Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

[Jack by the hedge]

I didn't know I was talking to an absolute relativist.

Perhaps you aren't. I merely said that it is entirely possible firmly to believe or disbelieve in some God without being aware of why. Do you think otherwise?

I don't know why I don't like marzipan or liver, but I don't. I could tell you about their flavour or texture in negative terms and I might even convince myself those are my reasons but truthfully those are probably post-hoc rationalisations.

 

[abaddon]

Because I'm just speak about what I know and I don't know what is that you're talking about. If you tell me, I might have an opinion. Probably.

Well then you DO believe in the god Ayaba since you cannot argue against it. That is where your argument leads.

 

[JesseCuster]

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

It has nothing to do with willpower. I require no willpower to not drink, because I don't crave alcohol. There's nothing that requires any willpower.

 

[Darat]

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.

Since apparently it is playground "rules" (nice of you to arbitrate the rules we have to use) then you should check the sequence of posts.

I went first, so according to your rules it is your turn:

Which god do I believe in?

 

[Robin]

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.

You can have many sides to a debate about philosophy of life without including theists.

You don't have to have each and every single idea represented in any debate and it would be impossible to do that.

If we are to develop a philosophy for life then input from people who say that we should concentrate out attention on the part of it after we die is probably not going to particularly useful.

If I was going to have a debate on the best type of communication system then I probably wouldn't involve the people who say that we should all be communicating telepathically.

 

[David Mo]

Because there is no unequivocal evidence for such an entity?

OK.

Therefore you need to know what god means in the context of the "equivocal" evidence that theists pretend to have. And why this evidence is inconclusive.

This is my point.

 

[The Common Potato]

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.

Darat isn't. You're avoiding an understanding of the points being made.

 

[The Common Potato]

Because I'm just speak about what I know and I don't know what is that you're talking about. If you tell me, I might have an opinion. Probably.

I'd say that, if I were a troll.

 

[David Mo]

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?

In the context I am used to reading and debating the names are different from here. They are defined by to affirm or deny that god exists.
The theist affirms that "God exists" is true.
The atheist affirms that "God exists" is false.
The agnostic will refrain of any statement.

Although I have tried to use the names in your sense it is possible that I have changed them without noticing it.

 

[David Mo]

Perhaps you aren't. I merely said that it is entirely possible firmly to believe or disbelieve in some God without being aware of why. Do you think otherwise?

I don't know why I don't like marzipan or liver, but I don't. I could tell you about their flavour or texture in negative terms and I might even convince myself those are my reasons but truthfully those are probably post-hoc rationalisations.

Yes. I have some strong reasons to believe that "God exists" is false. The same for unicorns or green Martians.

I think you are confusing the psychological motives to believe something and the evidence for and counter a proposition.

 

[David Mo]

Well then you DO believe in the god Ayaba since you cannot argue against it. That is where your argument leads.

Two different things:
Not knowing what a word means.
Not having proof of a proposition whose meaning is understood.

In neither case can I believe in the existence of X, but for different reasons. And they are solved differently:
The one who has introduced the word must explain its meaning.
The one who has introduced the proposition must provide proof.

What makes you suppose that my argument (which?) implies something else?

 

[David Mo]

It has nothing to do with willpower. I require no willpower to not drink, because I don't crave alcohol. There's nothing that requires any willpower.

Then you've chosen not to drink because you don't feel like it. You are lucky.

 

[David Mo]

Since apparently it is playground "rules" (nice of you to arbitrate the rules we have to use) then you should check the sequence of posts.

I went first, so according to your rules it is your turn:

Which god do I believe in?

No, dear. You affirm x (no ask) - I ask why- you ask a different question. This is the true sequence.

Do you think that not answer a question with other question is a "particular" rule of mine? Truly?

 

[David Mo]

You can have many sides to a debate about philosophy of life without including theists.

It's hard to do in a world where most people say they are theists and theism is everywhere. Ask yourself why popular philosophical forums are full of topics related to religion or belief in God.

 

[Robin]

No, dear. You affirm x (no ask) - I ask why- you ask a different question. This is the true sequence.

Do you think that not answer a question with other question is a "particular" rule of mine? Truly?

Do you have that list of gods that Darat believes in and you just want to withhold it until you feel that he has answered your question?

Can you give us all a hint at least? How many gods are on that list? Fewer than ten?

 

[David Mo]

Darat isn't. You're avoiding an understanding of the points being made.

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

In which of the three lines does a question appear first? 1, 2 or 3?
Thank you

Note: I hope you know what a question is. The proposition that ends with an interrogative sign. ("?" You know).

 

[Robin]

It's hard to do in a world where most people say they are theists and theism is everywhere. Ask yourself why popular philosophical forums are full of topics related to religion or belief in God.

It is not hard to do at all.

One can address these issues if one wants, but most people who are not theists find no trouble going through life seldom addressing the subject at all.

I sometimes join in on discussions about the existence of God, just as I often join in discussions about telepathy, telekinesis, premonitions, claims that rockets don't work in a vacuum, global consciousness etc

I don't feel that discussing any of these are necessary and often feel that my time spent on these subjects is wasted.

 

[David Mo]

Do you have that list of gods that Darat believes in and you just want to withhold it until you feel that he has answered your question?

Can you give us all a hint at least? How many gods are on that list? Less than ten?

The question now is not whether or not I know what is in Darat's head - a really tricky question - but whether the rules of honest discussion are respected in this forum. In other words, not answering a question with a different question.

 

[David Mo]

It is not hard to do at all.

One can address these issues if one wants, but most people who are not theists find no trouble going through life seldom addressing the subject at all.

I sometimes join in on discussions about the existence of God, just as I often join in discussions about telepathy, telekinesis, premonitions, claims that rockets don't work in a vacuum, global consciousness etc

I don't feel that discussing any of these are necessary and often feel that my time spent on these subjects is wasted.

There is an important difference between the themes you propose and the existence of God. Pseudosciences have little effect on moral problems. God's existence affects them drastically. And morality is one of the fundamental points of every philosophy of life.

 

[Robin]

There is an important difference between the themes you propose and the existence of God. Pseudosciences have little effect on moral problems. God's existence affects them drastically. And morality is one of the fundamental points of every philosophy of life.

I don't see that God's existence affects them at all, even if God does exist.

For example let's use your definition of a powerful supernatural force offering rewards for following certain rules.

Would something that was the right thing to do become any more right because some powerful supernatural being was going to reward you to do it? Would something that was the wrong thing to do become the right thing to do if a powerful supernatural being was offering to reward you to do it?

And the point is moot in any case since such a being does not exist.

It is like saying that the existence of telepathy would have a dramatic impact on communication methods, therefore any symposium on communications should include a believer in telepathy to stop it being one-sided.