Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

Jack by the hedge said:
Why is debate with theists "a necessity" for atheists? What are the repercussions if I do not?
Click to expand...

A debate between theists, agnostics and atheists is needed to get a well-established "philosophy of life", because philosophical truth is dialogical.

Otherwise, you risk to set a dogmatic position. That is to say, misinformed and one side oriented.

Of course you may decide don't have any position and stay away from any debate. It is easier, but misinformation pays costs in many ways.
 
JesseCuster said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

I agree. What makes you think that I was saying otherwise?

JesseCuster said:
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.
Click to expand...
The need to delve into the concept of gods (or dragons) will come from the complexity of the debate. I swear to you that arguing with Frederick Copleston or Jean Piaget is rather more complicated than fighting in this forum (well, not always:)).
In normal circumstances what you call "the general concept" -- I called it "standard" -- is enough. In other circumstances we need to be more precise. But I have never needed to go into such specific details as cults or prayers. Note that we are only talking about the concept, that is, the essential traits of dragons or gods.

I think you contradict yourself in saying that you don't take into account what the other thinks a dragon is when arguing about the existence of dragons. If you review what you have written you will realize that you have said that you really do take it into account. What other is "supposing" that the other is using "the general concept"?
 
Last edited:
JesseCuster said:
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? :confused: Never fails to amuse me the **** some people say to me when I discuss my alcoholism or depression with them.
Click to expand...

I praise your willpower. Not all of us have it so strong.

I am not an alcoholic. But I've been a smoker, and I know what it takes to get rid of an addiction. Especially in the beginning, the incitements to relapse are very strong. And there are moments of weakness that, after twenty years, still make you ask yourself, "What harm can it do me if I smoke a cigarette with my friends? Just one!"

But exactly what makes you strong is the conviction that you are able to resist those desires and choose to do the right thing. Go on, then! You are choosing the best.

Fortitude doesn't mean I don't choose to follow a path. It means only the assurance I have that I am choosing the right path.
 
Last edited:
The honest answer to the question of why we believe something or dislike some food or prefer some colour is that we don't know. I mean we *might* know, there may be some memorable event which fixed our view, but fundamentally these preferences come from our subconscious mind but the explanation you seek will come from the conscious mind which makes up stories because that's the way we are made by evolution. We seek explanations. We spot patterns. We work out that A happens because of B which preceded it. We try to tell ourselves why B leads to A and sometimes a magical explanation is good enough.

I get the impression you feel that The Truth is out there and if we all just talked honestly about it we would find the answer. I'm less inclined to think we have access to such an answer, or indeed that it exists.
 
David Mo said:
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.
Click to expand...
I simply don't care that you are so enamoured with the self preening of what you call "philosophy". It makes no real world difference to anything in the real world beyond your self congratulation. Yay for you, but so what?

David Mo said:
I wouldn't say that debate with theists is a "duty" for atheists. It is a necessity.
Click to expand...
Like hell it is. It is a necessity for you because it feeds into the delusion that you are smarter than everyone.

Hint: you are not.
 
Darat said:
Strange you keep avoiding answering my very simple question.

I think we all know why.
Click to expand...

Darat: I'm an atheist....
David Mo: Why?
Darat: Which God do I belive in?

Who is avoiding giving an answer?
You don't answer a question with a different question. This is a rule of honest debate.

Answer my question first, and then I'll answer yours.
 
Last edited:
David Mo, referring to the chart, where are you on the atheist/theist scale and where are you on the separate and distinct agnostic/gnostic scale?



In other words, which of the four quadrants do you identify with?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
The honest answer to the question of why we believe something or dislike some food or prefer some colour is that we don't know. I mean we *might* know, there may be some memorable event which fixed our view, but fundamentally these preferences come from our subconscious mind but the explanation you seek will come from the conscious mind which makes up stories because that's the way we are made by evolution. We seek explanations. We spot patterns. We work out that A happens because of B which preceded it. We try to tell ourselves why B leads to A and sometimes a magical explanation is good enough.

I get the impression you feel that The Truth is out there and if we all just talked honestly about it we would find the answer. I'm less inclined to think we have access to such an answer, or indeed that it exists.
Click to expand...

I didn't know I was talking to an absolute relativist. I believe that there are reasons that are worth more than others and that there are evidences and falsehoods. But this is another debate. I hope that you will be consistent and withdraw from this debate and let those of us who believe that there are propositions which are more false than others speak.

Thank you.
 
abaddon said:
I simply don't care that you are so enamoured with the self preening of what you call "philosophy". It makes no real world difference to anything in the real world beyond your self congratulation. Yay for you, but so what?

Like hell it is. It is a necessity for you because it feeds into the delusion that you are smarter than everyone.

Hint: you are not.
Click to expand...

I see you feel bad in front my arguments but this is your problem.
 
RoboTimbo said:
David Mo, referring to the chart, where are you on the atheist/theist scale and where are you on the separate and distinct agnostic/gnostic scale?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/26744525eb36e22509.bmp[/qimg]

In other words, which of the four quadrants do you identify with?
Click to expand...

I would be within what you call "atheistic gnostic" (sic), but I am unable to quantify with numbers my degree of certainty. 100% is impossible. Absolute knowledge does not exist in this field. That makes the picture you've downloaded a little defective. Very few atheists would say to have an absolute certainty. Then almost all atheists would become agnostics. We'd better forget about that picture.

I believe that the difference between "gnostic atheists" (sic) and agnostics is better understood if instead of speaking of beliefs (which is something subjective) we speak of the degree of truth of the proposition "God does not exist" versus "God exists". But this is another subject we would do better to leave for another thread. Let's not mess it up.
 
Last edited:
David Mo said:
I insist on my question.
Why don't you believe in God?
I remind you that a rule for honest debate is to answer questions.
Click to expand...

Because there is no unequivocal evidence for such an entity?

One might as well believe in "Last Tuesdayism".

A great advantage of not "believing" is that you don't have tie oneself in knots creating apologetic nonsense trying explain such things as why God kills babies. The Simplest answer is, of course, is that there is no God. That the Universe works in random ways and thus there is noting to explain.

YMMV
(I have a feeling that I'm going to regret dragging myself into another God thread but there don't seem to be any Scientologist around here anymore to make fun of. I'd like to think that, in that case, at very least, we have sent them away for extended brainwashing (aka Clearing)) :duck:
 
David Mo said:
I would be within what you call "atheistic gnostic" (sic), but I am unable to quantify with numbers my degree of certainty. 100% is impossible. Absolute knowledge does not exist in this field. That makes the picture you've downloaded a little defective. Very few atheists would say to have an absolute certainty. Then almost all atheists would become agnostics. We'd better forget about that picture.

I believe that the difference between "gnostic atheists" (sic) and agnostics is better understood if instead of speaking of beliefs (which is something subjective) we speak of the degree of truth of the proposition "God does not exist" versus "God exists". But this is another subject we would do better to leave for another thread. Let's not mess it up.
Click to expand...

Thank you for understanding the difference between the two different measures. I was concerned that you were confusing agnosticism with atheism. I'm still a little concerned that you seem to have then conflated the two with your "gnostic atheists (sic) [SIC] and agnostics" (sic) comment in the second paragraph. Which type of agnostics were you referring to - agnostic atheists or agnostic theists?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom