Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


What music are you listen...
by zeca
Yesterday at 06:05 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
November 22, 2024, 02:51 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM

Gaza assault
November 21, 2024, 07:56 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 05:07 PM

New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM

Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM

Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM

The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Why don’t Ex-Muslims go public?

 (Read 5912 times)
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Why don’t Ex-Muslims go public?
     OP - January 24, 2014, 01:44 PM

    _Why don’t Ex-Muslims go public?_


    There are many reasons Ex-Muslims have for not going public. For some, they fear retaliation because Islam instructs Muslims to kill apostates. For others, they are concerned that Muslims in their communities will gossip about them. And for some it’s about wanting to teach their kids morals while believing that religion is the only way to teach morality. I’ll explain why these last two ideas are wrong, and how they are both caused by a more general problem that applies to all people, not just Ex-Muslims.


    Caring what others think

    The first idea is about caring what other people think of you. It’s something people learn during childhood. It’s ironic because as parents we tell our kids not to care what other kids think of them, and we do this to persuade them to say ‘no’ to peer pressure.

    So clearly we know this principle that it’s wrong to make decisions based on what others think. So why do these same parents still care what others think of them? With respect to Ex-Muslims, they care about what Muslims in the community are going to say about them. Why is there this inconsistency in their thinking?

    The answer lies in the fact that, like everybody else, they have conflicting ideas about lots of things in their lives. But surely a lot of people notice the inconsistencies in their thinking – so why don’t they fix them? Well, it’s because it’s not so straightforward because we aren't aware of many of our ideas, i.e. we know them subconsciously. How could this be? To know this we have to know how people learn ideas.


    How people learn ideas

    We learn ideas mostly from society (which includes our parents). We also learn ideas on our own using our own creativity. As for the ideas learned from society, a lot of these ideas are learned subconsciously, and are also taught subconsciously. To illustrate this, consider that a lot of people dress up nice when they go out for dinner; it’s a social norm. Their kids see this and what do they learn? That it’s important to look a certain way so that other people think about you in a certain way. Now some parents will deny this stating that they want to look good for themselves not for others. But what they explicitly say doesn’t matter. What matters is that kids learn ideas using their own creativity and the details of the situation they are presented with. So let's say for example that mom asks dad how she looks in her dress. She is expressing that she cares what others think of how she looks. And say dad says that the women are going to be envious of her, and that all the guys jaws are going to drop. He is expressing what he thinks those other people are going to be thinking. So that’s what most kids learn, to be concerned with what others will think of them.

    So the parent teaches an idea while not being aware that he’s teaching it -- i.e. subconsciously -- and the kid learned that idea while not being aware that he learned it -- i.e. subconsciously. And these ideas exist subconsciously in the kid’s mind and they pervade a lot of his thinking without him being aware of it. And then he does the same with his kids, and the cycle continues. This is a serious problem so how can this be stopped?

    The answer lies in the difference between people that care what others think and those that don’t. What’s the difference between them? Well, society has an answer. They label the latter group as “asocial”. This label carries with it a negative connotation, that there is something ‘wrong’ with them, and kids pick up on this. What is the implication? It’s that if you don’t follow society, then you are living immorally.


    Asocial behavior is living immorally?

    Notice that this idea presupposes that society is always right. But it’s common knowledge that there are many things wrong in society, in society’s social norms, for example Islam. In Islamic communities, the social norm is to believe in Islam. So this raises the question: Is it wrong to ‘break away from societies’ norms when you think society is wrong about a specific idea’? Of course not! So this contradicts the previous idea that ‘breaking away from society is living immorally’. And since these two ideas contradict each other, only one of them could be true. So which one is it? Well, one of them hinges on a falsehood while the other doesn’t, which is that society is always right. Now you decide. You judge for yourself, which idea is the right one?

    So why is it that some kids do what they think is right even if it goes against society? It boils down to how people judge ideas. Most people do it by popularity. But this is the wrong way to approach ideas. A good example is this in history is of the ancient view that the Earth was flat. When the first guy started saying that the Earth was round, should people have judged his idea to be false because it wasn’t the popular view? Of course not! So judging ideas by popularity is false logic. That means you should never, under any circumstances, judge ideas by popularity. Truth cannot be determined by popularity contests.


    How should a person judge ideas?

    So how should a person judge ideas?  Should he judge by authority – like his parents, or teachers, or religious or political leaders? Well they are often mistaken like society is often mistaken. So judging ideas by authority is wrong too. But what about judging ideas by science? Doesn’t science have the answers? Even science is mistaken sometimes, actually often. For example, Einstein’s theory of gravity showed that Newton’s theory of gravity was false. Newton’s theory *approximately* (i.e. contains some error) works in some situations and it is completely wrong in other situations (where objects are moving near to the speed of light).

    And there are many other instances in history where science was found to be wrong. This is why science uses the term ‘theory’ instead of ‘fact’. We don’t say Einstein’s Fact of Gravity. Why? Because we know that there is the possibility that in the future someone will show that it’s false. Einstein was wrong about Quantum Mechanics. And the early Quantum Mechanics theorists were found to be wrong by Everett about the implications of Quantum Mechanics on reality, which is that the Universe is actually a Multiverse.

    The right way to judge ideas is the focus of epistemology, which is the study of how knowledge is created.

    Ever since Aristotle created his epistemology, which is now known as Justified True Belief (JTB), philosophers and society in general have been using it to judge ideas as true or false. This theory claims that it is possible to know absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, that an idea is true. And if it’s not known to be true, then it’s not knowledge. Sound promising? Well in the mid-20th century, Karl Popper showed that this theory is false.


    Justified True Belief theory is false

    Justified True Belief theory says that for an idea to be true, it must be justified by an underlying truth. So what about that underlying truth? How do we know that that underlying idea is true. Well we have to use the same logic, that the underlying idea must be justified by a truth. So how do we know that that underlying idea is true? Well we have to use the same logic again, that the underlying idea is justified by a truth. But where does this end? Well it doesn’t end because it can’t end. It runs infinitely. This is known as an (infinite) regress problem. And so this refutes the JTB theory. So Popper showed us that an idea cannot be labeled as the truth by justification. So we should not, under any circumstances, judge ideas by justification.

    Interestingly, the vast majority of society uses Aristotle’s epistemology. You can see it in their reasoning when they have disagreements. They respond with statements like:

    -        “Why should I believe you… what are your credentials that prove that you know what you’re talking about?”  Here the person is judging an idea by asking for justification by the authority of the other person’s credentials.

    -        “My Daddy said so, so you’re wrong.”  Here the person judges an idea by justifying it by the authority of his father.

    -        “I saw it with my own two eyes, so I know it’s true.”  Here the person judges his idea by justifying it by the authority of his senses.

    -        “I know she wouldn’t cheat on me because she loves me and I love her.”  Here the person judges an idea by justifying it by the authority of his emotions.

    -        “I know your idea is false because it contradicts my entire life’s worth of experiences and the experiences of everyone I know and everything I’ve ever known.” Here the person judges an idea by justifying it by the authority of his experience.

    -        “I know it because I remember it so vividly.” Here the person judges an idea by justifying it by the authority of his memory and of his perceptions of his senses.

    -        “I know Allah exists because the Quran proves it, because the Quran is absolutely perfect, and no other holy book has this quality of perfection.”  Here the person judges an idea by justifying it by the authority of Muslim scholars who claim that the Quran is perfect.

    -        “I know Islam is right. How could a billion people be wrong?” Here the person judges an idea by justifying it by the authority of popularity.

    All of these ideas use this false JTB logic about how to judge which ideas are true.


    So how should we judge ideas? I already gave you the answer. I said to judge ideas for yourself, using your own reasoning. This is the only way that works, because it’s the only way that can correct errors. All the other ways of judging ideas causes you to adopt other people’s mistaken ideas with no possibility for correcting them. Will you be wrong sometimes? Of course! You’ll be wrong a lot. We are fallible beings. We can be mistaken about any one of our ideas. And from any one person’s perspective, everybody else can be mistaken about any of their ideas. So no one should judge an idea to be true just because other people believe it. Your parents could be mistaken. Your religion could be mistaken. Your doctor could be mistaken. Your perception of your senses, your emotions, your gut feelings, and your memory can be mistaken.

    So each person should judge ideas using his own best judgment. How does this work? When he notices a problem in one or more of his ideas, then he can use his best judgment to try to correct it. A problem is a conflict between two ideas. It’s a problem because one of them must be mistaken. Actually, both of them could be mistaken but this doesn’t matter. What matters is that you can work towards solving the problem by judging that one or both of those ideas is false, again using your own best judgment.


    How knowledge is created

    So how does this work in practice? Popper explained that knowledge is created by guessing and criticizing. You guess an idea, and then anybody criticizes it, and then anybody criticizes those criticisms. And the guesses left uncriticized are considered the “truth”, for now. In the future, someone may come along with a new criticism of that “truth”, and the cycle continues. So, a “truth” is only an “idea” that I currently don’t have any criticisms of.

    It’s important to note what I mean by “truth”. I mean ‘conjectural’ truth, which is distinct from objective truth. Conjectural truth comes from our guessing and criticizing. Objective truth exists independently of us humans. Our goal is to evolve our conjectural knowledge towards the objective knowledge. Step-by-step, as a society, and each one of us as individuals, are evolving our conjectural knowledge towards the objective knowledge.

    So how do we know when we’ve reached it? How do we know when one of our conjectural truths has reached the status of objective truth? We don’t. We can’t. We cannot know which of our ideas is not mistaken. Any one of our ideas can be mistaken. So any one of our conjectural truths can be an objective truth, but we don’t know which ones. So, for example, it’s possible that our current moral theories about parenting are perfect, but we don’t know whether someone will come along in the future and find an error in it and correct the theory, or refute the whole theory altogether, similar to how the JTB theory was refuted altogether.

    What are the implications of this? It means that all truths are on the table. All truths are open for criticism. That means we are open-minded about every one of our ideas. All of them are open for debate. No idea is protected from criticism.

    Does this feel pessimistic – that we can’t know anything for sure? The reality is that we always have mistaken ideas. And these mistaken ideas cause us to make mistakes in our lives. These mistakes are life problems, which are the sources of our suffering. And by living a thoughtful and consistent life, by judging ideas for ourselves, we are able to correct mistaken ideas and reduce the total number of mistaken ideas over time. And what comes with that is making fewer mistakes in life, which means less suffering. So, with each correction of a mistaken idea, one becomes a better person. This is very optimistic!


    Monopoly on morality?

    This brings me to the other reason Ex-Muslims don’t go public. They believe that religion has a monopoly on morality. They think that there is no other way to teach morality to their kids. But that's just not true. Morality is just a set of moral ideas, ideas about good ways of living. And so, these ideas too have to be created and evolved in the same way we create any other ideas, by guesses and criticism – not by justification by the authority of God.

    As an example, consider the Golden Rule. It’s a moral idea that Western society believes to be true, but that Islam hasn’t adopted. It says that we should do to others what we want them to do to us. But this idea is flawed because it presupposes that all people have the same preferences, and it’s common knowledge that people have different preferences. So, if you follow the Golden Rule, you could do something to someone that they didn’t want done to them, which causes suffering. This critical idea explains the flaw in the Golden Rule, which means there is a problem, a conflict of ideas. So what’s the solution?

    We can create a new moral idea that uses part of the original idea and we can change the part that is problematic such that it is consistent with the new critical idea. So, the new moral idea is: Act towards others using common preferences, and be willing to find common preferences by rational discussion. With this idea, everyone gets what they want, so no one suffers. And suffering is what the Golden Rule is trying to address.

    Now this does not mean that this new moral idea, called Common Preference Finding (CPF), was created by correcting a flaw in the Golden Rule. Ideas can be independently created by many different people from many different angles. For example, David Deutsch arrived at the idea of CPF by first understanding Popper’s theory of the growth of knowledge in science and in society. Then he realized that there is a deep underlying epistemological theory there (and he wasn’t the only one to realize this). He realized that this has implications for how the mind works, and hence for education. Then he applied the epistemology to a knowledge-creating entity consisting of two or more people, such as a family.

    Today’s moral knowledge is far more advanced than religious morality. Our current best explanations about people, how they learn, how people should approach conflicts, and how people should live good lives in general, is only a few years old as it evolves continually. But Islamic morality is frozen in time, which was engraved in gold 1,400 years ago in the Qur'an, and stopped evolving since. Interestingly, Muslims say that one of the reasons we should believe it to be true is that it hasn’t ever changed, while other religions, like Christianity and Judaism, have changed over time. So, in the words of Muslims, Christian morality has been evolving with time while Islam never evolves. That is a minus on Islam, not a plus. How ironic!


    So among the reasons Ex-Muslims use for not going public, there is only one that makes sense. If you believe that your life would be in danger, let’s say because you live in Saudi Arabia, then lying about your Ex-Muslim status is the preferred option. But if danger is not a problem for you, then what reasons do you have for preferring to lie about your religious beliefs?

    Some of you do it because you are concerned about what others will say about you in the community. But does that actually hurt you? “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.” Do you believe in this principle? If you do, and if you continue to lie that you are a Muslim, then you are teaching your children to be Muslims, to care what others think of them, and to live their lives with known inconsistencies. And no matter what you explicitly say to them, they are learning these ideas from you subconsciously.

    And some of you don’t even tell your kids that you don’t believe in Islam because you want to teach them Islamic morals. But as I’ve explained, our best explanations of morality are far more advanced than any religious morality, especially Islamic morality.

    You are your child’s role model. What moral ideas are they learning from you?


    Why Ex-Muslims should go public

    On a final note, there is an important reason that Ex-Muslims should go public. We know that Islamic thinking hurts people – themselves, their families, and others. We know that Islam teaches anti-liberal views  -- it’s forbidden for people to have dissenting ideas. This is why Islam instructs Muslims to physically force people to convert to Islam and to kill apostates. We know that this kind of thinking promotes hate and that Islamic ideas directly promote terrorism. And by lying about being Muslims, we are promoting the replication of Islamic ideas to the next generation of young minds. Do you want your children to live in a world where people continue to turn to terrorism?
  • Why don?t Ex-Muslims go public?
     Reply #1 - January 24, 2014, 04:42 PM

    If only the ex-Muslim experience really was that simple.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Why don?t Ex-Muslims go public?
     Reply #2 - January 24, 2014, 09:12 PM

    I'm increasingly my public awareness of my disbelief.
    However, I think there will always be a limit to it. My wife is still Muslim, and I don't want to cause her any trouble with her family.
    I definitely let them know I have different beliefs (I stand up for homosexuals, don't pray, take differing views in politics...)

    My own family, I have dealt with and they know I'm not a Muslim.

    If it was just me, I think I'd be more open. But I do have my wife to think about. So I go about it slowly.

    And yes, passing a lot of the insecurities and lies about Islam to my kids is a huge concern for me.
    But life sadly is not so simple when you have another half.
    I've made it clear they won't be a part of the community and everything about Islam has to come from her and she can't talk about hell or anything like that.

    Not exactly pure, but workable.
  • Why don’t Ex-Muslims go public?
     Reply #3 - January 25, 2014, 12:54 AM

    "For some, they fear retaliation because Islam instructs Muslims to kill apostates. For others, they are concerned that Muslims in their communities will gossip about them. And for some it’s about wanting to teach their kids morals while believing that religion is the only way to teach morality. "

    I don't think you have hit the more common reasons, which I believe to be not hurting one's family or parents, and avoiding ostracism or punishment from those same people.
    I also do not think that two ex-Muslim parents would actually think that religion is the only way to teach morals. Didn't they reject religion? Why would you assume this? I have not encountered that belief on this forum.



    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • Why don’t Ex-Muslims go public?
     Reply #4 - January 25, 2014, 01:28 AM

    If we go public, we will be labelled as Islam-o-MuslimsPhobic
  • Why don?t Ex-Muslims go public?
     Reply #5 - January 25, 2014, 03:17 AM

    "For some, they fear retaliation because Islam instructs Muslims to kill apostates. For others, they are concerned that Muslims in their communities will gossip about them. And for some it’s about wanting to teach their kids morals while believing that religion is the only way to teach morality. "

    I don't think you have hit the more common reasons, which I believe to be not hurting one's family or parents, and avoiding ostracism or punishment from those same people.
    I also do not think that two ex-Muslim parents would actually think that religion is the only way to teach morals. Didn't they reject religion? Why would you assume this? I have not encountered that belief on this forum.





    Exactly. In my case, my dad can handle it or rather he thinks he can. My mother though is another story, she's becoming more and more secular but she still believes in hell or Allah as a guiding force capable of putting a curse on someone, so I don't think I can do that to her. I think the best thing for me is to give hints slowly.
  • Why don’t Ex-Muslims go public?
     Reply #6 - January 25, 2014, 01:17 PM

    "For some, they fear retaliation because Islam instructs Muslims to kill apostates. For others, they are concerned that Muslims in their communities will gossip about them. And for some it’s about wanting to teach their kids morals while believing that religion is the only way to teach morality. "

    I don't think you have hit the more common reasons, which I believe to be not hurting one's family or parents, and avoiding ostracism or punishment from those same people.

    But when I said "their communities", I meant *including family members*. But you're right that that doesn't explain the possibility of being punished by one's Muslim father for exposing that you're ex-muslim now, while you're still living in his house. I guess I missed this because I don't think much about being punished or getting punished since I'm 35 years old and I believe punishment is evil/immoral (which means I don't punish my kids).

    If I was an ex-muslim while still living under my dads rules, and if my dad was a punisher, then ya i'd keep it hidden too. But not for long. I'd get out as fast as I could.
    I also do not think that two ex-Muslim parents would actually think that religion is the only way to teach morals. Didn't they reject religion? Why would you assume this? I have not encountered that belief on this forum.

    Some people think punishment is necessary to teach morals, so the idea of a fake punishment in hell for doing bad things is (in their eyes) a useful means of "teaching morals" while not actually doing any punishment.

    It's similar to the idea of karma. Karma is like punishment, except that the universe is the one that is supposed to deliver the punishment. So a person that believes in karma is someone who believes that punishment/revenge is good/necessary, but he thinks it's wrong for him to be the one to choose and/or deliver that punishment.
  • Why don?t Ex-Muslims go public?
     Reply #7 - January 25, 2014, 01:22 PM

    I'm increasingly my public awareness of my disbelief.
    However, I think there will always be a limit to it. My wife is still Muslim, and I don't want to cause her any trouble with her family.
    I definitely let them know I have different beliefs (I stand up for homosexuals, don't pray, take differing views in politics...)

    My own family, I have dealt with and they know I'm not a Muslim.

    If it was just me, I think I'd be more open. But I do have my wife to think about. So I go about it slowly.

    And yes, passing a lot of the insecurities and lies about Islam to my kids is a huge concern for me.
    But life sadly is not so simple when you have another half.
    I've made it clear they won't be a part of the community and everything about Islam has to come from her and she can't talk about hell or anything like that.

    Not exactly pure, but workable.

    In any compromise between good and evil, only evil can win. (i might have plagiarized Ayn Rand.. I'm not sure)

    One thing Islam teaches is to leave things up to Allah. Following this advice means turning off the critical part of your mind. It means not solving problems. It means wishing that Allah is going to solve them for you. This is an extremely harmful way of thinking. Do you think this is workable?
  • Why don’t Ex-Muslims go public?
     Reply #8 - January 25, 2014, 01:23 PM

    The plight of ex-Muslim women and children is different from that of an adult man. For certain.

    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • Why don?t Ex-Muslims go public?
     Reply #9 - January 29, 2014, 12:56 AM

    I think this issue is much more nuanced than you give credit for. There are a multitude of reasons why people are not in favour of making their apostacy apparent and I think it is much more to do with the nature of the religion itself than any external factors.
  • Why don?t Ex-Muslims go public?
     Reply #10 - January 29, 2014, 02:33 PM

    Quote from: FinalForesight
    I think this issue is much more nuanced than you give credit for. There are a multitude of reasons why people are not in favour of making their apostacy apparent and I think it is much more to do with the nature of the religion itself than any external factors.

    Could you be more specific about what you mean by "the nature of the religion"?
  • Why don’t Ex-Muslims go public?
     Reply #11 - January 29, 2014, 03:46 PM

    The fact that the Quran is taken much more seriously as it is viewed as the inerrant, literal word of God. Secondly the emphasis that has been put on emulating the Prophet as a perfect human being. And furthermore the fact that Islam is the youngest of the 3 main Abrahamic religions and it has not yet gone through the same processes as Christianity for example. Although this last point may be an external factor.
  • Why don?t Ex-Muslims go public?
     Reply #12 - January 29, 2014, 07:38 PM

    Meh, I'm better off distancing myself from the practicing muslims,zealots and religious botherers or anyone trying to hang on my nutsack while I live my irreligious life in peace.

    "I'm standing here like an asshole holding my Charles Dickens"

    "No theory,No ready made system,no book that has ever been written to save the world. i cleave to no system.."-Bakunin
  • Why don?t Ex-Muslims go public?
     Reply #13 - January 29, 2014, 11:52 PM

    Quote
    Meh, I'm better off distancing myself from the practicing muslims,zealots and religious botherers or anyone trying to hang on my nutsack while I live my irreligious life in peace.

     

    I would also prefer just distancing myself and going about my own businesses as well because I'm a person that avoids fights wherever possible.

    However when you live in a family of salafi muslims, the islamic lifestyle is imposed on you and with family members and relatives constantly telling/insisting that you pray, go to the mosque, get married to a muslimah etc.

    In that situation you are forced to come out for your own sanity.  So they give you shit if you stay in the closet and they will give you shit if you come out.

    It's a lose lose situation. 


    In my opinion a life without curiosity is not a life worth living
  • Why don?t Ex-Muslims go public?
     Reply #14 - February 01, 2014, 11:22 PM

    I'm not someone who really would go public.  For one, I'm not really someone who likes making waves.  I get panicky when I try doing anything in public (Even a lot of normal everyday stuff) so I couldn't handle talking about my beliefs.  Plus there's the problem of my parents.
  • Why don’t Ex-Muslims go public?
     Reply #15 - February 02, 2014, 03:24 PM



    I would also prefer just distancing myself and going about my own businesses as well because I'm a person that avoids fights wherever possible.

    However when you live in a family of salafi muslims, the islamic lifestyle is imposed on you and with family members and relatives constantly telling/insisting that you pray, go to the mosque, get married to a muslimah etc.

    In that situation you are forced to come out for your own sanity.  So they give you shit if you stay in the closet and they will give you shit if you come out.

    It's a lose lose situation. 

    It doesn't have to be lose/lose. There are options. A person in this situation could try to: (this is not a complete list)

    - marry someone from another country, like USA -- and even if this person's parents "force" him/her to marry a muslim, at least he's now in the USA where he could get divorced and be able to stay in the USA legally. this effectively gets him away from his shitty ass environment of muslim family and society.

    - get a job with a company that sends him to other countries. this is another way to get away from one's family and society.

    - kill yourself. like the lybian guy who lit himself on fire -- i think he was the start of the lybian uprising. to be clear, if you think your only means of stopping your suffering is death, lets say because you've exhausted all other reasonable options, then you should take responsibility for your life by ending your suffering in the only available way you know how (commit suicide). i should clarify that if you want to live, then killing yourself is wrong, but my point is that if you have no reason to live, then you should want to die. another clarification: most people who refuse to consider suicide have bad reasons (or no reasons and just feelings) that they use (unintentionally) to justify their belief that suicide is wrong. usually people grow up believing that suicide is wrong, and then they get rid of their religion while keeping their belief (or rather feeling) that suicide is wrong.
  • Why don’t Ex-Muslims go public?
     Reply #16 - February 02, 2014, 03:39 PM

    I'm not someone who really would go public.  For one, I'm not really someone who likes making waves.  I get panicky when I try doing anything in public (Even a lot of normal everyday stuff) so I couldn't handle talking about my beliefs.  Plus there's the problem of my parents.

    All those things about you are changeable things. Nothing about your personality is static.

    I should mention that those things you mentioned are hurtful to you. If you are married, and you hide stuff from your spouse because you are afraid of confrontation, then that'll hurt you. The same behavior at work will hurt you too.

    So it's important for you to take steps to change yourself, so that you can start preventing some of the hurt that you are causing on yourself.

    One thing I'd like to mention about your problem is that you see confrontation as necessarily a bad thing. It's a problem because confrontation is something lots of people usually say about disagreements in general and disagreements in general aren't bad. Disagreements are only bad if one or more of the individuals involved in the disagreement are trying to hurt the others, or if one or more of the individuals (incorrectly) interpret someone as wanting to hurt the others. By the way, I wrote about this in an essay I posted here. Here's the link: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=25589.0

    One step you could take to help solve your problem is to read books by authors that talk on this subject. One major author is Ayn Rand. Consider reading The Fountainhead, Atlas Strugged, (both fictions) and The Virtue of Selfishness (a nonfiction). I enjoyed the nonfiction better but most people enjoy reading fictions more so don't expect to enjoy stuff the same way I do. Another author is Elliot Temple, and he's living, so you could ask him questions. I too write a little bit about these subjects but I don't have any well-written essays about it (I only have blog posts that aren't too well-written) -- and you could ask me questions if you like (publicly here or privately too, preferably by email).

    Another step you could take is to learn about how human behavior and emotions works. Most people think that to learn about human behavior, one should learn from psychologists. But the problem I see with that is that the field of psychology has some fundamental flaws in it's understanding of human behavior, flaws that have been explained in the book The Beginning of Infinity, by David Deutsch -- see the chapter on meme theory. Also David Deutsch is living too and he also takes questions publicly (on the email list for his book) and privately over email.
  • Why don?t Ex-Muslims go public?
     Reply #17 - February 02, 2014, 03:43 PM

    I think this issue is much more nuanced than you give credit for. There are a multitude of reasons why people are not in favour of making their apostacy apparent and I think it is much more to do with the nature of the religion itself than any external factors.

    Correct me if I misunderstood, but I think you mean that: Some exmuslim's reason for not going public is their fear of retaliation from muslims who think that the quran is the literal word of god and that mohamed was the perfect man.

    Is that what you mean?

    If that's what you mean, I don't think my essay contradicts what you say. I included that in my explanation about exmuslims living in places like Saudi Arabia fearing retaliation from muslims.
  • Why don’t Ex-Muslims go public?
     Reply #18 - February 02, 2014, 03:43 PM

    Safi is describing an anxiety issue, it sounds like. Maybe a doctor could help.

    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • Why don’t Ex-Muslims go public?
     Reply #19 - February 02, 2014, 03:53 PM

    Quote from: three
    Safi is describing an anxiety issue, it sounds like. Maybe a doctor could help.


    A doctor of psychology may be able to help him with that, but generally psychologists are trained in specific things already well-known in society, so generally they do not deviate much from convention, and the problem with this is that his problem is conventional. The solution would require deviating from convention. It's conventional to care about what other people think. It's unconventional not to. It's conventional to interpret disagreement as hurtful. It's unconventional to interpret disagreement as good. I think the field of psychology doesn't have much useful knowledge in this area.

    A doctor of medicine (a physician, say a psychiatrist) won't help him fix the problem that is causing the anxiety. Instead he would give the patient medicine that temporarily changes his brain chemistry. So whatever chemistry was being caused by the mental problem is prevented from happening by the medicine that physically changes his brain chemistry, thus preventing the feeling of anxiety. But this isn't a permanent solution, and instead it's a coping mechanism. To be clear, a coping mechanism is good, for temporary relief. But if that's what one is going to do, I'd suggest better medicines than what physicians give (which have lots of bad side effects). I'd suggest marijuana. Actually even the medical field is starting to use marijuana more and more.
  • Why don?t Ex-Muslims go public?
     Reply #20 - February 02, 2014, 04:11 PM

    I disagree with you.
    I think if a doctor. I said doctor. Not psychiatrist, not psychologist. If a doctor prescribes EBT, that is a lasting solution. If the doctor prescribes anti-anxiety medication, that can assist with keeping those malfunctioning chemicals under control long enough to work on what else is contributing to the issue.
    It could be just a stress chemical malfunction, in which case you don't need anti anxiety medication, just something to tamp down the adrenaline rush.
    Either way, an evaluation by a doctor can help by evaluating what the problem is in the first place, and is a step that should not be skipped, in my opinion.
    Marijuana is illegal in many places. I wouldn't suggest taking an illegal drug, and especially not to a minor.

    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • Why don?t Ex-Muslims go public?
     Reply #21 - February 02, 2014, 05:13 PM

    Quote from: three
    I disagree with you.
    I think if a doctor. I said doctor. Not psychiatrist, not psychologist.

    So you mean physician? As in medical doctor? A psychiatrist is a type of medical doctor.
    Quote from: three
    If a doctor prescribes EBT, that is a lasting solution.

    What? Lot's of times doctors prescribe things that either don't work, or only work temporarily. So I don't understand why you're saying that IF a doctor prescribes EBT, THEN it's a lasting solution.
    Quote from: three
    If the doctor prescribes anti-anxiety medication, that can assist with keeping those malfunctioning chemicals under control long enough to work on what else is contributing to the issue.

    Right, that's why I said medicine can be a temporary solution.
    Quote from: three
    It could be just a stress chemical malfunction, in which case you don't need anti anxiety medication, just something to tamp down the adrenaline rush.

    Right, and the cause of the stress should be addressed too. And that's a mental/psychological/emotional problem, not a medical/brain/chemistry problem.
    Quote from: three
    Either way, an evaluation by a doctor can help by evaluating what the problem is in the first place, and is a step that should not be skipped, in my opinion.

    But the medical doctor is not trained in helping people deal with mental/psychological/emotional problems, so if that is the problem, how could the doctor help?
    Quote from: three
    Marijuana is illegal in many places. I wouldn't suggest taking an illegal drug, and especially not to a minor.

    But the other possible drugs are waaaay bad for one's health (compared to the tiny side effects of marijuana).

    Yes getting in legal trouble is bad. But also hurting yourself with really bad side effects is also bad.
  • Why don’t Ex-Muslims go public?
     Reply #22 - February 02, 2014, 05:32 PM

    Side effects depend on the prescription. EBT, when effective, lasts, without side effects, as it is a self-therapy and not a medication. A doctor needs to evaluate someone suffering from anxiety. Then if a referral is needed, given. Don't get me wrong, I am as adverse to SSRIs as the next person, but some people really do need them, and should not be discouraged to try what could help them.
    Please do not dismiss a medical solution to what might be a medical issue. Anxiety should be addressed seriously.
    The cause of the stress might be long gone, in the case of stress chemical malfunctions. It takes twenty years of talk therapy after trauma to do what a simple beta blocker can do, and the sufferer no longer has to deal with repeated fight or flight reactions to triggers. This is not a mental or psych issue. It is a chemical malfunction in the brain of people whose brains have been flooded, often repeatedly, with cortisol and adrenaline. To get rid of this without medication, you have to retreat from any and all triggers. For many of us with PTSD, that means never leaving the house, and not letting anyone into it, either. Not a great option for quality of life. A non-chemical solution is EMDR therapy, and that is not always available to everyone.
    Maybe there are side effects to medications that are legal, but the side effects of dealing with illegal drugs is often worse. You can always change a prescription, under a doctor's care, even better. You cannot switch out a drug conviction.

    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • Why don’t Ex-Muslims go public?
     Reply #23 - February 02, 2014, 06:49 PM

    Quote from: three
    Side effects depend on the prescription. EBT, when effective, lasts, without side effects, as it is a self-therapy and not a medication. A doctor needs to evaluate someone suffering from anxiety.

    Which he's not trained to do, since he doesn't have much knowledge about mental/psychological/emotional problems.

    Quote from: three
    Then if a referral is needed, given.

    Often general practitioners (physicians) are not well trained in knowing whether or not a patient's problem needs referral, nor to whom he should be referred. To be clear here, I've had physicians tell me that physicians are not well-trained in this. It's a hard problem that physicians know about, and part of why it's hard to solve is that there is a lot of politics and religion as barriers to changes to the field.

    Quote from: three
    Don't get me wrong, I am as adverse to SSRIs as the next person, but some people really do need them, and should not be discouraged to try what could help them.

    I also don't discourage people trying things that could work.

    Quote from: three
    Please do not dismiss a medical solution to what might be a medical issue. Anxiety should be addressed seriously.

    To be clear, *only* talking to physicians about one's anxiety problems is the opposite of seriously addressing the problem.

    Quote from: three
    The cause of the stress might be long gone, in the case of stress chemical malfunctions.

    Are you referring to triggers? Those are not chemical problems. They are learned problems. And they aren't long gone. The person is still suffering from them. What's needed is for the person to fix his triggers.

    Quote from: three
    It takes twenty years of talk therapy after trauma to do what a simple beta blocker can do,

    Ah the trauma. So you and I are talking about the same thing, the trigger that the person learned (aka "developed") while experiencing the trauma.

    And yes I agree with the idea of taking medication in order to cope with the anxiety that happens when the trigger gets triggered. What sucks is that lots of people just leave it at that, and don't try much in fixing the triggers.

    Quote from: three
    and the sufferer no longer has to deal with repeated fight or flight reactions to triggers. This is not a mental or psych issue. It is a chemical malfunction in the brain of people whose brains have been flooded, often repeatedly, with cortisol and adrenaline. To get rid of this without medication, you have to retreat from any and all triggers. For many of us with PTSD, that means never leaving the house, and not letting anyone into it, either. Not a great option for quality of life. A non-chemical solution is EMDR therapy, and that is not always available to everyone.
    Maybe there are side effects to medications that are legal, but the side effects of dealing with illegal drugs is often worse. You can always change a prescription, under a doctor's care, even better. You cannot switch out a drug conviction.

    You're right, but, some medicines actually make the problem worse, and what's worse than that is if the patient doesn't realize this and doesn't seek help from his physician that prescribed the medicine. So he kinda assumes that the medicine should work, and then his situation gets worse, and he doesn't realize that he should question whether or not the medicine is actually making the problem worse.
  • Why don’t Ex-Muslims go public?
     Reply #24 - February 02, 2014, 07:38 PM

    This is all on the assumption that one's doctor is competent, or competent enough to refer. My doctor is competent enough to address these issues himself, though perhaps that is about the training these younger doctors get nowadays.
    Triggers can be benign things, things you cannot get away from. When you have a stress malfunction, what happens is that anything that gives you a little stress will result in fight or flight, a flooding of the synapses. Not even a trigger associated with trauma, a trigger that ignites stress hormones. Just look at driving, walking on a busy street, there are so many instances that could accelerate your heart rate. It is not about watching an explosion, or something so dramatic. Everyday life can create havoc with stress reactions that are misfiring. So no. Triggers are very often chemical reactions that have nothing to do with the original trauma. It is anything that contributes to the resulting panic.
    Your last paragraph again assumes the doctor is not competent. I am assuming the opposite. I would hope someone who did not feel a rapport with their doctor would find another.

    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »