Atheism, please note the capitalisation❤️

[Gordon]

But you are suggesting some significant difference between you and me there, aren't you Gordon?

You are a theist and I am not: no doubt there may be other differences between us (for example, on the matter of our facial hair), but whether these qualify as 'significant' is another matter entirely.

[ProfessorDavey]

You are a theist and I am not: no doubt there may be other differences between us (for example, on the matter of our facial hair), but whether these qualify as 'significant' is another matter entirely.

Looking at this discussion I think the key is that life tends to be fuller and deeper and more ethically fulfilled when we live it as our authentic selves. So someone who genuinely believes in god will probably find life fuller and deeper and more ethically fulfilled if they align their morality etc with the god they believe in. But the flips side is also true, someone who does not believe in god will find life fuller and deeper and more ethically fulfilled if they align their morality etc with the notion that they don't believe in god.

You are the former and I am the latter and my understanding of our respective life journeys is that as a teenager and young adult you dabbled in atheism but subsequently came to realise that the authentic Vlad was a person who believed in god. My journey was the reverse - as a teenager and young adult I dabbled in theism (really tried to believe in god, perhaps occasionally thought I did, but it wasn't true) - I came to realise that the authentic me is a person who doesn't believe in god.

[Gonnagle]

Looking at this discussion I think the key is that life tends to be fuller and deeper and more ethically fulfilled when we live it as our authentic selves. So someone who genuinely believes in god will probably find life fuller and deeper and more ethically fulfilled if they align their morality etc with the god they believe in. But the flips his also true, someone who does not believe in god will find life fuller and deeper and more ethically fulfilled if they align their morality etc with the notion that they don't believe in god.

You are the former and I am the latter and my understanding of our respective life journeys is that as a teenager and young adult you dabbled in atheism but subsequently came to realise that the authentic Vlad was a person who believed in god. My journey was the reverse - as a teenager and young adult you dabbled in theism (really tried to believe in god, perhaps occasionally thought I did, but it wasn't true) - I came to realise that the authentic me is a person who doesn't believe in god.

Dear Prof,
🎶🎶
The authentic person, now that has me thinking, opens up a whole new meaning 🎵gillette the best a man can geeettt 🎶 Freuds superego, The higher truth, the best a man can be, the greatest virtues.
The concept of "virtue" has deep roots in ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, evolving from ideas of excellence and character development, and later influencing Christian theology and ethics.
Here's a more detailed look at the historical background of virtues:
Ancient Roots:
Ancient Greece:
The concept of "virtue" (ἀρετή/arete) in ancient Greek philosophy centered on the idea of excellence or flourishing, encompassing not just moral qualities but also excellence in any skill or function.
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle:
These philosophers explored the nature of virtue and its role in achieving a good life, with Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" being a foundational text on virtue ethics.
Stoicism:
The Stoic school of philosophy emphasized the importance of living in accordance with virtue, focusing on self-control, wisdom, and justice.
Ancient Rome:
The Romans adopted the concept of "virtus" (derived from "vir," meaning man), which encompassed manly strength, courage, and moral excellence.
Plato:
Plato discussed the four cardinal virtues – wisdom, justice, fortitude, and temperance – in his Republic.
Cicero:
Cicero, a Roman philosopher, also discussed these virtues and their importance.
Medieval and Early Modern Periods:
Christian Theology:
Christian theologians, including St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, incorporated the concept of virtue into their theological frameworks, developing ideas of theological virtues (faith, hope, and charity) and cardinal virtues.
The Seven Deadly Sins:
The concept of the seven deadly sins (pride, envy, wrath, sloth, greed, gluttony, and lust) emerged as the opposite of virtues, representing vices that hinder spiritual growth.
Medieval Moral Literature:
Medieval moral literature often explored the virtues and vices, using allegories and stories to illustrate the importance of virtuous behavior.
Renaissance and Reformation:
The Renaissance saw a renewed interest in classical philosophy and the virtues, while the Reformation led to different interpretations and emphases on virtue within various Christian traditions.
Modern and Contemporary Periods:
Enlightenment:
Some Enlightenment philosophers continued to emphasize the importance of virtues, while others focused on utilitarianism and deontology, which led to a decline in the prominence of virtue ethics in Western philosophy.
The Aretaic Turn:
In the late 20th century, there was a resurgence of interest in virtue ethics, with philosophers like Philippa Foot, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Rosalind Hursthouse making significant contributions to the field.
Virtue Ethics Today:
Virtue ethics continues to be a relevant and influential approach to moral philosophy, with applications in areas such as ethics education, business ethics, and political philosophy.


I quite like this new AI thingy but it makes you lazy, I much prefer a good book.

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

Looking at this discussion I think the key is that life tends to be fuller and deeper and more ethically fulfilled when we live it as our authentic selves. So someone who genuinely believes in god will probably find life fuller and deeper and more ethically fulfilled if they align their morality etc with the god they believe in. But the flips side is also true, someone who does not believe in god will find life fuller and deeper and more ethically fulfilled if they align their morality etc with the notion that they don't believe in god.

You are the former and I am the latter and my understanding of our respective life journeys is that as a teenager and young adult you dabbled in atheism but subsequently came to realise that the authentic Vlad was a person who believed in god. My journey was the reverse - as a teenager and young adult I dabbled in theism (really tried to believe in god, perhaps occasionally thought I did, but it wasn't true) - I came to realise that the authentic me is a person who doesn't believe in god.

Sorry what sort of bollocks is 'authentic selves'?

[ProfessorDavey]

Sorry what sort of bollocks is 'authentic selves'?

Oh nice neutral comment there NS.

Here is a suggestion, which seems to fit the bill:

Being your authentic self means expressing your genuine thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, aligning with your core values and personality, regardless of external pressures or expectations. It's about being true to who you are at your deepest level.

So as an example someone who is gay would be bring their authentic self is they recognised that to be the case and lived there life accordingly, rather than hiding it and pretending to be heterosexual (as was often the case in decades past.

For the purposes of this discussion we are talking about people who genuinely do or do not believe in god - so in this case their authentic selves would be someone whose thoughts, feelings and behaviours etc were based on a recognition of and alignment with that theism/atheism, rather than someone trying to shoehorn their own beliefs into some expected societal pressure to act as if god existed (or did not exist).

Seems a pretty straightforward concept to me. Neither rocket science, nor bollocks NS.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh nice neutral comment there NS.

Here is a suggestion, which seems to fit the bill:

Being your authentic self means expressing your genuine thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, aligning with your core values and personality, regardless of external pressures or expectations. It's about being true to who you are at your deepest level.

So as an example someone who is gay would be bring their authentic self is they recognised that to be the case and lived there life accordingly, rather than hiding it and pretending to be heterosexual (as was often the case in decades past.

For the purposes of this discussion we are talking about people who genuinely do or do not believe in god - so in this case their authentic selves would be someone whose thoughts, feelings and behaviours etc were based on a recognition of and alignment with that theism/atheism, rather than someone trying to shoehorn their own beliefs into some expected societal pressure to act as if god existed (or did not exist).

Seems a pretty straightforward concept to me. Neither rocket science, nor bollocks NS.

Except it presupposes as you have used it here that you and Vkad were choosing to go against some absolute in your personality and not simply expressing it. It plays around with the idea of soul. It also seems to imply that changing your mind is means you either were not being your 'authentic self' or have stopped being your 'authentic self'.

[ProfessorDavey]

Except it presupposes as you have used it here that you and Vkad were choosing to go against some absolute in your personality and not simply expressing it. It plays around with the idea of soul. It also seems to imply that changing your mind is means you either were not being your 'authentic self' or have stopped being your 'authentic self'.

Nope - I don't think it means that at all. It isn't just about changing your mind. It is about something much more fundamental.

I think my analogy of sexuality is highly relevant - society, certainly from when I was young, expected people to be heterosexual, so plenty of gay people grew up with that expectation - thinking or pretending to be straight when all along they weren't. When someone 'came out' in that context it wasn't because they have changed their mind about their sexuality, it was because they had become able to recognise and publicly express that they were gay rather than pretending that they weren't.

The notion of the authentic self is about someone feeling about to express their true self rather than feeling they have to pretend to be someone they aren't, due to societal and other pressures.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope - I don't think it means that at all. It isn't just about changing your mind. It is about something much more fundamental.

I think my analogy of sexuality is highly relevant - society, certainly from when I was young, expected people to be heterosexual, so plenty of gay people grew up with that expectation - thinking or pretending to be straight when all along they weren't. When someone 'came out' in that context it wasn't because they have changed their mind about their sexuality, it was because they had become able to recognise and publicly express that they were gay rather than pretending that they weren't.

The notion of the authentic self is about someone feeling about to express their true self rather than feeling they have to pretend to be someone they aren't, due to societal and other pressures.

Are you honestly suggesting sexuality is analogous to belief in gods here, and that Vlad was being an atheist because of societal pressures, denying his 'true nature', and that people are either theists, atheist or bitheist by some inherent preference?

[ProfessorDavey]

Except it presupposes as you have used it here that you and Vkad were choosing to go against some absolute in your personality and not simply expressing it.

I can't speak for Vlad, but I can speak for myself and yes that is exactly how it was.

From a pretty young age I don't think I ever really believed in god of the religious claims, but because of the prevailing society at the time I kind of went along with the notion that god existed and that this god was the christian god. But I was pretending to believe when really deep down I know I didn't and never really had.

This is why I tend to talk about recognising that I was atheist, rather than becoming an atheist as it makes it clear that I don't think I ever believed even when I claimed to have done - I was just pretending. I never changed my mind about believing in god (as I don't think I ever really did) but I did come to recognise that I was an atheist and (to return to the term) as that point started to live life as my authentic self rather than one who due to societal pressures felt I should indicate that I believed in something that actually I didn't.

Again, not really a hard concept.

[Nearly Sane]

I can't speak for Vlad, but I can speak for myself and yes that is exactly how it was.

From a pretty young age I don't think I ever really believed in god of the religious claims, but because of the prevailing society at the time I kind of went along with the notion that god existed and that this god was the christian god. But I was pretending to believe when really deep down I know I didn't and never really had.

This is why I tend to talk about recognising that I was atheist, rather than becoming an atheist as it makes it clear that I don't think I ever believed even when I claimed to have done - I was just pretending. I never changed my mind about believing in god (as I don't think I ever really did) but I did come to recognise that I was an atheist and (to return to the term) as that point started to live life as my authentic self rather than one who due to societal pressures felt I should indicate that I believed in something that actually I didn't.

Again, not really a hard concept.

I didn't say it was hard, I said it was bollocks. I get that there might be times when you are in a society that doesn't accept certain beliefs as as valid as others, and that you might go along for the sake of acceptance. But the idea of 'authentic self' goes beyond that and supposes that your belief is inherently fixed. You might as well argue that political beliefs are fixed.

[ProfessorDavey]

I didn't say it was hard, I said it was bollocks.

But it isn't bollocks.

I get that there might be times when you are in a society that doesn't accept certain beliefs as as valid as others, and that you might go along for the sake of acceptance. But the idea of 'authentic self' goes beyond that and supposes that your belief is inherently fixed. You might as well argue that political beliefs are fixed.

Again you are spectacularly (or deliberately) missing the point.

Being your authentic self is about accepting your genuine thoughts, feelings, and behaviours rather than pretending that they are something different. It doesn't indicate in the slightest that your genuine thoughts, feelings etc cannot change over time, merely that you accept those and don't pretend to be otherwise.

So let's try another (rather more mundane) analogy - imagine I hate opera, but pretend I love it (because I regularly am expected to go to opera with real aficionados and want to fit in). If that were the case in a somewhat trivial respect I wouldn't be expressing my authentic self. However over time (and exposure) perhaps I would genuinely come to appreciate and love opera, in which case I would have changed my mind and my expressing my love for opera wouldn't be pretending so would reflect my authentic self.

Now I know this is a trivial example when compared to belief in god or sexuality.

But my own experience is that I never really changed my mind about believing in god - I never really did when I had any kind of genuine capacity to think about it, even though for a while I kind of kidded myself that I did believe. I didn't change my mind - I moved from not being the authentic me (in relation to god) to being the authentic me.

Now I'm not gay, but I think that many gay people recognise that they were always gay, even if they spent quite a bit of time kidding themselves that they weren't (hence we talk about people 'coming out' not 'changing their mind') - so in that case when pretending not to be gay that person (in relation to their sexuality) they would not be being their authentic self, but having come out they would be being their authentic self.

But none of that is to say that your authentic self is constant, fixed and cannot change, but that how you express your beliefs, feelings etc is genuine and not pretending to be something you aren't.

Again, not rocket science and not bollocks.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Well I cannot speak for all atheists (and nor can you speak for all christians).

But my experience is exactly the opposite. I became interested in, recognised the importance of and really started to take notice of ethics/morality from the point where I recognised I was atheist. Prior to that, in my nominal 'I guess there a god and I guess that god is the christian god because that's what my societal upbringing told me' morality and ethics were something largely outsourced - something that you were told what to do and not do by others on the basis of some rule book, based on some nominal god. Something that wasn't really personally about me, nor something that I felt I had personal responsibility for.

That all changed when I came to recognise that I did not believe in god - no longer could I just leave this to others and their rules and their books.

Presumably atheists gets their morals from ideas that were communicated through books too. 

Nope I had a personal responsibility to determine what I considered to be right and wrong and a personal responsibility to uphold my own moral conscience. In a way this was really a bit scary - suddenly I had to do some work on the ethics, rather than outsourcing. And that's what I did - from that point onwards (and continuing to this day) I have had a deep personal and professional interest in ethics. I doubt that would have happened had I not become an atheist.


This atheist would counter - that tolerance, calmness etc are better in me since accepting that I did not believe in god.

I can't speak for all theists, but my observation is that all the theists I have encountered seem to spend quite a lot of time determining what they consider to be right or wrong and upholding their personal moral conscience, regardless of what some religious rule book says or someone else says. Sometimes theists disagree with what they think their religious books are saying and sometimes they aren't sure how to interpret their books so they don't make any decisions and just think about it for a while or research the different, often opposing,  viewpoints on an issue when they have time.

People (both theists and atheists) may often give into their desires because they have expended all their will-power for the day (or the time being) in some other area of their life.

The varied interpretations of religious rules by theists looks very much like personal responsibility to me, though their rule book might have sparked a train of thought. 

Sometimes my 'authentic' self tells myself to stop worrying about which of my multiple opposing desires is my 'authentic' one and just get on with something a bit more productive. That was actually one of the reasons I stopped trying to convince theists to become atheists - when I started hanging around with some very productive theists.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Gabriella,

Presumably atheists gets their morals from ideas that were communicated through books too. 

I can't speak for all theists, but my observation is that all the theists I have encountered seem to spend quite a lot of time determining what they consider to be right or wrong and upholding their personal moral conscience, regardless of what some religious rule book says or someone else says. Sometimes theists disagree with what they think their religious books are saying and sometimes they aren't sure how to interpret their books so they don't make any decisions and just think about it for a while or research the different, often opposing,  viewpoints on an issue when they have time.

Correct.

People (both theists and atheists) may often give into their desires because they have expended all their will-power for the day (or the time being) in some other area of their life.

The varied interpretations of religious rules by theists looks very much like personal responsibility to me, though their rule book might have sparked a train of thought. 


Correct again.

Sometimes my 'authentic' self tells myself to stop worrying about which of my multiple opposing desires is my 'authentic' one and just get on with something a bit more productive.

Correct once again.
That was actually one of the reasons I stopped trying to convince theists to become atheists - when I started hanging around with some very productive theists.

Well I don't know about that one and please remember it is just my personal opinion, but theists seem to me pretty boring ( not you ) whilst Atheists bring out in me the "oh you bloody well think so side of me" and they seem to me to try just that wee bit harder bless their wee cotton socks

Gonnagle.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Dear Gabriella,

Well I don't know about that one and please remember it is just my personal opinion, but theists seem to me pretty boring ( not you ) whilst Atheists bring out in me the "oh you bloody well think so side of me" and they seem to me to try just that wee bit harder bless their wee cotton socks

Gonnagle.

I agree - theists seemed pretty boring to me too on the whole (not you) until I finally met some theists who weren't boring. They seemed as mad as me - the only slight difference in our insanity was they believed in a god and I didn't at the time.   

[Gonnagle]

I agree - theists seemed pretty boring to me too on the whole (not you) until I finally met some theists who weren't boring. They seemed as mad as me - the only slight difference in our insanity was they believed in a god and I didn't at the time.

Dear Gabriella,

Oh no!! I was an Atheist but I'm alright now The Insanity of Theism, now that's a book Wonder if old Sane will mind me changing my moniker to Nearlysane2 and yes I have huge smile on my face 😀 goodnight Gabriella and may your God go with you

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Gabriella,

Oh no!! I was an Atheist but I'm alright now The Insanity of Theism, now that's a book Wonder if old Sane will mind me changing my moniker to Nearlysane2 and yes I have huge smile on my face 😀 goodnight Gabriella and may your God go with you

Gonnagle.

I'd be honoured. After all there ain't no sanity clause

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are a theist and I am not: no doubt there may be other differences between us (for example, on the matter of our facial hair), but whether these qualify as 'significant' is another matter entirely.

Interesting that you see a significant difference between people based on whether they are theist or atheist and the prejudices that either cause that perception or arise from it. It sounds like you might be inferring mental and/or moral inferiority in theists, for instance.

Having said that .May I offer another difference between yourself and me.
You have always been an atheist and I have been an atheist and a theist...unless you want to start on 'No true atheist'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well I cannot speak for all atheists (and nor can you speak for all christians).

But my experience is exactly the opposite. I became interested in, recognised the importance of and really started to take notice of ethics/morality from the point where I recognised I was atheist. Prior to that, in my nominal 'I guess there a god and I guess that god is the christian god because that's what my societal upbringing told me' morality and ethics were something largely outsourced - something that you were told what to do and not do by others on the basis of some rule book, based on some nominal god. Something that wasn't really personally about me, nor something that I felt I had personal responsibility for.

That all changed when I came to recognise that I did not believe in god - no longer could I just leave this to others and their rules and their books. Nope I had a personal responsibility to determine what I considered to be right and wrong and a personal responsibility to uphold my own moral conscience. In a way this was really a bit scary - suddenly I had to do some work on the ethics, rather than outsourcing. And that's what I did - from that point onwards (and continuing to this day) I have had a deep personal and professional interest in ethics. I doubt that would have happened had I not become an atheist.
So what - see above.

This atheist would counter - that tolerance, calmness etc are better in me since accepting that I did not believe in god.

I don't think your experience can be described as exactly opposite. You merely gained enough intellectual information to realise what you always had been.A cultural theist. And that you were never actually IN as it were.
I too had that stage but then experienced a conversion experience or maybe two. One where I became a convicted theist and one where I became a Christian.

So I doubt we mirror each others experience.

[Gordon]

Interesting that you see a significant difference between people based on whether they are theist or atheist and the prejudices that either cause that perception or arise from it. It sounds like you might be inferring mental and/or moral inferiority in theists, for instance.

Do you ever take time to actually read and think about what people have actually said as opposed to what, in your fevered imagination, you'd prefer them to have said? Not only did I not say what you are inferring that I meant, I'd be ashamed of myself if that were ever my stance.

Having said that .May I offer another difference between yourself and me.
You have always been an atheist and I have been an atheist and a theist...unless you want to start on 'No true atheist'.

Correct - we have different personal histories, but so what though? Atheists are people who don't hold beliefs about 'God/s': that is all that is involved, and you've been told this many times already.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you ever take time to actually read and think about what people have actually said as opposed to what, in your fevered imagination, you'd prefer them to have said? Not only did I not say what you are inferring that I meant, I'd be ashamed of myself if that were ever my stance.

Correct - we have different personal histories, but so what though? Atheists are people who don't hold beliefs about 'God/s': that is all that is involved, and you've been told this many times already.

I was actually trying to probe your antitheism for it's rational basis.Over optimistic of me, I'm sure.

[Gordon]

I was actually trying to probe your antitheism for it's rational basis.Over optimistic of me, I'm sure.

Also a waste of your time, since I'm not an antitheist.

[ProfessorDavey]

A cultural theist.

What on earth is a cultural theist?!?

I understand the notion of cultural christianity as christianity involves not just belief but also customs, rituals, architecture, music etc etc - so it is perfectly possible for someone to enjoy, appreciate, participate in, be emotionally moved by those elements, but without actually believing in the faith tenets of christianity - hence cultural christianity.

But theism isn't like that - theism and atheism are simply believe and lack of belief in god or gods. There is no cultural overlay they are just belief/lack of belief. So someone isn't able to participate in the cultural aspects of theism (unlike religion) as there are none.  So a cultural theist would be someone who doesn't believe in god but does participate in/appreciate the cultural aspects of theism. Oops but there are no cultural aspects of theism (unlike religion) so this simply boils down to someone who doesn't believe in god ... which is ... err ... an atheist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What on earth is a cultural theist?!?

I understand the notion of cultural christianity as christianity involves not just belief but also customs, rituals, architecture, music etc etc - so it is perfectly possible for someone to enjoy, appreciate, participate in, be emotionally moved by those elements, but without actually believing in the faith tenets of christianity - hence cultural christianity.

But theism isn't like that - theism and atheism are simply believe and lack of belief in god or gods. There is no cultural overlay they are just belief/lack of belief. So someone isn't able to participate in the cultural aspects of theism (unlike religion) as there are none.  So a cultural theist would be someone who doesn't believe in god but does participate in/appreciate the cultural aspects of theism. Oops but there are no cultural aspects of theism (unlike religion) so this simply boils down to someone who doesn't believe in god ... which is ... err ... an atheist.

Once again, just realising what you are or what you aren't, isn't a conversion no matter how profound you try to make it.

However you are reducing atheism to some state even a paving slab can be in and at the end of the day I think you actually believe that the universe is or will be explicable without recourse to a God.

[ProfessorDavey]

Once again, just realising what you are or what you aren't, isn't a conversion no matter how profound you try to make it.

What on earth are you on about - I was challenging you on the nonsense notion of a cultural theist - I don't think that makes sense, a cultural theist is ... err ... an atheist (unlike the notion of a cultural christian or a cultural muslim etc).

But it is actually you, rather than me, who puts great store in 'conversion' - with you claims of 'converting' from atheism to christianity, although interestingly you never seem to mention your 'conversion' from the christianity of your upbringing to atheism.

I don't think I've ever talked about a conversion in relation to my journey - indeed I go out of my way to talk about 'recognising' that I was atheist rather than 'converting' to atheism. Why, because if I am honest with myself I don't think I ever really believed in god so I was never a theist, rather for a while I was an atheist in denial. Once I moved beyond that denial life made an awful lot more sense and I developed a much more acute sense of ethics.

To be honest, from my perspective you don't come across as someone who was genuinely atheist, rather someone who for a while kicked back at the religion of your upbringing - a theist in denial, so to speak. You will no doubt deny this (see what I did there). That you regularly exalt CS Lewis as a kind of role model is a bit of a give away. Being 'angry at god for not existing' isn't something an atheist would ever be (how can you be angry at something you don't believe exists) - nope that is the comment of a theist in denial.

However you are reducing atheism to some state even a paving slab can be in and at the end of the day I think you actually believe that the universe is or will be explicable without recourse to a God.

Well atheism is merely a lack of believe in the existence of god or gods. And yes of course I consider that the universe is explicable without recourse to god - not because I am an atheist, but because there is no credible evidence to suggest the need for a god to explain the universe. Physics does it rather nicely.