Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

[David Mo]

The idea that you need to pin down the definition of a word as it’s being used by the person you’re talking to is fine and sensible. The idea that we need to finally arrive at a true all-purpose meaning of a word like god or love in order to chat with someone who says “I am an atheist” or “I am in love” is neither necessary nor productive. Though of course it can be great fun to sit down and try to hammer out such a definition, no conclusion will actually be reached, ever.

That applies in the case of theists and the idea of God because what we are discussing is the idea that they have in their head, which is what we say we don't believe.

It does not apply to any kind of discussion on any other subject. "Love" for example.
Definitions of words are need if you want avoid verbal discussions when people think that they are speaking about the same thing and this is not so. They are a very common mess.

 

[Darat]

That's not what I said. I said that to be an atheist one has to have an idea of what believers believe God to be. That you don't need to know all the religions there are and have been in the world, but to establish an operative definition based on what you know.



If someone argues that his concept of God is not included in that operative definition, we must limit atheism to what is known or kindly ask the believer to expose the idea of God that he has. I have already given that operative definition at least twice.



This does not mean at all having to know all past, present and future religions.

Nope, all an atheist has to be able to say is "none" to the question of "which god or gods do you believe in?"

 

[abaddon]

Instead of saying that my definition is not suitable for the major religions of today's world, why don't you quote some of them that don't fit my definition? If you don't give examples, you don't know what you're talking about.

Squeak, squeak, squeak. Rollin' rollin, rollin. See those goalposts rollin, Dave Mo.

 

[abaddon]

(Your own words in italics)
a) Any reasonably clear proposition surrounding god or Gods that I have heard so far I have found implausible.

b) 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.

c) So, yes, of course you can consider a proposition implausible independent of supporting arguments.

In b and c you stand by considering the (dis)value of proofs of the existence of god and in c you consider it is irrelevant. Either there is a contradiction between a-b and c or c is a simple irrelevant nuance.

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.

What is your position?

Let me illustrate your problem.

I make the affirmative claim that I hold no belief in any god and/or gods.

As the affirmative claimant, I thus bear a burden of proof for that claim.

What evidence is there available that I do not in fact believe in any god and/or gods? Well, I don't, do I.

Now what?

 

[Lithrael]

When the atheist chooses his option he is discarding the idea of a protective Superfather in the name of freedom. (...) Maybe "in the name" was not appropriate. It implies a conscientious act. I meant freedom in the sense of autonomous decision. (...)

OK, once again I’m gonna try to get this across: when you say this it sounds like you’re implying the ‘choice’ is made in favor of autonomy. In my experience the ‘choice’ is made in favor of it just not appearing to be true. I thought it was a major philosophical point that things aren’t more or less true because we do or don’t like whatever’s consequent.

 

[Steve]

You mix two different themes: The definition of God and his existence. The first is limited to how men use the word "god". This is a semantic issue. The second is a question of facts: how can we provide or refute evidence that "gods" exist.

I am only discussing the first question. It is self-evident that you cannot understand the use of a word that comes from theism without analyzing how theists use this word. So easy to understand. If you don't get such a simple idea it's because you're mixing two different topics.

I have already given my definition of "god". It is based on the idea of god in theism. Obviously the theism I know. It was something like this:
God is a supernatural force that has exceptional powers and gives rules to act in order to get some reward in this or other life.

This is a very broad definition. Actually, what interests me are the "religions of the book" or similar, which include creation, omnipotence, goodness, etc. Discussing god with a believer in the Aztec gods is of little interest to me.

Why do you persist in the erroneous position that the existence of gods depends on how they are defined? Gods, regardless of any definition by any religion or any individual, do not exist. I have absolutely no problem understanding any definition of gods that have ever been provided. I react to them all exactly the same way.

I rarely discuss the existence of gods with anyone these days. It always proves pointless. The discussions always devolve into exactly the same thing that you are dong - what about this (example/definition)?.....ok what about this one? It becomes tedious very quickly.

If you go back through my posts in this thread you may realize that I have not attempted to discuss the existence of any gods. What I have consistently said is that any and all definitions of any god is utterly irrelevant to the existence of said god.

 

[Robin]

You're masking your propositions. In the context of your proposition (b) "so" is a conjunction and synonymous with "therefore". That is, you find X implausible because the arguments you have heard in favor of X are implausible. This is contradictory to saying that your belief is independent of X's arguments.

Lets look at the quote itself, shall we?

"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."
That clearly does not say "so I find the existence of God improbable". You need to read a little more carefully.

Blatant contradiction

Let's see:

1. The fact that the search for an argument for God has been fruitless for millenia suggests that it is unlikely that there will be such an argument.
2. An proposition can be refuted without knowing any arguments in favour of the proposition
3. A refutation of an argument in favour of a proposition is not a refutation of the proposition itself.

I am still genuinely puzzled as to why you think there is any contradiction between these positions.

 

[Robin]

Take another example.

Look at the proposition "A rocket provides no thrust in a vacuum".

We do not need to know any arguments in favour of proposition in order to show that it is false. We can look at the evidence we have of rockets providing propulsion in a vacuum and also show that for a rocket not to work in a vacuum, all the physics for the last few centuries would have to be radically wrong.


We can provide physical arguments that show the impossibility of matter being expelled from a container without the container moving in the opposite direction.

 

[Robin]

I have already given my definition of "god". It is based on the idea of god in theism. Obviously the theism I know. It was something like this:
God is a supernatural force that has exceptional powers and gives rules to act in order to get some reward in this or other life.

Do you realise that this definition would be regarded as wrong and probably heretical by all the major branches of Christianity?

 

[David Mo]

Nope, all an atheist has to be able to say is "none" to the question of "which god or gods do you believe in?"

That's not the only question. There are others linked to it.
a) What do you mean by "god"?
b) Why don't you believe in any god?

You will have to answer sooner or later if you want to debate the subject. If you don't want to do it I don't know what you do in a discussion forum. And that will force you to refer to the gods of believers you don't believe in.

 

[David Mo]

Squeak, squeak, squeak. Rollin' rollin, rollin. See those goalposts rollin, Dave Mo.

Eloquent silence. You don't know of any relevant religion that doesn't fit the definition I gave. You speak in the vacuum.

 

[David Mo]

Let me illustrate your problem.

I make the affirmative claim that I hold no belief in any god and/or gods.

As the affirmative claimant, I thus bear a burden of proof for that claim.

What evidence is there available that I do not in fact believe in any god and/or gods? Well, I don't, do I.

Now what?

You're not answering the question. Saying what your position is does not imply the burden of proof, but is defined among the options of an alternative. Especially because the stated alternative was confusing.
Of course I have a problem. That you do not answer what I ask.

Anyway, the evidence that can be presented of your atheism is not whether or not you believe what you say. That is a personal problem. Evidence refers to the statement you make. Saying I don't believe in something doesn't imply verification, until someone asks you why you don't believe and you have to give a reason.

 

[David Mo]

OK, once again I’m gonna try to get this across: when you say this it sounds like you’re implying the ‘choice’ is made in favor of autonomy. In my experience the ‘choice’ is made in favor of it just not appearing to be true. I thought it was a major philosophical point that things aren’t more or less true because we do or don’t like whatever’s consequent.

You choose between the imperious commands of a heavenly Father or decide for yourself what you should do (autonomy). This choice does not imply any truth until you raise the second part: does that heavenly Father exist? I point out that there may be an option in the first choice without accepting the second. See the rebellion of Ivan Karamazov: God may exist. If so, he is an unjust and cruel father.

 

[David Mo]

Why do you persist in the erroneous position that the existence of gods depends on how they are defined? Gods, regardless of any definition by any religion or any individual, do not exist. I have absolutely no problem understanding any definition of gods that have ever been provided. I react to them all exactly the same way.

I rarely discuss the existence of gods with anyone these days. It always proves pointless. The discussions always devolve into exactly the same thing that you are dong - what about this (example/definition)?.....ok what about this one? It becomes tedious very quickly.

The existence of gods does not depend on how we define them. Your belief in the existence of gods depends on how you understand the concept of god, that is, how you define it.

You don't realize that if you reject the existence of god it's because you already have an idea of what believers say a god is. Where else have you got that idea of god that you have? Has it occurred to you just one night of insomnia?

Of course if you don't know how to define something you can't have an idea of what you're denying. It would be absurd to deny something you don't know what it is. Having a good definition is the first step to having a clear question.

I think it's good that he's clear about his atheism and that he doesn't feel like discussing it. It's a personal choice. But now we are discussing the concept of God that we have. Not about his existence. At least I try.

 

[David Mo]

Lets look at the quote itself, shall we?

"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."
That clearly does not say "so I find the existence of God improbable". You need to read a little more carefully.


Let's see:

1. The fact that the search for an argument for God has been fruitless for millenia suggests that it is unlikely that there will be such an argument.
2. An proposition can be refuted without knowing any arguments in favour of the proposition
3. A refutation of an argument in favour of a proposition is not a refutation of the proposition itself.

I am still genuinely puzzled as to why you think there is any contradiction between these positions.

You don't analyze the reasons I gave you. You don't even refer to the contradictory phrases I pointed out.
We can't move forward if instead of counterargumenting you limit yourself to repeating what I criticized.

 

[David Mo]

Take another example.

Look at the proposition "A rocket provides no thrust in a vacuum".

We do not need to know any arguments in favour of proposition in order to show that it is false. We can look at the evidence we have of rockets providing propulsion in a vacuum and also show that for a rocket not to work in a vacuum, all the physics for the last few centuries would have to be radically wrong.


We can provide physical arguments that show the impossibility of matter being expelled from a container without the container moving in the opposite direction.

The new phrase that you invent has nothing to do with the problem of defining what God is, which is what I am proposing.

Anyway, as to whether the phrase "God exists" can be rejected without taking into account the reasons of theists, this would be true if you had empirical evidence that God does not exist as strong as we have about the impossibility of flying in the void. Do you have them? If so, tell us, because it will be sensational.

 

[David Mo]

These days I'm not going to be very operational, so I leave here my last argument.

We learn to use words in two ways. Or by ostensive definitions (naming and pointing at the same time) or by successive approximations to how people use them (semantic definition). In the case of God, we can be pointed out various representations in churches or in books. But we are told that the idea is approximate and the meaning is clarified more or less confusingly with words. At a given moment we ask ourselves about the existence of such a strange character. It may be that we accept it or we may reject it, but the idea/concept will always come from what the people who say they believe in it have told us.

If you don't agree, explain how a child can have the idea of God that it is not so. I can't wait to see how far your inventiveness goes.

 

[Robin]

You don't analyze the reasons I gave you. You don't even refer to the contradictory phrases I pointed out.
We can't move forward if instead of counterargumenting you limit yourself to repeating what I criticized.

I did analyze the reasons you gave, I pointed out that my clause after "so" didn't refer to the that which you claim it did.

You just didn't read my response properly.

If you disagree then tell me what your 'X' refers to. You will find that you have simply misrepresented what I said.

If you want to claim I have contradicted me, do so on the basis of what I actually said and not what you pretended I said.

 

[Robin]

The new phrase that you invent has nothing to do with the problem of defining what God is, which is what I am proposing.

I am saying that a proposition can be examined and refuted without having to see the arguments in favour of it.

You are disagreeing, and so you are claiming that a proposition cannot be refuted until you have seen any arguments in favour of it.

I am giving counter examples.

 

[David Mo]

I am saying that a proposition can be examined and refuted without having to see the arguments in favour of it.

You are disagreeing, and so you are claiming that a proposition cannot be refuted until you have seen any arguments in favour of it.

I am giving counter examples.

I explained why your examples do not correspond to the problem of God's existence. Only if the concept of God was semantically or logically contradictory. I don't know if that's your position.

You should argue along that line, not giving other examples that are not relevant. For example: Do you have empirical evidence similar to the rocket in the void that proves that God does not exist? I am waiting for an answer.