Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

[JesseCuster]

Might also be worth noting the rather loaded assumptions that atheists used to be theists and that they used to be able to justify their behaviour from their religious beliefs.

Neither of those is a given.

Yup. I already made that point but David seems to equate being an atheist with someone who sincerely believed in his 'protective superfather god' and who acted accordingly to that belief and who has made a choice to no longer believe in that God.

I'm an atheist, but I was never really that religious. I had some vague belief in God but I never took the religion I was brought up in (Catholicism) seriously at all. There was no anguish involved, no gut-wrenching decisions, no internal debate, etc.

The fact that one might an atheist (who may or may not ever have been a theist and may or may not have been a serious theist) or the fact that others are theists, some of whom are serious about it, isn't in itself any sort of reason for an atheist to justify his actions to themselves. I don't get that.

There's all sorts of reasons why you might justify your actions to yourself (I do that all the time), but the fact you don't believe in God, seems an odd reason, in and of itself, to have to justify yourself to yourself, which is what David seems to be getting at. If I've interpreted him correctly, it's not always obvious what he's driving at, a lot of this comes across rather vague to me.

 

[ynot]

Abraham's story is very illustrative of what it means to be a true believer

I am speaking of a true believer, of course.

For example: the desire to go to heaven is related to religious beliefs. Only valid for true believers.

Same way a true believer does, you decide what it is that you most want to do.

I know a true Scotsman that says you’re wrong

 

[David Mo]

I was hoping "improcedent" could be my English vocabulary word for the day, but sadly it is not English.

You're right. Improcedent is "inappropriate" in Catalan. If I run too much, I get too many languages mixed up.

 

[David Mo]

People do that all the time instinctively. Reason then pats itself on the back.

If this were true, diversity of human behaviour would be inexplicable.

 

[David Mo]

So eternal reward isn't their deepest desire? They forego their deepest desire and reluctantly go to eternal reward instead. Is that it now?

No. It often happens that religious rules are in contradiction with natural desires and a conflict arises. Many times this causes the abandonment of religion because the person feels that religion goes against his deepest desires. How strange is this?

 

[David Mo]

You seem to want this consistent rule to be somehow "relativist".

I take it then that you don't think it is a good idea for people to ask themselves what it is that they really want out of life.

So what approach do you recommend people take when deciding what to do?

Not again. "Do what you want" is not the same as "Do what you really want." The latter is similar to "Know yourself". This is a good psychological/philosophical rule, but not a moral one, because if what I really want is to torture people, this is not good.

 

[David Mo]

What interests me is the knee-jerk assumption that "what you want" must equate to negatives " totally despise others, be depraved, cruel, cowardly" and so on.

Does the average person really want to be like that? If so then I must always have met non average people in my life, because in my experience people want to get on with others, to have healthy relationships, to be kind, to be brave and so on, even if they admit to themselves that they often fall short of this.

Do you live in Shangrila?
Don't you read newspapers?
Violence and selfishness are conscious motives of many people. Too many.

 

[David Mo]

There can be lots of consequences to commiting adultery. I'm sure we all can imagine or have experience of how adultery has consequences (none of those consequences have nothing to do with God, because God doesn't exist).

I'm not sure how that's relevant to this discussion?

I'm not talking about the consequences of your actions, I'm talking about the consequences of not justifying your actions.

You said that atheists must justify those actions that they previously justified by their religious beliefs. I pointed out that 'must' is a strong word as it implies there will be bad consequences if the atheists doesn't justify those actions.

I want to know why atheists must justify actions they used to justify by their beliefs and what consequences there will be if they don't.

I'm not saying all atheists were believers before. I'm talking about denying the existence of God.
If you can't justify the moral rules, you become an asocial criminal or an egoist because you don't have any kind of restriction to hurt others. This is evident in big criminals, politicians and exploiting businessmen. And in many families.

Another possibility is that you don't like to think and just mechanically repeat what others do. Lettuce life is more common than it seems, but it often causes some conflict when you are faced with moral dilemmas that a lettuce cannot solve.

 

[David Mo]

Might also be worth noting the rather loaded assumptions that atheists used to be theists and that they used to be able to justify their behaviour from their religious beliefs.

Neither of those is a given.

Who are you talking about? I didn't say that.

 

[David Mo]

Yup. I already made that point but David seems to equate being an atheist with someone who sincerely believed in his 'protective superfather god' and who acted accordingly to that belief and who has made a choice to no longer believe in that God.

I didn't say that.

 

[David Mo]

I didn't say that.

Please, if you don't read what I write carefully, I spend my time undoing misunderstandings. It's a bit tiring.

 

[Robin]

Do you live in Shangrila?

Don't you read newspapers?

Violence and selfishness are conscious motives of many people. Too many.

So you read in the newspapers about what the worst people do and you confidently conclude that this is what the average person wants to be like, do you?

 

[David Mo]

So you read in the newspapers about what the worst people do and you confidently conclude that this is what the average person wants to be like, do you?

I don't know how to determine the average of people's desires.
I know that many people are motivated by selfish and aggressive motives and that other people are more cooperative. What we are discussing now is the importance of moral justification for controlling the former.

Anyway, I was referring to this that you wrote:

"I must always have met non average people in my life, because in my experience people want to get on with others, to have healthy relationships, to be kind, to be brave and so on, even if they admit to themselves that they often fall short of this".​

I find it a little unbelievable that you never found an aggressive or selfish person.

 

[Robin]

I didn't say that.

That kind of came across in what you did say.

 

[Robin]

What we are discussing now is the importance of moral justification for controlling the former.

No, you were specifically disagreeing with my statement about what the average person wants.

find it a little unbelievable that you never found an aggressive or selfish person
.

Another of your trademark bizarre misreadings of what I said.

Perhaps you could read a little more carefully and completely.

Nothing in that part you quoted even remotely implies that I have never met a violent or selfish person.

 

[David Mo]

That kind of came across in what you did say.

Quote my words, please.

 

[David Mo]

No, you were specifically disagreeing with my statement about what the average person wants.


(...)
Nothing in that part you quoted even remotely implies that I have never met a violent or selfish person.

Unlike what you do, I quoted your own words underlined by me, so that it would be clear:

"I must always have met ...", etc.

If you always found friendly people it means that you never found an aggressive person. This is called logic. Unless you want to explain your phrase better.

 

[Robin]

Unlike what you do, I quoted your own words underlined by me, so that it would be clear:

"I must always have met ...", etc.

If you always found friendly people it means that you never found an aggressive person. This is called logic. Unless you want to explain your phrase better.

But I didn't say I always found friendly people did I?

Try reading all the words.

 

[Robin]

Quote my words, please.

Here is an example:

When the atheist chooses his option he is discarding the idea of a protective Superfather in the name of freedom. This discard is particularly difficult for people who have believed in God for years. For others, freedom can be a much more exalting experience. Or it can be something that has been chosen without giving it much importance. This causes different psychological reactions. But I'm not talking about psychology. I'm defining the logical importance of the problem: the fact that being an atheist implies a decision that has consequences that affect how we project our life. And that certain atheists seem not to have understood the problem and continue as if God's death (metaphor) did not imply consequences.

 

[David Mo]

But I didn't say I always found friendly people did I?

Try reading all the words.

The average height of women in this country is 1'80m. But I must not have found that average, because all the women I found were shorter than 1'60m.

Doesn't that mean you've never seen a tall woman in this country? Caramba, how strange language is English!