Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

[Dave Rogers]

I think the answer to the question in the thread title is that atheists are inevitably pessimistic about the prospect of someone actually understanding that being an atheist simply means not believing in any gods.

Dave

 

[Lithrael]

So you know all about the things you don't believe? You know all the details of all the world religions?

Yeah, this is where I like that quote that goes like... uh.... google...

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” ― Stephen Roberts

Even taking into account Mo’s difficulty empathizing with NOT being in distress over leaving theism behind, he must still be able to imagine an atheist feeling the same indifference to their culture’s most mainstream religion, as any typical theist feels towards some other far away culture’s mainstream religion. Like, I’m pretty sure Mo never felt knotted up or cast out on rough seas alone, over not believing in Shinto practices or Kanaloa etc etc.

 

[xterra]

David,


Hypothetically, if a person was raised in a society where there was no knowledge of any god, would you describe that person as an atheist, or would you use another description?

 

[acbytesla]

Empty comment. You don't need write if you has nothing to tell.

Empty comment? ROFL

That would describe every post you have made in this thread. Non-stop philosophical absurd babble. Full of sound and noise meaning absolutely nothing. You keep repeating how we atheists must think and know and all the atheists are laughing at your posts because almost all of us dismiss this nonsensical babble EXACTLY like we do Thor, Spiderman, Yahweh and Allah.

Next.

 

[JesseCuster]

When I say that the atheist has to take into account the beliefs of the believer I mean that he should know and keep in mind those beliefs when defining his atheism

I don't think much about how my atheism is defined. All the god concepts I've come across are rubbish. I don't believe in any of them. Now that's out of the way, I have no need to take into account anyone's beliefs because my atheism is defined, albeit loosely so that's that.

or trying to distinguish religion from other types of myths. The latter is what we were talking about.

Is it important for me to distinguish my atheism from other myths? I don't believe in any gods. A bunch of religions and myths have gods. That distinguishes my atheism from them. That's that. I see no point in dissecting the differences between a bunch of silly religions and gods and not believing in them. It's all rubbish, I don't buy into any of it. Why good does it do for "distinguishing" what I believe from all that nonsense?

This is what I meant by you overthinking nothing. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. I genuinely don't get your navel gazing about this issue.

 

[David Mo]

So you know all about the things you don't believe? You know all the details of all the world religions? You know how to cast an I Ching, make an astrology chart?

To describe doubting God's existence as "not knowing what it is" is, to say the least, sloppy wording. It would be more appropriate to say that one is or is not familiar with religious stories. And, as it turns out, atheists are actually quite familiar with religious stories, even more than the ones who supposedly "know what it is."

The text you quoted is a parody of the ideas of one of my opponents. It does not express my own ideas.

 

[David Mo]

Any and all gods are included in atheism, not your imaginary "God". No god is specifically implied in atheism, any and all so-called "God"s are. Since there are many thousands of such so-called "God"s none of which are consistent with each other, let alone any reality, your insistence that atheists must define exactly which "God" they do not believe in is an astonishingly idiotic idea from it's inception.

For an atheist, "God"s belong in the same category as leprechauns or pixies. Imaginary the lot of them.

I didn't insist on giving a definition of God. You asked me for it. What I have given is not precisely a definition, but a description of the common points that are given in the beliefs of those who claim to believe in God. I may have left some. Obviously the ones I know.

For the purpose of what we are discussing I don't have to give up my atheism because some religions that I don't know or don't know enough about can exist. I can set limits to my atheism in the same way that if I declare myself a communist or a democrat I can qualify that definition. I've already told you that if you know of a religion that doesn't fit my definition of God, you explain it and we discuss it. But, you limit yourself to talking about hypothetical or imaginary religions. Get your feet on the ground and we'll argue.

The issue of burden of proof is outside of this issue.

 

[David Mo]

David, I can't speak for other atheists here but I rarely think of God unless I come across believers try to rationalise or justify their beliefs.

I already answered this. You don't have to be thinking about God all day. Neither do I. Just ask yourself when the time is right. For example, if you enter a forum on religion to defend your atheism. If you are.

 

[David Mo]

This is why I don't like the term "atheist". People draw such bizarre conclusions from it.

Not believing in God doesn't define me. It isn't my creed, my ideology or my identity.

It is just one of the many things I don't believe. Like astrology, flat-earth cosmology and politicians promises

There's not a single characteristic that defines a man. Not even atheism has to be the most important. But one defines oneself as atheist or theist or agnostic... when the question arises. For example, in this forum.

 

[David Mo]

David,


Hypothetically, if a person was raised in a society where there was no knowledge of any god, would you describe that person as an atheist, or would you use another description?

Depends on what you mean by atheist. For that hypothetical society, perhaps a hypothetical term should be invented.

I'm talking about what atheist means in our context. That is the only possible way to talk about how we use words.

 

[David Mo]

I don't think much about how my atheism is defined. All the god concepts I've come across are rubbish. I don't believe in any of them. Now that's out of the way, I have no need to take into account anyone's beliefs because my atheism is defined, albeit loosely so that's that.

Is it important for me to distinguish my atheism from other myths? I don't believe in any gods. A bunch of religions and myths have gods. That distinguishes my atheism from them. That's that. I see no point in dissecting the differences between a bunch of silly religions and gods and not believing in them. It's all rubbish, I don't buy into any of it. Why good does it do for "distinguishing" what I believe from all that nonsense?

This is what I meant by you overthinking nothing. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. I genuinely don't get your navel gazing about this issue.

It is important to define the difference between gods and comic book heroes because, although both are myths, they operate differently and have different consequences in our society. There are no believers or Spiderman worship. This is the topic we were discussing. It is not a trivial.

 

[quadraginta]

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.

 

[David Mo]

David,


Hypothetically, if a person was raised in a society where there was no knowledge of any god, would you describe that person as an atheist, or would you use another description?

Depends on what you mean by atheist. For that hypothetical society, perhaps a hypothetical term should be invented.

I'm talking about what atheist means in our context. That is the only possible way to talk about how we use words.

Words are vehicles of meaning. This is what matters, not the conventional signs by which we refer to it. In order to fix a meaning the context is important because meaning is only the use we give to a word within a social and cultural context. In our societies, massively hegemonized by people who define themselves as believers and by other ideologies that derive from that situation, the question of God is unavoidable. That is why the concepts of atheism, agnosticism and the like include opposition to belief in God.

Now, this opposition can be lived in many ways. As absolute indifference and lack of response to the domination of religious and assimilated ideologies or as active militancy against those ideologies. These are the two poles. Our answer is a question of character and philosophy of life. There are those who believe that they can stay away from the social practices of believers and there are those who believe that they are practices of domination and that they must be actively resisted.

Around this, there is only one question that is of interest in this thread: how does the absence of God affect the atheist. Or, if you want to put it another way, how can you build a project of life in which God is absent. The first point in this question is to fix the consequences for a believer of believing in God in order to see the differences. And that's where we're stuck because there are people here who hold two positions:

That an atheist doesn't have to know believers' concept of God.
That people do not have a life plan.

Both positions seem absurd to me. I think they are maintained because there is a (wrong) suspicion that behind my position there is an attempt to positively value the belief in God. Or because the mere posing of the question can weaken their dogmatic position. Or both.

 

[winter salt]

It is important to define the difference between gods and comic book heroes because, although both are myths, they operate differently and have different consequences in our society. There are no believers or Spiderman worship. This is the topic we were discussing. It is not a trivial.

Seems to me that most of the debate here goes on the truth value of god-belief. Not about consequences.
When I asked about how consequences effect the truth value, you deflected the topic to the ateist's moral values, "that he has to figure out what values he holds that came from religion and that is an atheist project, a consequence of becoming atheist". Although your statement there sounded valid it was actually a deflection and avoidance of the question.
And I see that here you are resorting to the social consequences.. Ignoring or not wanting to engage about the truth value (how different it is than comic books characters as being real..)

But I admire your cool persistence and clever tactics in this forum. Many threads would go dead much sooner without you getting involved.

 

[Lithrael]

Are you saying that an atheist is someone who has to figure out what to do when Auntie Maggie goes to pray over supper?

 

[winter salt]

Are you saying that an atheist is someone who has to figure out what to do when Auntie Maggie goes to pray over supper?

If the question is directed to me, then I'd say that certain ideas about morality that came from religion does stick with an ex religious person and it would be good to review those.

 

[David Mo]

Seems to me that most of the debate here goes on the truth value of god-belief. Not about consequences.

I categorically deny that this is my case. I have repeated in many ways that belief in God seems to me to be an illusory consolation mechanism with undesirable consequences. Although the renunciation of belief in God may have a dramatic side, this does not invalidate the superiority of atheism in all aspects. At least of what I understand as atheism. I say the latter because sometimes I don't understand very well what some who claim to be atheists want.

Although the Superheroes of comic books also have a somewhat murky reading, religion wins by a landslide in this regard.

 

[Steve]

I categorically deny that this is my case. I have repeated in many ways that belief in God seems to me to be an illusory consolation mechanism with undesirable consequences. Although the renunciation of belief in God may have a dramatic side, this does not invalidate the superiority of atheism in all aspects. At least of what I understand as atheism. I say the latter because sometimes I don't understand very well what some who claim to be atheists want.
Although the Superheroes of comic books also have a somewhat murky reading, religion wins by a landslide in this regard.

1. Why "claim"? Do you think some people who claim to be atheists are actually theist?
2. Why do you think any atheist "wants" anything specifically connected to their atheism?
3. "Renunciation" of gods is not a requirement of atheism. I suspect, based on people I know, that it is very rare.

 

[acbytesla]

It is important to define the difference between gods and comic book heroes because, although both are myths, they operate differently and have different consequences in our society. There are no believers or Spiderman worship. This is the topic we were discussing. It is not a trivial.

No it's not. Nothing is nothing is nothing.

 

[JesseCuster]

I already answered this. You don't have to be thinking about God all day. Neither do I. Just ask yourself when the time is right. For example, if you enter a forum on religion to defend your atheism. If you are.

So what you're saying is that atheists must take into consideration theists beliefs when discussing those beliefs with theists? That's what you're driving at?

Did it really take so much sound and fury to say that? Overthinking nothing and dressing it up in pseudo-philosophical nonsense about vital projects and whatnot.