I'm feeling alone... but not for the reasons you would think of.

68 posts / 0 new
Last post
raphael28589's picture
I'm feeling alone... but not for the reasons you would think of.

Hey, I'm a new member from france who is not really mastering english.
Most of my syntaxis is based on french so I guess some parts will sound awful :/

- I would like to know if my situation is common. (story below)

I have to say first that I'm 17 and never wrote a topic on a forum.
Most of the conversations I had with believers were on the youtube com section, instagram...

The point is, I have always been atheist.
But more importantly, I never even heard of god belief before I was 14 ish. (~3-4 years ago)

My father is a vietnamese migrant who left his parents too early to be properly indoctrinated into buddhism or french christian schools; My mother is french but just don't give a fuck.
They didn't warn me about religion, they didn't even plan to talk to me about. Like they didn't know themselves it existed.

They did the santa claus story, and I believed hard. Even when I discovered a pile of boxes in the attic I faked surprise for a couple christmas, convinced myself that he came to pick up the gifts himself or maybe stopped giving presents because he's too lazy...
I was aware that I imagined all of that because I was attached to an idea though, and it got me wonder why.

My city is really new for a french one (very end of 19th) and never been really religious.
+ French public school teachers must not show religious symbols nor talk about religion (most of mine wern't religious anyways, or they were hiding it well)

This environment made me some kind of "pure" non believer.

But one day I ended up hearing a guy from my class who said something about god.
I told him it didn't exist.
(It seemed obvious : people laughed at me when I was believing in santa claus. Same thing when some guy asked if the greek gods existed for real.)
Then the guy answered to me that I was an "atheist".
This got me very upset, I was not "atheist", no matter what it meant. (and still today I find this word dumb. why would you use a word to describe non believing in a particular belief ?; What about a-flyingsaucer-ist ?) [nah ik religion is so widespread we need a word to describe a minority]

I was 14. I went back home, my parents explained me clumsily the meaning of the word "atheist" then I just said I was nothing (I mean I wanted no words describing my beliefs) then I went playing video games.

Gradually over the years, I started researching philosophy a lot, and critical thinking.
I didn't have any discussion with religious people other than my little interaction at 13. But I kept getting interested, and watched videos, read texts... I even discovered statistics one day (I was expecting 90% of the french population atheist, 95% Americans atheism because they have "a more advanced society" (14yo me), and 70% atheism in the poorest countries.)

I got so freaking chocked.

I wanted to know more about religion. It became a kind of "topic of my life".
I want to talk, but nobody around me claims to believe anything or claims to believe with reasons. They ALL seem to doubt, or to easily let go. This get me a little mad.
I need religious people to understand beliefs.
I've watched street epistemology debates, critical thinking channels and american theologists responding to gm skeptic for example, or read many people arguing for religion...
I wrote/gathered multiple pages of "psychology" in an attempt to explain this behavior, I listed religious arguments, found an explanation to religion based on darwinism which seem to work quite well.

But at the end I need people to share with all of this.
And to help me notice what's wrong.

And my question is :
I've had little if not No contact with religions. And yet I got fascinated by them, social self-sustaining systems.
How common is that, how would you react to this story ? (i needed to write everything down... thx if you read)

> (I discovered last year that my best friend since im 4 to whom I spent at least 1 hour daily, and up to 20h in a row some days talking is also christian, and a dickhead believer ("It's true because I'm always right"; 'what if you were born muslim ?' "then I'd be wrong") but that's how I like him.
Ah, and he feels uncomfortable talking about it so he's not a conversation partner either.
We had thousands hours of discussion on a wild range of random subjects and I didn't notice his beliefs until recently. (that's surely bc god is useless, no need to think about him until we need to pray))

I promise if I ever post something else, it wont be personnal story. (just needed a relief)

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Whitefire13's picture
Hi, welcome! JustRapheal...

Hi, welcome! JustRapheal...

Most “believers” will talk doctrine with other believers - but “pretty it up” for the non-believers. Questions posed by non- believers are usually seen as a threat (it may cause them to think), and can be dismissed.

I was raised a Jehovah’s Witness. I can only provide their point of view.

Can’t say I’m sorry to hear of your non-religious life - and you are free to investigate it at an older age (smart).

dogalmighty's picture


Bienvenue, vous devriez bien faire ici.
Welcome, you should do fine here.


boomer47's picture
@doG Quebecois?



Whitefire13's picture


No “wonder” you were sooooo quiet about where you live!!!!!!
I’ve been open about being Alberta, poor Canada’s working wife, and you’re Quebec, the mistress, he spends all the money on!!!!!?????

COG!!!! Jesus fuckin’Christ cog - stop pinching your cheeks! Stop it!!!! STOP and give me the rolling pin!!!!!

.... cog hobbling as fast as possible with said pin up his ass....

For clarity sake - I hope you don’t dislike satire! Mostly for outside Canada...


Oh was guy always bossing
Everyone around Ontario?????
He likes to do it without drawing too much attention.... ssshhhhhhhh

Whitefire13's picture
Oh fuck! Jumped the gun


Oh fuck! Jumped the gun again!!!! “Ass u me”

You never confirmed (and you don’t have to!). You could be a frenchie from my local area that laughed at me when I was introduced to a Mr. Boisvert and called him (boys vert). So that will make you OK! :)

Grabbing cup of tea. Where’s Cog? I want to finish...

boomer47's picture


Welcome to AR from South Australia.

I hope you find the support and ideas for which you seek.

For what it's worth, I'd be thrilled if my French was as good as your English! As it is, I know just enough French to thoroughly embarrass myself. (as I discovered in Paris)

Cognostic's picture

Well, welcome to Atheism. The only question you have to answer to be an atheist is this; "Do you believe God or gods exist?" Atheism is a position on the assertion, "God's Exist."

This is not the same thing as making the assertion "No God or god's exist.: When the RELIGIOUS call you "Atheist, it is intended as a derogatory ad hominem slur. *Christians were called Atheist, when they refused to worship the Roman gods.*

You are correct. There is nothing called atheism or atheist in the same way that there is nothing called a 'non-stamp-collector." Instead, there is a group of people who have adopted the slurs of the religious and accepted them as a defining characteristic of what it means to "NOT BELIEVE ASSERTIONS BEING MADE BY THEISTS." To the religions of the world we declare they, "ARE RIGHT! We are the non-believers, the heathen, the sinners, the Hell bound, the damned, the apostates, the cynics, the unbelievers, the skeptics, the nontheists, the heathen, the infidel, doubters, and yes, yes, yes, we are the ATHEISTS!


David Killens's picture
Bonjour JustRaphael, and

Bonjour JustRaphael, and welcome to Atheist Republic.

That is an interesting story, and a very interesting question.

Where I grew up, the god and jesus concept was just accepted, like air. No one questioned, we all just accepted. I lived in France (Metz) for four years, and that lovely nation is considered (be default) to be Roman Catholic. The many churches and cathedrals, holy sites, and history all lead on to that conclusion.

But in a community where something is taken for granted and not challenged, your questions are something most people are not prepared to think about or respond to.

Even if you separate the religious aspect, the history of religion and how it has spread and influenced millions is a very fascinating story in itself. But it all boils down to the same question I always ask myself, "how can so many people be fooled?".

There have been many interesting conversations covering this topic in this forum. And if we can learn to ask the correct question and arrive at the correct answer, maybe this is one step closer to eradicating this evil parasite that harms people and society.

jay-h's picture
One can be fascinated by

One can be fascinated by religion without believing in a god, just as one can enjoy mythology without believing it to be true. It's a fundamental part of almost every human culture, even if the details conflict. Probably a by product our very complex social evolution, providing a unified social and moral contract for the group. A cohesive group was at a survival advantage.

raphael28589's picture
Like @Whitefire13 said, I

Like @Whitefire13 said, I noticed that every conversation ended up either on "you don't want to understand/listen..." or on a religious scripture citation along with a "this is the only truth".
All of that happen eventually when I try to refocus a discussion which have been split into dozens of different circular arguments from which I explained fallacies but they didn't read...

But still, I'm sure sometimes they hear and think about what I say despite seeing me as a threat. (especially when I don't look ironical)

@cranky47 I always wanted to visit australia but I found these videos recently https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CMUtKWubxg
Is the situation that bad (or is the video exaggerated/fake) ?

@David Killens I just checked wikipedia and the numbers are much better than I expected now x)
I think I got too pessimistic since the last time I looked for stats.
46% Claiming to be Atheist-Agnostic;
10% don't give a fk and 7% didn't even answer.
It reflects what I saw at school by asking random people. (well it was rather "30% don't give a fk about god")

@Cognistic that annoyed me a lot. I am writing some kind of "discussion contract" that both the other and I have to agree on before starting the actual talk. (even though I did not talk to a lot of people yet...)
The contract forbids (and defines precisely) circular, faith, and ignorence arguments, and discourage personnal experience, unspecific arguments (which does prove a particular god) and "not nice" arguments ("anything that makes the other conclude that you are "bad"")
I would have to make sure that my interlocuter understand and agree that these arguments are not good to prove their belief (if I do that before they use them I wont trigger reactance, because I'm not targetting what they say, so they are more likely to think about what's wrong)
They also have the right to redefine any word, and I'll accept their definition, but I will propose new words to define the aspects they excluded from my previous definition of the word.
Last point : they have to accept to pause the conversation whenever I state that their argument is against the terms of the contract, listen to me explaining, and arguing against maybe if they don't agree. I would even explain to them beforehand why They have to justify when I don't agree (explaining cognitive bias are part of this contract).
That's my Idea, spending half an hour+ or a few posts on this contract before starting a conversation. I'd like to know if other people tried this and if it worked... if anyone knows.

Also I have two main ideas that I'd like to debate;

The first one is the result of a failed attempt to define *life*.
It is a kind of generalization for darwinism.
I think religion could be seen as an "evolving entity" (spreading in the mind of humans, who are its environment, and mean of mutating. Religions have properties which can help them not to be forgotten by the mind they are in, "death"... etc)
- i think every physical and thought system (from a set of rocks, to a galaxy, to the (human related) property of cuteness) can be framed with darwinism -

The other one is about the "why people do things ?" question.
My point is that every one do what he think will make him happy (short term and long term). (a bit like Hedonism, but from a "consequences" perspective instead of a "that's what you should do")
To put it into other words : "desire"; people feel better when they do what they desire. They feel bad when they can't.
Fulfilling one's desire is making him happier. If people seek to fulfill the most of their desires in their life, they'll try to do what they think is the best to do in this regard. (That is sort of the society we have now)
I managed to explain every behavior I could think of.

And this explanation would answer the "without god we are nothing" and provide an easy explanation for moral.
It is also a starting point for explaining atheism and religiosity : ("I noticed I am more satisfied when I know true facts that I can use to achieve other goals, and make myself happier" (that's why I seek truth) => and then you can go regular talk)
; "religion is for you a way to be happier now (feelings from prayers | community) and later, through heaven".

And I still am looking for people to show me if I am under an enormous confirmation bias.
I tried to talk of these things with many people (including teachers), and they either told me they didn't understand anything, or that I shoudln't think about that yet, I could be wrong (cuz I was 16 duh...)
But i'd like to know what's wrong. Maybe everything isn't wrong.

Maybe these ideas were already formulated on this forum.
They surely have been in books or videos. But I haven't find any yet.

Is there a mean of researching topics here or do you know if one of the things I said has already been a topic ?
And uh where should I post (Atheist Hub or Debate) if these are new topic I could start ?

And most importantly, do you find this interesting, what questions would you have, does it feel weird (and why) ?

boomer47's picture


LOL. Mate it's satire.

Australia has its problems. However,each year several of our cities are in the top ten most liveable cities in the world.

I live in Adelaide South Australia. Population about one million. South Australia was founded as the only free colony in Australia in 1836. (The rest were convict settlements )

Because you live in Indonesia, Australia is relatively close to you and it's relatively cheap to get here. Don't know what the exchange rate is like.

Below a link to a more realistic look, at my city and surrounds: (5 minutes)


PS :85% of our 25 million population live in five coastal cities. That means we don't see the worst nasties which can kill you. OK there ARE sharks, but not a lot at beaches at which I swam. Have lived at this address for nearly 30 years. Have never seen a snake or deadly spider. What I DO see are many species of beautiful native birds. Do come down and see us if you get the chance. Aussies are very casual and hospitable . Oh, Australia is also one of the most secular nations on earth.

raphael28589's picture
Satire is taken very

Satire is taken very seriously where I live. (I live in France, not Indonesia, I just checked the flight prices because your AD was really appealing, but at 1k+/adult we can't bare (my family and I, even though im a lonely child, and im over 16...)).

It is a form of criticism, and if someone felt the need to do it, there has to be problems.
In France (but I guess that's the case everywhere else), when things goes well the satire focus on politicians themselves;
The more things goes wrong, the more they focus on laws/measures taken, on what's bullshit and on their consequences.
Your states seem highly autonomous, but anyways.
Either these satirists are big trolls, either you have to make a coup.


Whitefire13's picture
@ LOL....could be “political”

@ LOL....could be “political” ads
In Canada.... why might “Biden” win???? Uh Trump, uh AND why do I find myself with some appreciation for Trudeau ...uh, Trump....

“Consumers”....(oops, sorry, my bad we’ve been using “citizens” more so now since Coronavirus) of many “westernized” countries are locked in a form of group Stockholm syndrome passed down to our children regarding “political systems” -no one is at the point of “changing” it up, because it works at an acceptable level.

PLUS ...big money (bankers, media, energy, tech giants) their $$$$ is everywhere. How do they get their money ... you think they can’t influence a different political setup or “politician”???? Hahahahaha of course they can. Is it “bad”? No more than it is good.

AND right NOW if Trump wanted (and people supported) a change to the very makeup of their political system it would then be fully defined “Facism”

I luv the French - as a culture you know how to make the “representatives” fear “the people” - off with their heads!!!!!

Our culture’s humor is different and may be difficult to bridge. French & English. I couldn’t “get” at times what was funny from your perception- often it’s the subtleties of language or tone or “seriousness” of subject AND how seriously it’s viewed, etc.

raphael28589's picture
I didn't really understand

I didn't really understand everything (some expressions I'm not used to) but
I know these videos are not from the government*

Anyways, we in France have not much natural wonders to protect, and not enough natural resources to get lobbied for.
Probably why we manage to make our minister of the interior panic ban a useful police physical technique.
Change can happen gradually, I hope for that.

Whitefire13's picture
It is...it is :)

It is...it is :)

Grinseed's picture
@ Raphael

@ Raphael
Its because five of Australia's six colonies were convict settlements, as my learned compatriot Cranky has snottily pointed out, (lol) Australians don't have much respect for anything, especially politics and specifically the office of the Prime Minister, none of whom ever came from South Australia, (sniff!). :)

But regrettably because Australians don't give much thought to anything except sport and money, we have all fallen prey to the most dishonest predatory activities of immensely corrupt political parties, governments and businesses and considering this nation's start was as a gulag that's really saying something.

The traditionally left-wing working class, who have not seen a pay rise in something like 15 years, have been seduced by the media into thinking they are really middle class and that their needs will be better served by the extreme conservative right wing theist government of the Liberal party who, as the satirical videos reveal, really are deep in the pockets of multinational mining companies who pay no taxes, just like all the churches.

The once vibrant left wing Labor party have abandoned meaningful socialist policies, shuffling to the right following the drift across the centre, chasing votes of the deluded aspirant workers. We are America-lite and sadly that's not funny. However like America, with the recently exposed criminal Federal neglect of bush-fire fighting services and general government and banking corruption scandals our next Federal election looks promising for a return to what I would hope is normalcy, but the C19 lockdown has done damaged our economy badly. Our parliament has not yet reconvened and I fear the Libs have had a delightful taste of dictatorship, running the country without oppostion. They have recently set up a committee to deal with kickstarting our economy after c19 and all the members of that committee have all been or currently are executives of mining or gas companies.
But as my fellow Australians have consistently shown they'll believe anything the Murdoch media monopoly throws at them I am not all together hopeful of improvement for this really beautiful country of birds, marsupials and creepy crawly things that can kill you.

So I end up laughing hard at those satirical videos, because its all that really left to me, because they are so damn close to the truth.
I have not seen them before, so thanks for the links.

Whitefire13's picture
Australia brothers/cousins to

Australia brothers/cousins to Canada ...


It’s the fuckin’ speechwriter that needs his head lopped off... lol

raphael28589's picture
np ✨

np ✨

Whitefire13's picture
What does “np” mean?

What does “np” mean?

raphael28589's picture
no problem for the fun videos

no problem for the fun videos*
I got my early english playing league of legend x)

Whitefire13's picture
It’s also my “technical

It’s also my “technical difficulties”
- I had to ask what OP was (opening post) -

np..... the gotcha thanks

David Killens's picture
@ JustRaphael

@ JustRaphael

"The first one is the result of a failed attempt to define *life*."

I suggest that we arrive at a simple definition of "life". If you complicate things to much, then the different parties may never communicate effectively. I would just go with something very simple, which I use "Life is a characteristic that distinguishes physical entities that have biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from those that do not". From Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

"It is a kind of generalization for darwinism."

I disagree, life is a definition, and there is no such thing as "Darwinism" There is evolution which Darwin advocated. I also suggest we do not mix "life" and darwinism (or evolution) into the same argument. Things can get very messy very quickly.

Life is a definition of an object's condition, evolution may be a process that happens to that species over time.

raphael28589's picture
//1 - Clarification//

//1 - Clarification//

Sorry I wasn't clear*
I meant that my first idea is a generalization of darwinism, It has nothing to do with the definition of life ("life" is not the generalization of darwinism, that's my first idea which is the generalization; my sentence about the definition of life is just an element of context)

I had no time to develop my generalization of darwinism, i'll make a new topic for that* I just meant that I learnt more about darwinism (which was already in the school program) when looking for a rigorous definition of life.

//2 - I want a definition for the common "life" term everybody uses; 3- Defining by [Bio- thing] life is circular//

When it comes to the definition of life, I wanted to find a term that would engulf anything people would call life.
Biological processes are by definition processes that happen within what we call a living thing.
Defining something by the processes you only observe in this thing is kind of circular.

//4- Self sustainability has to be part of the definition but is a really wide term//

What about the sun ? It features self-sustaining processes.
But we don't say it's alive. Life is not only defined by self-sustainty.

What about robots that can sustain themselves (travel to the charging pad and clean their circuits/ or make new robots) ?
Aren't they alive too ? (No. I mean we agree on no (It seems to me we do), and it doesn't mean we don't think they could be conscious or organize themselves in societies)

//5- "life" is anthropocentered//

We could define life as "made out of living cells", and there again we don't really know if "alien life" would organize in the same way earth life does. Also, cells are what makes ourselves.

I personnally stopped there : "One popular definition is that organisms are open systems that maintain homeostasis" (same wikipedia page)
That's the only part of the definition I'm sure is accepted by everybody.
But everything more specific is... it varies. People don't think about all of that when they are using the word. It has to be more simple, and more inclusive. (there is a debate about virus being alive; or worse, misfolded proteins)

"Life" includes ourselves, and I came to the conclusion that the term is essentially refering to "things that ressemble us".
The more it is like us, the more likely we'll call it life.
When we try to precisely define the term, we are looking for the threshold.
When is [the open thermodynamic system that tends to stay the same] too different for us to call it "alive" ?

//6- thing I wrote before organizing my com.//

I have trouble organize myself when I write, especially in english :S
I'll try to number and summarize.

David Killens's picture
@ JustRaphael

@ JustRaphael

I already respect you a lot and do not want to engage in a point by point disagreement on minor issues. I do disagree on a few points. But my impetus is to direct a definition of "life" into a concise and succinct statement.

To quote Einstein ..

"Genius is making complex ideas simple, not making simple ideas complex."

Or as we used to say in my military days, KISS. "Keep it simple stupid".

Maybe is is not possible to arrive at a definition that can stand the test of time and scrutiny. We know little about this universe, and it is very possible that one day mankind will encounter an anomaly. The definition may have to be modified as we learn more.

But I sincerely appreciate the intriguing concepts you have advanced. I like to force my grey matter to work.

raphael28589's picture
//1- We need clear

//1- We need clear definitions to work with//

Yeah I agree on that.
Life can be definitively defined and this definition can be updated over time.

//2- Which life ?//

I was talking more about the concept of "living thing" casual people think about when they use the word "life".
The base on which lay on every attempt to define the word, every consortium.
Some kind of philosophical definition, one that would cover every single case.

//3- general definition that allow for people's specific definitions to change overtime//

So I proposed "anything that people think of that they ressemble them up to a certain extent" as a general definition.
This definition can be affected by culture and knowledge of any specific community, including the state of its science system and discoveries of other species.

//4- Anthropocentrism. I hate that//

I'm not bringing anything new actually, just attempting to show that the concept of life is not absolute, but relative to us.
That this différenciation we make between alive and dead matter, is as universal as is differentiating oignon flavoured ramen to hot chicken wings (I'm hungry)

But making this specific différenciation is important to us (not to the universe) because it is funnier to interact with living things, because we can eat some, or make technologies by copying some part of them.

Life is only special because we said it so.
(I love this song btw (say so))

This makes creationism sound weird. And is a direct consequence of Darwinism. I'm just trying to make people think about it.

//5- I don't mind arguing :s//

Gosh no you shouldn't engage in a point per point disagreement.
That's boring and long.
Just list them in a row, you don't need to cite me I'll reread my com.
Not criticizing won't help me to improve or rethink my positions, won't help me to make them clearer, and... I forgot what I wanted to write.

I hope I didn't loose your respect for loving Say So.
I don't understand the lyrics if I'm not focused anyways.

David Killens's picture
@ JustRaphael

@ JustRaphael

Can we agree that the general consensus is that robots are not presently considered "alive" or possessing "life"?

I am of the firm opinion that robots/machines will eventually be developed that can design and build better versions of themselves. What then? It may force us to reevaluate our definitions on "life".

Whitefire13's picture
I remember this conversation

I remember this conversation with my boys ...introducing “life” into science on a more specific level.

First they looked at me like I was stupid - or thought they were stupid. I explained “why” an examination of “what is considered life” is beneficial.

We came to an agreement on a biological form capable of reproduction, energy absorption and waste. We decided against including any “conscious awareness” in the mix.

The “sun” does not reproduce other “suns” (no more than I can say I become or reproduce trees because my dead physical body will be recycled material); also, it is “chemical” (yes, so are we, so at what point are “we” biological)

Now a computer, one day advanced, may be able to recreate similar computers (even on a minute scale), but is that “recreating” or “reproducing”? Do humans create our offspring or are they the reproduction of our biological processes? Will the advanced computer be “made” of biological materials (I don’t know) but as it stands now, it wouldn’t meet the three.

A virus can do all three. I would deem it “life”. Same with a “cell”.

Now the quality, consciousness, etc of that life is, IMO a separate issue.

Cognostic's picture
Both of your topics are

Both of your topics are interesting: Why not copy and paste them into the debate forum. "Define Life" I don't even pretend to know what you mean here. Religion is certainly an evolving entity, regardless of how hard the theists want to pretend they are connected to the past. A Christian today would be burned alive as a heretic were they able to go back in time a few hundred years. Secular society has dragged religion kicking and screaming into its current state and now it is being crushed under foot like a used cigarette. Do you realize that in 2015, 85% of the US population identified as religious. Today that figure is down to 67% is not lower. Someone is doing something right.

Why people do things - Generally speaking, I am in agreement with you. The pleasure principle is strong in the human race. People do things for reasons that are beneficial to themselves. The very core of the Christian faith, that ideology that has infected us all, is to avoid punishment and seek reward. This is well ingrained, IMO, in the human psyche. And yet, still there is Altruism.

Can it be argued that Altruistic behavior does not exist? That everything is done for some sort of reward? I have behaved altruistically in the past. I have bought meals for the homeless, given money to children for education, helped ladies with heavy bags to get up or down stairs. Have I only done so to now wave the flag of altruism and demonstrate what a nice guy I am as a means of reward? Hard to say.

Interesting topic.

raphael28589's picture
@Cognostic Altruism can

@Cognostic Altruism can reward with a feeling of comfidence, uniqueness, or a feeling of order type "this had to be done". and more...

Whatever you want to do is, anyways, something you want. Something that will make you feel better from doing it, or will make you feel better later. Even suicide is an action the comitter think will make him feel better.

You can help at an association in a city, it will help people finding new jobs that will profit to you and others later, or at least will make poor people feel more secure, as they'll have guaranteed food if they ever lack money.
You can help because you think about these benefits (and to incitate people around you to work at your association so you would profit if you become poor), or maybe you think that your friends will like you more, or you remember your mother telling you that's a good think to help at an association...
Altruistic behavior are incitated by the governements, by educational tendencies, by culture, all the people, because it is profitable to them, to the society overall.
Altruism can be "sincere", but is still motivated by at least the desire of doing something that will make you happy for doing it.
Just like eating an ice cream.
That desire would have been induced by education and experiences of reward.

imaginary story : (at 6 yo I say "good morning" to my parents (bc they told me to); they smile and say the same. When I don't say good morning they look sad.
When my parents don't smile they tend to be not nice. (one day I didnt get a toy bc of that)
People I met seem to behave a little like my parents, at least that's my guess.
I'll try to make people smile.)
(You can then have parents that reward or punish their children for behaving a certain way (reward for jokes, reward for staying quiet, etc...). The children will learn what works and what does not, and will behave accordingly.
This become part of their personnality when they grow up. They think about it unconsciously.

freakygin's picture


"This become part of their personnality when they grow up. They think about it unconsciously."

Part of their personality. Yes
But change their nature? No

I believe when Nature vs Nurture, Nature always win, hands down.
In your imaginary story, sure, that kid would learn how to behave.
What behavior would give him reward, and what would results in punishment

But that won't change that kid's nature (e.g if the kid have rebellious streak)
It just simply make the kid better at acting.

Having curious mind (My nature) in a one of the biggest muslim country (Nurture)
Won't change my nature to question every rules
Why good people would still end up in hell?
"Because they haven't accept Jesus as their savior"
"Because Allah only let people who believe in him. bla bla blah..."

Even as a kid i could tell, that doesn't sounds right.
But with experience, i learned that if i pretends to be one of them, my life sure is getting easier.
And if i ask too much questions, people would start getting suspicious and i might end up in prison for "Blasphemy"
That simply makes me better at acting in front of people.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.