Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

[Robin]

This is a new evasive.
After evading the problem several times it seems to me that it is clear that you have got yourself into an absurd dead end from which you don't know how to get out.

And now you pretend going out from the impasse by entering into a new dead-end.

It is impossible for the atheist not to take in mind the theist's belief in God. I don't know how you define an atheist, whether the one who doesn't believe that God exists or the one who believes that God doesn't exist. Or the one who claims that God does not exist. I don't care. In all of them the belief of the atheist is defined as the opposite of the believer. The atheist denies the theist's belief because it seems absurd, false, metaphysical or whatever you want. Therefore, he has to take into account what the believer says. I don't know how else atheism could be defined.

That's why what theists believe "has relevance" for atheists. If you are thinking of another kind of relevance, that is not what I have said.

That doesn't make much sense to me.

I don't collect stamps. But I don't get up each morning and say to myself "How shall I not collect stamps today?". No more do I say "How shall I not worship God today?"

Indeed ordering your life according to that which you do not believe or things which are not the case seems to me to be a primary mistake in reasoning about your life.

When I reason about the kind of world we live in I don't ask "what kind of world do the theists think it is?" first.

 

[JesseCuster]

It is impossible for the atheist not to take in mind the theist's belief in God. I don't know how you define an atheist, whether the one who doesn't believe that God exists or the one who believes that God doesn't exist. Or the one who claims that God does not exist. I don't care. In all of them the belief of the atheist is defined as the opposite of the believer. The atheist denies the theist's belief because it seems absurd, false, metaphysical or whatever you want. Therefore, he has to take into account what the believer says. I don't know how else atheism could be defined.

Atheism is defined as being in opposition to theism, yes. But it simply does not follow logically that atheists have to take into account theistic beliefs when doing anything.

The only time I take into account theistic beliefs is when I'm discussing the subject of theistic beliefs, like in this thread or in conversation with people about religion, or maybe on rare occasions where I think someone's religious beliefs will impact how I interact with them.

It simply doesn't factor into the day to day functioning of my life.

I no more have to take into account theistic beliefs when doing anything because I'm an atheist, than I have to take into account what people believe about how reincarnation works when doing anything because I don't believe in reincarnation.

None of what you're saying makes any sense to me.

 

[Parsman]

You're unfortunately deflecting the subject. The issue that has been raised is the difference between God and comic heroes in people's beliefs. The atheist will be discussed later if you are willing to answer the question I have raised:

The most important difference between God and Spiderman is its effect on people's beliefs: the difference between believing that a fiction entity is a fiction entity and believing that a fiction entity is real.
The reader of Spiderman knows that his hero does not exist. The Christian believes that his God exists.
From here the differences between both beliefs are abysmal. I don't know how you can deny this.
It is totally accessory whether you like or dislike the name I have invented to highlight the protective aspect of God in the belief of his faithful.

I'm sure quite a few children believe Spider-man or Superman exist until they learn better.

 

[Robin]

TIn all of them the belief of the atheist is defined as the opposite of the believer.

To put it another way, this is kind of like saying that a Cosmologist's belief is defined as the opposite of a flat-earther.

 

[acbytesla]

This is a new evasive.
After evading the problem several times it seems to me that it is clear that you have got yourself into an absurd dead end from which you don't know how to get out.

And now you pretend going out from the impasse by entering into a new dead-end.

It is impossible for the atheist not to take in mind the theist's belief in God. I don't know how you define an atheist, whether the one who doesn't believe that God exists or the one who believes that God doesn't exist. Or the one who claims that God does not exist. I don't care. In all of them the belief of the atheist is defined as the opposite of the believer. The atheist denies the theist's belief because it seems absurd, false, metaphysical or whatever you want. Therefore, he has to take into account what the believer says. I don't know how else atheism could be defined.

That's why what theists believe "has relevance" for atheists. If you are thinking of another kind of relevance, that is not what I have said.

Total unadulterated nonsense.

An atheist absolutely can ignore everything a theist believes. It is irrelevant to the atheist that the theist believes their super hero is faster than a speeding bullet or is more powerful than a locomotive. The atheist doesn't believe any of it is real.

 

[David Mo]

Atheism is defined as being in opposition to theism, yes. But it simply does not follow logically that atheists have to take into account theistic beliefs when doing anything.

The only time I take into account theistic beliefs is when I'm discussing the subject of theistic beliefs, like in this thread or in conversation with people about religion, or maybe on rare occasions where I think someone's religious beliefs will impact how I interact with them.

It simply doesn't factor into the day to day functioning of my life.

I no more have to take into account theistic beliefs when doing anything because I'm an atheist, than I have to take into account what people believe about how reincarnation works when doing anything because I don't believe in reincarnation.

None of what you're saying makes any sense to me.

Total unadulterated nonsense.

An atheist absolutely can ignore everything a theist believes. It is irrelevant to the atheist that the theist believes their super hero is faster than a speeding bullet or is more powerful than a locomotive. The atheist doesn't believe any of it is real.

The atheist does not believe in the god of the theist but does not want to know anything about the god of the theist. In other words, he doesn't believe in something he doesn't know what it is.
Amazing!

 

[David Mo]

I don't collect stamps. But I don't get up each morning and say to myself "How shall I not collect stamps today?". No more do I say "How shall I not worship God today?"

I don't expect you to spend all day thinking about why you don't believe in God. All you have to do is do it once and as many times as someone brings up the subject --if you like. But I do expect you to draw the right consequences for not believing in God. That is, a coherently atheistic project.

 

[David Mo]

I'm sure quite a few children believe Spider-man or Superman exist until they learn better.

I am not speaking with children. Is it not? And I am speaking of adult's beliefs.

 

[David Mo]

To put it another way, this is kind of like saying that a Cosmologist's belief is defined as the opposite of a flat-earther.

Sure, but the atheist is defined as someone that doesn't believe in God. In other words, "god" enters into the very definition of the concept. What god? The god of the believer, obviously.
It is not the same thing as the cosmologist.

In general it would be the position of anyone who says "I don't believe what you say, but I don't want to know what you say".

Don't you see the absurdity?
You insist on discussing what cannot be discussed. I don't know why.

 

[David Mo]

"their"? You don't include yourself?

I have my own mistakes, not this.

 

[David Mo]

When you said "nausea" I thought you meant it in the Sartre sense as a sense of existential anxiety about the absurdity of life.

He was an example. But nausea can be experienced as an anxiety or a simple concern. Sartre himself declared at the end of his life that, despite the nausea, he could be considered to have been a happy man. You see, the concept is not necessarily defined by "anxiety.

 

[acbytesla]

The atheist does not believe in the god of the theist but does not want to know anything about the god of the theist. In other words, he doesn't believe in something he doesn't know what it is.
Amazing!

Now you're just being silly. How it is defined is important for communication but the moment you tell us some wild ass story that you have no evidence for we can dismiss it as quickly as big foot.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm always bemused that people who want to take me to task for "thinking wrong" and take it upon themselves to shove themselves in the "master/student" role in my life are almost without fail literally and functionally wrong about everything.

 

[JesseCuster]

The atheist does not believe in the god of the theist but does not want to know anything about the god of the theist. In other words, he doesn't believe in something he doesn't know what it is.
Amazing!

That is in no way a response to what I actually posted. I might know anything and everything or nothing about the various gods believed in by various theists, that has nothing to do with what I actually said.

It simply doesn't follow that I must somehow 'take into account' the beliefs of theists, because I'm an atheist. Take into account how? Take into account when doing what?

What is it I'm doing to take into account theists beliefs?

Or what is it I'm not doing that I should be doing?

 

[winter salt]

But I do expect you to draw the right consequences for not believing in God. That is, a coherently atheistic project.

So then atheists should concern themselves with the consequences of disbelief,
while consequences don't effect the truth value of any belief ?
If the consequences are too grave then what ?

 

[Thor 2]

The atheist does not believe in the god of the theist but does not want to know anything about the god of the theist. In other words, he doesn't believe in something he doesn't know what it is.
Amazing!

The problem David is the task is impossible.

What "god of the theist" are we talking about, that we should get to know? Not only are there such a multitude of differently defined religious groups, but those also are divided into sub groups, with slightly different perception of god.

It doesn't stop there either, because if you would question any individual within a sub group about the nature of their god, you would find differences. Quite understandable really as any person's god exists in one place only - in their own head.

So to get to know the "god of the theist" one would have to question every god believer on this planet - might take a while.

 

[abaddon]

The atheist does not believe in the god of the theist but does not want to know anything about the god of the theist. In other words, he doesn't believe in something he doesn't know what it is.
Amazing!

OK, go ahead and define god.

 

[Thor 2]

The atheist does not believe in the god of the theist but does not want to know anything about the god of the theist. In other words, he doesn't believe in something he doesn't know what it is.
Amazing!

OK, go ahead and define god.

Wouldn't it be interesting if we could get a panel of theists to comment on David's definition.

Pounds to peanuts there would be considerable disagreement.

 

[abaddon]

Wouldn't it be interesting if we could get a panel of theists to comment on David's definition.

Pounds to peanuts there would be considerable disagreement.

There is a common scenario whereby someone reads a book that so impresses and convinces them of it's veracity that they become hopelessly devoted to it's claims. I have seen it happen many times.

Is this what happened to our protagonist? I have no idea. But it sure ticks a lot of those particular boxes.

Jury is out on that one.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The atheist does not believe in the god of the theist but does not want to know anything about the god of the theist. In other words, he doesn't believe in something he doesn't know what it is.
Amazing!

In many (most?) cases it's the opposite - the atheist doesn't believe because he does know what it is.

Ignoring everything a theist believes is not the same as not knowing what the theist believes. Some of us have researched those beliefs in depth, but it is not necessary to investigate every detail of a theist's belief in order to reject it. We know that theists believe in a supernatural god. Since the supernatural does not exist by definition, that is all we need to know that the theists' beliefs are wrong. If only theists would drop the insistence on their god being supernatural we might listen to their claims. But that is impossible, because...

Definition of Supernatural

1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

If something doesn't exist you don't have to know 'anything about' it apart from that it doesn't exist to know that it doesn't exist. Atheists don't believe in god because they know god doesn't exist (by definition!) and that is all they need to know about god to be atheists. What theists believe is irrelevant.

However, many of us came to be atheists because we knew too much about theists' ridiculous beliefs. So please don't stop cajoling us into investigating them further, because the more we know about theists beliefs the more it will support our unbelief!