Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

Here is a question.

Say we have the proposition "A implies B"

Suppose that we find A is false, does that imply that B is false?

What if we found that the proposition "A implies B" was false, would that imply B is false?

Does A being false or "A implies B" being false tell us anything at all about the truth or falsity of B?
 
Robin said:
It is actually a pretty important tenet of Christianity that our salvation was earned by Jesus Christ. That was supposed to be the entire point of the whole dying on the cross thing, he wasn't just into S&M.

Another point is that in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, the God is not just some powerful supernatural force that just turned up and offered rewards, God is the creator of all things.

Do you think that Islam, for example, would accept a definition under which a powerful Djinn might be classified as God?
Click to expand...

I have not said that it is the only thing God does in the religions of the Book. I am giving a definition that encompasses the majority of relevant religions, just as the concept of force does not apply only to the force of gravity. In the religions of the Book there are other traits of God that I have omitted to broaden the definition. But in all them God is a personal power, therefore also "supernatural strength".

"There is no god but Allah", says the Koran. I would like to know what Muslim sect says that a djin is a God.
 
Robin said:
By the by, here are a couple of emails I received today:


and


What do you think? Plausible?
Click to expand...

If said like this way not too much plausible. In other more persuasive words this is plausible for millions of people.
Not for me, because I have listened to these people's arguments and I have found them implausible. They are just irrational. However, I confess that some of them made me think back then. Games with words, but entangled. You know.
 
Robin said:
Here is a question.

Say we have the proposition "A implies B"

Suppose that we find A is false, does that imply that B is false?

What if we found that the proposition "A implies B" was false, would that imply B is false?

Does A being false or "A implies B" being false tell us anything at all about the truth or falsity of B?
Click to expand...

No. Because B could also be caused by C. The correct logical formula would be B is false if and only if A is false. Or if you prefer A and only A implies B. In empirical knowledge it is difficult that one and only one be the cause of an event. In the case of God the thing is presented as quite complicated, because theists tend to flee from empirical refutations by moving into the realm of metaphysics or theodicy. In this way they invent or refine proofs of the existence of God that escape the usual objections of positivism. So you have to work a little more on the answer than simply proclaiming that their belief is implausible.
 
David Mo said:
No. Because B could also be caused by C.
Click to expand...
"Implies" and "cause" are separate concepts do I don't really understand your answer.

Another question, do you think something can be true without there being any possible way to prove it, even in principle?


So you have to work a little more on the answer than simply proclaiming that their belief is implausible.
Click to expand...
Why? Would you say the same for the man"s claim about his rich corrupt uncle?

Would you say the same about claims like global consciousness, mind reading etc?

There really are so many claims around these days and not much time, so I can't process them all.

So why do I need to spend time I will never get back on this particular claim among all the others?
 
There are so many of these claims around - mind reading, psychokinesis, astrology, The Secret, powerful supernatural forces offering rewards for rule following, lizard people, intelligent design, global consciousness and so on and so forth.

I will have a look at the arguments if it is going to be interesting but there are too many there and sometimes you just have to use judgement and say you find them implausible and let it go at that.

Life is short and there are so many positives to experience.
 
Dear Robin:

Implication is a very broad term. Causality is a case of implication that corresponds to the main proofs of God's existence. However, what I said about causality also refers to implication in general. "If and only if" is a typically logical term.

Something may be true even if we don't know it. But we are talking about knowing and then the answer is no. All factual questions are decided by evidence for or counter. Another thing is that you have so much prior evidence against something that you don't want to stop to hearing new propositions that sound bizarre. I think I've already answered to that in other comments.

None of the cases you cite (astrology, psychokinesis, etc.) refer to God. There is no reference of future commands or rewards from a supernatural being). A parapsychologist will be offended if you say that he professes a religion.

Just because you decide that something doesn't interest you doesn't mean that something shouldn't be discussed according to certain rules. Your interest is personal and private. Your logical behavior in a debate is not a personal matter. If you enter the debate you have to follow certain rules. Very strict if the debate is scientific, less strict if it is a forum like this, but always rules.
 
David Mo said:
None of the cases you cite (astrology, psychokinesis, etc.) refer to God.
Click to expand...
I don't recall saying that they did.

I was just giving a list of the kinds of beliefs around - "mind reading, psychokinesis, astrology, The Secret, powerful supernatural forces offering rewards for rule following, lizard people, intelligent design, global consciousness" in order to illustrate that it would be impossible to deal with them all.

Just because you decide that something doesn't interest you doesn't mean that something shouldn't be discussed according to certain rules
Click to expand...

It is a matter of practical necessity that you have to decide which one of these, if any, merits any time.
 
David Mo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you absolutely sure that nobody could have a concept of love which you would disagree with?


What about dragons?

I really don't need to know exactly which colour of dragon someone might propose exists, nor whether it can fly or breathe fire. Dragons are a pretty well defined category of things which are not real. Dragons are just pretend. I don't believe in them.

I don't care if you just thought up some new dragon with rainbow scales and wheels instead of feet. Since nobody else has thought of it yet clearly nobody currently believes in it and you may take it for granted that when you do tell me about it, I will not believe in it because it's a dragon and they're just pretend.

Likewise Gods.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Are you absolutely sure that nobody could have a concept of love which you would disagree with?


What about dragons?

I really don't need to know exactly which colour of dragon someone might propose exists, nor whether it can fly or breathe fire. Dragons are a pretty well defined category of things which are not real. Dragons are just pretend. I don't believe in them.

I don't care if you just thought up some new dragon with rainbow scales and wheels instead of feet. Since nobody else has thought of it yet clearly nobody currently believes in it and you may take it for granted that when you do tell me about it, I will not believe in it because it's a dragon and they're just pretend.

Likewise Gods.
Click to expand...

Nobody pretends that talking about dragons means believing that they exist.
Nobody pretends that in order to talk about gods it is necessary to believe that they exist.
However, to talk about dragons or gods you have to know what we are talking about.

I'm not sure if the word "dragon" has a precise meaning. I don't know if the word "god" has a precise meaning. But I am sure that if we want to talk about dragons or gods we will have to agree on how we use that word.

The normal way to do this is to go to the people who use it, for which dictionaries are often helpful.

Now, while anyone can invent a particular dragon, it would be a bit stupid for an atheist to invent a particular god. The reason is very simple: the atheist is someone who says he doesn't believe in the gods theists believe in. If an atheist invented a god to say that he doesn't believe in gods, he would be the laughing stock of people. Therefore, serious atheists often use the word "god" to designate the same kind of "thing" that theists claim to know. The difference is not in the definition but in the fact that the atheist says that this "thing" does not exist or it is incredible (it depends of what kind of atheist we are speaking here) .
 
Robin said:
It is a matter of practical necessity that you have to decide which one of these, if any, merits any time.
Click to expand...

Oh, sure. That is why those of us who defend rational thinking from irrationality and pseudoscience have to limit our objectives. I would say that a belief that is shared by hundreds of millions of people and that directly affects legislation and political practices around the world deserves special attention.

That's why those of us who are interested in the topic participate in this type of forum. I don't know what those who don't have time to waste with these "things" are doing here. I suppose they would be better off playing bridge.
 
Last edited:
David Mo said:
Now, while anyone can invent a particular dragon, it would be a bit stupid for an atheist to invent a particular god.
Click to expand...

Humans have believed in innumerable Gods over the course of history. Since theist and atheists can at least agree that the vast majority of them are not real, obviously someone invented them. You may think that was more stupid that inventing a dragon or other folklore creature but that doesn't seem to have prevented them from doing so.
 
Sure, to TALK about someone's personal concept of god(s), I would be required to listen to their descriptions. Though, I am long past listening and talking about each person's concept of god(s). Thus, I wouldn't bother.

To disbelieve in god(s), I don't need to listen to anyone's concept of god(s). Words have meanings. 'God(s)' has a meaning. God(s) don't exist.

If the person is using an idiosyncratic definition of god(s), I don't need to bother listening because I don't need a discussion where I have to learn what this person believes common words mean.
 
David Mo said:
But I am sure that if we want to talk about dragons or gods we will have to agree on how we use that word.
Click to expand...
You're responding to Jack by the Hedge's post about dragons which discussed potential properties of dragons like the ability to breathe fire or to fly. You and him are talking about dragons without agreeing on what dragons are (which was kind of his point). It's perfectly possible to discuss vague, ill-defined, changeable concepts like 'god' or 'dragon' without agreeing on a definition. I can dismiss dragons and gods because they all fall under an umbrella of ideas that are quite silly and implausible as far as I can see, so there's not much point to getting into semantics. Arguing about anyone's or everyone's idiosyncratic ideas of God and examining them to see if you can dismiss them (you can) is like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. There's better things to be doing.

td;dr: You don't need to agree on a definition of something to be able to discuss it. You can, depending on context, leave it open-ended and vague and still discuss it.
 
David Mo said:
Now, while anyone can invent a particular dragon, it would be a bit stupid for an atheist to invent a particular god. The reason is very simple: the atheist is someone who says he doesn't believe in the gods theists believe in. If an atheist invented a god to say that he doesn't believe in gods, he would be the laughing stock of people.
Click to expand...
Now, I think I wouldn't go so far as to say that...
 
David Mo said:
Oh, sure. That is why those of us who defend rational thinking from irrationality and pseudoscience have to limit our objectives. I would say that a belief that is shared by hundreds of millions of people and that directly affects legislation and political practices around the world deserves special attention.
Click to expand...
I have nothing against addressing the arguments theists make, it is just that I object to the idea that it should be some sort of duty for atheists to address these.

I would rather that more people spent time developing positive philosophies of life based on what is true and what we do believe.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Humans have believed in innumerable Gods over the course of history. Since theist and atheists can at least agree that the vast majority of them are not real, obviously someone invented them. You may think that was more stupid that inventing a dragon or other folklore creature but that doesn't seem to have prevented them from doing so.
Click to expand...

It would be stupid because if the atheist invent a particular god to deny it the theist would answer: "This is not the god I believe".
The god that atheist don't believe or he denies is the god that theists have invented.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom