Ex_Xtians

For those who leave xtainity there is a high price. A withdrawal caused by their conditioning that taints their view of atheism and thusly their view of themselves, one such disillusioned person named "Simon" wrote to a site for those former xtains who need to commune and socialise with others who have gone through the same thing, and have found better alternatives. I enclose my advice to him and others recent de-converts. He really was depressed and convinced of the meaningless of life, a perspective not shared by those borne into atheism but a post-theistic symptom of conditioning.

Simon, you are "fortunate" to catch my attention, I'm the radical Humanist and "meta-ethicist" in residence here, and my schedule means this is a one off appearance only. I'm going to address your statement on meaning and ethics, as your common reaction to a loss of faith, particularly that faith, needs a thorough and comprehensive dealing with. It way appear harsh at times, but it's what you need. I'll begin with a summery...

You are suffering from severe withdrawal, and are still in many ways a xtian.

You are told there is a god, without which life has no meaning and there are no ethics. Now that you have realised that the god part is bull, you still buy the other lies, and moan about the meaningless of everything. As do many who have responded to you, they not yet fully released from the full constructions of xtianity as they are just repeating the existential crap that xtian doctrine dictates is the lot of the atheist. To be fully free is to set aside ALL the lies, not just the main ones, but those created to frighten you into thinking the alternatives to god is a pointless void. Well this is not so, speak to those who are fortunate to have been spared an xtian programming or have completely liberated their minds from it, and they will tell you that morality and "meaning" are not anything to do with xtianity or their god. Why believe them in their attempts to demonise atheism, when you don't about their god? A complete lie means just that.

Ethics and meaning are formed independently of any culture and religious constructs by humanity, as we alone create meaning, that we sometimes reflect back to ourselves through an invention, a "creator", a projection of our own creativity that is evidence of our amazing imagination and skill, not his. The honest and enlightened acknowledge all meaning comes from us, as we are the only conscience force in the universe, and all we say and claim about gods is really true of us. All religions do is steal the credit, depth and significant from either nature our ourselves. Those who progress beyond superstition and the denial of ignorance embrace our nature, and self evident worth and fashion laws and ethics that reflect humanities reality not a twisted and impossible religious ideal, fit for fantasies not us. The "meaning" we lose in atheism is a definition of it that only belongs to theistic standards, that are false and should not be missed, a greater meaning and understanding await those with the strength to stand on their own without a security blanket, but independent and relying on themselves, and what nature has given us, which is more than sufficient for a full life, free of the illusion of dependency on a deity. Like the drug pusher convincing his customer that he cannot live without his "product", it is ultimately untrue, and all it takes is determination, everyone can do it. And when you do, it's just plain dumb to believe your pusher's claims that life without drugs is pointless once you are clean. You'll only go back, and if you are so gullible and incapable of thinking for yourself, you surely will, grown up, and become a true freethinker, because you are no were near one yet. I hate post-theistic whiners, your current state is only temporary, you'll either move beyond it or go back to theism, so don't think its permanent, but a symptom of transition.

Those Epicurean, Sophics and Enlightenment philosophers knew that morality was a human construct, based on our inherited natures and our social creations, but that did not make morality meaningless just because it did not come from "outside" ourselves. Many a theist clings to this idea, but no matter how established it may be in religious circles, to those removed from it's provincial influence (of which you are not one) this is an absurd example of theistic arrogance and presumption, nothing more. The great minds of secular progress either never knew of such an arrogant concept or realise it to be a pathetic attempt by religion to steal a monopoly on ethics, which you appear to still buy, and I'm telling to fucking quite it, because you playing into their hands. They put a booby trap in you mind, set to ago off if you left, resulting in depression and angst, that would compel you to crawl desperately back to them. This you will if you keep this crap up, all of you who still talk like they programmed you to, are just acting out the part that they want you to play. They'll use you as examples of what life without god leads to, your words are an ideal sample for them, to demonstrate the lack or morality or purpose an atheistic life has. This does not reflect the reality of atheism, just the characature of atheists you've become, and if you do not wish to become a case study for them, I suggest you give you minds a thorough going over. You'll find there's still a lot in there that needs to be excised, assumptions and views I've only seen in xtians or x-xtians that are so easily re-converted.

The Epicureans would be appalled at your abandonment of ethical principles or the acknowledgement of their importance just because you've been secularised. You buy the lie, you pay the price. For them and all in the real world, religion is just a superstitious ideology. Whereas ethics is a great intellectual and empirical endeavour, that may occasionally be hijacked by dishonest and greedy theistic leaders, but nevertheless remains the supreme project of the humanities. A continues challenge, a progressive evolution based on experience and reason, not a static series of commandments, that are simply deified archaic laws and taboos, that only have implicit moral significant to those who worship such totems.

I've seen it many times, there are those truly free, and those who have yet to escape, but only think they have. I will lay out the truth to you now, and remember it, because I'm sick of spelling it out to newbie atheists, who have yet to get a handle on things

To begin. All theism is a lie, and it alone is without significance and meaning, not life or morality.

You can only be moral if you obey moral principles for humane reasons, and recognise ethics as being of worth only so long as they assist humanity, and have no intrinsic worth in the abstract, only in their application, and results.

Xtianity has no morality, and no theist is moral, but merely obedient to theistic rules. It's moral pretensions and claims are as false and hollow as its theological ones, but that does not mean morality itself is false, only morality has you have known it through your religion. Purified of theistic contamination it works, evolves and progresses, in a way you are still blind to. In order to be ethical, you need ethics, NOTHING else. It's as simple as that, and the old lie of any religion, be it xtianity or Islam being synonymous with good, or morality is the first thing that needs to be removed from your minds, before you can truly enjoy your freedom. Because to be part of the secular or Humanistic world is to be responsible and aware of life's worth, your own and that of all others, and morality is the reflection of that, not of a religious conviction.

You can be a disgruntled amoral individualist if you like, but you won't be doing humanity or yourself any favours. Even if secular philosophy was not capable of infinitely superior moral activity it is still the state of humanity that reflects reality, and needs to be defended if our species is to be kept out of the destructive fantasies of religious culture. Assuming you want others to be spared what you went through. To recognise the inherent virtue of morality, and its derivation is the first requirement to the ethical human. Theism renders one incapable of doing this, in its greed to claim morality as it's special province it creates an amoral or immoral being operating on the dictates of doctrine, and biblical interpretation. Not on any principles that are based on humanity's needs, or on what actually improves life, but on what best suites the ideological creed at that time.

Morality is something that those in the real world recognises as separate from all other constructs, made by humanity for humanity, responsive to our condition, abstract in theory, empirical in derivation and application. We also so that if it is mixed up with doctrines or ideology, it only dilutes into a pretension and righteousness, that serves as a justification, but not a true morality. It serves the ideology of doctrine only, not the best interests of humanity, and as such ceases to be humane or just, but only a tool and a shadow ethic bent around the agenda of those who claim to be the sole possessors of what they still cal "morality".

Morality is not lessened but strengthened by its separation from religion's grip. It's nothing but a post-xtian lie common only to those coming out of such religions that without a "higher-mind" morality cannot exist, and without a divine origin it doesn't "count". You may lack the fear of a god looking over your shoulder but that doesn't mean ethical principles don't still exist or maintain powerful influence over humanity. They merely lack the metaphysical carrot and stick that is beneath humanity's dignity anyway. A layer of theological control is removed, nothing more.

Morality is what we create to manage our interactions, and social harmony, and that's it, no tablets of stone and no after-death judgement based on what theist call "morality". Except this and move on, it's is only you're stubborn tendency to repeat theistic propaganda that convinces you it has to be something more to mean anything. Well it does not, you merely have to "lower" your expectation or rather remove the unrealistic fantasies that ruin reality and true ethical values by muddling them up in quaint myth and trite allegory.

Ficino is correct to mention the ancient Greeks, they were just one of many civilisations that created ethical principles that in time have proven to be practical and decent, and all without a god in sight. When religion is removed, what is left is NOT a "void" but the pre-xtian values that were always FAR superior anyway. Those of Solon, the Epicureans and the Stoics, not to mention Buddhism, Jainism and the Roman legal principles, all secular all successful, and all a damning testament against the xtian claims that all meaning and morality has to come from their deity. Without such blatant falsehoods one can appreciate life and ethical philosophies free of any need to apply divine significance to anything. You'll learn that everything is better without gods and doctrines, not lessened but enhanced, but until you are capable of seeing the world as it really is not as xtians present it, you'll be a miserable bastard and will play into their hands and I hope you don't want that.

Meaning is a word and a concept we created, we on are own in this universe, a product of an un-conscious process of awesome power, far beyond the petty imagination of a few theistic scribes. We are the measure and the meaning of all things, we are the judges, we alone can see beauty, and can see good and bad. But if you think that all that is nothing without another older and "wiser" consciousness in the clouds then you are a pathetic victim of theistic bullshit and won't be much of a contributor to secular civilisation until you get you perspective sorted out. Why should it take a god to give meaning or morality? Have you ever even asked yourself that question? I suggest you read some Socrates, fast. Why does is have to come from outside us or "above"? Even if the xtian deity did exist why should his opinion or view matter to us? Or isn't understanding and any definition of life and morality based on it's unique significant and inherent virtue? So what difference does some deity make, and why is his opinion better than mine or yours? Has he even given us one? No, just a plan, a very crude and insulting one, and you feel depressed at its removal? Surely any alternative can only be an improvement? He's not depicted as any more conscious or alive that I am, no more aware, except on a greater scale, and size kiddo isn't everything. Our smallness in this universe does not signify unimportance, as that is committing a pretty fallacy. As is believing a god gives meaning, when all it does is create an authority you can either choose to obey or simply ignore, us as a yard stick for meaning and morality, or declare a despot and arbitrary monster, something he is, regardless of his existent state.

We live in a bigger, older and more magnificent universe than the Bible lead us to believe, that doesn't make us less significant, only more unique, and with far greater freedom and potential, with no restrictions in space or time, and with a far greater future that that bible gives us. Does your life lose significance when your parents cease to exist? Do people who may be older or smarter than you have the right to define what you are? You really need to break with the conventions of xtian culture and remove the remains of what passes for thought among those cretins. If you want anything out of this life, you have to see the truth, and leading an better and fuller life without xtianity will be a fantastic testimony to their blind belief in lies, and will help others, as well al yourself. Is suffering any less painful without a god in your head? Is blood any less real? Is the world any less magnificent? The universe any less vast and incomprehensible? Is life any less full of delights and disappointments? At the end of the day, what difference does a god really make? NONE. And if you were so dependent on the idea, then the sooner you get out of the habit of applying "ethics" and meaning to things via a totally irrelevant and unnecessary middle-man the better.

Any further problems or queries and I will address them on my site, and you'll find there's no theistic claim or view that cannot be dealt with by a reasonably well-educated secular thinker. Your ignorance and theistic hangover is your only problem, the rest is all in you head, which is want they wanted, and all religion amounts to.

P.S.

Speaking as a life long "atheist", seeing someone so drained reminds me of the power religion has over people. They feel so empty without it, when even the most "filled with the spirit" believer is a depressive compared to a real fired up Humanist. Its an unnatural addiction, but there are many better things to feels purposeful about You need to socialise with some better members of humanity, you're in the right place for it. Its not like you're in the Yanky bible belt, but The idea of that brand of xtianity infesting my city make me want to go down there and sort things out. There are so many ways to gain a view of the world that makes the xtian one seem petty and pale, go out and look for them, and you'll see only ignorance of the alternatives make you think life without you god-fix is meaningless. It is anything but a reality. There's more than one religion, mare that one "god", more than one philosophy, world-view and path in this life, simply find another. Life isn't xtianty or nothing, it's a choice, some better than others. You were unfortunate to have been involved with the worst possible one, now you've the opportunity to find others, perhaps even the best of them. I can certainly point you in the right direction in that department, and so can many others here.

Ryan, your rebuttal further proved my point, morality has been removed along with your beliefs. That is what the theists want, to take any little virtue you may have away, so you either come back to them when the vacuum becomes too much, or make you serve as an example of the horrors of atheism to keep the rest in line. You may not recognise morality anymore, as you think it's as much a fantasy as god, but that is their successful monopolising of it, not the truth. Ethics are as real as we are, as a restraint or guide on a person's actions has an objective and empirical effect. So don't confuse the manmade for the meaningless, and don't confuse my attempts to speak up for secular morality for a lecture, its an ancient and noble tradition, older than xtianity and Islam, and deserves better than your dismissal, probably due to confusing religious "ethics" with genuine ones. I don't dictate things, I educate, there's a hell of a lot you don't know about this issue. And Simon can speak for himself. Don't attack me unless you have more than tantrums and insults.

And for those who think meaning can be so easily defined, here's a rational approach to the matter by Carrier.

And a version of my own approach...

THE "MEANING" OF LIFE

I regularly hear of recently liberated x-xtians that are feeling withdrawal symptoms along the lines that now, without god, they feel morality is non-existent and life has no "meaning". Now my essays often deal with the subject of secular ethics, so I'm now going to tackle the meaning of life from a rational and humanistic perspective.

I begin with a quick mention of religion's answer to this. Now apart from the fact that they offer no explanation of why a meaning has any more validity because it comes from a supposed deity of questionable motives, it's not so much meaning as purpose. A "divine" plan that nonetheless looks like the primitive fantasies and desires of a bunch of zealots and scheming theocrats. And any objective study of that purpose is enough to turn you away from religion for life.

Now, we have humanity, a product of 4 billions years of evolution, accompanied by uncounted forms of life, but unique in its sentience and rational powers. What are we to make of this?

Well to start with, the largest context, the universe's origins are not completely know, but that is no all that important, as such cosmic questions have little to do with life, here and now, which is clearly the product of a mechanism primarily designed to perpetuate itself. This has been known since Origin of Species was published, so no mystery there. If it wasn’t for humanity, the meaning of life could quite easily be summed up as survival, or simple continuation, by evolution if necessary, in-despite of the general plan of entropy that dominates the rest of the universe. In a sense life is the most significant thing, despite its seaming minuscule size within all that exists, because it alone can defy the second law of thermodynamics, for what way turn out to be pretty much the rest of the universe's existence.

But humanity is as remarkable a leap from all other life, as life in general is so much beyond mere inanimate matter and energy, confined to the laws of physics. But where all other life is defined by its place in the evolutionary tree, which defines its past and it's future, all guided and controlled by instinct and genes, we humanity are not part of that destiny.

Evolution basically runs on three principles, environmental change, mutation and competition, (or interaction), now we can change our environment, and can now control our genes and society, thusly ending the three basic facets of evolution. We are free from the mechanism that spawned us, and so we alone have the option both as a species and as individuals to choose our future. This is the most radical aspect of human life, because we can still be part of our instinctual drives if we wished, and many are, but it is only a matter of will to turn our backs on the designs of the universe, and of our genes. Also as our sentience and mental abilities means our capacity and potential are unimaginably greater than all life on earth put together, and our individuality has far more uniqueness and potential in itself, anyone of us can achieve and realise more than all other life ever has. We are in a league of our own, and cannot be defined by the same simple Darwinian estimation as all other life. (Tempting though that is for the newbie atheist)

Our sentience defines our worth, but our meaning, if we choose to have any, and for some the term has more significance that for others, can only be derived by what and who we are. There is no outer being to define it for us, no objective or separate standard with which to compare. No convenient supreme authority to spell it out for us, (Just people claiming to have such answers from such supposed beings) and I and most humanists wouldn't except such a definition if there were. All we do have are our now discontinued trend to our origins, our unknown future and our current state, so it is that last which is the best place to begin looking for any meaning. As the possessors of individual identities that are as intrinsically unique and of equal value among every one of us such a meaning cannot be applied to humanity as a whole. No one meaning can encompass all are personal natures, (without ignoring individuality) the accumulation of which in all humanity would be insulted by any attempt to slap a SoundBits meaning onto it, let alone the single person.

As a species we have many characteristics that both unite us in a very deep and significant ways and separate us from nature and the universe. But we also have personalities, that are so complex, and due to its finite nature, infinitely precious that our identities and traits are what make our species so unique. Physically we're erect simians, but our minds are universes in themselves, making each humane life more significant than everything else except each other one.

This creates an interesting interrelationship between the mind and the species of minds we call the human race, it is up to philosophy and sociologists to sort out such relationships, and psychology to come to terms with the human mind, a task I do not envy. But what is clear is that all humans are equal, and capable of total freedom from all of natures constraints and designs on all other life. And as there's no higher authority to "define" us, each individual, by nature of their unimaginable degree of complexity has to be the deciding factor in a meaning that can only apply to them.

They are in no position to dictate their meaning to others, due to are equality and because we are all too unique for there to be a single meaning of life that applies to us all. We do not share each others lives, or the lives of the animal world, it is all up to the individual boy or girl to choose, as freedom is humanity's first characteristic and although it can be removed by unnatural constraints, only we can ever obtain it. With no authority higher than the individual, the meaning is ours, to find for ourselves, and to keep only for ourselves. Of all know things in the universe, life as the greatest claim to any meaning, and human life most of all. But as we are not a collective, despite the best efforts of religion and ideology one person can be considered the most significant thing there is, as he or she is the culmination of nature's efforts in the mental realm, nothing higher. As two humans are not better than one, just the possessors of two sets of equally irreplaceable personates, you can't get higher in terms of meaning than one person in everything but a brute mathematical worth based on life by the numbers, but that only applies to worth, not meaning, and so we come back to the individual.

In short the meaning of life is yours, I've found mine, if you haven't yet, keep looking and yes its okay to change you mind, as we are not more constant than we are uniform or subject to nature's laws. If you want it to be the same as all other life, bound to evolution, so be it, but don't think mere reproduction is anyone else's meaning, just because you think its yours. No one has to right to dictate any meaning upon others, just because they like a nice tidy reductionist understanding of life, and lack the imagination or rational powers to find any other truth. I find atheist who try to dictate the meaning of life as obnoxious and arrogant as the theists who try to make it all about their brand of deity.

This is not a sentimental or emotional, or even meta-physical interpretation of humanity , but a rational, detached and scientific evaluation of what we really are, no poetry, or mysticism is needed, and even the most cynical or disillusioned atheist or pessimist cannot in the face of all such self evidence appraisals of humanity maintain that were are "nothing". All debates on ethics aside, life extraordinary, (I don't think you'd like a universe without it) and to deny this out of some bitter regret at the discovery of no father-god to plan our lives, is spoilt and immature, and not what the secular world needs right now.

Ryan, why are you insulted by the length of my posts? Not used to reading anything longer than a cereal packet?

If you dislike my attempts to convince Simon of the value of secular ethics then simply don't read them, your frothing at the mouth accusations of religious influence on me is absurd, ask anyone here, my anti-religious credentials are well founded, and I have never thought on theistic lines. You appear to have a paranoid conviction that anyone who ascribes meaning to humanity and talks about morality is somehow a closet theist. This is further proving my point, an incapacity among certain atheists to separate meaning and morals from the grip of religion. Even thought its clear to any rationalist with a knowledge of history that they have no just claim to such things anyway, but you still think life as a secularist has to be without any definition or border, just because we're free of the church's. This may work for you, but is a tad impractical in the long run, and a more considerate appraisal of humanity would reveal the need for morality, and the worth (not to mention rational conclusion) of a self determining meaning. This isn't swapping one tyranny for another but going from authority to reason and simply referring to a pre xtian set of values, that experience and science have since vindicated.

I can be both independent of religion and the classic philosophers and come to precisely the same conclusion I have, because that is what I did. I only later came across the works of the Stoics and Epicureans. I am not their follower, but someone who AGREES with them, and finds much to praise in their work, and nothing in religion worthy of note. That is my position, so don’t accuse me of being "just another" anything, as my individualism is as highly developed as it can be, and my scepticism means only the most proven or rational things meet my standards.

Your dislike empirical morality is your own business, and if you choose to think of ethics as either the province of religion or pretentious philosophers that’s your opinion, Ignorant though it is. But the meaning as I stated it was not a dictated one, it gives the right and freedom to decide to everyone, THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT, Eric could see that, but you appear to have missed it. You’re the one dictating, with your evolutionary emphasis. (Again your meaning, not anyone else's, its your opinion imposing upon mine, not the other way round, as my conclusions take yours into account.) I'm a huge fan of Dawkins, Darwin, Wallace and the life sciences, and find evolution the greatest find science has ever made, but that doesn’t mean I allow it to dictate my definitions. I've given reasons for all my conclusions, none of which you have refuted, you just repeat what I say and mock me, while further confirming my earliest statements on the presumptuous nature of certain atheists. From now on if you disagree do so properly, not by simply stating your opinion, and finding such offence in anything that disagrees with it, you rationalisations are none existent, I suggest you get some, as you're no more an equal opponent than a theist. And if you don’t like my style of reiteration, tough, others do.

South, Okay a break down…

There is no god and evolution no longer applies to us, that goes without saying.

No human is better than any other, so each individual is equally the highest source of any comprehension and thusly meaning that exists.

Our freedom is what defines our species and our capabilities mean we can choose any meaning for ourselves, without being overruled. In other words nothing and no one can tell you what the meaning is as far as your existence is concerned.

Ergo, the meaning of life is for each person to define for themselves.

Simple enough?

Others may disagree for either theological or philosophical reasons, but they'd have to pick apart the reasoning, and I welcome anyone to try.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's a refutation of theistic "absolute" and atheistic "subjective" morality I did on internet infidels. It covers the reasoning being empirical ethics that humanism recognises as the best moral method, its certainly superior to all religion's attempt to appear moral, and also silenced the atheistic amoralists.

All this talk of "absolute" morals from a deity being better than the relativist or subjective ethics of secularism is a red herring theists like to throw about cuz it makes their brand of "ethics" sound better than secular or philosophical ones. As a humanist such debates are irrelevant as reason demonstrates a quick solution.

Humanity is objective,

The results of an ethical principle is objective in it's effect on humanity,

These effects are either beneficial physically/mentally, or negative,

(the standards for such definitions are those common to all humane values, the denial of which renders any such position immoral, but are also verified by observation)

You thusly judge any morals you create by the empirical data concerning their effects, rather than any reasoning, theistic or otherwise regarding what until their application are purely abstract and arbitrary.

You need ethics based on humanity's nature, and not a lofty set of ideals, and you need to constantly verify that they work, and can remain relevant by creating evolutionary ethical systems that are empirically derived. (for more on that one see this article)

http://www.humanism.me.uk/essays/Evolutionary%20morality%202.0.htm

Thusly morality is neither subjective or absolute, but objective.

At least when done rationally, and with a purely humane end in mind, not just to give a religion or ideology "ethical" pretensions, and although ethical results can be subjectively experienced, empathy allows us to form an objective consensus on mental or physical well being. It’s the most reliable method, and though not perfect, the impression that absolute ethics are so, is the merest delusion of the theistic fantasist.