Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

[applecorped]

Armageddon is pretty pessimistic

 

[acbytesla]

You compare two things by limiting yourself to what they have in common and refuse to analyze what is different about them. And then you call me stupid. Great argument.

Show me what is different about two things that DON'T EXIST.

They are not real. Nothing looks like nothing. Until you can show us that they are something they remain indistinguishable from each other.

Or is this to simple for you?

 

[acbytesla]

I'm not talking about the definition of "god." I'm talking about the way believers imagine and feel their god.
I'm not talking about all those who declare themselves members of a church or belief. I am talking about those who really believe in a god that is similar to the so-called religions of the Book, because these are the religions that I know and have influence in our contemporary society.
I am not saying that all atheists consider the meaning of existence or, in other words, a vital project. There are those who do not consciously pose the problem and pretend that they have no life project. This is a mistake that I have tried to explain. Everyone has an idea more or less conscious of what they want to make of his life, which corresponds to that I call a vital project.

I am amazed that this so simple idea can provoke so many rabid responses and so few rational comments. You have a problem, truly.

You are failing at every turn. What's my problem? That I think your argument is pretentious absurd babble that makes little sense? That when I ask you to clarify, you just fill another. post with more noise?

You AGAIN said "EVERYONE" as if you know what other people think and must do. You continue to project your ideas about others as universal.

 

[abaddon]

Well, I've already explained it to you: that he presents himself as a protective Superfather who bestows eternal life. Does that seem like a small offer to you?

It is a scurrilous offer when one considers the price exacted.

Or are you now claiming your "superfather" asks nothing in return? In that case you have a vast evidential mountain to climb.

ETA: And it does seem like a small offer when there is no discernible "superfather" don't you think?

 

[David Mo]

These are separate things in my life. I see no need or point in trying to erect a construct called "an original project" - or, as I suspect you mean, a religion - to shoehorn them all into the same ill-fitting container.

The idea of how the world is influences the idea of how human beings act, which conditions the idea of why things are going good or not and the means to solve as far as possible what goes wrong.

Your overall project is based on how you manage all this consciously or unconsciously and it decides your daily practice.

 

[David Mo]

Isn't that just part of normal functioning human life?

Yes. I was not saying anything else.

 

[David Mo]

I could break this down into separate questions.

1. Is eternal life more meaningful than a brief life, and if so why?

2. Is a life protected by a "Suoerfather" more meaningful than a life where we have to depend on each other and if so why?

If you can't answer these then you can't claim the Theist "project" would be more meaningful than the life we have.

If by meaning we understand that both are oriented by a project, neither of the two has more or less sense than the other. They are intentional projects and nothing else.
If by meaning you understand that one is better than the other, of course. There is one of them that is illusory and leads to undesirable behaviors. It is the religious project.

I haven't said anything else for a month or more. I am surprised that you ask me that. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding with the use of "meaning" in English. It seems like an ambiguous word with two different meanings.

 

[David Mo]

Do you think that atheists are particularly bad at these things?

As a general rule they are better.

 

[David Mo]

Show me what is different about two things that DON'T EXIST.

Your main mistake during this whole debate: I am not talking about comparing things, but about comparing the idea that men have of them and the effects that this belief has on their behaviour.

 

[David Mo]

You AGAIN said "EVERYONE" as if you know what other people think and must do. You continue to project your ideas about others as universal.

I have already nuanced this "everyone" on several occasions. Exceptions to the rule do not nullify the rule.

But on the other hand I don't think there is anything horrendous that justifies your insults by the fact that I think there is something common to all humanity. This is usually called human nature and it is a concept with which one can disagree. But it doesn't justify getting angry. In the same way I can think that atheists in general may have or have not a problem, a good point or anything else. It is not a sin.

 

[David Mo]

Or are you now claiming your "superfather" asks nothing in return? In that case you have a vast evidential mountain to climb.

ETA: And it does seem like a small offer when there is no discernible "superfather" don't you think?

This Superfather exiges a complete submission and the renounce to think on some decisive points. Do you like this? Not me.

Never have you receive a fabulous offer that was ultimately specious? It is a very common fact in the business world, religious business included.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The idea of how the world is influences the idea of how human beings act, which conditions the idea of why things are going good or not and the means to solve as far as possible what goes wrong.

Your overall project is based on how you manage all this consciously or unconsciously and it decides your daily practice.

Saying what an "overall project" is based on is not the same as either defining what an "overall project" is or demonstrating that everybody necessarily has one. Nor is it the same as evidence that the term "overall project" is even a useful label. Try harder.

Dave

 

[Robin]

Yes. I was not saying anything else.

I am lost here. The vital project of which you speak is to go on going the stuff we did when we had never heard of of the idea of a vital project?

In what sense were we making a mistake then, if we were doing the thing you are recommending already?

 

[Hellbound]

I am lost here. The vital project of which you speak is to go on going the stuff we did when we had never heard of of the idea of a vital project?

In what sense were we making a mistake then, if we were doing the thing you are recommending already?

You weren't holding your mouth right while doing it.

 

[David Mo]

I am lost here. The vital project of which you speak is to go on going the stuff we did when we had never heard of of the idea of a vital project?

In what sense were we making a mistake then, if we were doing the thing you are recommending already?

This is like Moliere's The Midle-Class Gentleman who was speaking in prose without knowing it:

...PHILOSOPHY MASTER: Without doubt. Is it verse that you wish to
write her?

MONSIEUR JOURDAIN: No, no. No verse.

PHILOSOPHY MASTER: Do you want only prose?

MONSIEUR JOURDAIN: No, I don't want either prose or verse.

PHILOSOPHY MASTER: It must be one or the other.

MONSIEUR JOURDAIN: Why?

PHILOSOPHY MASTER: Because, sir, there is no other way to express
oneself than with prose or verse.

MONSIEUR JOURDAIN: There is nothing but prose or verse?

PHILOSOPHY MASTER: No, sir, everything that is not prose is verse,
and everything that is not verse is prose.

MONSIEUR JOURDAIN: And when one speaks, what is that then?

PHILOSOPHY MASTER: Prose.

MONSIEUR JOURDAIN: What! When I say, "Nicole, bring me my slippers,
and give me my nightcap," that's prose?

PHILOSOPHY MASTER: Yes, Sir.

MONSIEUR JOURDAIN: By my faith! For more than forty years I have
been speaking prose without knowing anything about it...

In reality your mistakes were mainly about misunderstanding what I was saying.

 

[acbytesla]

Your main mistake during this whole debate: I am not talking about comparing things, but about comparing the idea that men have of them and the effects that this belief has on their behaviour.

Sorry, doesn't cut it. The idea of gods are identical to comic book superheroes like Spiderman. In fact some of them are. I give you Thor.

You continue to project that your idea of a God as what others think. I don't even believe you can argue that any two theists have the same idea about God. Some give God powers that others don't. And yet they both might call themselves not only Christians but more specifically Baptists.

In fact, Christians often refer to it as their personal god.

 

[Cainkane1]

Having no underlying spiritual beliefs to mitigate suffering, are atheists inevitably seeing the world through a glass darkly?


"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." 1 Corinthians 13:12

It depends on the atheist. Some are happy as a lark. Some are unhappy. If you became an atheist after coming to realize God doesn't exist after a lifetime of worship than you tend to be sad. If you come to know God doesn't exist simply because God doesn't answer prayers or intervenes in bad things that happen you tend to be pessimistic.


If on the other hand you were left to come to your own conclusions and decided God doesn't exist you tend to be happy about it. You've seen the light in the non-religious sense of the term.

I don't want to believe in a God that just sits there. I'm toying around with the idea of Deism. The Universe wouldn't be here if several factors weren't in place and I kind of feel that it was created by some intelligence. This doesn't mean there's life after death. This doesn't mean the creator is kind just and loving of mankind it merely means intelligent creation and then the creator left to make something else or sit back and watch.

A Philosopher named Anthony after observing the complexity of life came to believe in such a creator. The creator creator then left. No Hell below us, above us only sky. You die goodbye forever.

 

[Dave Rogers]

This is like Moliere's The Midle-Class Gentleman who was speaking in prose without knowing it:

Yes, in that being told he speaks in prose is in no way relevant to the intent or meaning of anything he says. Your definition of an "overall project," which appears to be more or less identical with that of self-awareness and is drafted in such a way as to apply to any and all people in any and all circumstances, is in fact even less relevant, since you've framed it so as to render virtually any statement about it either self-contradictory or tautological.

Dave

 

[Scorpion]

It depends on the atheist. Some are happy as a lark. Some are unhappy. If you became an atheist after coming to realize God doesn't exist after a lifetime of worship than you tend to be sad. If you come to know God doesn't exist simply because God doesn't answer prayers or intervenes in bad things that happen you tend to be pessimistic.


If on the other hand you were left to come to your own conclusions and decided God doesn't exist you tend to be happy about it. You've seen the light in the non-religious sense of the term.

I don't want to believe in a God that just sits there. I'm toying around with the idea of Deism. The Universe wouldn't be here if several factors weren't in place and I kind of feel that it was created by some intelligence. This doesn't mean there's life after death. This doesn't mean the creator is kind just and loving of mankind it merely means intelligent creation and then the creator left to make something else or sit back and watch.

A Philosopher named Anthony after observing the complexity of life came to believe in such a creator. The creator creator then left. No Hell below us, above us only sky. You die goodbye forever.

I consider myself a deist who believes God started the universe as a perfect plan to allow intelligent life to evolve and develop by free will over many incarnations.

The universe would not be here without a very great many happy accidents, and intelligent life on a planet such as ours needs many more details to work in our favour.

 

[Lithrael]

Bouncing off to a slight derail:
Why is it that around here, any concept that is more or less universal is called meaningless? Like ‘everyone does/encounters/gets/experiences that’ makes whatever ‘that’ is, pointless/meaningless/useless to discuss? For example it crops up a lot when discussing racism and other isms, like if you say that unconscious/background radiation biases that impact a particular race are ‘racist’ then you’ve made the term ‘racist’ meaningless.