Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

[David Mo]

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

The contradiction was in the next other two sentences. I quoted these in case I misunderstood.

Now I can summarize your position as follows: you do not believe in gods because the reasons that are given or could be given in favour of their existence seem implausible to you. I hope I have correctly summed up your position--which is what matters.

I think you mean that these three sentences summarize your position that some would call "atheism," but that you would not call it that.
Do you know other word that might refer to your position in order to make it handy?

 

[abaddon]

Catholics just go through the motions and trust the priests to have a handle on stuff.

Oh, they have a "handle" on something right enough, but it sure ain't any "god".

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.

I don't engage such in any iscussion anymore. You can always see that moment when the eyes glaze over and the autonomic system takes over and does a Pavlovian loop the loop with the responses they have been trained to barf out.

These days, I simply get as offensive as possible so they will **** right off in the shortest possible time.

 

[abaddon]

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?

Sloppy language. My eldest took a sick day from school and so was "absent" from school. But I know the snivelling, snot-filled wreck was absolutely "present" in my place just not school.

Pointless terminological equivocation does not an argument make.

 

[abaddon]

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.

It's an outright insult. Deal with it.

 

[I Am The Scum]

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?

The opposite of the "presence of black" is the "presence of white," because black and white are opposite colors.

A zebra has both black and "opposite of black" stripes. Obviously, that does not mean that it both does and does not have black stripes. Only someone extremely comfortable with absurdity could believe such a thing. Perhaps you'll double down.

 

[Robin]

. Now I can summarize your position as follows: you do not believe in gods because the reasons that are given or could be given in favour of their existence seem implausible to you. I hope I have correctly summed up your position--which is what matters.

No you haven't correctly summed up my position.

I have already corrected you on that but I don't have time right now to do it again

 

[Robin]

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.

Here it is from before. I think I am being pretty clear.

 

[David Mo]

No you haven't correctly summed up my position.

I have already corrected you on that but I don't have time right now to do it again

Well, it seems to me that I have perfectly summarized the three sentences you wrote.
I'm surprised you don't have time to write two or three lines describing your position, but I'll expect you to do so. I am very interested.

 

[David Mo]

Sloppy language. My eldest took a sick day from school and so was "absent" from school. But I know the snivelling, snot-filled wreck was absolutely "present" in my place just not school.

Therefore, being absent from school is the opposite of being at school. Either he was there or he wasn't. Don't be is the opposite of being, dear.

We can continue this discussion. I like it. It looks like it was taken from a Marx Brothers film.

 

[Robin]

Well, it seems to me that I have perfectly summarized the three sentences you wrote.

I'm surprised you don't have time to write two or three lines describing your position, but I'll expect you to do so. I am very interested.

I reposted my earlier correction above.

Finding a proposition implausible is different to finding the reasons given for that proposition for implausible so you haven't "summed up" what I said, you changed it.

 

[David Mo]

It's an outright insult. Deal with it.

What? Autism or language problems?

 

[David Mo]

Here it is from before. I think I am being pretty clear.

Let's see, you said that "any statement that surrounds the gods is implausible". This obviously implies the affirmation "God exists" and proofs about his existence, which is what we are discussing. You also said that "there are sufficient reasons to think that [belief in God] is almost certainly not true". Isn't this the same as "you do not believe in gods because the reasons that are given or could be given in favour of their existence seem implausible to you"? To think that something is almost certainly false is not the same as to think that it is implausible? To think that something is not the same that to think that reasons in favour of it are not valid?

I'm really baffled.

 

[David Mo]

The opposite of the "presence of black" is the "presence of white," because black and white are opposite colors.

A zebra has both black and "opposite of black" stripes. Obviously, that does not mean that it both does and does not have black stripes. Only someone extremely comfortable with absurdity could believe such a thing. Perhaps you'll double down.

The opposite of black is white and many other colours.

But here we are talking about a question that only admits two answers: Does God exist? Yes or no. Or is God Schrödinger's cat?

 

[David Mo]

I'm going to bed. I don't think I'm able to endure such metaphysical arguments.

 

[Steve]

Because you know what Spirit-Wrestlers think that God is. Or you don't know what you're talking about.

Why do you offer only two options? Here is a third - It does not matter.

 

[Steve]

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.

Good one Davey. We are well aware that you consider yourself a superior intellect. Maybe you could summarize for us what you have said in this thread that is in any way useful or interesting.

Here is a summary of my position:

Gods do not exist.
I have no interest in trying to define the nonexistent.
Anything that anyone else attempts to define as a god does not exist as a god.
I have no interest in any attempts to define the nonexistent by any other person.
That you are hung up on definitions does not matter to me.

 

[I Am The Scum]

The opposite of black is white and many other colours.

No, it's not. I knew you'd double down, but admittedly, your exact method was a bit of a surprise.

Like I said, "opposite" is not synonymous with "absent". "Absence" is, however, the opposite of "presence." Maybe that's where you're mixed up.

You're not gonna move forward if you can't admit even the smallest of errors.

 

[Robin]

Let's see, you said that "any statement that surrounds the gods is implausible". This obviously implies the affirmation "God exists" and proofs about his existence, which is what we are discussing. You also said that "there are sufficient reasons to think that [belief in God] is almost certainly not true". Isn't this the same as "you do not believe in gods because the reasons that are given or could be given in favour of their existence seem implausible to you"? To think that something is almost certainly false is not the same as to think that it is implausible? To think that something is not the same that to think that reasons in favour of it are not valid?

I'm really baffled.

Let's see, you said that "any statement that surrounds the gods is implausible".

Doesn't sound like anything I said. Why don't you quote the part where you allege I said that.

And if you really can't understand the difference between "I find the proposition implausible" and "I find the reasons given in favour of the proposition implausible" then you are missing an important point about reasoning.

 

[Robin]

Deleted

 

[David Mo]

Why do you offer only two options? Here is a third - It does not matter.

Because this third option is to change the subject. If the question is "How do you know X", "X doesn't matter" is not an answer. It sounds like dodging the issue.

Good one Davey. We are well aware that you consider yourself a superior intellect. Maybe you could summarize for us what you have said in this thread that is in any way useful or interesting.

Here is a summary of my position:

Gods do not exist.
I have no interest in trying to define the nonexistent.
Anything that anyone else attempts to define as a god does not exist as a god.
I have no interest in any attempts to define the nonexistent by any other person.
That you are hung up on definitions does not matter to me.

I see:

You believe in X but you are not interested in discussing your belief with those that believe no-X. But I don't understand why you enter in a discussion forum if you don't want discuss your position.