Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

[David Mo]

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.

Meanings are not eternal entities. Meanings are created by how a speaker community uses a word. Given that the use of a word is not always unanimous --science excepted--, you need to know a standard definition and its more important variants. Otherwise discussion could end in language confusion and never ending debates about nothing.

This use can evolve. Therefore you need to be careful with this changes. You cannot be aware of the infinite variants of the word "god" but the more important ones. And if someone introduces a personal definition of god in the debate you can do two things: or take it into account or evade it. Your attitude depends of many particular circumstances that we don't need to discuss now.

 

[David Mo]

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.

I am not discussing the meaning of "dragon" with Jack because it was not relevant to our discussion. I thought that we were using a standard meaning. This can happen in a discussion about god. If the use of "god" is not common is a matter of the evolution of the discussion itself.

But you cannot pretend that the subject of dragons has the same interest that gods. Moral, social, political and personal implications are pretty far away in one and other case.

 

[David Mo]

Now, I think I wouldn't go so far as to say that...

This is a good joke.

 

[David Mo]

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.

Philosophies of life cannot grow in a vacuum test-tube. Since philosophy has no objective method to solve its problems, its particular truth arises in a fair debate with alternative outlooks.

I wouldn't say that debate with theists is a "duty" for atheists. It is a necessity.

 

[David Mo]

I don't know who says you that knowledge is a simple process. It is complicated and requires considerable efforts. This is its major greatness and what explains the pain and joy it produces.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I didn't say that people invented Gods in order to deny them. I merely noted that people invented Gods. Similarly people invented other mythical creatures. Do you think otherwise?

It makes no sense to claim atheists have a special burden to consider and reject all imaginable Gods before saying they don't believe in any. The same would apply to theists: how could one know that one was a good Muslim, for example, having no God but Allah, when there might hypothetically be some other idea of a God out there which, if you ever heard it, you might be amazed and dismayed to find you believed in?

It's the kind of absurdity that Terry Pratchett could have written about- a cult who believe indirectly in a God which if anyone ever realised what it was would instantly believe in it and abandon whichever Gods they had worshipped up till then.

 

[David Mo]

I didn't say that people invented Gods in order to deny them. I merely noted that people invented Gods. Similarly people invented other mythical creatures. Do you think otherwise?

It makes no sense to claim atheists have a special burden to consider and reject all imaginable Gods before saying they don't believe in any. The same would apply to theists: how could one know that one was a good Muslim, for example, having no God but Allah, when there might hypothetically be some other idea of a God out there which, if you ever heard it, you might be amazed and dismayed to find you believed in?

It's the kind of absurdity that Terry Pratchett could have written about- a cult who believe indirectly in a God which if anyone ever realised what it was would instantly believe in it and abandon whichever Gods they had worshipped up till then.

I don't think God is like Harry Potter. Almost the only thing they have in common is that they are fiction entities. Their social and cultural effects are not the same.

Everything I have said implies that the burden of proof of God's existence falls on the believer. Everything I have said implies that the rules of the debate imply knowledge of what is being talked about and refutation or confirmation of the evidence that the believer provides. Extreme cases may be irrelevant, but the main rule is what I have said.

 

[JesseCuster]

I am not discussing the meaning of "dragon" with Jack because it was not relevant to our discussion.

Yet you still discussed dragons with him without agreeing on any definition for dragon. Whereas you were quite clear if you and him wished to discuss dragons or gods, it would be necessary to agree on a definition to discuss it.

Here you are discussing dragons with no definition agreed upon.

I thought that we were using a standard meaning.

What is a 'standard meaning' dragon? Do they fly? Can they breathe fire? Are they birdlike or lizardlike in their anatomy? Etc.

2 points worth noting - 1. you are discussing dragons without agreeing on a definition. 2. You didn't need to agree on a definition because you assumed that you both meant the same everyday meaning behind god (even if that meaning is rather vague and ill-defined).

So you're just proving yourself wrong. You can discuss things like gods and dragons without agreeing on definitions, and that's exactly what you're doing, despite your insistence that you'd have to agree on definitions in order to discuss those things.

But you cannot pretend that the subject of dragons has the same interest that gods. Moral, social, political and personal implications are pretty far away in one and other case.

Entirely irrelevant when discussing the existence of gods or dragons. You can dismiss silly gods without taking into account the fact that people take them seriously.

Nobody who dismisses dragons as silly as gods is claiming that the socio-economic and political implications of religion are the same as the socio-economic and political implications (or whatever) of dragons, but you don't need to take into account history, politics, philosophy, etc. in order to recognise that something like Catholicism is a very silly religion with a very silly god and very silly ideas and very silly hats and outfits. The fact that lots of people take it seriously doesn't make it any less silly (it makes it even more absurd and silly).

Dragons and gods are both equally silly, regardless of how many people don't realise how silly one of them really is.

 

[Robin]

Philosophies of life cannot grow in a vacuum test-tube.

I don't recall suggesting they can

Since philosophy has no objective method to solve its problems, its particular truth arises in a fair debate with alternative outlooks.



I wouldn't say that debate with theists is a "duty" for atheists. It is a necessity.

Development of moral philosophies for example, often happen between theists and non-theists and are often fruitful. There are many cases where some social justice goal is achieved by a coalition of people who have different metaphysical outlooks. The fight against apartheid comes to mind, as does advocacy for refugees.

No-one is suggesting separatism. It is just that we can do all of this while agreeing to disagree on where the universe came from.

 

[Darat]

I don't think God is like Harry Potter. Almost the only thing they have in common is that they are fiction entities. Their social and cultural effects are not the same.



Everything I have said implies that the burden of proof of God's existence falls on the believer. Everything I have said implies that the rules of the debate imply knowledge of what is being talked about and refutation or confirmation of the evidence that the believer provides. Extreme cases may be irrelevant, but the main rule is what I have said.

Guess what? Not everyone has to agree to play by your rules, especially when it is obvious your rules have been created to support your own make belief.

Tell me what god do I believe in?

 

[David Mo]

Yet you still discussed dragons with him without agreeing on any definition for dragon. (....

False. I have explained it:

"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"

Evidently, Jack didn't want to argue about the existence of dragons. Did you?

Nobody who dismisses dragons as silly as gods is claiming that the socio-economic and political implications of religion are the same as the socio-economic and political implications (or whatever) of dragons, but you don't need to take into account history, politics, philosophy, etc. in order to recognise that something like Catholicism is a very silly religion with a very silly god and very silly ideas and very silly hats and outfits. The fact that lots of people take it seriously doesn't make it any less silly (it makes it even more absurd and silly).

If you pretend to know that X is silly without knowing well what is it you are a dogmatic.

 

[David Mo]

I don't recall suggesting they can

Development of moral philosophies for example, often happen between theists and non-theists and are often fruitful. There are many cases where some social justice goal is achieved by a coalition of people who have different metaphysical outlooks. The fight against apartheid comes to mind, as does advocacy for refugees.

No-one is suggesting separatism. It is just that we can do all of this while agreeing to disagree on where the universe came from.

Circumstancial agreements are possible about many things.
But you spoke of building a "philosophy of life" (#619: "I would rather that more people spent time developing positive philosophies of life based on what is true and what we do believe".) It was not I. This is a different problem that circumstantial agreements.

Yes. Philosophical discussions are not easy. But they are necessary for the reasons I have commented above. Obviously, nobody forces anyone to debate on philosohical forums. Specially if their frenetic philosophobia may provoke them a heart attack.

 

[David Mo]

Guess what? Not everyone has to agree to play by your rules, especially when it is obvious your rules have been created to support your own make belief.

Tell me what god do I believe in?

Guess what? I have not defended in any place "my" rules. I am sure you would find some web dedicated to explain this. May be you would improve your "immoderate" concept of the role of a debate moderator.

Your question does not proceed. Agreeing about the rules of a debate does not mean regulating the content.
Furthermore: it is obvious that I don't recommend anyone to believe in god. It is so evident that either you don't read what I write or you are provoking. Please, moderate yourself.

 

[Darat]

Guess what? I have not defended in any place "my" rules. I am sure you would find some web dedicated to explain this. May be you would improve your "immoderate" concept of the role of a debate moderator.

Past.. may be good idea to read your own posts...

"...Everything I have said implies that the rules of the debate imply knowledge of what is being talked about and refutation or confirmation of the evidence that the believer provides. Extreme cases may be irrelevant, but the main rule is what I have said...."

As I said no one has to agree to your made up rules.

And as I asked before - which god do I believe in?

 

[David Mo]

Past.. may be good idea to read your own posts...

"...Everything I have said implies that the rules of the debate imply knowledge of what is being talked about and refutation or confirmation of the evidence that the believer provides. Extreme cases may be irrelevant, but the main rule is what I have said...."

As I said no one has to agree to your made up rules.

And as I asked before - which god do I believe in?

Do you think that "talking about what you know and keeping quiet when you don't know what you're talking about" is a personal rule of mine? Amazing!

For example: How the hell do you want me to talk about what I don't know, that is, what god do you believe in? Even more amazing!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Why is debate with theists "a necessity" for atheists? What are the repercussions if I do not?

 

[Darat]

Do you think that "talking about what you know and keeping quiet when you don't know what you're talking about" is a personal rule of mine? Amazing!



For example: How the hell do you want me to talk about what I don't know, that is, what god do you believe in? Even more amazing!

But I'm an atheist....

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Evidently, Jack didn't want to argue about the existence of dragons. Did you?
...

I didn't want to argue *for* the existence of dragons. Nor for the existence of Gods.

I suspect evolution has made us the type of animal inclined to invent both.

 

[JesseCuster]

I'm not sure if the word "dragon" has a precise meaning.

It has many meanings. Some of them vague. Some of them precise. Different cultures, mythologies, fictional universes, etc. have different ideas of what properties dragons have. There's no one precise meaning. In context, it might have a well defined meaning, such as if we're discussing the properties of dragons in the Tolkien's legendarium.

But we can discuss dragons as a general concept without me, you and Jack by the Hedge ever actually agreeing on a definition. Which is exactly what we're doing.

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"

Do we? I can discuss religion with people, tell them I don't believe in God, and we both can agree that I am in fact an atheist and don't believe in whatever god they do, without us agreeing to the particulars of how they define their God.

I'm going to assume unless they say otherwise, that their god falls under the general concept that people have of god in general, i.e. some sort of personal super powerful being that created the universe, or something along those lines, in which case I don't believe it, without having to discuss with them the precise properties of their god. I don't need to know whether or not their god answers prayers, or is concerned with people's hairstyles, or sacrificed themselves to themselves for silly reasons, or whatever, to know I don't believe it. If they use the word god somewhat idiosyncratically, then it's up to them to explain what they mean, but I generally don't care, because as soon as someone starts describing their own weird idiosyncratic god beliefs, I immediately think "sounds daft, I don't buy it." A lot of the time you simply don't need to get into the finer details of someone's beliefs to know you don't believe it. I'm also not particularly motivated to debate or give serious thought to everyone variation on god beliefs out there, anymore than I need to listen to Scorpion's odd ideas about how reincarnation works, to continue not believing in gods or reincarnation as general concepts.

Evidently, Jack didn't want to argue about the existence of dragons. Did you?

Of course not. It was an analogy to make a point about discussing the properties of things that don't actually exist. You don't need to agree upon an exact definition of dragons or gods to be able to dismiss them as a general concept and to therefore dismiss anything that falls under that general concept, i.e. people's idiosyncratic ideas of what god really is to them.

If you pretend to know that X is silly without knowing well what is it you are a dogmatic.

You just said that you don't know what dragon precisely means. So you don't "know well" what is meant by dragon. So it must be dogmatic of you to say dragons are a silly idea that doesn't exist? Are you agnostic about dragons?

Do you think I'm dogmatic because I've dismissed the idea of dragons as silly, without getting into the particulars of how any given person might define the word dragon? The same goes for god, regardless of whether the people defining it, take it seriously.

Don't bother pointing out that people (or at least very few people, I've seen cryptozoologists online claiming dragons exist) don't believe in dragons but lots do believe in god. I know that. That doesn't negate the analogy.

 

[JesseCuster]

What happens to our friend Jesse who says is an alcoholic but has no temptations to drink seems to me to be either an autodeceit or to say some nonsense so as not to have to give in.

I'm most definitely an alcoholic. If you knew, you'd know that was true.

I'm no longer tempted by alcohol. I can't explain it, but even in my lowest moments, I no longer crave alcohol. I've gone completely off the stuff, it holds no appeal to me at all.

Those are the facts. You don't seem to like that, so you're implying I'm either a liar or that I'm delusional? Never fails to amuse me the **** some people say to me when I discuss my alcoholism or depression with them.