Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

[David Mo]

Can you think of other examples of how atheists must "take into account" theists beliefs other than the trivial example of taking those beliefs into account when discussing those beliefs?

It seemed that you were driving at some more general or important point about how atheists must take into account theistic beliefs, other than stating the obvious to people who aren't disagreeing with that trivial idea, but dressing it up in obtuse and philosophical language for some reason.

Let's go by parts.

What I mean by "take into account" is that every time the atheist disagrees with theism he has to have in mind (or know, if you prefer) the concept, idea or image of what he is rejecting. That it is the theist's idea of God.

Do you agree with this simple proposition? If you don't agree we'll stay with it. If you agree we move on to the next part of your comment.

 

[David Mo]

David, Muslims believe that the Muslim god is the same as Christian and jewish god. They think Christians insulted him with the idea of him having a son and the trinity stuff. As an atheist do you "chose not believing" in the Christan understanding of god and then the Muslims' god Allah, or you see them as the same ? Do you sperate Yahweh from these ? "To choose not to believe" in these gods did you first resolve the issues in the descriptions of these gods ? Or you see them as the same god like Muslims think ? Can any atheist not choose disbelief in god/gods ?

When I reject a believer's belief in God I have some reason why I don't accept it. And that means I have some knowledge of this belief. If I chose not to believe in something without knowing it, I would be irresponsible. That the god of Christians is the same as the god of Muslims is an accessory question for not believing in him. It may not be so for a Christian. But for an atheist it is accessory. More important may be some barbarities that are read in the Koran.

 

[David Mo]

I didn't choose to not believe in God. As time went by my belief in God became weaker and weaker until I realised I was an atheist. At no point did I make a choice to stop believing in God.

You have some odd ideas about atheism.

I don't know what you mean by choice. Choosing means nothing more than deciding between one option or another. Every time you argue with a believer or read something about the proofs of God's existence you are choosing to believe or not to believe. Whether your belief is firm or seems very firm to you does not mean that you are not choosing.

Cambridge dictionary of English:
chose: to decide what you want from two or more things or possibilities

 

[JesseCuster]

None of them believe in God. I don't know where you get that idea.

You described them as people who "claim to be atheists". That's where I got the idea.

If you weren't implying that their atheism was in doubt, then why did you word it the following way:

I don't understand very well what some who claim to be atheists want

Call them people who "claim to be atheist" is calling into question their atheism, like it's something they only claim to be, but actually mightn't really believe. Otherwise why use such a phrase loaded with implication when "atheist" would do the job perfectly well?

 

[JesseCuster]

Let's go by parts.

What I mean by "take into account" is that every time the atheist disagrees with theism he has to have in mind (or know, if you prefer) the concept, idea or image of what he is rejecting.

I don't think anybody disagrees with that. You could have saved yourself a lot of hassle if you simply said that. Instead you left out the uncontroversial bit about how you need to take those things into account specifically when discussing theistic beliefs.

Instead you made a general point of how atheist must "take into account theists beliefs" and threw your hands in the air refusing to understanding how atheists can't do such a thing when several of us explained that "take into account theists beliefs" is not something that actually impacts on our lives, apart from in trivial and fleeting ways like this forum, but you just kept repeating about how you couldn't understand how we didn't do such a thing, when all you were saying was something uncontroversial and trivial you could have cleared up by saying you were merely talking about taking those beliefs into account when discussing those beliefs. It's hard at times to pin you down on what you're actually saying.

Why can't you just say what you mean in plain everyday English instead of wrapping it in so much flowery guff? Because most of what you're saying doesn't seem to be interesting at all when you're finally nailed down on what you're actually saying. (I mean, "vital project", seriously?)

 

[JesseCuster]

I don't know what you mean by choice. Choosing means nothing more than deciding between one option or another.

I didn't decide to not believe in God. There was no decision. It was just something I realised was true.

Atheists don't make (as a general rule) decisions or choices to

Every time you argue with a believer or read something about the proofs of God's existence you are choosing to believe or not to believe. Whether your belief is firm or seems very firm to you does not mean that you are not choosing.

When I discuss religion with believers, I'm most definitely not choosing to believe or not to believe. Who decides on their religious beliefs at the time of discussing religious beliefs?

When I discussing my atheism, I'm not making any decisions about anything, I'm talking about and explaining things I already believe. Beliefs that just came to me over time the more I thought about god and religion. Nothing I made an active decision to believe, either back in the day, I definitely don't decide to be an atheist when I'm discussing on these forums, that's a truly odd thing to believe.

Like I said, you've got some rather odd ideas about what atheism entails.

Cambridge dictionary of English:
chose: to decide what you want from two or more things or possibilities[/QUOTE]

 

[David Mo]

You described them as people who "claim to be atheists". That's where I got the idea.

If you weren't implying that their atheism was in doubt, then why did you word it the following way:

Call them people who "claim to be atheist" is calling into question their atheism, like it's something they only claim to be, but actually mightn't really believe. Otherwise why use such a phrase loaded with implication when "atheist" would do the job perfectly well?

I have not doubted anywhere that their assertion is false, nor do I have any reason to think so. Mistake in the means does not deny the existence of the end.

 

[The Greater Fool]

When I reject a believer's belief in God I have some reason why I don't accept it. And that means I have some knowledge of this belief. If I chose not to believe in something without knowing it, I would be irresponsible. That the god of Christians is the same as the god of Muslims is an accessory question for not believing in him. It may not be so for a Christian. But for an atheist it is accessory. More important may be some barbarities that are read in the Koran.

I don't believe in god(s). Further, I don't believe in any spiritual (supernatural) entities.

Thus, I don't need to know the dogma of theists to reject their concept of god(s) in the spiritual realms. I reject entities with either of those attributes.

If someone believes in a happy god, it is a subset of god(s), so no. Mad god, the same. Sad? no. Helpful? No. Vengeful? No. None of these qualifiers (derived from dogma) matter.

If someone believes in heaven or hell or spirits or demons or reincarnation, these reside in or pass through the spiritual realm thus I don't believe in them. I don't need to hear the attributes (derived from dogma).

Before you want me to debate dogma, you must address the existence of a spirit realm. Dogma doesn't matter yet.

Some atheists enjoy debating dogma with theists, but it certainly isn't a requirement.

 

[David Mo]

I don't think anybody disagrees with that. You could have saved yourself a lot of hassle if you simply said that. Instead you left out the uncontroversial bit about how you need to take those things into account specifically when discussing theistic beliefs.

Instead you made a general point of how atheist must "take into account theists beliefs" and threw your hands in the air refusing (...)

Since you can't see my hands, I doubt you'll be able to draw any conclusions from them. Therefore, I beg you to stick to what I say and not to imagine anything about my hands or anything else.

I continue:
From the simple observation that the atheist must take into account the concept of god that he is rejecting, another apparently simple conclusion follows: That concept includes belief in a superprotective God who functions with all-embracing powers and has the faculty to reward in this life or in other life those who are faithful to him. The idea of immortality and some form of paradise go hand in hand with religious beliefs at least in the major religions operating in our culture. Those are the ones I am referring.

Do you have something to object to or can we move on to the following premise from my argument?

 

[David Mo]

I don't believe in god(s). Further, I don't believe in any spiritual (supernatural) entities.

Thus, I don't need to know the dogma of theists to reject their concept of god(s) in the spiritual realms. I reject entities with either of those attributes.

If someone believes in a happy god, it is a subset of god(s), so no. Mad god, the same. Sad? no. Helpful? No. Vengeful? No. None of these qualifiers (derived from dogma) matter.

If someone believes in heaven or hell or spirits or demons or reincarnation, these reside in or pass through the spiritual realm thus I don't believe in them. I don't need to hear the attributes (derived from dogma).

Before you want me to debate dogma, you must address the existence of a spirit realm. Dogma doesn't matter yet.

Some atheists enjoy debating dogma with theists, but it certainly isn't a requirement.

I didn't mention any dogma. Actually, I do not understand what you refers to. What an atheist should know is the concept of what he is rejecting. What it means, how it is recognized. If you are rejecting the existence of badulaques you will have to know what a badulaque is and how to know if it exists or not. Otherwise it could result in the badulaque being you. God forbid!

 

[David Mo]

Like I said, you've got some rather odd ideas about what atheism entails.

I don't have a problem with atheism, but with the ability to explain something as simple as making a decision. You seem blocked with this issue. I'm going to see if I can find someone who can explain it to you better than I can.

And let it be noted that this has nothing to do with philosophy but with ordinary English.

How about this one?. https://www.sloww.co/you-have-a-choice/

And:

“I'll always choose you." Yes that was the word. "Every single lifetime, I'll choose you. Just as you have always chosen me. Forever.”

― Lauren Kate, Passion

 

[Myriad]

David, do you perform the Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram daily?

If not, does that mean you've chosen to reject the basic tenets and practices of Golden Dawn Hermeticism? And on what rational basis did you make that choice?

 

[The Common Potato]

Some people decide to make the decision to stop smoking. Their actions could be described as being a definite choice. Others might, for example, just not bother going on long walks any more. They don't make a decision at a definite point in time to stop walking, they just sort of stop doing it. I'd suggest than many just fade away from their prior faith (assuming they had one) and only later do they consider a lack of evidence for God's existence in a considered manner.

As philosopher Lauren Cooper regularly exclaims, "Am I bovvered?"

 

[David Mo]

David, do you perform the Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram daily?

If not, does that mean you've chosen to reject the basic tenets and practices of Golden Dawn Hermeticism? And on what rational basis did you make that choice?

I don't know what that is, so I can't pronounce myself in any way. I also don't pronounce on whether the fried grasshoppers are good or not. But since what I know about hermetism is a hoax, I'm inclined to think that this one will be too. And the fried grasshoppers don't really tempt me.

 

[JesseCuster]

Since you can't see my hands, I doubt you'll be able to draw any conclusions from them. Therefore, I beg you to stick to what I say and not to imagine anything about my hands or anything else.

You are obtuse.

edit: Just in case it's not clear, I wasn't being literal when I mentioned you throwing your hands in the air.

 

[David Mo]

Some people decide to make the decision to stop smoking. Their actions could be described as being a definite choice. Others might, for example, just not bother going on long walks any more. They don't make a decision at a definite point in time to stop walking, they just sort of stop doing it. I'd suggest than many just fade away from their prior faith (assuming they had one) and only later do they consider a lack of evidence for God's existence in a considered manner.

As philosopher Lauren Cooper regularly exclaims, "Am I bovvered?"

Any alcoholic anonymous will tell you that your first choice must be constantly renewed. It can be reversed at any time. That happens with any decision, no matter how firm: there is the possibility of changing your mind. That means choice.

 

[Myriad]

I don't know what that is, so I can't pronounce myself in any way. I also don't pronounce on whether the fried grasshoppers are good or not. But since what I know about hermetism is a hoax, I'm inclined to think that this one will be too. And the fried grasshoppers don't really tempt me.

In other words, you don't know the concept of what you're rejecting.

Just checking.

 

[JesseCuster]

Any alcoholic anonymous will tell you that your first choice must be constantly renewed. It can be reversed at any time. That happens with any decision, no matter how firm: there is the possibility of changing your mind. That means choice.

I'm a recovering alcoholic. I've never renewed any decision to quit drinking, never mind constantly do it. Is this something that AA does, has members continually 'renew' their decision to quit drinking? What you're saying does not line up at all with my own experience of addiction recovery. More reason to think I made the right decision never to go to AA meetings. Sounds depressing and weird to do such things.

Constantly renewing my decision to quit drinking? Why would I want to do that? I've made my decision. I'm done with alcohol for life. No need to actively manage my sobriety, it's taking care of itself.

 

[David Mo]

In other words, you don't know the concept of what you're rejecting.

Just checking.

In other words, you didn't read what I told you. I refrain from giving my opinion (rejecting or justifying) on something I don't know in detail, but I manifest a certain distrust for something I know: the mention of hermeticism. If you tell us more about the sect in question, we can discuss it.

The example of the chapulines was a joke. It's a little different.

 

[David Mo]

I'm a recovering alcoholic. I've never renewed any decision to quit drinking, never mind constantly do it. Is this something that AA does, has members continually 'renew' their decision to quit drinking? What you're saying does not line up at all with my own experience of addiction recovery. More reason to think I made the right decision never to go to AA meetings. Sounds depressing and weird to do such things.

Constantly renewing my decision to quit drinking? Why would I want to do that? I've made my decision. I'm done with alcohol for life. No need to actively manage my sobriety, it's taking care of itself.

You renew your choice each time you are tempted to drink again.

In the same way, the atheist renews his choice every time he is confronted with the possibility of being convinced by contrary arguments. Of course, a dogmatic atheist will not admit such a possibility. He will think that he has the absolute truth about God and that there is not the slightest possibility of being wrong. This is called dogmatism and is one of the most conspicuous vices of certain types of atheism. It seems to me that your refusal to admit that behind atheism there is a choice is based on a misunderstanding. You seem to believe that asserting that there is a (remote) possibility of being wrong weakens your atheistic convictions. I hope it's a false impression on my part. Because arguing with fanatics is quite unpleasant. Whether they are theists or atheists.