Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

[Robin]

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.

I don't think it is really that tricky. I imagine that the answer I am thinking of would almost certainly be correct.

 

[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.

In fact the opposite is true. At a time I was actively looking for substantial, respectful discussions with theists about the existence of God I found incredibly difficult to find a theist similarly inclined.

Once I got booted out of the comments section of a philosophy blog when I wanted to engage someone on the subject of Christian morality.

 

[David Mo]

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

(...)

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

We are discussing the influence that God would have on our philosophy of life if God existed. It's an assumption. If you begin by asserting that God does not exist it does not make sense to raise the question. It seems as if you don't want to make the assumption.

 

[David Mo]

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?

If there is a God (the god of Christians, for example) the question of what to do is extraordinarily simplified:

Because of fear. It would be rational to do what he commands to avoid a tremendous punishment.
For the love of God, since he is the one who decides what is good and what is bad. Personal ethics would be meaningless. It would be pure sin of pride.

 

[David Mo]

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.

Telepathy would resolve a partial aspect of our economy and affect our personal life relatively. But the question of what is good and evil radically affects our whole life down to the last detail. They are not comparable issues.

 

[David Mo]

In fact the opposite is true. At a time I was actively looking for substantial, respectful discussions with theists about the existence of God I found incredibly difficult to find a theist similarly inclined.

Once I got booted out of the comments section of a philosophy blog when I wanted to engage someone on the subject of Christian morality.

You have to know how to choose your partners. In any case, intolerance is a reason to reject religion, not to stop confronting it and not to accept it. And this is what I say. Knowing how religion works you should be able to improve your alternative so as not to fall into the same vices and falsehoods.

 

[Robin]

In moral philosophy the useful questions about some action might be "is there a fact of the matter about whether this is right or wrong and if there is what is that fact or how can I find it out?"

Anyone who ponders "is someone going to give me a nice reward for doing it?" Probably mean something quite different by the word 'moral' than I do.

 

[David Mo]

In moral philosophy the useful questions about some action might be "is there a fact of the matter about whether this is right or wrong and if there is what is that fact or how can I find it out?"

Anyone who ponders "is someone going to give me a nice reward for doing it?" Probably mean something quite different by the word 'moral' than I do.

I don't think morality is a matter of fact. Even if the facts work as conditions.
Indeed, in certain senses the existence of God nullifies morality. Fear of punishment is not a moral response. That's why Christians tend to put the love of God in the middle. That doesn't seem like a moral response either.

In fact, you are right, religion is contrary to morality.

 

[Robin]

Telepathy would resolve a partial aspect of our economy and affect our personal life relatively. But the question of what is good and evil radically affects our whole life down to the last detail. They are not comparable issues.

Effective telepathy would have a massive effect both on the economy and our everyday lives.

The reason that it is left off the agenda in debates about the future of communication is that there is no such thing as telepathy

 

[Darat]

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?

Nope, the posting order is very clear, to obey your set of rules it is your turn to answer my question.... But of course we all know why you are doing everything you can to avoid answering my question....

 

[Robin]

You have to know how to choose your partners

No, you have to find someone who is a) across the arguments and b) willing to discuss it with you.

I have always had very little luck in this. If they don't want to discuss this stuff with people like me, I can't make them.

And as I say it is not really that important.

 

[David Mo]

Nope, the posting order is very clear, to obey your set of rules it is your turn to answer my question.... But of course we all know why you are doing everything you can to avoid answering my question....

Amazing.
I repeat: What is the first question mark in the series?

I'll see if I can unblock the mess you're making with a proceeding question:
If I answer your question, will you answer the one I will ask you?

 

[David Mo]

No, you have to find someone who is a) across the arguments and b) willing to discuss it with you.

I have always had very little luck in this. If they don't want to discuss this stuff with people like me, I can't make them.

And as I say it is not really that important.

I was saying that because trying to talk to a group of fanatics is impossible. You have to go to a more "academic" level.
Perhaps an implicit form of debate is to read a book by a theist with a certain standard. Here I recommended the dialogue between Copleston and Russell which is a good example.

 

[David Mo]

Effective telepathy would have a massive effect both on the economy and our everyday lives.

The reason that it is left off the agenda in debates about the future of communication is that there is no such thing as telepathy

More precisely, there has not been any research defending telepathy that has passed the bar of academic research. The same goes for God respect the astronomy. But the difference is not there, but in the consequences of the rejection of one and the other.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

We are discussing the influence that God would have on our philosophy of life if God existed. It's an assumption. If you begin by asserting that God does not exist it does not make sense to raise the question. It seems as if you don't want to make the assumption.

The existence or non existence of Gods will always be an assumption. If it were otherwise, if there were any observable differences between a world in which a particular God existed and one in which it did not, then the question of its existence or not would be answered. No God has ever been proven to exist and any which can be proven not to exist would quickly diminish for want of adherents.

So the influence that any particular God has on humans is what we see now. Some people believe that morality comes from their God's instruction. Others think our sense of what's right and wrong comes from our evolution and Gods are just a part of the stories we tell ourselves in our desire to grasp why what we already instinctively believe to be right and wrong is logically and "truly" right and wrong.

 

[Robin]

I was saying that because trying to talk to a group of fanatics is impossible. You have to go to a more "academic" level.

I wasn't talking about fanatics, or even fundamentalists (although the fundies are surprisingly good online conversationalists)

Perhaps an implicit form of debate is to read a book by a theist with a certain standard. Here I recommended the dialogue between Copleston and Russell which is a good example.

That is kind of old hat, Aquinas'a five ways live and die again (or at least one of them).

Maybe Maydole, Gale, Pruss and suchlike are more up-to-date versions of theisms best case.

In any case, pages of dense S5 pall after a while.

I have managed a brief exchange with theist philosopher Christopher G Weaver, that is about it.

 

[Robin]

I brought in the Gale-Pruss cosmological argument into this forum a while back.

It got ripped to shreds in the first couple of pages and thereafter there was nothing left to talk about.

That is the trouble with theist arguments, you eat one for dinner, you are hungry again 5 minutes later.

 

[The Common Potato]

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).

Were you ever punched in the face when you were a kid? That's a serious question, BTW.

Okay, I am an atheist (your trollish or dumb misunderstanding of atheist's views really pisses me off). I do get depressed at times. Indeed, I have tried to kill myself more than once. The last thing going though my mind as i literally took the tablets was "I wonder what God would think about this, but, as an atheist, I don't care".

NOW WHAT

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

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.

I can only take any "evidence" one point at a time. In the many years I have been listening to what the best god believers have to offer, I have never seen a single piece that is not easily refuted or does not have a much more parsimonious explanation. I can only examine "evidence" in evidence. The only thing I have learnt from these conversations is that people believe crazy stuff. Some, like those who believe they can fly, as usually quickly removed from the gene pool.

 

[Darat]

Amazing.
I repeat: What is the first question mark in the series?

I'll see if I can unblock the mess you're making with a proceeding question:
If I answer your question, will you answer the one I will ask you?

Unlike you I'm not trying to impose any set of playground rules. It is entirely up to you whether you decide to answer any question, as it is entirely up to me which questions I choose to answer.

Which God do I believe in?