact, not, on fire...you would act accordingly. You would be screaming bloody murder and trying to put out this fictional fire. The people who you trust the most in life could attempt to shake you out of your delusional stupor, but who knows if their efforts would even work.

That's something you don't really have any serious control over. You can try and force it and go through the motions. But if you haven't been properly convinced, then nothing and nobody can compel you to believe something.

Unfortunately, a lot of people don't really care about the truth. Not the real truth, at least. Something or someone has convinced them that this particular thing is reality, and they will believe it in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Keep in mind, there are still people who believe that the earth is anywhere from 6-10 thousand years old. Let that sink in for a moment.

I'm not saying that's always the case, because the trillions of apostates that exist are a testament to that. But, it is mostly true.

Regarding belief and the "choice" to believe, I'm not sure how to get all my thoughts straight, and I think I'd want to qualify much of what's said above. When belief is involuntary, and when it is "either-or" (rather than being a matter of degrees), we often use other words instead, like "perception" or "knowledge": I see/hear/feel (perceive) that it's raining outside, or I know that Paris is in France, etc.

Belief can sometimes look like a matter of will, effort, performance, and internal conflict, at least in part. For example, I believe that the Republican Party is much less vote-worthy than the Democratic Party: Much of this comes down to impartially evaluating the arguments, yes, but for me it also means deciding on the best way to resolve certain inner conflicts ("Could I live with the thought that my pro-Republican loved ones might be bigoted dupes?"), and habitually deciding to look past a lot of opposing commentary (or not bothering to search out the best of it; or wagering from prior experience that it wouldn't be worth my time), even when it happens that said commentators are much more qualified than myself to opine on e.g. economics and international affairs.

Similarly with any fringy junk science or conspiracy-type theory I reflexively dismiss. When my buddy (a science educator, unlike myself) says he once spotted an extraterrestrial spacecraft, and I believe he's probably wrong, it's not as though I'm in a position to deliver an impromptu dissertation as to how the best available evidence cumulatively casts doubt on the likelihood of alien contact - in fact, my sense is there are whole cultures of dedicated believers prepared to "debunk" whatever justification I'd have on hand, and again, I'm deciding in the interest of my time and psychological health that I'm not going to search them out, let alone immerse myself in them. I mean, it sounds like intellectual laziness when you explicitly call attention to it, but I think this is how normal people frequently operate.

"I believe that X" can mean or imply "I don't doubt that X," "I would be surprised if X weren't true," "I am willing to assert that X," "I tend to act and feel as if the consequences of X are acceptable," etc. - and probably with qualifications and exceptions to each. The norms for the usage of these terms look kind of murky to me, even if they're automatically grasped in most cases.

That was a lot to sift through.

Honestly, dude? You're giving people way too much credit. I can't speak for other countries, but the average dipshit walking down the street in America doesn't have particularly well developed critical thinking skills.


All of these nuances and such that you speak of? Most, if not all, of these individuals have no concept of them or how they apply to belief or knowledge or perception.

Like I said...they don't care about the truth or the nature of it. They aren't interested in putting any serious consideration into any sort of slightly intellectually difficult topics. They believe what they believe and don't really put too much further thought into it, unless they experience some sort of extreme life altering event that would cause them to question everything beyond what they might have been capable of prior.

How soon is soon? I only get a 30 minute lunch break

When will Jesus bring the pork chops?

RIP Carlin

Yeah, I didn't manage to make that post as clear and digestible as I probably could have - my fault. Its point wasn't to say anything about the average person's critical thinking skills. (Though I will say, I agree that a lot of people seem to lack the inclination to clarify and logically organize their thoughts on any basic philosophical issues, e.g. the basics of religion and politics. And in a country with tens of millions of Trump voters, that's putting things mildly. But this isn't really the point I was addressing.)

The post was mostly a response to this contention of yours (and otherwise, it was a pretty rough attempt to get clearer on what it means to believe something):



This makes it sound like: Belief happens to the believer; there is little if any act of will involved in believing something to be true.

But I have reservations with this; I suspect it's only partly correct.

As I tried to illustrate with my own personal examples of distrusting Republicans and distrusting UFO claims, I think it's not unusual for people to make up their minds in advance of giving the opposing case a truly fair hearing. We might disagree on what constitutes a "truly fair hearing" - but I will say, for my part, that I do not disbelieve in alien contact on account of my being able to state precisely what's wrong with the strongest available arguments on the opposing side, such that any advocate of those arguments would be rationally obliged to renounce them, if they were only willing to hear me out.

Instead, it's closer to the truth to say: I suspect (based, ultimately, on information I haven't verified firsthand, but have simply encountered via sources I trust) that I could, if I had sufficient time and dedication, produce the rudiments of a reasonable argument that alien contact is very unlikely. And I wouldn't be surprised if the argument I'd (hypothetically) produce here would fall very, very short of persuading many/most of its opponents; in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if many of them were able to easily rebut it in a way I wouldn't immediately have the resources to counter.

Now, from a certain point of view, the rational thing for someone in my position to do is to suspend judgment, and continue to evaluate and reevaluate the competing arguments. But this isn't exactly what happens. Instead, it's as if I say, "Life is short, and my interest in this topic is limited, so I'm going to adopt it as a working hypothesis that the UFO believers are probably wrong, and there's probably someone else out there (though not myself) who has heard the best available arguments, and is equipped to refute them."

I think it makes sense to generalize from these illustrations; I don't think I'm describing something psychologically unusual. And if we grant this, then it seems inappropriate to simply compare belief to something like compulsion or passive, involuntary sensation: hence the suggestion that there are something like acts of will (among other things) involved in belief.

At any rate, maybe these sorts of puzzles suggest it'd be worth getting clearer on the general meaning of belief - what belief is (and isn't). Here's just a single good paragraph from an extensive encyclopedia article on the subject.



Sorry to be wordy, but...stuff's complicated.

Hopefully this will spark some discussion: the latest 20-page Vatican statement is that sex reassignment surgery, surrogacy and gender theory "threaten human 'dignity' which puts them on par with abortion and euthanasia as practices that violate God's plan for human life".



Does anyone here find this line of thinking defensible? How are we to know what's in "God's plan" and what isn't? Isn't that itself playing God? If we presume the existence of God, for all we know the plan might have been to be born the wrong sex and to undergo sex reassignment and the unique challenges along with it.

I can see a lot of problems with the reasoning here but obviously there are a lot of people in the world who still agree with it. It seems like the Church is increasingly grasping at straws with its reference to 'dignity' (whatever that means) and I'm surprised it's still relevant at all today. I know there have been some Orthodox people in this thread and I wonder what their take on this topic is.