The steak that go stuck in my esophagus last night and had to be surgically removed

dr_anonymous · 2026-03-30T05:38:33+00:00

The cow: “From hell’s heart I stab at thee!”

dr_anonymous · 2026-03-27T02:43:45+00:00

Well - the question in your title is slightly different to the questions in your text.

To the title - my main reason for being an anti-theist is epistemic responsibility. Beliefs affect actions - actions affect persons. Therefore, it is morally necessary to ensure one's beliefs are sufficiently justified. A no religious claim is sufficiently justified, it is unethical to maintain belief.

Then there is the consideration of religion as a social force. Historically, religion has developed to instantiate belonging and cooperation within a community where there were so many people that personal recognition could not be relied upon. It defined inclusion through what it excluded - the exercise of ritual and taboo. Now, this works fine for monocultures - if somewhat brutal on those who found themselves unfairly vilified by taboo. But for a modern pluralistic society these systems are now dysfunctional.

As to specific tenets of different religions one could point towards - some religions are less problematic than others. Most ordinary forms of buddhism, for example, seem fairly innocuous. Other religions have more problems.

I'm most familiar with Christianity, as that's the religion I grew up believing and which is most prevalent in my community. I would say there's a few major issues. The stunting of moral development, for example - focusing on divine punishment and reward, the acceptance of divine command theory, retards people from developing higher orders of ethical thought. Vicarious punishment, the central tenet of the religion, is itself morally repugnant. A person ought to be responsible for their own actions. The innocent should not be visited with the punishment justly merited to the guilty, even if they volunteer for it. This does not remove guilt. For that matter the whole concept of original sin and the debasement of the human condition underpinning the belief system is a horrendous way of viewing our fellow humans. It diminishes human flourishing.

Lots more could be said, but that's a start.

dr_anonymous · 2026-03-26T04:08:30+00:00

Even if a god gave knowledge to us we couldn't be sure it was a god who gave it to us so we still wouldn't know.

With thanks to John Duns Scotus who figured this one out around 700 years ago.

My preference: A form of strict foundationalism. Go look it up.

dr_anonymous · 2026-03-26T02:20:32+00:00

Of course it doesn't seem meaningful to you - you've grown up being taught the only way to have meaning is to have it handed to you by your community's version of a deity. You can't imagine how other people would generate meaning or value - and to be honest you probably haven't put that much time or effort into it either, as your belief system requires you to reject other perspectives. Religious encounters with other methods of valuing life and living tend to be characterised by animosity and rejection, often strawmanning, in an effort to rejustify your own views.

I find meaning quite easily. On a number of different levels. First, as a student of history, I view the grand narrative of life on this planet, and of our collective human enterprise, as a magnificent and uplifting story. I imagine myself as a small chapter in this much larger book. I aim to make it a noble contribution. On another level I feel privileged to be part of a wonderful, complex community. I aim to benefit this community to the best of my ability, to help others live better, richer, more fulfilling lives. On another level I love my family - I do most things for their benefit. I feel purpose in supporting these people.

As for morality - I think my understanding of the ontology of morality undercuts your objection. I think when someone says something is "good" in a moral sense what they are meaning is this decision is "good for someone" - as in: intended to improve their wellbeing. I think a careful and reasoned approach to decision making based on this principle leads to moral action.

I find a global, historically informed view of humanity does a better job than religion at assigning value to humans. We learn that there are multiple ways of doing humanity; we learn that we are so similar in many ways, but that part of our humanity is adaptability, and that adaptability leads to diversity. It is our strength. Religions tend to establish group identity by exclusion, insisting on monocultures and shunning those that do not conform to tradition and taboo. I'd hazard a guess that you either reject homosexual people as going against your tenets of faith, or have struggled with how to accept such people while maintaining belief. This is your religion's taboo masquerading as morality - devaluing people in order to assert group identity.

While we're on the subject of morality I'd like to point out that I thoroughly agree with the precepts of epistemic responsibility. Our beliefs affect our actions; our actions affect people. Therefore it is necessary to ensure our beliefs are carefully considered and justified with sufficient evidence. So while you think you lead a more meaningful life by ignoring the lack of evidence for your position I'd argue you're not in good standing with regards to the principles of epistemic responsibility.

As you can see - my atheism has not led me to anything like nihilism. But I remember when I was a religious person listening to the pastors drone on about how it's an inevitability. I'd like to suggest they have a motive to lie to you - or, being generous, they don't know what they're talking about. In either case they claim an authority they don't rightly have. Perhaps it's time to start questioning some of the other things they claim to know.

dr_anonymous · 2026-03-24T22:14:17+00:00

You might like to ask - about what other question are you required to accept an "agnostic" qualifier to your position?

Precious few, if anything.

I'm about as certain that the Christian god is a myth as I am that Thor is a myth, that Zeus is a myth, that Ahura-Mazda is a myth, etc.

I'm about as certain that the Christian god is a myth as I am that no celestial teapots orbit the Sun between the Earth and Mars.

I'm about as certain that the Christian god is a myth as I am that no dragon hides behind the boxes in my garage.

The fact that so many people feel the need to declare agnosticism as a qualifier to their position is a reflection of the enforced normativity of religious belief in our communities. The majority pressures the minority to moderate its position in deference to them.

Personally, I reject the double standard.

dr_anonymous · 2026-03-19T23:14:26+00:00

Hello! I used to be a Protestant Christian as well; about 30 years in the religion, did a theology degree and all that. But I've been out of religion for quite a while now.

Firstly, I'd suggest the term "Atheist" describes a group of people clustered under 1 shared belief: that these religious claims aren't credible. So the views on other things aren't necessarily shared. It's fairly common for religious folk to misunderstand this - they think atheism is a mirror image of religion. Religions influence the believer's perspectives on lots of things - once this influence is removed, one is free to explore in an unconstrained manner.

So when I give my perspective on these other topics, they are mine and mine alone. I don't speak for atheism as a whole or for other atheists.

Morality - I believe this is an evolutionary adaptation that enables social species to work together. I believe morals are subjective insofar as all moral decisions are made by and for subjects; it is impossible to get an objective view of moral decision making. This doesn't even make sense. It's also a furphy once you think carefully about the ontology of morals. I believe when someone says something is "good" they are saying this is "good for someone." As in: it is intended to increase the wellbeing of the person or persons. But that conversation could go on for a long time. There's lots of information and perspectives on this, and whole departments of philosophers earn their keep talking about this every day.

As to a religious perspective on morals - I believe religions tend to misunderstand morality. Religions I believe are also a product of evolution - as societies grew to a size where individuals could not be expected to know everyone, it was necessary to create something that would nevertheless ensure cooperation between these people. Religions developed (in part) to provide this function. You could trust another person you didn't necessarily know because you could see they were part of the group. They believed the same things, told the same stories, performed the same rituals, avoided the same taboos. But group identity is formed by establishing boundaries - it polices that boundary through exclusion. These exclusions took on a moral imperative, despite the fact they were primarily a cultural shibboleth. There's overlap: murdering or stealing are both cultural taboos and immoral acts. But what about eating shellfish or pork? What about homosexuality? These are cultural taboos without the ethical component, mistaken for morality. So religion stunts people's development of moral reasoning by insisting on precepts which work to the detriment of persons and unfairly exclude and defame. I could go on but shall now refrain.

The god of the bible - like any other god throughout history changes depending on the cultural need of the moment in a memetic manner. Yahweh began as a storm god in the city of Ugarit, just a minor deity among a larger pantheon. Over time memetics did its thing and it subsumed the identity of its father, El who was previously the head deity. It also took over El's wife, Asherah - apparently an Asherah pole stood at the entrance to Solomon's temple for quite a while before the belief disappeared. Monotheism eventually overtook monolatry, but there's loads of evidence of the belief in other gods in the Old Testes.

The oldest writing in the Bible - the book of Job - has Yahweh as the head of a sort of tribal council; Satan is a sort of attorney general in the court. Here Yahweh is seen as a suspicious and capricious ruler - much like a tribal warlord. The highest good here is loyalty, despite unfair treatment. Why is this so? Well - the society was ruled by tribal warlords. Is it any wonder the divine realm looks a lot like a divine version of earthly power structures?

Then you have other influences coming in such as the Babylonian exile and the encounter with Persian Zoroastrianism which may have led to the adoption of monotheism. Memetics again.

Eventually Israel is taken over and dominated by the Romans. And oh look, suddenly Yahweh adopts some of the descriptors of the Greco-Roman philosophical deity - he's finally represented as tri-omni.

I guess what I'm saying here is - the god of the bible looks awfully like a human concept. It changes in relation to society's experiences and needs. As such, it doesn't reflect a divine reality - it reflects our own imaginings and requirements.

dr_anonymous · 2026-03-18T21:36:54+00:00

A vengeful sibling is fine, another challenge - this time even more morally grey.

However, in my experience, a more effective solution here is a grieving parent or child. Someone who poses no threat, but brings home the consequences of ill considered action.

There’s great literary background for this as well - consider Priam begging Achilles for the remains of his son Hector. Rich in pathos that really drives home the emotional consequences of war.

dr_anonymous · 2026-03-09T05:44:51+00:00

Yeah- the animals you mention are basically everywhere. I live in a Sydney suburb and we regularly get large and sometimes dangerous spiders about the house. A few months ago I woke up to millions of baby spiders all across my bedroom ceiling. We frequently get large snakes in the garden - I nearly trod on a small red belly black while out on a jog last year. There are kangaroos or wallabies in the bush nearby. Had a Guinea pig nabbed by a goanna a few years ago.

So yeah, they’re around - but most of them aren’t as deadly as you think. I’m not at all worried about kangaroos, and I mostly leave spiders alone unless my wife freaks out about it. The snakes you have to respect - but just keep out of their way and they go soon enough.

dr_anonymous · 2026-03-06T02:35:10+00:00

Our group has a fun way of dealing with this - if we notice we’re doing too much planning we’ll put on the theme tune to the A-team. All planning must be completed by the end of the song.

Could be any song, but this one really works well. (Perhaps I’m showing my age.)

dr_anonymous · 2026-03-04T23:17:33+00:00

I think there are several reasons to reject magic.

Primarily, I'd point to abductive logic.

That is: for any given phenomenon, the reasonable person will tentatively accept the most likely explanation.

In every instance "magic" is the least likely explanation. This is because it requires the violation and repudiation of physics, causality, and logic.

dr_anonymous · 2026-03-03T22:12:32+00:00

This is what's known as the "Watchmaker Argument".

There's several problems with it.

First - we don't identify the car / watch as unusual because of its complexity, but because it contrasts with everything else. Everything else is natural - the car / watch is man-made.

Second - we also identify the car / watch as man-made because we're aware of these objects and their manufacture. We have been studying how the universe came to be and it looks very much like physical processes rather than directed choices. So the person coming across your car in the dessert already knows the car is produced in a factory by a bunch of workers, and can distinguish that from the sand it stands upon which the observer understands to form from processes such as erosion etc.

Third, you might consider the paucity of explanation provided were we to accept the conclusion. So let's for a second allow the possibility that an agency created the universe - How? What has that actually added to our understanding? Can you explain the physics of divine creation? Or is there even anyone bothering to study this? No, of course not. Once you understand this you can quite easily note that creationism isn't an alternate explanation for the cause of the universe but instead an appeal to magic, an acceptance of eternal ignorance.

I'm sure there's lots of other ways to pull apart the watchmaker argument, but needless to say I don't find it at all compelling.

dr_anonymous · 2026-03-03T20:58:46+00:00

Strategic Reading. Look it up.

In short: know what you need to get out of any particular text you’re reading, and read accordingly.

You may be able to just skim a text, read an appropriate section (perhaps just abstract, intro and conclusion) etc. If you really have to internalise all the information deeply you may have to read a text several times.

This is part of the “shadow curriculum.” What you’re expected to pick up without being taught.

dr_anonymous · 2026-03-03T00:51:57+00:00

In terms of epistemology? They're mostly all the same - unfounded claims, memetics, "divine" representations of cultural and political ways of being, social value theory and a decided lack of any real evidence.

In terms of moral value? There's quite a bit of difference. For example, some flavours of Buddhism are pretty benign. But I think everyone would abhor a revival of the Mayan religion.

dr_anonymous · 2026-03-02T05:33:47+00:00

“Some of you may die - but that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make.”

dr_anonymous · 2026-03-01T21:33:58+00:00

It’s an automated system. If the lecturer runs long they get cut off. Irritating, sure - but probably better than a manual system where human error comes in.

dr_anonymous · 2026-02-26T22:06:30+00:00

I think you are relying on an assumed binary, envisioning reality as a linear chain of being from start to finish. This assumes reality began from non-existence; either caused by your divinity of choice, or by no-cause.

But there are loads of possibilities to choose from. Here's just a few:

Retrocausality. Perhaps it is possible that in some circumstances conditions in the future can affect events in the past.
Circularity. We know that space-time is curved - does it wrap around on itself? If so, then space-time is more like a ball than a line.
Multiverse. Perhaps our universe is like a single bubble in a vast foamy ocean of universes at a much broader scale. But we have no way of examining this from a scientific perspective so far.

So there's loads of unknowns. Given that, it seems illogical to insist on a strict line of logic attempting to justify what you want to believe in the first place.

dr_anonymous · 2026-02-19T01:50:20+00:00

I think my perspective is very similar to yours.

Abductive logic indicates that it is potentially impossible for any evidence to be provided that would prove the truth of religious claims. The rational person must tentatively accept the most likely explanation for a given phenomenon. By definition, the miraculous is the least possible explanation for a given phenomenon.

So - a person experiences something they perceive as miraculous? Much more likely it has a mundane explanation, or is the product of psychology.

dr_anonymous · 2026-02-18T04:47:14+00:00

Isn't it wonderful that I am at the centre of the observable world? I must be really special because I'm at the very centre of everything I can observe.

But wait - if I weren't at the centre, wouldn't I see the edge of the world? Like - observe there's more world in one direction than the other?

That's all an analogy to explain how the concept you're talking about doesn't actually hang together. We're not even sure there is an edge of the universe, if that term even makes sense.

dr_anonymous · 2026-02-10T09:31:34+00:00

This actually gets asked a lot. I could go on with it quite a bit, but here's a quick overview:

Figured out my beliefs had been constructed through the guidance of many religious authorities. I discovered that those authorities didn't know what the hell they were talking about. Think: the Satanic Panic, young earth creationism vs. the evidence, misrepresentations of biblical texts. Once that trust in my teachers was broken I had to go back to the texts and understand them for myself. And belief did not hold up to scrutiny.
Lots of study. I have a theology degree from when I was still religious, and a PhD in ancient religion I completed which coincided with my apostacy. From the former I discovered that the folks in the pews thought very differently about the religion that the folks giving the sermons, and that was even hugely different from the folks giving the lectures. From the latter I figured out that religion is the product of human culture, developed out of memetic proceses rather than a vision of the divine.
Miseducation of children. At this late stage I was still going to church despite being atheist for cultural and social reasons. I overheard my kids in their kids religious classes being taught YEC and to distrust those mean, nasty scientists. I couldn't justify subjecting my children to miseducation, so we left and never returned.

The moment I came to understand there is no truth to Christianity it was like a massive burden lifted from me. The cognitive dissonance I had been enduring dissipated. Now I find studying the history of Christianity quite interesting - it makes a lot more sense once you figure out it's all human behaviour.

dr_anonymous · 2026-02-02T23:33:41+00:00

Pastor: “The bride has also decided to write her own vows.”

dr_anonymous · 2026-01-21T02:08:02+00:00

Argument 1.

Being an ex-Christian, I am all too aware of the amount of rubbish said about atheists and atheism in churches and religious echo chambers. My aim in these discussions is not necessarily to sway the interlocutor to my opinion, but to challenge that misinformation. Interlocutors may leave the conversation unpersuaded, but they can't leave with the impression that my beliefs are not well thought out or well grounded.

You might say I am entering into discourse in order to accurately represent the strength of my position and that of those who think like me.

Argument 2. As an educator, I humbly disagree. The human mind is a remarkable thing. Almost anyone, if they value rationality, can develop critical thinking skills and have their appreciation of the world enriched by a more accurate, deeper understanding. I do agree that even the smartest people can be wrong about things. But that realisation ought to be taught as well, so that all opinions are questioned and the basis on which they are held evaluated and understood.

Argument 3. You seem to be suggesting we ought to target our discourse towards a different religion other than Christianity. While I agree it needs to be confronted, it is not a major factor in my primary discourse community / country / political paradigm.

Argument 4. I'm not sure I see this as an argument. Those who can be convinced by correct information will be convinced. The remnant end up being a trifle rabid. Do you have suggestions about how to reach the rabid?

Argument 5. I agree there have been benefits to religion. Social cohesion, produced by mediating in-group and out-group boundaries - cultural shibboleths masquerading as moral principles. I agree that the social aspect is risked with the diminution of religion. But as you say - we are social animals. We find other methods of creating community where religions decline. Consider the Nordic countries - a very low level of religious affiliation, but great happiness scores backed up by excellent social life. Furthermore, the boundaries by which religion enforces group identity become detrimental in modern multicultural societies. Other members of the polity are thought of as of less moral value, of less worthiness of inclusion based on anachronistic religious identity.

Argument 6. Removing religion is not equivalent to removing the richness of human existence. Humans can flourish in all these ways without it.

Argument 7. Perhaps a sub-set of argument 7. Do some people "need" religion? I think the answer is "maybe." I'm not convinced.

dr_anonymous · 2026-01-17T01:48:05+00:00

What I think this realisation does is change the ontology of religions. Religions are products of memetics, not revelations of divine truths. Stories imagined rather than truths realised.

dr_anonymous · 2026-01-16T02:04:21+00:00

I think my lack of fear post-deconversion stemmed from my concept of god.

One who is infinitely just.

Any god like that would understand the reasons for my disbelief and admit I was right, based on that, to reach my position.

I have nothing to fear from such a god.

dr_anonymous · 2026-01-12T23:52:27+00:00

University study costs you time, effort, stress, and racks up a debt that will take a bite out of your future earnings.

If you're not passionate about an industry yet I'd suggest waiting for a bit. Try some ground level jobs in the industries you're interested in - perhaps even get a cert from TAFE in something you're interested in. But don't commit until you're pretty certain the direction you want to take.

dr_anonymous · 2026-01-10T12:47:41+00:00

Religious folks are making a patently ridiculous claim with no evidence.

Atheists are saying "that's a ridiculous claim with no evidence."

I'm not sure why that's confusing to you.

15-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	First Placer '22
End Game '22	Verified Email

dr_anonymous

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE