I stopped worrying about god, and you should too

https://xkcd.com/386/

For a long time, I was one of those pesky "New Atheists", fervently denying that that label had any significance (it doesn't), arguing rationalism on social media and defending against all types of fallacies.

This blog is a testament to that: See the labels atheism, bible, catholicism.

By the end of 2017, I changed.

What happened?

I rediscovered meditation and molded it into a serious formal habit.

I discovered stoicism and integrated it with my meditation.

I restarted my solo tantric activities.

As a result of all that, I took what I like to call the "sacred STFU vows". That means that I try to not engage in any debates, unless I have something useful to contribute.

There are two parts to this:

I try not to engage in any debates...

I don't debate my colleagues on their political views.

I rarely intervene on online forums about theism and atheism.

I don't even look at youtube comments anymore.

I basically logged off facebook, looking at it maybe once a week.

(Reddit remains my addiction of choice. I haven't given up on that one yet... probably will, later this year.)

There are challenges.

When a friend puts his antifeminism to me, I would like to stay calm, maybe react in a compassionate way, but not kindle the fire. What really happens is that, in person, I do engage in the discussion -- especially if there are beers involved -- while online, I don't react at all. Both are not exactly optimal. I'm working on it.

What I have gained by all that is more clarity, less useless outrage, a certain kind of "proud humility" and better insight into what matters.

What I mean by "proud humility" is the realization that I don't have to proclaim my wisdom all the time. I know what I know, I know what I believe, and if I keep it to myself for the time being, the world will revolve around itself just as it did before. Sounds humble? Well, it is also disciplined, and I take pride in my discipline.

It made me realize that I don't HAVE to engage all the time. I can refrain from it. I can click that link about money and sexual energy, then feel my gut reaction of "Durr, have to comment, have to destroy, krurrr murrrr", and let it go. There is incredible freedom in that ability. And it can be trained. All it takes is an act of nonaction.

Now, for the second part of my vow... "unless I have something useful to contribute".

Note that I did not say "something positive". There is an important distinction here.  Criticism, even negative criticism, has its place.

Of course, I can't always resist. I do comment. Way less than before, but I sometimes do.

My goal is to comment only when I feel there is no anger, and much compassion instead.

These past weeks, I had a few moments when I was there. I think those of my comments were worthwile. They make me proud. They might have helped people. And that is just a very, very good feeling.

As for god... I'm not sure. Maybe I'm not that advanced yet. I still feel a bit of frustration sometimes. But mostly, I have come to realize that those debates are utterly useless; tired old repetitions of the same 5 or 6 arguments, again and again. I'm not up for that anymore. I have better things to do.

So, should atheists refrain from debating christians?

In general, no. We are a social species, we need to communicate. But social media have made all that quabbling and quibbling and railing and wailing get way out of hand.

You need to put yourself back in the driver's seat.

If you feel that you might have gotten too far into #someone_s_wrong_on_the_internet territory, I suggest you take some time off. Get some distance.  Gain perspective.  Become aware of the emotions you put into those debates.  Ask yourself, what emotions do you want to experience? Ask yourself, what happens to you in those debates?  Ask yourself whether those two line up.  If they don't, it might be time for a change in strategy.

The long list of things I tried

Sometimes I'm amused by the sheer number of pseudoscientific and religious woo that I was involved in, or that I at least gave a chance, at some point. Especially seeing that during most of that time, I thought of myself as a somewhat rational person... After I wrote the list below, looking at it, I found it quite impressive and more than a bit shocking, really.

• Fundamentalist christianity (of the catholic charismatic variety). Nothing to add here, really, we all know it's bullshit.
• Satanism. I never actually believed it, but I was quite fascinated with Crowley for a while. I still think he's a very charming fraudster.
• Kabbala. I never believed in it, but I read a lot of the literature and went to a lecture by the Kabbalah Centre once. I even gave a few talks on the history of it.
• Tarot. I really wanted to believe that one. I even gave a few readings for money, until I learned about cold reading and realized that I had been doing exactly that all along, purely by intuition.
• Wicca. I attended a wiccan ritual at some point, with high priestess and all. It was all very friendly and polite, but it felt incredibly shallow and noncommital. Coming from fundie religion, it just felt somewhat ridiculous. (Nobody was in the nude, by the way.) Oh and I had a little "temple" at home, consisting of a large cloth on which I had painted some symbols.
• Buddhism. That one I'm still kind-of into. Over time, I learned to extract the meditative practice and reject all the metaphysical nonsense. I visited a real sangha a few times. I thought it was a valuable experience. I didn't crave any form of religious community at that point, so I never went back. I liked how the "sermon" was really more of a discussion with the whole group in one of those.
  
• Tantra. Duh, you knew it had to be coming. By now I know how to distinguish between what's real and what's religious woo, so I can keep on practicing without fear of getting into anythng bad.
• NLP (and other assorted communication teachings). That was the most expensive, by far. I did my self-hypnosis, which is one of the few things out of that whole mess that I would still recommend. It helped me give up smoking. But apart from that, it's just crap that turns people into monsters.
• Pickup. Yes, been there done that. I never paid for any bootcamps or anything. I did get a few "lays", but I learned to see how destructive and inhuman it all really is, and I never overcame my "approach anxiety" in the long run.
• Qi Gong, Tai Chi, Yoga etc. I would still recommend all of these, strictly as a physical workout. I practice some of it still, though I'm utterly incapable of performing any serious Tai Chi.

Just to show that I'm not completely cookoo, I never believed in: Astrology, crystals, pyramids, alien abductions, conspiracy theories, anti-vacc, Ouija boards, tachyons or Desteni.

Being an atheist is okay. So is shaming religions.

The following text is certainly appropriate for this time of year:

http://pin.it/NoLwuti

It says:

Being an atheist is okay.

Being an atheist and shaming religions and spirituality as silly and not real is not okay.

Being a Christian is okay.

Being homophobic, misogynistic, racist or an otherwise hateful person and blaming it on your religion is not okay.

Being a reindeer is okay. Bullying and excluding another reindeer because he has a shiny red nose is not okay.

No.

Whoever posted this, has yet to learn the difference between an ideology and a person.

Religions and spirituality are silly and not real. We can disagree about that, but why would it not be okay to point it out?

The wording is clearly bad, too. You cannot shame a religion. It's a system of thought. It has no rights or feelings.

Shaming religious or spiritual people, on the other hand, is certainly wrong. Not only is it not okay in the ethical sense, it is factually incorrect, plain and simple.

How to be A True Atheist (not funny!)

JP Sears posted a video entitled "How to be an Atheist (funny)" - see below.

Personally, I appreciate a lot, though not all, of his "funny" videos. This one is in-between. Not that it "hurt me as an atheist", or anything like that -- I just thought that his commandments for atheists didn't really hit home. It's certainly not easy to make fun of such a diverse group, though.

So, without further ado, here are about 10 or so commandments that I personally find funny:

1. Do not be an agnostic. Agnostics are cowardly, wimpy crybabies. More importantly, they are not True Atheists, and we obviously cannot have that.
2. Speaking of which, a True Atheist is a feminist or an antifeminist, (both for purely rational reasons, of course), but never both at the same time, and never none of the two, since that would constitute a form of agnosticism, and (see above).
3. Speaking of which, once you have decided whether you are a feminist or an antifeminist, members of the other group shall instantly become lesser atheists to thee, since they do not adhere to the One True Atheism.
4. Speaking of which, thou shalt have a True Atheist stance on everything. Remember: your Atheism is not just atheism, but Atheism. Capital A. See?
5. Speaking of which, a True Atheist is always skeptical of about 84% of all things.
6. Among the 18.3% of things a True Atheist cannot be skeptical of are to be found, in order: God's nonexistence (duh), the superior priority of rationalism above everything else, strictest lipservice to the scientific method, and the fact that Richard Dawkins said it all.
7. A True Atheist never attacks the person, but only their moronic ideas. Of course, believing in those implies complete stupidity and a lack of morality on part of the believer, and you can easily let it show by being snide and displaying an unholier-than-though attitude. When questioned, you then revert to being butthurt, all the while repeating your old ideas-not-people sthick, thereby saving your True Atheist Ass.
8. When someone talks to god, it's called prayer. When god talks back, it's called psychosis. What is it called when multiple gods talk back to you?
9. The sky is empty. Been there, done that, got the vertigo.
10. Attendance at SkeptiCon is not optional.
11. Screaming discussions on youtube channels with lots of CAPITALS and exclamation MARKS are NOT OPTIONAL!!!!!!!!1111!
12. Meditation, however, IS optional.
13. Don't get caught.

P.S.: I think the problem of JP's video boils down to Poe's Law. Satirical humor doesn't work when the satirized content might just as well comprise everything in the satire. Or in other words, if your target is indistinguishable from its own parody, then satire makes no sense.

Are Atheists Mentally Ill?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100231060/are-atheists-mentally-ill/

This article, aptly titled "Are atheists mentally ill", informs us that, while nonbelievers are more intelligent than believers on average, they're also leading miserable, short lives spent in agony and depression. The article culminates in the claim that atheism is a form of mental illness, the implied conclusion being that one should start believing.

Now, like many commenters to that article, I sincerely do hope that the article is meant as satire. After all, the same site also features a rather clever article explaining why you can't use statistics to show that one individual person is more or less intelligent than one specific other person.

There is a lot to say about why such statistics are extremely dubious, my main contention being, as I've mentioned before, the suspicious absence of the standard deviation. There is also the issue of isolating one variable - faith vs non-faith - from all the others: In a culture where faith is accepted but atheism is not, of course atheists have good reason to be less happy than their religious friends; if you're more intelligent, it might imply that you see more clearly the evils in the world, therefore being unhappy, while at the same time intelligence might correlate with atheism (but not necessarily imply it); etc. etc.

And of course, every time someone mentions "a vast body of research", the dirty smell of a fish market on speed rises to the heavens.

The absolutely hilarious twist, though, is this: if you ask the question whether god exists, then "faith makes you happier" does not answer that question. If we were living in the matrix, controlled by machines, and the real world was a gehenna of destruction and chaos, then my belief in the illusory world created by the matrix does not change that fact. God either exists, objectively, or he doesn't. I I want to know the answer either way, both in case of the matrix and regarding god, even if the truth might make me extremely unhappy. Because, you know, if I don't know it I can do nothing about it.

No, faith is not a virtue, and trying to align one's worldview with actual reality is not "a tragic deficiency". It's merely an attempt to be honest. It's a form of humility strangely missing in those who place so much emphasis on following that most humble of godsons.

I don't get how people can believe that arguments like those are convincing.

It's not even about me defeding atheism against da evulz christians. I'd have exactly the same contentions with statistics biased in favour of atheism. (Only, somehow those rarely ever show up on my tiny screen. Probably because atheism really is inferior. Or because atheists are not stupid enough to even try...).

As I said, I hope that the article is satire. But I'm fairly certain it's not. And even if it were, for every Poe  there are a hundred people subscribing to such b.s. in sanctimonious, ernest sincerety. And that is just sad.

"...destroys it..."

This is a reply to faithquestions' youtube video entitled "The Foundation of Atheism Destroys It".

Starting this off, let me say that I never quite understood the rhetoric of "destroying worldview X with one argument". Not even getting into why (in this specific case) atheism is not exactly a worldview, it is an illusion to think that a person's views are so easily shattered. People adhere to their views for many reasons, the fewest of which are rational. Moreover, our worldview is something akin to a mental home. Throwing it away can cause severe discomfort to most people. So you'd have to do a lot more than pointing out one logical fallacy in order to shake the views of more than a small handful of people.

Now, let me agree with you: Yes, the fact that we have no absolute foundation for human morality is a severe problem. It means that we cannot rely on each other to share the same morality. It means that my neighbour might find it acceptable to beat his wife. It means that, beside the threat of punishment, I have no strictly rational means of convincing him that his behaviour is wrong. The only hope I have is that he has access to his basic human faculties of empathy and reason, and that I can get him to see how his behaviour violates those.

I find it interesting, and somewhat unsettling, that so many people seem to have a very specific set of demands towards a worldview: that it provide them with a sense of meaning, that it provide them with a foundation for their morality, that it tell them that human life has intrinsic value.

I believe that this is putting the cart before the horse. My worldview, quite literally, is how I see the world. And the one prime directive in choosing how I see the world is... whether this is in accordance with the facts. Can I show that there is intrinsic meaning to human life? Can I show that domestic violence is absolutely wrong? If so, then it is the case that these absolutes do exist. If not, they don't.

We don't seem to be able to show that an absolute foundation for morality (not to be confused with objective morality; those are two very distinct concepts!) actually exists. So we have to assume that it doesn't, regardless of whether this suits our tastes and titillates our religious sensibilities or not. We have to be guided by facts, not by assumptions.

And then we have to work from that.

A Chance Meeting

Yesterday, I ran into a girl I know from a coffee shop; a devout christian. We had a good talk, mostly about religion. We disagreed on many points, and agreed on some others. We parted, I think, both of us enriched and looking forward to our next encounter.

That's the way it should be.