Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

Seriously though, in this context it’s sophistry. We do actually all know who we’re talking about when we read ‘atheists’ in the sentence ‘are atheists a bunch of sad wet blankets or what?’ We don’t need to re-examine the concept of what exactly must be rejected (or just not embraced) for someone to count as an atheist, in order to go “maybe ones who arrived at atheism with some sense that they were lied to or manipulated by a belief system, or ones who were comforted by one and now feel abandoned without one. And maybe ones who are dismayed for various reasons about how ubiquitous believers are. Otherwise they’re just folks.”

ETA added snark, deleted it again
 
Last edited:
Lithrael said:
Oh ho ho, but what if we define God as the nice feeling you get on a hot summer day when a nice cool breeze blows past and you have an ice cream? What if we define God as the guy that’s on the grill at Waffle House on Sunday night at 2am? Nonsense, you say? Obviously these are not within the scope or intent of the word? Are you so full of hubris as to say you don’t know God but you know what it isn’t? As to deny God without taking into account all of these possible definitions?? I am very intelligent.
Click to expand...

David Mo said:
I'm an atheist because I don't believe in something that believers say is God. If there was no theist in the world the word atheist would not make sense because no one would talk about something called "god". Therefore, I need to understand what theists call "god. It's that simple! Nothing to do with justifying belief in God or defining the burden of proof. It's just a matter of understanding what we're talking about.

Of course, I need to clarify my concept of atheism: I am an atheist with regard to some definitions of God that I consider accurate. Vague definitions of God such as "the breeze through the poplars" or "the truth that I have in my heart" are so vague that I cannot deny it. They are confusing because they are unusual. I would not call it "god" because they refer to something too different from what is normally called "god" and cause confusion rather than clarity.
Click to expand...

If we work with common definitions of Theist as:

One who believes in the existence of a God; especially, one who believes in a God who sustains a personal relation to his creatures. In the former sense opposed to atheist, in the latter to deist.

or

One who believes in the existence of a God; especially, one who believes in a personal God; -- opposed to atheist.

Then the beliefs hilited above have nothing to do with theism or, consequently, with atheism. Those would just be breezeism, or wafflehouseguyism. It is no more difficult to dismiss those as gods than it is the more conventionally recognized types.

A more interesting example would be Haile Selassie, a man recognized as god incarnate by the Rastafarian religion. He most certainly existed, just the same as a breeze, and as a waffle house guy. Do you find it difficult to be an atheist regarding him? I do not.

It is easy to be atheist toward anyone's definition of god because there are absolutely no gods in existence.
 
True. “Your concept is a god but it doesn’t appear to be real” and “your concept is real but it doesn’t appear to be a god” make a nice little matched set on the shelf of atheism.
 
David Mo said:
We need to define how we use words because if you are using a word in a sense and I use this word in a different sense we have a good mess about nothing.

Dictionary aids to have a common definition, but what truly matters is the living use of a word. Dictionaries only treat to synthesize it, but this is only approximate. Therefore "what do you mean with X?" is a necessary question when we suspect that there is a conflict between different uses of a word (X). And this is a clue question in a debate about God because atheism is the opposite of theism, but theisms are very different. An atheist only is someone that doesn't believe (or denies) that the god that theist claims exists. He needs to know what god the theist believes in the same way that an apostate needs to know what religion is refuting or we need to know what is justice to say that something is unjust.
Click to expand...


No. It isn't.

I think this may be the nexus of most of your confusion.

Atheism is the absence of belief in a god (i.e. theism).

Absence is not the same as "opposite of".

Perhaps you should contemplate that. You may become enlightened.
 
Last edited:
Lithrael said:
Seriously though, in this context it’s sophistry. We do actually all know who we’re talking about when we read ‘atheists’ in the sentence ‘are atheists a bunch of sad wet blankets or what?’ We don’t need to re-examine the concept of what exactly must be rejected (or just not embraced) for someone to count as an atheist, in order to go “maybe ones who arrived at atheism with some sense that they were lied to or manipulated by a belief system, or ones who were comforted by one and now feel abandoned without one. And maybe ones who are dismayed for various reasons about how ubiquitous believers are. Otherwise they’re just folks.”

ETA added snark, deleted it again
Click to expand...

If the concept of atheism is so clear, why are there endless discussions in this forum about it?
If the concept of god is vague, how can the concept of godless be clear?
In any discussion it is necessary to specify the concepts when there are reasonable doubts that they are not used in the same way. This is normal. Another thing is that there are people who do not know how to do it.
 
Steve said:
A more interesting example would be Haile Selassie, a man recognized as god incarnate by the Rastafarian religion. He most certainly existed, just the same as a breeze, and as a waffle house guy. Do you find it difficult to be an atheist regarding him? I do not.

It is easy to be atheist toward anyone's definition of god because there are absolutely no gods in existence.
Click to expand...

Before I define myself I would have to find out why he calls a natural phenomenon like the breeze "god". Then I would pronounce myself.

What do you mean by "god" when you say there are no gods?
 
Lithrael said:
True. “Your concept is a god but it doesn’t appear to be real” and “your concept is real but it doesn’t appear to be a god” make a nice little matched set on the shelf of atheism.
Click to expand...

Steve said:
A nice summary :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

A concept is neither real nor unreal. It may or may not be appropriate. Reality is defined by a sentence.
"Witch" is a suitable concept to define something. "Witches are not real" is a true proposition.
"God" is a rather vague concept.
"Gods do not exist" is equally vague, unless we specify the concept of god or suppose it is used in a certain way. In that case it is a true proposition.
 
quadraginta said:
No. It isn't.

I think this may be the nexus of most of your confusion.

Atheism is the absence of belief in a god (i.e. theism).

Absence is not the same as "opposite of".

Perhaps you should contemplate that. You may become enlightened.
Click to expand...

Drinking is the opposite of not drinking (ask someone who is thirsty).

Believing is the opposite of not believing.

In court, you will be asked, "Did you steal President's wallet? Yes or no?"

The absence of something is the opposite of its presence. Absence of belief is the opposite of presence of belief. This opposition is presented in terms of "yes" or "no". What is the difference between "no" and "absence"? Please specify.
 
Steve said:
A more interesting example would be Haile Selassie, a man recognized as god incarnate by the Rastafarian religion. He most certainly existed, just the same as a breeze, and as a waffle house guy. Do you find it difficult to be an atheist regarding him? I do not.

It is easy to be atheist toward anyone's definition of god because there are absolutely no gods in existence.
Click to expand...

David Mo said:
Before I define myself I would have to find out why he calls a natural phenomenon like the breeze "god". Then I would pronounce myself.

What do you mean by "god" when you say there are no gods?
Click to expand...


As an atheist I believe gods exist. Their existence is limited to the mind of the believer however, and every believers notion of their god, or gods, is different from another's, in either a major way or at lest subtly.

I am reading "A History of Christianity" by Diarmaid MacCulloch. The book goes into detail about the way Christianity developed over the years to become what it is today. Schisms over the nature of the substance of the Father God, Jesus God, and the Holy Spirit God divided the faithful. People were executed and wars fought between those with different views.

Given there are 40,000 different denominations of Christianity today, it's hard to imagine all the faithful having the same perception of the god they worship. I feel confident if you were to examine each believer, of any of this multitude of denominations, you would find a different vision of the god they believed in. Even if the detail is subtle - like the size of his feet.
 
Thor 2 said:
As an atheist I believe gods exist. Their existence is limited to the mind of the believer however, and every believers notion of their god, or gods, is different from another's, in either a major way or at lest subtly.

I am reading "A History of Christianity" by Diarmaid MacCulloch. The book goes into detail about the way Christianity developed over the years to become what it is today. Schisms over the nature of the substance of the Father God, Jesus God, and the Holy Spirit God divided the faithful. People were executed and wars fought between those with different views.

Given there are 40,000 different denominations of Christianity today, it's hard to imagine all the faithful having the same perception of the god they worship. I feel confident if you were to examine each believer, of any of this multitude of denominations, you would find a different vision of the god they believed in. Even if the detail is subtle - like the size of his feet.
Click to expand...

Although different believers believe in different gods the question arise if it is possible to find some common characteristics. At least of the main religions in our times. I think that it can be something so:
God is a supernatural entity that has absolute powers over men and things. He decides what is good for men and commands them to do it with the promise of a great reward on this earth or in another world, generally after death.

Other religions I know lower gods' power (Helenism) or have not any notion of an after life (Sadducees). Other have not a clear sense of supernatural (Odin). Among philosophers many variants are possible. Therefore we need to precise the meaning of "god" before a discussion with theists. You can get surprised sometimes.
 
David Mo said:
Although different believers believe in different gods the question arise if it is possible to find some common characteristics. At least of the main religions in our times. I think that it can be something so:
God is a supernatural entity that has absolute powers over men and things. He decides what is good for men and commands them to do it with the promise of a great reward on this earth or in another world, generally after death.

Other religions I know lower gods' power (Helenism) or have not any notion of an after life (Sadducees). Other have not a clear sense of supernatural (Odin). Among philosophers many variants are possible. Therefore we need to precise the meaning of "god" before a discussion with theists. You can get surprised sometimes.
Click to expand...


A few common characteristics is not enough to define a god so two people can agree on his definitive identity.

The Abrahamic God doesn't have that absolute power you talk about then. According to scripture he was unable to kill Moses, had problems with steel chariots, and was bested in an argument with Abraham once. Some god.

I am rarely surprised when discussing with theists. Not a lot of thought goes into what they believe I have found. Catholics just go through the motions and trust the priests to have a handle on stuff. The "Born Agains" I know don't go in much for scripture although maintaining confidence in its veracity. Their mainstay is their personal relationship with Jesus.
 
David Mo said:
If the concept of atheism is so clear, why are there endless discussions in this forum about it?
Click to expand...

For those who feel it necessary to attack atheism, clarity makes no difference.

David Mo said:
If the concept of god is vague, how can the concept of godless be clear?
Click to expand...

Here's where you miss the clarity: atheists do not believe in any god(s). There's nothing vague about that.

David Mo said:
In any discussion it is necessary to specify the concepts when there are reasonable doubts that they are not used in the same way. This is normal. Another thing is that there are people who do not know how to do it.
Click to expand...

What strikes me most about this thread is that you seem not to even understand atheism. Let's try an analogy.

Atheist: "I decline to eat turds because they're disgusting."

David Mo: "But you haven't tried every kind of turd. How do you know that the turd I put in front of you in this moment, or a turd that might be presented to you some time in the future, isn't absolutely delicious? Yadda yadda. Blather blather."

If you can see what I'm saying, perhaps you can rethink your position in this thread. Atheists don't believe in any god(s). That's how simple it is. An atheist is not required to explicitly NOTBELIEVE every silly god-concept that anyone comes up with. We don't have to taste every turd.
 
Thor 2 said:
A few common characteristics is not enough to define a god so two people can agree on his definitive identity.

The Abrahamic God doesn't have that absolute power you talk about then. According to scripture he was unable to kill Moses, had problems with steel chariots, and was bested in an argument with Abraham once. Some god.

I am rarely surprised when discussing with theists. Not a lot of thought goes into what they believe I have found. Catholics just go through the motions and trust the priests to have a handle on stuff. The "Born Agains" I know don't go in much for scripture although maintaining confidence in its veracity. Their mainstay is their personal relationship with Jesus.
Click to expand...

This only means that this standard definition is useful in habitual debating forums but has to be corrected when some peculiar participant brings a uncommon concept of "god".
I don't see any problem.
 
eerok said:
For those who feel it necessary to attack atheism, clarity makes no difference.
Click to expand...
I mean discussions between atheists.



eerok said:
Here's where you miss the clarity: atheists do not believe in any god(s). There's nothing vague about that.



What strikes me most about this thread is that you seem not to even understand atheism. Let's try an analogy.

Atheist: "I decline to eat turds because they're disgusting."

David Mo: "But you haven't tried every kind of turd. How do you know that the turd I put in front of you in this moment, or a turd that might be presented to you some time in the future, isn't absolutely delicious? Yadda yadda. Blather blather."

If you can see what I'm saying, perhaps you can rethink your position in this thread. Atheists don't believe in any god(s). That's how simple it is. An atheist is not required to explicitly NOTBELIEVE every silly god-concept that anyone comes up with. We don't have to taste every turd.
Click to expand...

I think you're the one who doesn't understand the problem. You say you don't believe in any god. But that the concept of God is vague. Do you reject the concept because it is vague? I can understand that, but it doesn't seem what you have said.

If what you say is that you don't believe in something because you have reasons, you have to assume that you know what you're talking about. And if you do, it's because you have a concept of what you reject more or less clearly. Where did you get it? It can't be from believers, because you say that the concept of God they have is confusing. Where then? It makes no sense for you to provide a clear concept of God that is not used by your opponents, since it is their that you reject.

To be honest, if this is atheism, it seems to me to be an illogical position.

I think the alternative is clear: When you discuss the existence of God with a theist you should ask him to specify the concept of God. My atheism is based on the fact that whenever I have discussed with a theist his concept of God was clear but false or confused and meaningless.

Although the probability that there is a theism that does not fall into these contradictions cannot be denied, I have argued so many times that I am reasonably certain that my atheism is justified: God does not exist.

NOTE "Turd" is not so vague as "god", I think.
 
Last edited:
I'll expand my answer:

Imagine that you enter into a debate and define yourself as an atheist.
Imagine someone asking you what you mean by atheist.
Imagine that you answer: "atheists do not believe in any god(s)"
Imagine your opponent asking you if that includes the god of Spirit-Wrestlers.
What do you do now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom