Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

[David Mo]

"Absence" is not synonymous with "opposite." Stop playing with words.

How is the absence of something different from the opposite of its presence? "It was there" is the opposite of "It was not there".
If you have a better idea, why don't you explain it?

 

[David Mo]

Or if you're in a snarky mood, you might say, "What part of 'not believe in any god(s)' did you not understand?"

And the answer will be: "if you don't know what I understand by God, why do you say you don't believe in him?"

 

[David Mo]

Well, it seems that the number of those who write to say nothing increases in this thread. It's always better than going into the insult phase.

 

[David Mo]

The only interesting and useful clarification that’s happened in this thread was the bit where there was an assumption that atheists in general experience atheism as missing something that had been important. And many people said they didn’t experience it that way, often because religion was never a felt as a strong force in their lives personally in the first place. Nothing else has been clarified at all, as far as I can see. Did I miss any other points of clarity?

And I still in my position. When the atheist chooses his option he is discarding the idea of a protective Superfather in the name of freedom. This discard is particularly difficult for people who have believed in God for years. For others, freedom can be a much more exalting experience. Or it can be something that has been chosen without giving it much importance. This causes different psychological reactions. But I'm not talking about psychology. I'm defining the logical importance of the problem: the fact that being an atheist implies a decision that has consequences that affect how we project our life. And that certain atheists seem not to have understood the problem and continue as if God's death (metaphor) did not imply consequences.

This is quite simple. If it provokes such disproportionate reactions it is because some in this forum project on what I say their own paranoia (fear, aggressiveness, closed-mindedness ... I don't know). But there is nothing I can do with this. I'm not a psychiatrist.

 

[Robin]

And I still in my position. When the atheist chooses his option he is discarding the idea of a protective Superfather in the name of freedom.

And you are still relying on these dubious premises.

It may be that there is a small subset of atheists who are discarding the idea of God in the name of freedom. I have not met any such atheists, however I don't rule out that there may be some.

In general atheists fall into the categories of those who never believed in a God or gods and those who discard the idea because it is not true.

Indeed, as you are pointing out, for many it is the realisation that, once you begin to examine it, there appears to be no fixed meaning to the term. Someone who says "But what about the god of the Spirit-Wrestlers?" is only underlining this point.

 

[Robin]

I'll expand my answer:

Imagine that you enter into a debate and define yourself as an atheist.

There you go again. I never define myself as an atheist.

I never define myself at all. I take myself as I find me.

 

[David Mo]

And you are still relying on these dubious premises.

It may be that there is a small subset of atheists who are discarding the idea of God in the name of freedom. I have not met any such atheists, however I don't rule out that there may be some.

In general atheists fall into the categories of those who never believed in a God or gods and those who discard the idea because it is not true.

Indeed, as you are pointing out, for many it is the realisation that, once you begin to examine it, there appears to be no fixed meaning to the term. Someone who says "But what about the god of the Spirit-Wrestlers?" is only underlining this point.

Maybe "in the name" was not appropriate. It implies a conscientious act. I meant freedom in the sense of autonomous decision.

Making a decision or choice just means that you are in a situation where at least two options are possible. That's something we do constantly, consciously or unconsciously. It's not weird or metaphysical. It doesn't imply a special effort in most cases. Not even being aware of it. But the choice, as I understand it, exists.

 

[Darat]

Well, it seems that the number of those who write to say nothing increases in this thread. It's always better than going into the insult phase.

Pot, kettle let me introduce you:

... Snip... But you're something as autistic or have problems with reading.

 

[David Mo]

There you go again. I never define myself as an atheist.

I never define myself at all. I take myself as I find me.

I suppose that when you enter into a debate you have a more or less assumed position. Suppose it is about the existence of God. Suppose you do not believe in God. Suppose we call that being an atheist. Then you enter the debate with a more or less defined position that in this forum is usually called "atheist". (This is not a definition I like, but I am using it in order to no deviate the debate).

If you do not have a definite position, nor do you define yourself as an atheist or an agnostic or anything, then everything I have been saying so far has nothing to do with you. I am speaking for people who believe they are atheists or who claim they do not believe in God.

 

[Robin]

Suppose I enter a debate and am so careless as to describe myself as an atheist and my opponent asks what it means. I answer "It means that have no belief in a God or gods".

And your opponent says "What about the god of <insert some sect here>?"

I answer "I have never heard of <insert same sect here> so clearly I have no belief in that god."

My opponent says "Well the <insert same sect here> believe that god is <insert belief here>"

Me: "I still have no belief in God or gods".

I will grant, however, that old-fashioned theatres had cheap seats on the balcony.

 

[David Mo]

Pot, kettle let me introduce you:

I don't consider autistic people to be despicable. They are people who have trouble getting out of themselves. It's not an insult.
As for reading problems, many people have them. I have trouble reading in English. I'm not insulting myself.

 

[David Mo]

Suppose I enter a debate and am so careless as to describe myself as an atheist and my opponent asks what it means. I answer "It means that have no belief in a God or gods".

And your opponent says "What about the god of <insert some sect here>?"

I answer "I have never heard of <insert same sect here> so clearly I have no belief in that god."

My opponent says "Well the <insert same sect here> believe that god is <insert belief here>"

Me: "I still have no belief in God or gods".

I will grant, however, that old-fashioned theatres had cheap seats on the balcony.

You're saying the same thing I'm saying.

First of all, you state that you do not believe in gods based on the information you have to date. When you are given new information you reaffirm your non-belief.
Therefore: you always rely on the information you have about what believers say is "god".

When you get new information, you reaffirm what you believed before, admitting that there is a possibility (however remote) that you might have changed your initial position.

 

[Robin]

I suppose that when you enter into a debate you have a more or less assumed position. Suppose it is about the existence of God. Suppose you do not believe in God. Suppose we call that being an atheist.

You are free to call it what you wish, of course.

The point is that for any reasonably clear proposition I can take a position, either I believe, I disbelieve or I do not have enough grounds for either of those positions.

For unclear propositions I could not be said to have a belief, nor really could anyone else.

Any reasonably clear proposition surrounding god or Gods that I have heard so far I have found implausible.

I also note that the very best minds of humanity have been trying to make a case for a God for millenia and we do not have one yet, so I find it implausible that a good argument is going to be forthcoming about any such entity.

If that is what you call "atheism", then yes, I suppose I could be described as such.

I don't define myself that way.

 

[David Mo]

You are free to call it what you wish, of course.

The point is that for any reasonably clear proposition I can take a position, either I believe, I disbelieve or I do not have enough grounds for either of those positions.

For unclear propositions I could not be said to have a belief, nor really could anyone else.

Any reasonably clear proposition surrounding god or Gods that I have heard so far I have found implausible.

I also note that the very best minds of humanity have been trying to make a case for a God for millenia and we do not have one yet, so I find it implausible that a good argument is going to be forthcoming about any such entity.

If that is what you call "atheism", then yes, I suppose I could be described as such.

I don't define myself that way.

I don't get it. The two highlighted sentences seem contradictory.
Do you mean that although you assume the position of non-belief because of the insufficiency of the reasons for God's existence you would not call yourself "atheist"?

If you are saying that we agree. I would not call your position "atheism" either. But as for your position I understand what you mean. That's what matters, not the name.

 

[Robin]

I don't get it. The two highlighted sentences seem contradictory.

I am not sure what contradiction you are seeing.

"John supposes that he could be described as X"
"John does not define himself as X"

They seem to be quite consistent to me.

 

[David Mo]

I am not sure what contradiction you are seeing.

"John supposes that he could be described as X"
"John does not define himself as X"

They seem to be quite consistent to me.

"For unclear propositions I could not be said to have a belief,(...)

Any reasonably clear proposition surrounding god or Gods that I have heard so far I have found implausible.

(...) I find it implausible that a good argument is going to be forthcoming about any such entity"

You don't hold these three sentences?

 

[Robin]

Do you mean that although you assume the position of non-belief because of the insufficiency of the reasons for God's existence you would not call yourself "atheist"?

I assume the position of disbelief in the God proposition because I think there are sufficient reasons to think it is almost certainly not true.

I don't define myself as an atheist. If others describe me as an atheist then I will not object.

 

[Robin]

"For unclear propositions I could not be said to have a belief,(...)

Any reasonably clear proposition surrounding god or Gods that I have heard so far I have found implausible.

(...) I find it implausible that a good argument is going to be forthcoming about any such entity"

You don't hold these three sentences?

If you think there is a contradiction, then why don't you just show me where it is?

 

[Robin]

John supposes that he could be described as a Stoic.

John does not define himself as a Stoic.

 

[Robin]

The trouble with labels is that if you adopt them people will assign you all the characteristics and beliefs that they associate with the label.