Talk:RationalWiki Atheism FAQ for the Newly Deconverted

From RationalWiki

Contents 1 About this article 2 On deconversion 3 Are waffles an atheist doctrine? 4 title 5 I like this 6 To thine own self be true 7 philosophersnet.com 8 Someone send a copy 9 cover story 10 Strangeness 11 Missing Link 12 Scrutiny or not 13 Group selection? Really? 14 Jimaginator 15 Yes, what **about** morality? 16 Parody of this article warranted? 17 GFDL?

[edit] About this article

I want to turn this page into a resource for anyone questioning their faith. While many who walk away from religion have sound intellectual reasons for doing so, there's quite a few who do it for purely emotional or selfish reasons. The point of this document is to give those and all who fall away the resources to examine their faith and make informed decisions about the future of their beliefs. We need information, and more importantly we need solid references. Any RationalWiki editors who want to, feel free to add something, and even get outsiders in to review it. EVDebs 20:13, 18 November 2007 (EST)

All I can say right now is "wow!" - nice work. I want to add more, raised as a good Anglican boy, with prayer in school, etc. - but nice job!!! human 00:25, 19 November 2007 (EST)

[edit] On deconversion

coincidental timing? Susan^{... miaow ...} 17:58, 18 November 2007 (EST)

• Seriously. Awesome. Article. Too bad there were so many of the commenters that missed the point -- I know now that my religious faith was dead on its feet for years before I walked away from faith, but I understand that it's a very hard thing to leave behind. EVDebs 20:13, 18 November 2007 (EST)

I can't recall where I saw it, but there was a very good interview that Salon or someone did with a group of religious scholars, who'd made studying the ancient texts their life's work, and by and large, most had utterly lost what most would consider a Christian faith. One had turned to Judaism, I think, and I think one was still nominally a Christian, but the other two if memory serves had simply stopped believing. And all agreed that this was a natural outgrowth of really taking a close look at all this stuff. Wish I could find it again, you guys would love it. --Kels 07:16, 19 November 2007 (EST)

[edit] Are waffles an atheist doctrine?

Personally, I prefer pancakes myself. In fact, I may go make some now. --Jeeves 09:30, 19 November 2007 (EST)

• Hey, I never said you had to have waffles. Only that it's always good to have the option. EVDebs 12:38, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Maybe what he's really saying is he still wants the wafer? Poor, deluded fool! It's waffles way or no way!KILL the heretic I mean ah, death to the infidel er...nevermind. 14:17, 19 November 2007 (EST) CЯacke®

WAFFLES TASTE GOOD! YAY! 24.227.2.106 17:02, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Yes, but should they be round or quadrilateral? human 17:23, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Atheism doesn't prescribe any food choices. Whoever added the part about waffles was a secular waffleist. --GastonRabbit (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Waffles are decidedly secular. See here. Τe†rоиіαn ^{the anti-anti-atheist} 03:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Google "blue waffles." Click first result. 04:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

are we talking american or Belgian waffles, round, rectangular or those odd heart shaped ones ? with butter and syrup, or with berries and cream ? Hamster (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] title

Does this article really need the word "RationalWiki" in the title? human 15:11, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Mmmm. I think you make a good point there. For various reasons probably better off without.--Bob^{bing up} 15:18, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Maybe it was supposed to go in the rationalwiki namespace?15:20, 19 November 2007 (EST) CЯacke®

I think it belongs in the mainspace, but maybe that is what the original titler intended. And yes, Bob, for several reasons - one, this is RW, so it's obviously ours. Two, it sort of makes it sound like site policy rather than just another intriguing article. human 15:23, 19 November 2007 (EST)

I would vote Essay namespace to answer forum concerns.-αmεσ (spy) 16:28, 19 November 2007 (EST)

I would say change the name and keep it in mainspace.--Bob^{bing up} 16:37, 19 November 2007 (EST)

I don't really see a problem with it. It's not "promoting" atheism per se, it's just a colorful guide for anyone who is losing their religion. See my forum post, we can have other guides to balance it out (ie, guide for the recently saved, etc.) human 16:40, 19 November 2007 (EST)

I think it's pretty much fine as it is now. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:56, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Now that I read the gfdl disclaimer in the intro, I can see it making sense, with the idea that others will publish it elsewhere, so RW should be in the title. human 17:26, 19 November 2007 (EST)

[edit] I like this

I love this page!

Also, two great blogs:

Evangelical realism

Deconversion

As I said up top, it's a great article. As I read more of it, I am truly impressed. It's funny, it's straight, it's well informed and informative, it's gentle and kind spritied. Who the heck stayed up all night and wrote the first draft? I think it should be in "best of religion" soon. human 17:43, 19 November 2007 (EST)

I guess its an EV Debs joynt.17:59, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Wow, this article may be one of the most awesome things I have ever read. I'm very, very impressed. Its not pushy and evangelical, and it helps explain my beliefs to not only others, but to myself as well.

It's also has the just-right amount of humor, like mentioning buying waffles, and porn (although maybe not a the same time...) May I suggest Waffle House? (for the waffles, not the porn) Prices are amazing and the food is greasylicious. VonShroom 17:36, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Hi VonShroom, glad you enjoyed it. How, if I may ask, did you happen to find it? human 19:54, 7 March 2008 (EST)

In the absence of dissent, I am going to add this to the cover story list. human 16:01, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

[edit] To thine own self be true

What does this really mean? That you should act according to your nature? That’s fine with some people, but suppose you’re Jeffrey Dahmer, or Karl Rove? Still, it’s easier to follow than the advice Polonius gives a few lines earlier: “Neither a borrower nor a lender be….” !!

There is reason to believe that Shakespeare was portraying him not as a wise man but as a silly old fool.

Tony 08:46, 22 December 2007 (EST)

[edit] philosophersnet.com

Those links from philosophersnet.com are quite good. Thankfully, I got a consistency score of .8 and only two direct hits, so I guess I'm mostly on the safe side. :D --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 10:20, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Cool. My consistency score is 1.0. However, "We suspect that your God is not the traditional God of the Christian, Jewish or Muslim faiths." No kidding... human 16:27, 24 December 2007 (EST)

[edit] Someone send a copy

[[Jonathon Edwards]] (UK ex-verychristian athlete) might like to receive a copy of this. Such a loverly convert! 193.113.235.173 10:25, 24 December 2007 (EST)

[edit] cover story

(please do not archive this section)

• I nominate this to be a cover story. I think it is a very good article, and deserves occasional "space" on our main page. human 13:34, 15 February 2008 (EST)

[edit] Strangeness

In the "meaning of life" section, it seems like Hitler's actions aren't condemned so much as "not recommended." And why not? Well, according to the article... Because people in the future will laugh at you? /shrug GrandSoviet 15:58, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Looking at it again, the whole section needs reworking. "Just do what you will" sounds like some sociopath wrote it. Would anyone object if I made a few tweaks here and there? GrandSoviet 10:27, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Or Raskolnikov ...--מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Quick! Bring in Sonja! --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 10:48, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

I made my changes. If anyone doesn't like them, feel free to revert and we can discuss it here. GrandSoviet 17:10, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Missing Link

Ok, it's not missing, I just like the sound of that phrase. The link is really broken. The page I go to is http://walkaway.aimoo.com/ and there's nothing there. I did just walk away from Fundamentalism, and I would like to share in others' experiences. TheNerd 17:48 EDT 1 May 2008

I see a forum there? What browser are you using? DogP 21:51, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Works for me (Firefox on XP Collector's Edition). human 22:27, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Scrutiny or not

Mr 24 makes an interesting point here. Why should this "tenet of rationalism" not be "fair game for scrutiny," just like everything else? If for no other reason, then at least because of the many opportunities for delicious cake paradox that such a scrutiny would lead to. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 03:47, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, but BoN got it wrong.

BoN: "That means everything -- everything -- is fair game for scrutiny, except for this fundamental tenet of rationalism itself."

Correct: "That means everything -- everything -- is fair game for scrutiny, including this fundamental tenet of rationalism itself.

JMHO, since obviously the philosophical basis of rationalism/science (etc.) is always open for debate, discussion, and... scrutiny. human 13:01, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh shoot, I read the diff backwards. BoN truncated it (removing the "except" part), should have edited it as I did. human 13:02, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Group selection? Really?

Biologists have proposed a mechanism called group selection whereby the individual prospers because of developments that benefit a whole group of individuals. Social behavior comes directly from that

Am I the only person who understands the manifest irony of this FAQ endorsing group selection on a website dedicated to defending evolution? Group selection is totally at odds with biological fact, was debunked decades ago, and it's Dawkins' second-favorite thing to make fun of. --76.217.94.92 18:57, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Well, you learn something new every day. (it could till be true though: "Biologists have proposed ..."). I leave it to those who know to change it.   ^Contribs_Talk 19:01, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

I don't know anything about the biological theory, but it seems a bit off topic for a FAQ on atheist morality. Comparing human societies to animal ones is problematic & not really necessary. It kindof takes the long way round to say that morality is pragmatic rather than god-given. weaseLOId~ 19:24, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Yea, group selection is pretty iffy, and as originally proposed been shown to impossible. There are some people who are trying to championing it back in, not the least of which is E.O. Wilson, but I remain...skeptical. tmtoulouse 19:35, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Group selection meaning favoring your reasonably close relatives, or those who are just superficially similar? (I should read the article againz, I learn so much while trying to write this book!) ħuman 03:29, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Well favoring altruism for relatives is not group selection, that is inclusive fitness. tmtoulouse 16:01, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

I've rephrased it without mentioning the theory of group selection but still covering the sociological stuff about reciprocal ethics. On a separate issue, should we be giving as much prominence to the Wiccan Rede? It seems like a bit of a double standard in a guide for atheists. weaseLOId~ 11:36, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

suck balls atheist faggots ^{— Unsigned, by: 68.197.173.216 / talk / contribs}

[edit] Jimaginator

Added a new section to ask a question. I have moved it here: ħuman 14:14, 10 November 2008 (EST)

"==If everyone were atheist, wouldn't people just do whatever they wanted, no matter who was harmed?==

Really hoping for an answer here, since I am wrestling with atheism. Didn't feel the morality section covered it. Thanks." - Jimaginator

As a lifelong atheist I find that empathy suffices for "God's rules". I don't need some prehistoric priest's ramblings to tell me what to do, or the fear of hellfire to stop me being nasty to others.

TOAST

^{and butter} 12:40, 10 November 2008 (EST)

I would add, check out this section: "What about morality? I've always heard that to be a moral person, one needs a higher power" ħuman 14:14, 10 November 2008 (EST)

But Jimaginator says he read that section & found it inadequate, & I'm inclined to agree. It's long-winded & says a lot of vague stuff about anthropology & sociology without getting down to the point directly, then finishes with the Wiccan Rede, a religious motto! I'm not surprised that it's unconving to people who are trying to deal with moral issues related to atheism. I suggest we either rewrite it, or add in the other question Jimaginator asked. I was about to write a response to it before it was cut. weaseLOId~ 15:21, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Make it so, O Stoat!

TOAST

^{and butter} 15:31, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Done. I added Jimaginator's question & my answer to it. I guess we might be able to amalgate both sections into one q & a, as they're kinda covering the same ground, but I don't think we really need to. weaseLOId~ 16:48, 10 November 2008 (EST)

I missed where J. said that (was it in the edit comment?). Anyway, I like the new section, nice work! Now to fix up that section that ends with some religious slogan that isn't even a nice "modern English" thingie. ħuman 16:54, 10 November 2008 (EST)

I already took it out. Left the rest of that section as it is. weaseLOId~ 17:00, 10 November 2008 (EST)

I would actually prefer to restore the Rede. I'm by no means Wiccan, but I think it really does sum up humanist ethics very effectively. EVDebs 03:19, 11 November 2008 (EST)

[edit] Yes, what **about** morality?

What do you folks think of the view that says that, without some "higher power", then man becomes his own higher power, with the greatest power belonging to the most powerful among us. And then, without resort to a "higher power" than the strongest man, it is those "strongest men" that are able to impose their version of morality on everyone else? And unfortunately, there are many historical examples of that morality *not* being "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Thatemailname 15:40, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Hmmm, I'm not convinced the question has very much to do with theism/atheism, since, as you say, there have been examples throughout history of leaders or oligarchies imposing their version of morality on people, and I think that happens with or without belief in a "higher power". Humans are adept at hypocrisy, so tyrants can always believe that what they are doing is right & not feel like they're sinning against God. As for the question of morality being dictated by the "strongest men", in the modern world it wouldn't really work like that. People's morality is usually determined by their upbringing & by the values of the society they live in. They won't just change their views by being told to. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:35, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I take the point that you're not convinced it's germane, but my section heading was taken from the heading of the section in the main article which dealt with this very topic.

I feel that you've proved my point to a large extent. Yes, tyrants can believe that what they're doing is right. And without any "appeal" to a higher power, and a higher "morality", who among men can say they are *not* right? But when man can point to a higher morality and say "what he is doing is wrong", man now has a rational basis on which to fight tyranny. Best example - the American Declaration of Independence. And while I agree that people don't change their views because they're told to, that wasn't my point - the "strongest man" (who claims to be the higher power) will impose views, not ask people to change them. Thatemailname 15:40, 24 February 2009 (EST)

I can't honestly see a problem with someone being their own higher power. People certainly won't respect or just appeal to the "strongest man". Take the declaration of independence, if they just sat and appealled to that strongest man, it would never have happened. Basically, the ones who fought the war appealled to their own standards, not the ones imposed on them. As most of the people who drew up and signed the declaration were either deists or freethinkers, they really were just appealling to their own sense of morality with it. ArmondikoV^{...I'll coach your kerfuffle!} 10:31, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Well, okay, but don't "deists" and "freethinkers" believe in a higher power? And didn't "their own sense of morality" come from that belief? I just cited the Declaration as an example, and I think you may have proved my point. ^{— Unsigned, by: Thatemailname / talk / contribs}

Given the number of incredibly immoral things done by people inspired by/loyal to/in the name of/in order to appease or curry favour with divine authority, I'll take moral codes created by my fellow human beings over those devised by a "higher power" any day of the week...TheoryOfPractice 10:35, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Admittedly, there are good and bad people of all faiths, and of no faith. That's not relevant to the issue I raised. And could please provide an example of moral codes created by fellow human beings that have no connection to any religious belief. Thatemailname 15:40, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Hmm. What do you folks think of the view that says that, without some "higher power", then man becomes his own higher power, with the greatest power belonging to the most powerful among us. And then, without resort to a "higher power" than the strongest man, it is those "strongest men" that are able to impose their version of morality on everyone else?

I think that this statement is utter balls, quite frankly. The day I think it's true is the day I see God (or any other deity) directly involve himself with the overthrow of one of these 'strongest men'. Zmidponk 10:36, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I was going to ask if "utter balls" was a good thing or a bad thing, but I think I figured it out from the rest of your post. I don't think most people who believe in a higher power, believe that it's that higher power's job to constantly intervene our daily lives for a protection, but if that's what you'd be looking for in a higher power, then you are much better off as an atheist! :) (or am I presuming?) Thatemailname 15:40, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Can you please sign your comments. Type ~~~~ at the end. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:59, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Sure, sorry about that. ^{— Unsigned, by: Thatemailname / talk / contribs}

No, you're not presuming - just utterly missing my point by such a wide margin that you even managed to underline it. If a 'higher power' specifically does NOT intervene in such a way, who is it that overthrows such a 'stronger man'? The 'weaker' men. Who is it that did so in the past? The 'weaker' men. As such, it completely disproves the idea that only a 'higher power' can overthrow such a 'stronger man', as they can also be overthrown by a sufficient number of 'weaker' men. What's the fastest way of getting a large group of people to turn against you and start contemplating overthrowing you? Imposing yourself as a ruler or dictator of them, then doing unto them the sort of thing you wouldn't like to be done unto you. Zmidponk 19:48, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Well, we may to agree that we're missing each other's points. :) To try and clarify - I never claimed that the "higher power" overthrows the stronger man. What I said was, when morality comes from that "higher power", then the "stronger man" loses his claim to the so-called "moral high ground" when he is in conflict with that morality.

When morality is not defined as coming from a "higher power", but rather from some altruistic or noble property of man, then inevitably it will be the "stronger man" gets to define what that morality is, and the "moral high ground" is always possessed by the strongest man. This in no way precludes the weaker men from pooling their strength and overthrowing that "stronger man", in an attempt to impose *their* view of "morality". Thatemailname 15:40, 24 February 2009 (EST)

I'm afraid it's still not clear what you're getting at, since you keep using these odd phrases like "strongest man" without any examples of what kind of situation you're talking about. Also, you seem to be presenting a scenario where we decide whether morality comes from a """higher power""" or not, & that doesn't make a lot of sense. Either moral standards must genuinely be defined by God (in which case theists' beliefs are the truth), or they are a human creation (the atheist perspective). So we can't decide where morality originates, only what our own beliefs or opinions about it are. As for morality being dictated by the "strongest man", can you cite an example? My opinion is that shared morals are largely defined by society (i.e. a large number of individuals with differing opinions & morals, but with many fundamental views in common) rather than imposed by leaders to any great extent. Of course, a teacher's or politician's views on morality can influence their work which may influence the views of others to some extent. But I don't see why that would happen any more among atheists than theists; if anything, maybe even less. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:51, 24 February 2009 (EST)

To add my two cents, there are many examples of "stronger men" making their own moral codes and then claiming that they were of divine origin. Hitler is a prime example of this; you also often see it when present-day politicians invoke religion in support of a political program. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:49, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Right, but that's the difference between *man* imposing his own beliefs, and a moral code that truly comes from a higher source. Of course, one must first accept that there is something higher than man, before accepting that a moral code could come from a source higher than man! ^{— Unsigned, by: Thatemailname / talk / contribs}

There is no proof that any moral codes are of divine origin. Absent this proof it must be assumed that they were made when prophets ate a little too much rotten rye for dinner, because as Hitler's example shows, believing in Something Higher than Man is no block to regarding moral codes of human manufacture as being of divine origin. ListenerX^TalkerX 15:43, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Well, we may to agree that we're missing each other's points. :) To try and clarify - I never claimed that the "higher power" overthrows the stronger man. What I said was, when morality comes from that "higher power", then the "stronger man" loses his claim to the so-called "moral high ground" when he is in conflict with that morality.

Well, hang on, when you first proposed your argument, you were seemingly advancing the idea that, if there is no 'higher power' a 'stronger man' can impose his ideas of what is moral on everyone else, and nobody can stop him, and that some of these 'stronger men' in history have not had the idea of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. Now you're merely saying that he loses the 'moral high ground' if there is a 'higher power'. Those are two very different things, but both are wrong. If a man has a very peculiar sense of morality that allows him to justify, at least to himself, torturing and killing people merely because they disagreed with him, for example, as I have pointed out, this is incompatible with most people's sense of morality, and this will therefore cause them to overthrow this 'stronger man'. If there is no 'higher power', he still does not have the 'moral high ground' because what is really meant by 'moral high ground' is that a particular person or group have a reputation for having views that are regarded by the vast majority of people as being moral.

When morality is not defined as coming from a "higher power", but rather from some altruistic or noble property of man, then inevitably it will be the "stronger man" gets to define what that morality is, and the "moral high ground" is always possessed by the strongest man. This in no way precludes the weaker men from pooling their strength and overthrowing that "stronger man", in an attempt to impose *their* view of "morality".

Hmm, contradiction ahoy. If the 'strongest man' always imposes his morality, how can a GROUP impose their morality? Which one of the group gets to decide what this morality is? In addition, if the group in question is, basically, everyone he was imposing his morality on, who do they impose it on? One possibility you seem to have overlooked, as well - maybe, just maybe, that group may take steps to avoid history repeating. Zmidponk 10:32, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Something else as well - if morality does, indeed, come from an 'altruistic or noble property of man', then the only way that this 'stronger man' can 'impose' his morality on people is if it's not really an imposition at all - and everyone agrees with his idea of morality. Otherwise, this 'altruistic and noble property of man' will cause people to object to what he's saying or doing, and here we are back at that idea of the 'weaker men' uniting to overthrow him. Zmidponk 10:39, 25 February 2009 (EST)

There's no contradiction in the idea that without a morality that comes from somewhere 'above' mankind itself, man will simply struggle with himself - whether "individuals" or "groups" it matters not - for supremacy, for the moral high ground. It doesn't stop with the weaker men uniting to overthrow the stronger, since the overthrown will eventually regroup and attempt to regain control. Far from any group taking steps to prevent history from repeating itself (I'd believe that when I see it!), there is no progress, no movement towards a higher goal, just eternal struggle. Thatemailname 15:02, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Parody of this article warranted?

I am working on it at here. Please improve on it or let me know whether we want one. Thieh^{What is NOT going on?} 04:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what the point is there. Is it done or still being worked on? What is the "joke", the point of the parody? ħuman 04:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe an FAQ from this point of view (not necessary to be rational even) would be fun. Thieh^{Blocked by TK (Who isn't?)} 11:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL?

Shouldn't it be Cc-by-sa 3.0 or both? Nx (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)