Interviewing @Debater Slayer

[JustGeorge]

Hi @Debater Slayer !

Thanks for agreeing to be interviewed.

From what I understand, you are an atheist.

Would you say you have any kind of spirituality?

*For friends reading and participating, this interview will disappear after a week or so of its conclusion for security reasons. Read and enjoy now!*

 

[sun rise]

I'm interested in your back story about what led to your current views.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Hi @Debater Slayer !

Thanks for agreeing to be interviewed.

Thanks for interviewing me and other RFers!

From what I understand, you are an atheist.

Would you say you have any kind of spirituality?

To me, spirituality is essentially a combination of philosophical and psychological pursuits, such as the search for or creation of one's own purpose; the exploration of how to best live life in a productive and healthy way; the maximization of healthy thoughts, feelings, and actions toward others regardless of what one thinks of them (e.g., eroding feelings of anger and bitterness, which tend to harm their holder more than anyone else, even when thinking of someone who has wronged one); and the mastering of skills such as emotional regulation, distress tolerance, and adaptability.

In that sense, I never had a real practice in the way of spirituality until late 2017, when I first joined a group for yoga and meditation per my therapist's recommendation. It was run by a British Buddhist who wanted to introduce more Egyptians to those practices, and the instructor was an Egyptian Sufi Muslim who drew a lot of inspiration from dharmic religions. I found the weekly sessions quite helpful, and then, in late 2022, my current therapist introduced me to DBT (dialectical behavioral therapy), whose founder directly drew some principles from Zen Buddhism when creating it. My current therapist decided to do that largely because he knew that I had already been practicing meditation and mindfulness for a few years, and he believed that by employing DBT, I could experience significant improvement. He was right.

I find immense value in many dharmic teachings, especially those of Buddhism, and I believe that both my introduction to that group in late 2017 and then introduction to DBT a few years later essentially saved my life and got it back on track. Since I see both as forms of spirituality according to how I defined it above, I would say that introducing spirituality into my life has significantly improved it.

I used to be a highly conservative Muslim until late 2011, but I wouldn't say I was into spirituality so much as into dogma, rigid practices, and rituals that were far more about imitation of the religion's teachings than individual growth.

Currently, I'm also not into spirituality in any sense that has to do with the paranormal, existence of spirits or gods, connection with some universal force, etc. I'm a materialist in that I believe there's no evidence that anything exists beyond the material world; I don't regard it as an impossibility that something may exist beyond it, but insofar as it's unfalsifiable and unevidenced, I practically don't think of it as a possibility that has any more effect on my life than, say, the possibility that dragons exist. As such, it doesn't factor into my worldview or spiritual practices.

When I talk about spirituality, especially with others from my country (those of them with whom I can be open about my beliefs, that is), I make sure to clarify what I mean by the term, because I'm aware that the overwhelmingly prevalent use of the term is connected to concepts relating to the supernatural and to religions.

So, yes, I would say I have a kind of spirituality, and it's rooted in a collection of beliefs inspired by different sources such as therapeutic techniques, Buddhism, philosophy, and meditation.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'm interested in your back story about what led to your current views.

I grew up in Saudi Arabia, where I spent almost all of the first two decades of my life. Until late 2011, I was a highly conservative Muslim with beliefs that were typical of someone with that worldview where I lived: anyone who heard about my religion but didn't follow it was destined to Hell for eternity, homosexual sex should be forbidden by law and punished severely, women should be subordinate to men in marriages and family matters, etc.

I joined RF in May 2011 to debate people into believing in Islam, and I thought the arguments I posted were watertight. Ironically, after participating in debates here, I started having doubts about many of the beliefs I had previously held as unshakeable truths:

• On RF, I saw that many atheists, Buddhists, Pagans, Hindus, and various other groups I believed would go to Hell for eternity or were following their whims (because they didn't follow my religion) were decent, friendly people who welcomed me here, even though they knew what I believed about them. Most of them weren't fixated on hating Muslims like I thought they were, nor did most of them even care what religion I believed in as long as I respected that they were also free to have their own beliefs. Pagans weren't a bunch of hedonistic idol worshipers. Hindus didn't mindlessly worship cows or look down on me for being a Muslim. In fact, one of my oldest friends from this forum was a Hindu. Buddhists didn't hate Muslims by default.

There were also many LGBT people here who befriended me, and again, I saw that they weren't sex-obsessed and that their lives didn't revolve around sex, contrary to the oversimplifications and stereotypes I had believed in. I met many intelligent, knowledgeable women here, including some who were full-time professors and scientists—certainly a far cry from the stereotype that women were "less rational" or "less logical" than men.

I started asking myself questions and having excruciating doubts because, back then, I believed that I would also go to Hell if I lost faith. "Is this what I would see if what I believed about those people for all of these years were true? And if my beliefs about them were wrong, what else were my beliefs wrong about?"

• I also got into some debates about evolution and realized, contrary to what I had believed for my entire life up until that point, that the theory hadn't been "scientifically rejected" or "refuted." I struggled for months to reconcile that fact with my belief in creation and humanity's descent from Adam and Eve, and those months were extremely difficult because of what I said above regarding going to Hell due to losing faith. Sometimes I had nightmares about Hell, too, and it didn't help that the country I lived in officially had the death penalty as the punishment for "apostasy." As far as I was concerned back then, my fate both in this world and the afterlife hinged on answering those doubts and making sure I didn't lose my faith.

I spent months looking up "refutations" of the theory, responses to those questions from imams and clerics, etc. I found none of them convincing; I only found excessive reliance on texts and scripture without much regard for science. The idea was that if religion and science conflicted, then religion—being of a divine rather than human source, unlike science—should automatically be prioritized and science dismissed wherever the conflict occurred.

I also never found a convincing answer for why decent people should go to Hell, let alone for eternity, just for having a different religion. My best and only (offline) friend at the time was a Christian, and the thought that he would suffer the most horrible tortures after death merely for having the "wrong religion" haunted me only slightly less than did my worry about my own doubts.

The more I looked at the society around me, read the core texts of the religion, listened to Friday speeches at the mosque, and turned to clerics for answers to the questions I had, the more I was repelled both morally and intellectually, and the more questions I was left with.

• After months of doubts, unconvincing answers, and extreme worry about Hell, I finally came to terms with leaving religion. That was in mid-late 2012. I became an agnostic, although I still had a lot of lingering worry about ending up in Hell and being tortured for eternity for what I had just done. Around that time, two Saudi bloggers, Hamza Kashgari and Raif Badawi, were arrested on charges of "blasphemy" and "apostasy," which could lead to capital punishment. While that terrified me and made me even more extremely cautious about revealing anything about my own beliefs to people I didn't fully trust, it also solidified my view that I had made the right decision by no longer subscribing to the same kind of worldview that enabled such horrendous treatment of people for exercising their freedom of thought and speech.

I was highly impressed by what I saw as the "rationality" of vocally atheist figures like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, and I became a fan of them and a supporter of "New Atheism" for several years, especially when I saw how fiercely they defended secularism and stood against things like blasphemy laws and theocracy. I was quite anti-religious during that time, and a lot of that was accompanied by bitterness I had harbored due to my own experience with living as a closeted ex-Muslim atheist in conservative societies.

This gradually changed around 2021, mainly after I had been conscripted and met many people from all sorts of different backgrounds in the military. One of the moments that caused me to reflect the most was when an illiterate conscript from the countryside told me that his "biggest dream" was to learn how to read and write and that he wanted to be able to read the Qur'an without help. I started thinking how I would have ended up if I had been born in those same conditions—poverty, meager access to basic infrastructure and sanitation, and community pressure to be outwardly religious—and eventually concluded that those factors played a much larger part in forming the beliefs of the vast majority of people than whether they were "rational," "logical," etc.

I think that many people who congratulate themselves on being "rational" are essentially congratulating themselves for being born at the right time in the right place and in the right circumstances. This also applies to some who see most or all people who lived in past historical periods as "savage," "evil," etc. I generally see that as a simplistic viewpoint: I'm more interested in what could make an average and normal person believe or do terrible things and in how that could be prevented or minimized than in writing off everyone who has harmful beliefs as some anomaly or aberration of human nature, or as someone who merely isn't "progressive" enough as if that alone could cover the large range of factors that shape most people's worldviews.

I'm still an atheist, but I'm no longer anti-religious, as I believe that religions, like other types of worldviews (e.g., philosophies, political ideologies, etc.), are highly diverse. I think what matters the most is how people treat others and what values they have, not whether they're religious or irreligious, or whether they're atheists or theists. I have also experienced the value of many religious teachings first-hand, as I mentioned in my previous post, and think it would be an unnuanced, overgeneralizing take to dismiss religion wholesale as "irrational," "superstitious," "harmful," etc. I have also seen many atheists exhibit prejudice, cognitive biases, and hatred like many people who have other beliefs do; I see these as human failings that are not unique to any one group or worldview.

I tried to condense some of this response so that it wouldn't be even longer, but I also didn't want to leave out central details. I hope it isn't too long and that it sufficiently answers your question!

 

[sun rise]

I hope it isn't too long and that it sufficiently answers your question!

Yes, thanks.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Do you believe in a meaning of life?

Who do you currently admire the most in terms of wisdom e.g. scientist, philosopher, etc.?

When did your fear of Hell entirely go away?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Do you believe in a meaning of life?

An objective or universal meaning of life? No, I don't. I think the universe, being unconscious, is indifferent to human endeavors and desires. There is no more objective grounding for any specific notion of meaning of life than there is for a random person's favorite color or flavor of ice cream.

However, I believe that each person makes or finds their own meaning of life. Some find it in a given religion or philosophy, one social cause or another, artistic enterprise, and/or forming and living with and for a family, among other things.

Personally, I don't regard any one cause or pursuit as the meaning of my life. I strive to live in the present moment so fully and mindfully that the question of an ultimate meaning doesn't even occupy my mind. Every moment becomes the focus, eroding any need to venture so far away from the present as to dwell on an ultimate meaning or look for one in order to adapt to life. It is not easy, but it is the ideal to which I try to live up.

I also derive meaning from mindfulness and meditation practice, healthy interpersonal relationships—especially with family and friends—and continually working on improving my personal development. I don't believe that last one ever ends; I think of it as a lifelong pursuit.

These two excerpts from Thich Nhat Hanh's writings illustrate the core concept of what I believe about the meaning of life:

When you are washing the dishes, washing the dishes must be the most important thing in your life. Just as when you are drinking tea, drinking tea must be the most important thing in your life. Drink your tea slowly and reverently, as if it is the axis on which the whole world revolves—slowly, evenly, without rushing toward the future. Live the actual moment. Only this actual moment is life.

"Only this actual moment" is the meaning of my life.

Who do you currently admire the most in terms of wisdom e.g. scientist, philosopher, etc.?

Generally, I tend to admire ideas rather than people, and I admire different things about different people, since 1) no one is perfect, and 2) everyone has their strengths and weaknesses.

I quoted Thich Nhat Hanh above, and I deeply admire a lot of things about his worldview: mainly the mindfulness, the encouragement of compassion and inner peace rather than hatred or bitterness, and the grace with which he engaged in helping his community and advocating for peace while his country and people were being ravaged by war and invasion. I strongly disagree with absolute pacifism and find it dangerous in many cases, but that doesn't take away from my admiration for many other aspects of Thich Nhat Hanh's beliefs.

As for philosophers, I can't name any one individual without being remiss, because my views consist of an amalgam built from different sources. I find value in certain areas of various types of philosophies to which I have had varying degrees of exposure, including (in no particular order) dharmic, Stoic, Christian, Islamic, Marxist, and feminist, among others. I don't believe that one has to admire an individual or embrace all or even most of that individual's beliefs or philosophy in order to find value in and adopt some parts thereof in one's own worldview.

When did your fear of Hell entirely go away?

It took a few years to no longer be a recurrent fear, but it only fully went away after several years of my becoming irreligious. From what I have read and also what I have heard from some other ex-religious people, it is not uncommon for that specific fear to linger even when one has stopped believing in Hell on an intellectual and conscious level. Some have talked about how their guilt lingered for a decade or more after leaving religion whenever they committed "sins" like having premarital sex, drinking, etc.

The human mind is extremely complicated, and the fact that many people experience lingering fear of a concept in which they no longer believe seems to me a testament to the immense influence and power that indoctrination and implicit cognitive mechanisms could have on people.

 

[JustGeorge]

Thanks for interviewing me and other RFers!



To me, spirituality is essentially a combination of philosophical and psychological pursuits, such as the search for or creation of one's own purpose; the exploration of how to best live life in a productive and healthy way; the maximization of healthy thoughts, feelings, and actions toward others regardless of what one thinks of them (e.g., eroding feelings of anger and bitterness, which tend to harm their holder more than anyone else, even when thinking of someone who has wronged one); and the mastering of skills such as emotional regulation, distress tolerance, and adaptability.

Sounds like a realistic and healthy way of viewing it.

In that sense, I never had a real practice in the way of spirituality until late 2017, when I first joined a group for yoga and meditation per my therapist's recommendation. It was run by a British Buddhist who wanted to introduce more Egyptians to those practices, and the instructor was an Egyptian Sufi Muslim who drew a lot of inspiration from dharmic religions. I found the weekly sessions quite helpful, and then, in late 2022, my current therapist introduced me to DBT (dialectical behavioral therapy), whose founder directly drew some principles from Zen Buddhism when creating it. My current therapist decided to do that largely because he knew that I had already been practicing meditation and mindfulness for a few years, and he believed that by employing DBT, I could experience significant improvement. He was right.

Explain to us what exactly DBT is.

I find immense value in many dharmic teachings, especially those of Buddhism, and I believe that both my introduction to that group in late 2017 and then introduction to DBT a few years later essentially saved my life and got it back on track. Since I see both as forms of spirituality according to how I defined it above, I would say that introducing spirituality into my life has significantly improved it.

What are some of the Dharmic ideas you find most meaningful?

I used to be a highly conservative Muslim until late 2011, but I wouldn't say I was into spirituality so much as into dogma, rigid practices, and rituals that were far more about imitation of the religion's teachings than individual growth.

What was it about those strict dogmas that attracted you in the early years?

Currently, I'm also not into spirituality in any sense that has to do with the paranormal, existence of spirits or gods, connection with some universal force, etc. I'm a materialist in that I believe there's no evidence that anything exists beyond the material world; I don't regard it as an impossibility that something may exist beyond it, but insofar as it's unfalsifiable and unevidenced, I practically don't think of it as a possibility that has any more effect on my life than, say, the possibility that dragons exist. As such, it doesn't factor into my worldview or spiritual practices.

What if a dragon flew in your window, though? (Just messin' with ya! )

So, would you say you're more agnostic towards these things?

When I talk about spirituality, especially with others from my country (those of them with whom I can be open about my beliefs, that is), I make sure to clarify what I mean by the term, because I'm aware that the overwhelmingly prevalent use of the term is connected to concepts relating to the supernatural and to religions.

That's interesting.

So, yes, I would say I have a kind of spirituality, and it's rooted in a collection of beliefs inspired by different sources such as therapeutic techniques, Buddhism, philosophy, and meditation.

Outside of Buddhism, what philosophies do you find useful in life?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Currently, I'm also not into spirituality in any sense that has to do with the paranormal, existence of spirits or gods, connection with some universal force, etc. I'm a materialist in that I believe there's no evidence that anything exists beyond the material world; I don't regard it as an impossibility that something may exist beyond it, but insofar as it's unfalsifiable and unevidenced, I practically don't think of it as a possibility that has any more effect on my life than, say, the possibility that dragons exist. As such, it doesn't factor into my worldview or spiritual practices.

Let's say that you came face to face with something undeniably paranormal, like a ghost, or you crossed paths with a gigantic bipedal, 9-foot-tall, hairy ape-like creature capable of crushing you like a trashcan lid. How would you react to either of these encounters, and how would this experience change your personal perception of the material world around you? These are hypothetical scenarios, of course. I'm simply curious to know how you would react.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

An objective or universal meaning of life? No, I don't. I think the universe, being unconscious, is indifferent to human endeavors and desires. There is no more objective grounding for any specific notion of meaning of life than there is for a random person's favorite color or flavor of ice cream.

However, I believe that each person makes or finds their own meaning of life. Some find it in a given religion or philosophy, one social cause or another, artistic enterprise, and/or forming and living with and for a family, among other things.

Personally, I don't regard any one cause or pursuit as the meaning of my life. I strive to live in the present moment so fully and mindfully that the question of an ultimate meaning doesn't even occupy my mind. Every moment becomes the focus, eroding any need to venture so far away from the present as to dwell on an ultimate meaning or look for one in order to adapt to life. It is not easy, but it is the ideal to which I try to live up.

I also derive meaning from mindfulness and meditation practice, healthy interpersonal relationships—especially with family and friends—and continually working on improving my personal development. I don't believe that last one ever ends; I think of it as a lifelong pursuit.

These two excerpts from Thich Nhat Hanh's writings illustrate the core concept of what I believe about the meaning of life:

"Only this actual moment" is the meaning of my life.

You never cease to blow my mind with mindfulness philosophies.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Explain to us what exactly DBT is.

Since it is an evidence-based therapeutic module, I will defer to an overview from a medical source, as I don't think I can be more rigorous than that:

What is dialectical behavior therapy (DBT)?​

Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) is a type of talk therapy (psychotherapy). It’s based on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), but it’s specially adapted for people who experience emotions very intensely.

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a type of talk therapy that helps people understand how thoughts affect emotions and behaviors.

“Dialectical” means combining opposite ideas. DBT focuses on helping people accept the reality of their lives and their behaviors, as well as helping them learn to change their lives, including their unhelpful behaviors.

Dialectical behavior therapy was developed in the 1970s by Marsha Linehan, an American psychologist.

Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT): What It Is & Purpose

Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) is a type of talk therapy for people who experience emotions very intensely, including those with borderline personality disorder.

my.clevelandclinic.org

Marsha Linehan, the founder of DBT, studied Zen Buddhism and incorporated some of its principles in her therapeutic practice. Mindfulness is one of the core skills in DBT, for example.

What are some of the Dharmic ideas you find most meaningful?

Mindfulness practice has essentially allowed me to bring my life back from the brink, so that one has by far been the most helpful to me, especially since, as I said above, it's also part of the therapeutic approach my doctor started me on about two years ago (DBT).

Some of the other Dharmic ideas I find most meaningful are the teachings regarding attachment, impermanence, and meditation. Being aware of one's attachments seems to me an immensely valuable skill in order to reduce suffering and, in many cases, dependence on the pursuit of external factors for one's happiness. I have also found meditating on impermanence to be helpful when the weight of certain events in life starts being heavy on one's mind. Seeing loved ones' health decline, losing a friend, and going through other difficulties could, in my experience, be cushioned with the realization that impermanence is a fact of life that one must accept if they are to avoid excessive suffering due to death, grief, etc.

I think all of these often work best as one system: for example, one could remind themselves of impermanence when attempting to address their attachment to impermanent objects, and a subset of one's meditation and mindfulness practice could focus on that specific source of suffering.

What was it about those strict dogmas that attracted you in the early years?

Not much other than that they were the only approach I knew of toward religion, and I hadn't had my beliefs challenged in any serious way at that time. The sense of direction from "Do X and you should get Y as a reward, and don't do W so that you can avoid Z punishment" was also appealing to me back then. The idea that there's ultimate justice and that you're in control of your own fate, especially in the eternal life to come, was a source of peace of mind in some ways.

What if a dragon flew in your window, though? (Just messin' with ya! )

So, would you say you're more agnostic towards these things?

I rarely describe myself as agnostic regarding the existence of a deity or deities because, in practice, I wouldn't say "I don't know" in response to "Does a god exist?" any more than I would if asked whether the universe was a computer simulation: I technically couldn't falsify that idea, but the unfalsifiability and lack of evidence render it negligible to me in all practical senses.

For all intents and purposes, no part of my life or worldview functions as if the possibility of a deity's existence were non-negligible. My agnosticism—that is, the acknowledgement that there's a possibility that a deity or deities exist, no matter how unlikely, unfalsifiable, or unevidenced I find the claim to be—toward that question is purely philosophical, not practical. It has no bearing on how I live my life or how I see the world.

When it comes to spirits, ghosts, etc., though, I think of that as a much more likely possibility, to the point that if someone told me that, say, a house were haunted, I wouldn't readily dismiss that idea but would still look to exhaust all possible physical and scientific explanations before considering it. I think if spirits, djinn, etc., exist, then they are, by definition, part of the natural world, so there isn't anything "supernatural" (a term I tend to find oxymoronic) about them.

That's interesting.

Outside of Buddhism, what philosophies do you find useful in life?

Out of the ones to which I have had any extent of exposure, these are some of the ones I find the most useful:

As for philosophers, I can't name any one individual without being remiss, because my views consist of an amalgam built from different sources. I find value in certain areas of various types of philosophies to which I have had varying degrees of exposure, including (in no particular order) dharmic, Stoic, Christian, Islamic, Marxist, and feminist, among others. I don't believe that one has to admire an individual or embrace all or even most of that individual's beliefs or philosophy in order to find value in and adopt some parts thereof in one's own worldview.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Let's say that you came face to face with something undeniably paranormal, like a ghost, or you crossed paths with a gigantic bipedal, 9-foot-tall, hairy ape-like creature capable of crushing you like a trashcan lid. How would you react to either of these encounters, and how would this experience change your personal perception of the material world around you? These are hypothetical scenarios, of course. I'm simply curious to know how you would react.

In order for me to be certain that something were truly paranormal rather than merely not understood or explained by scientific understanding of natural law as of yet, I would need to know that it could not possibly be explained by science whether now or in the future—the key phrase here being "in the future." That's an extremely high bar because one simply can't know for sure what future understanding may be like. For instance, when modern physics started superseding Newtonian physics through findings that were so counterintuitive as to defy belief for many, it still wasn't "paranormal"; it merely described phenomena that hadn't previously been understood.

So, if I encountered a ghost and were sure that I wasn't merely hallucinating or experiencing the product of some other mental or biological process, I would wonder how this entity that existed in the natural world could be better understood and explained. At that point, I wouldn't think of its existence as any more paranormal than, say, the discovery of a living coelacanth when it had been thought to have been extinct for millions of years.

As for the nine-foot-tall, hairy apelike creature, my perception and response to that would be similar to the above: I would most likely, after verifying I was indeed seeing something independent of my own mind, report it to biologists or zoologists so that they could try to study and understand it, although I might not because I suspect its population could be decimated whether through habitat destruction or pursuit of profit (e.g., kidnapping specimens to put them in zoos).

 

[Debater Slayer]

You never cease to blow my mind with mindfulness philosophies.

That sounds dangerous! You won't be able to practice mindfulness if your mind is blown.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

In order for me to be certain that something were truly paranormal rather than merely not understood or explained by scientific understanding of natural law as of yet, I would need to know that it could not possibly be explained by science whether now or in the future—the key phrase here being "in the future." That's an extremely high bar because one simply can't know for sure what future understanding may be like. For instance, when modern physics started superseding Newtonian physics through findings that were so counterintuitive as to defy belief for many, it still wasn't "paranormal"; it merely described phenomena that hadn't previously been understood.

So, if I encountered a ghost and were sure that I wasn't merely hallucinating or experiencing the product of some other mental or biological process, I would wonder how this entity that existed in the natural world could be better understood and explained. At that point, I wouldn't think of its existence as any more paranormal than, say, the discovery of a living coelacanth when it had been thought to have been extinct for millions of years.

As for the nine-foot-tall, hairy apelike creature, my perception and response to that would be similar to the above: I would most likely, after verifying I was indeed seeing something independent of my own mind, report it to biologists or zoologists so that they could try to study and understand it, although I might not because I suspect its population could be decimated whether through habitat destruction or pursuit of profit (e.g., kidnapping specimens to put them in zoos).

Thank you for replying to my post and answering my questions. I appreciate it.

I've also heard of an unusual theory that there may be another dimension running parallel to our own and that we see people in this dimension as ghosts or shadow figures, which is how they perceive us. My experience has been quite different. So, I don't agree with this theory, but it's an interesting thought.

 

[Truthseeker]

I grew up in Saudi Arabia, where I spent almost all of the first two decades of my life. Until late 2011, I was a highly conservative Muslim with beliefs that were typical of someone with that worldview where I lived: anyone who heard about my religion but didn't follow it was destined to Hell for eternity, homosexual sex should be forbidden by law and punished severely, women should be subordinate to men in marriages and family matters, etc.

I joined RF in May 2011 to debate people into believing in Islam, and I thought the arguments I posted were watertight. Ironically, after participating in debates here, I started having doubts about many of the beliefs I had previously held as unshakeable truths:

• On RF, I saw that many atheists, Buddhists, Pagans, Hindus, and various other groups I believed would go to Hell for eternity or were following their whims (because they didn't follow my religion) were decent, friendly people who welcomed me here, even though they knew what I believed about them. Most of them weren't fixated on hating Muslims like I thought they were, nor did most of them even care what religion I believed in as long as I respected that they were also free to have their own beliefs. Pagans weren't a bunch of hedonistic idol worshipers. Hindus didn't mindlessly worship cows or look down on me for being a Muslim. In fact, one of my oldest friends from this forum was a Hindu. Buddhists didn't hate Muslims by default.

There were also many LGBT people here who befriended me, and again, I saw that they weren't sex-obsessed and that their lives didn't revolve around sex, contrary to the oversimplifications and stereotypes I had believed in. I met many intelligent, knowledgeable women here, including some who were full-time professors and scientists—certainly a far cry from the stereotype that women were "less rational" or "less logical" than men.

I started asking myself questions and having excruciating doubts because, back then, I believed that I would also go to Hell if I lost faith. "Is this what I would see if what I believed about those people for all of these years were true? And if my beliefs about them were wrong, what else were my beliefs wrong about?"

• I also got into some debates about evolution and realized, contrary to what I had believed for my entire life up until that point, that the theory hadn't been "scientifically rejected" or "refuted." I struggled for months to reconcile that fact with my belief in creation and humanity's descent from Adam and Eve, and those months were extremely difficult because of what I said above regarding going to Hell due to losing faith. Sometimes I had nightmares about Hell, too, and it didn't help that the country I lived in officially had the death penalty as the punishment for "apostasy." As far as I was concerned back then, my fate both in this world and the afterlife hinged on answering those doubts and making sure I didn't lose my faith.

I spent months looking up "refutations" of the theory, responses to those questions from imams and clerics, etc. I found none of them convincing; I only found excessive reliance on texts and scripture without much regard for science. The idea was that if religion and science conflicted, then religion—being of a divine rather than human source, unlike science—should automatically be prioritized and science dismissed wherever the conflict occurred.

I also never found a convincing answer for why decent people should go to Hell, let alone for eternity, just for having a different religion. My best and only (offline) friend at the time was a Christian, and the thought that he would suffer the most horrible tortures after death merely for having the "wrong religion" haunted me only slightly less than did my worry about my own doubts.

The more I looked at the society around me, read the core texts of the religion, listened to Friday speeches at the mosque, and turned to clerics for answers to the questions I had, the more I was repelled both morally and intellectually, and the more questions I was left with.

• After months of doubts, unconvincing answers, and extreme worry about Hell, I finally came to terms with leaving religion. That was in mid-late 2012. I became an agnostic, although I still had a lot of lingering worry about ending up in Hell and being tortured for eternity for what I had just done. Around that time, two Saudi bloggers, Hamza Kashgari and Raif Badawi, were arrested on charges of "blasphemy" and "apostasy," which could lead to capital punishment. While that terrified me and made me even more extremely cautious about revealing anything about my own beliefs to people I didn't fully trust, it also solidified my view that I had made the right decision by no longer subscribing to the same kind of worldview that enabled such horrendous treatment of people for exercising their freedom of thought and speech.

I was highly impressed by what I saw as the "rationality" of vocally atheist figures like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, and I became a fan of them and a supporter of "New Atheism" for several years, especially when I saw how fiercely they defended secularism and stood against things like blasphemy laws and theocracy. I was quite anti-religious during that time, and a lot of that was accompanied by bitterness I had harbored due to my own experience with living as a closeted ex-Muslim atheist in conservative societies.

This gradually changed around 2021, mainly after I had been conscripted and met many people from all sorts of different backgrounds in the military. One of the moments that caused me to reflect the most was when an illiterate conscript from the countryside told me that his "biggest dream" was to learn how to read and write and that he wanted to be able to read the Qur'an without help. I started thinking how I would have ended up if I had been born in those same conditions—poverty, meager access to basic infrastructure and sanitation, and community pressure to be outwardly religious—and eventually concluded that those factors played a much larger part in forming the beliefs of the vast majority of people than whether they were "rational," "logical," etc.

I think that many people who congratulate themselves on being "rational" are essentially congratulating themselves for being born at the right time in the right place and in the right circumstances. This also applies to some who see most or all people who lived in past historical periods as "savage," "evil," etc. I generally see that as a simplistic viewpoint: I'm more interested in what could make an average and normal person believe or do terrible things and in how that could be prevented or minimized than in writing off everyone who has harmful beliefs as some anomaly or aberration of human nature, or as someone who merely isn't "progressive" enough as if that alone could cover the large range of factors that shape most people's worldviews.

I'm still an atheist, but I'm no longer anti-religious, as I believe that religions, like other types of worldviews (e.g., philosophies, political ideologies, etc.), are highly diverse. I think what matters the most is how people treat others and what values they have, not whether they're religious or irreligious, or whether they're atheists or theists. I have also experienced the value of many religious teachings first-hand, as I mentioned in my previous post, and think it would be an unnuanced, overgeneralizing take to dismiss religion wholesale as "irrational," "superstitious," "harmful," etc. I have also seen many atheists exhibit prejudice, cognitive biases, and hatred like many people who have other beliefs do; I see these as human failings that are not unique to any one group or worldview.

I tried to condense some of this response so that it wouldn't be even longer, but I also didn't want to leave out central details. I hope it isn't too long and that it sufficiently answers your question!

I rate this post highly for being honest and informative. Also I loved your ability to question your former beliefs, and to independently inquire into what reality was. I disagree with you on a lot of stuff, but I think your spiritual journey is just beginning.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

If you could see any music artist in concert immediately who would it be?

If you could have dinner with anyone, famous or not tomorrow who would it be and why?

If you could be the devil for one day, what devilish punishment would you inflict on humanity or a certain group of people or person?

 

[JustGeorge]

Since it is an evidence-based therapeutic module, I will defer to an overview from a medical source, as I don't think I can be more rigorous than that:

Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT): What It Is & Purpose

Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) is a type of talk therapy for people who experience emotions very intensely, including those with borderline personality disorder.

my.clevelandclinic.org

Thank you for the resources!

Marsha Linehan, the founder of DBT, studied Zen Buddhism and incorporated some of its principles in her therapeutic practice. Mindfulness is one of the core skills in DBT, for example.

How do you think DBT compares to other forms of therapy?

Mindfulness practice has essentially allowed me to bring my life back from the brink, so that one has by far been the most helpful to me, especially since, as I said above, it's also part of the therapeutic approach my doctor started me on about two years ago (DBT).

I've been doing some thinking on mindfulness, and I'd like to hear your input on this:

When someone says they are being "mindful", what does it mean they're being mindful of? The outer experience(such as sounds, sights, etc), the inner experiences(breathing, tension in the body, etc), or both? If being mindful of all of that is overwhelming to someone newly practicing, which is most important to keep mindful of?

Some of the other Dharmic ideas I find most meaningful are the teachings regarding attachment, impermanence, and meditation. Being aware of one's attachments seems to me an immensely valuable skill in order to reduce suffering and, in many cases, dependence on the pursuit of external factors for one's happiness. I have also found meditating on impermanence to be helpful when the weight of certain events in life starts being heavy on one's mind. Seeing loved ones' health decline, losing a friend, and going through other difficulties could, in my experience, be cushioned with the realization that impermanence is a fact of life that one must accept if they are to avoid excessive suffering due to death, grief, etc.

What does a meditation session look like for you?

I think all of these often work best as one system: for example, one could remind themselves of impermanence when attempting to address their attachment to impermanent objects, and a subset of one's meditation and mindfulness practice could focus on that specific source of suffering.

How does one address their attachments?

Not much other than that they were the only approach I knew of toward religion, and I hadn't had my beliefs challenged in any serious way at that time. The sense of direction from "Do X and you should get Y as a reward, and don't do W so that you can avoid Z punishment" was also appealing to me back then. The idea that there's ultimate justice and that you're in control of your own fate, especially in the eternal life to come, was a source of peace of mind in some ways.

I could see where the peace of mind would come from.

How long did the process of changing your religious beliefs take?

I rarely describe myself as agnostic regarding the existence of a deity or deities because, in practice, I wouldn't say "I don't know" in response to "Does a god exist?" any more than I would if asked whether the universe was a computer simulation: I technically couldn't falsify that idea, but the unfalsifiability and lack of evidence render it negligible to me in all practical senses.

For all intents and purposes, no part of my life or worldview functions as if the possibility of a deity's existence were non-negligible. My agnosticism—that is, the acknowledgement that there's a possibility that a deity or deities exist, no matter how unlikely, unfalsifiable, or unevidenced I find the claim to be—toward that question is purely philosophical, not practical. It has no bearing on how I live my life or how I see the world.

When it comes to spirits, ghosts, etc., though, I think of that as a much more likely possibility, to the point that if someone told me that, say, a house were haunted, I wouldn't readily dismiss that idea but would still look to exhaust all possible physical and scientific explanations before considering it. I think if spirits, djinn, etc., exist, then they are, by definition, part of the natural world, so there isn't anything "supernatural" (a term I tend to find oxymoronic) about them.

You're not the first person I've talked to that has his idea. I sometimes wonder why there's an assumption that if someone says "I believe/don't believe this" they must also believe/not believe other things, that in my mind, aren't always related.

 

[Debater Slayer]

If you could see any music artist in concert immediately who would it be?

Hard to pick just one! Between the following (in no particular order), it would pretty much be a toss-up:

• Bob Dylan
• Iron Maiden
• Metallica
• Pink Floyd
• Lynyrd Skynyrd.

If we include deceased artists, then Ronnie James Dio is my top pick, hands down.

If you could have dinner with anyone, famous or not tomorrow who would it be and why?

Probably any of my close friends who currently live elsewhere. I could have one dinner with any famous person, but then what? Chances are we would go back to being strangers afterward, unless some really unlikely connection developed. On the other hand, I really miss said friends, and dinner with any of them would be guaranteed to be a great time for both of us, on top of our lasting connection.

If you could be the devil for one day, what devilish punishment would you inflict on humanity or a certain group of people or person?

I would make everyone attend a Nickelback concert... assuming I would be able to handle the sound of it while I was the devil.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Thank you for the resources!

How do you think DBT compares to other forms of therapy?

DBT is more focused on intense emotions than many other therapies, although there are many other differences, including nuanced ones. There are also common factors between DBT and some other therapies (it's based on CBT, for example).

DBT, just like other evidence-based therapies, doesn't work for everyone or for all situations, so its usage depends on the person, their issues, and their specific circumstances. I have encountered a misconception that if a therapy is evidence-based or if a specific approach helps someone, then it must also help everyone else or be applicable to their situation. That is a stark oversimplification.

I've been doing some thinking on mindfulness, and I'd like to hear your input on this:

When someone says they are being "mindful", what does it mean they're being mindful of? The outer experience(such as sounds, sights, etc), the inner experiences(breathing, tension in the body, etc), or both? If being mindful of all of that is overwhelming to someone newly practicing, which is most important to keep mindful of?

I will preface what I'm about to say here by pointing out that, as I said above, even among medically validated approaches, not everyone will respond the same way to any given approach or find it effective. I'm just talking about my own experience, what I have learned in my own therapy, and what has worked for me. I don't intend to speak as if I were a medical authority or a qualified professional, because I'm neither.

To answer the question: Both, but not necessarily (or even usually) at the same time. Mindfulness encompasses awareness of one's thoughts and other inner experiences as well as one's surroundings and other external experiences. During meditation, the focus could be on either, or it could be on the breath and nothing else, among other things.

If someone is being overwhelmed, they don't have to focus on many things at once. They can compartmentalize the objects of their focus and gradually expand the scope of their mindfulness as they practice more often and have more experience with it. Part of it is kind of analogous to muscle memory, whereby after a while, one simply knows how to assume that "mental posture" of mindfulness and doesn't need to exert a lot of effort and risk being overwhelmed in order to be mindful of multiple things at the same time.

One of the ways to do this is to switch what one is focusing on depending on where they are and what they are doing. For instance, if someone walks into, say, a grocery store, they can be mindful by noting what they can smell, see, and hear, without getting lost in their own thoughts. If they're walking, they can do the same and also be especially aware of their surroundings. Ditto for driving.

On the other hand, if someone finds themselves getting angry or losing patience, that can be a good time to be mindful of the changes in their emotions and to anchor themselves using their breath, a hand movement (more on that below), etc.

Continuing in the next post due to the character limit.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Continued.

Let's take the feeling of being overwhelmed as an example: let's assume that someone is feeling strongly overwhelmed, perhaps to a point bordering on panicking at an extreme end. Like other emotions, it has a "half-life," which means that if not suppressed or dwelled on, it will usually take its time and dissipate. One of the ways in which mindfulness can help many people with weathering it until it passes is a therapeutic skill called anchoring. This is not some pseudoscientific or armchair-psychology approach; it's part of ACT, which is also an evidence-based therapeutic approach.

What is Dropping Anchor?​

Dropping Anchor is a grounding skill from Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), which was developed by ACT trainer and author of The Happiness Trap, Dr Russ Harris.

This mindfulness exercise can support you to make contact with the present moment and open up to the thoughts and feelings you’re experiencing, while choosing to consciously engage in the activity or situation at hand.

Dropping Anchor takes you out of auto-pilot and brings you back from future time travel (worrying about the future) or ruminating about the past. It provides a steady ground, and offers a way to circuit break problematic mental activity.

Who’s it for?​

Anybody can benefit from the Dropping Anchor skill as a way to develop awareness of mental activity, while also making room for what you can control (for example, your ability to control your movement, posture, and/or breath), and then to consciously engage in the present moment.

Therapeutically, this skill has proved helpful for individuals who are seeking support with behaviours that are impulsive, compulsive, aggressive, addictive, or problematic in another way.

This practice is often used as a first step for people needing support with anxiety or panic attacks and chronic pain, or any kind of emotional turmoil that is causing distress.

The article further describes the skill and explains what it is as well as how to employ it:

The Analogy of Dropping Anchor​

Imagine you are a boat, being tossed around at sea. The weather is rough, representing all the external storms or crises around you that you have no control over, along with the inner emotional storm you may be experiencing.

Rather than be tossed around in every direction by these rough seas, you DROP ANCHOR - to steady your boat, and to steady yourself.

Dropping your anchor will hold you steady until the storm passes; it will not stop the storm, the weather is still happening, however you’re less affected by it. That’s why we drop anchor; to be steady while the storm passes.

How to Drop Anchor​

First A: Acknowledge your thoughts and feelings, and/or bodily sensations.

One way to do this is to pause and notice what’s showing up inside, in your inner world (that you can sense however no one can see). Another way to do this is to adjust your self-talk from ‘I am feeling…’, or ‘I am thinking…’ to instead say to yourself ‘I’m noticing I’m having the thought ……’ or ‘I’m noticing I’m feeling….’ Or ‘I’m noticing a sensation of…’

While acknowledging your thoughts and feelings (note, this is not a distraction technique, it’s a practice for making room for what is here), you….move to ‘C’.

C: Come back into your body.

You can do this in a variety of ways. If you’re sitting; you might focus on feeling your feet on the floor (press them into the floor, or wriggle your toes), then lengthen your spine, move your arms for a stretch, or drop your shoulders with a shrug. You can utilise breathing here as well – e.g. take a deep breath in through your nose, and out through your mouth (with or without a sigh), or do a few conscious breaths in a way you might have found helpful before.

Dropping Anchor; an ACT skill | Flourish Mindfully — Flourish Mindfully

Use dropping anchor when you're in the middle of an emotional storm; including an anxiety attack, a panic attack, flash backs, and chronic pain.

www.flourishmindfully.com.au

The description goes further, but I have limited the amount of text I quoted in accordance with Rules 4 and 7.

This is what I was referring to when I mentioned the hand movement, but different people use all sorts of different anchors that they find effective and suitable for them. Focusing on the breath is one of those, as is mindfulness of sensory input. Another is moving any part of the body. Another and particularly well-known example is the half-smile, which is one of the skills I was taught in DBT (and Thich Nhat Hanh also discussed it in The Miracle of Mindfulness).

For me, my anchors are a reminder that I'm grounded in the present and can take action, which means that I'm in control at this very moment. They don't have to be extraordinary feats or extreme movements (like, say, deadlifting very heavy weights, or running for miles, although if those things work well for someone else, then that's good too!); they only have to signal control and regulation within the present.

Since the half-smile and willing hands (both of which I learned about via DBT) are relevant to this conversation, here's an excerpt about both:

Half-Smile, often referred to as the “Mona Lisa smile,” involves upturning our lips just a bit. It is not a big, fake, or “joker” smile, rather moving the corners of our mouth upward ever so slightly. Softening and relaxing our jaw helps us get to a Half-Smile. Another way that may be helpful to accomplish this is to put a straw or maybe a piece of licorice across the mouth held by our teeth.

Willing Hands is about opening up our body posture. Even something as simple as uncrossing our arms or unclasping our hands can communicate to our brain that we are in a safe place, since an open posture is the opposite of a “defensive” stance. To take it a step further we can flip our palms open. This may look like resting our hands on our legs or knees and having the palms face up while sitting, resting our arms on the ground or a bed with our palms up while lying down, or having our arms at our side with palms facing front while standing up. Marsha Linehan, creator of DBT, has noted how impactful Willing Hands can be in reducing anger and frustration.

From firsthand experience and from hearing from many clients, these skills can work surprisingly well. They also can apply in many different contexts, such as being stuck in traffic, not wanting to get out of bed in the morning, or being in an interpersonal conflict. Half-Smile and Willing Hands help to increase our effectiveness and reduce feelings of resistance, or willfulness, to doing what is best in a situation. Give these skills a try!

Half-Smiling & Willing Hands | DBT Center of Orange County

DBT skills come in many varieties. Some of them take advantage of our mind-body connection to help us regulate emotions. Two examples of this are the skills Half-Smile and Willing Hands, which come from the Distress Tolerance module. These skills can be very effective in increasing our...

www.dbtcenteroc.com

(Maybe these skills could even be useful while browsing or reading posts on RF and other forums! )

What does a meditation session look like for you?

It depends on what I intend to do: If I want to observe my thoughts, for example, I often prefer to sit still or lie down somewhere quiet and dimly light, although I have also learned to meditate in noisier environments (which is pretty much a necessary skill to learn given that I live in a big, highly populated city with a massive amount of noise pollution). If I want to meditate on my surroundings and focus on sensory input during the session, I don't have a specific preference for quieter settings.

For me, any meditation session usually involves uninterrupted focus, though. It's true that one can meditate for just 10 minutes a day and see some results, but I strongly prefer to meditate for longer. My usual is anywhere from an hour to two hours a day, and I find that near bedtime is one of the most suitable times for me to do it.

How does one address their attachments?

I think that varies from person to person. I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, it mainly involves observation of my feelings and thoughts toward certain people and objects, identifying why I'm attached to them, and then gradually dislodging the reasons for the attachment whether through meditation on why they don't justify the attachment or on other reasons that attachment itself is unhelpful (e.g., impermanence, the suffering that attachment could lead to, the negative effects attachment could have on one's inner peace, etc.).

I could see where the peace of mind would come from.

How long did the process of changing your religious beliefs take?

From religious to irreligious? About a year and a half, but they have changed since I became irreligious too, such as by going from anti-religious to not being so.

A lot of my views, whether religious or otherwise, have changed over the years, and I consider openness to new evidence and arguments to be essential to a healthy worldview. The day I stop being open to learning is the day I become intellectually and personally ossified.

You're not the first person I've talked to that has his idea. I sometimes wonder why there's an assumption that if someone says "I believe/don't believe this" they must also believe/not believe other things, that in my mind, aren't always related.

I have encountered that assumption a lot too, both from theists and atheists. I think it's because belief in spirits, demons, etc., is usually correlated with religious belief, so the idea is that if someone rejects the core beliefs of a religion (e.g., that a god exists), then they must also reject all other parts thereof. There's also the fact that the two most popular religions in the world are Abrahamic, so their concepts of spirits, demons, the "supernatural," etc., often dominate conversations about those subjects and, again, anyone who doesn't believe in one of those religions is assumed to also not believe in spirits or the like.

I know some atheists who believe in djinn/unseen entities (whether benevolent, neutral, or malevolent), though, and I'm highly open to the idea that they exist (as part of the natural world, as I said earlier).