Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

[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.

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.

In the comment you quote I do not define the atheist as someone who has been a believer before. This is Jesse's obsession. But as you can easily see, this paragraph speaks of "those who" were former believers. That implies that there are other atheists who have not been true believers before, but that the phrase does not refer to them.

The idea that I believe all atheists come from a previous period of belief is not mine and I have rejected it on several occasions. It's a silly idea. If you attribute it to me, it's because you think I'm dumber than I am or because you're obsessed with finding something against me. Even silly things I never said.

 

[Robin]

I also demand to know why Darat doesn't believe that there's a protective superfather who won't protect us yet but after we are dead he will bring us back to life and still not protect us unless we had guessed the right set of rules to follow and followed them.

You would have to have a really good reason not to believe a plausible claim like that.

 

[David Mo]

I also demand to know why Darat doesn't believe that there's a protective superfather who won't protect us yet but after we are dead he will bring us back to life and still not protect us unless we had guessed the right set of rules to follow and followed them.

You would have to have a really good reason not to believe a plausible claim like that.

Well, Robin, I don't believe in any god, but on some other masters of the earth I am not so sure.
And sometimes I get the impression that someone is watching us in this forum. If a light from above strikes this comment you already have something to think about.

 

[JesseCuster]

I'm not saying all atheists were believers before. I'm talking about denying the existence of God.

Atheists don't deny the existence of God. That's loaded language. Denial implies a refusal to accept what is true

Atheists don't believe in God, they don't (necessarily) deny the existence of God. If you can't get these kind of basics straight, no wonder your confusion as to the needs, wants and motives of atheists. It seems you're just making up stuff based on how you manage

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.

But sometimes I don't justify my moral behaviour. And I'm not an antisocial criminal.

Sometimes the only justification I have to do what I believe the right thing is "it's the right thing to do". Sometimes I don't feel the need to delve any deeper into my motives. Even though such a thing can be useful or interesting to do at times, it's not necessary for me to actually come up with any justification doing the right thing other

So you're wrong. If I don't come up with justifications for my actions, it doesn't mean become immoral, antisocial and criminal. Even doing those things doesn't imply a lack of justifications for your actions, as people who do those things regularly come up with justifications for doing bad things.

You're all jumbled and confused as to what atheists are and how they behave (and should behave) and have a very simplistic and misguided notion as to how human morals work and how they relate to belief in God.

 

[JesseCuster]

The idea that I believe all atheists come from a previous period of belief is not mine and I have rejected it on several occasions. It's a silly idea. If you attribute it to me, it's because you think I'm dumber than I am or because you're obsessed with finding something against me. Even silly things I never said.

The reason we think you've got a funny idea of what atheism is and how atheists think and behave is that whenever we correct you on one of your oddball ideas about how atheists need this, must do that, have experienced this, etc., you hearken back to this idea of believing in a superfather protective God that guided your moral choices and when you give up this belief, there's all this fallout that leads to this, that and the other, which no atheists here can actually identify with.

When you continually talk about atheists and what they do, what they should do, what they need to do, what they must do, etc. and they keep telling you that those things are actually things they do do, should do, need to do, must do, etc. because they don't do those things and there's no negative consequences for doing so, the confusion must firmly be put in your court, as you keep making declarations about atheists that they keep telling you are wrong, but you simply won't accept this, and keep saying wrong things about atheists.

You're simply quite wrong about the things you're saying about atheists and what it means to not believe in God.

 

[JesseCuster]

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!

I imagine he meant that he's always met friendly people, meaning that wherever he was, whenever he was, whatever culture people were from, wherever he worked, etc., there were always kind, considerate, friendly people.

Not everyone is kind, cooperate and friendly. But there are always people like that. People are more likely to be that, everything else considered, than selfish jerks. It might be a language thing over how 'always' is used in different languages or has contextual meaning.

You seem to think that if you become an atheist, by default you should become a selfish antisocial jerk, unless you go through some sort of anguish over your decision to not believe in God, and then rebuild your moral system from the ground up, justifying all your moral actions without referring to God. A strange idea that simply doesn't line up with how atheists actually think and behave.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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

You appear to assume all humans are identical except for their conscious deliberations. This is not so.

 

[David Mo]

The reason we think you've got a funny idea of what atheism is and how atheists think and behave is that whenever we correct you on one of your oddball ideas about how atheists need this, must do that, have experienced this, etc., you hearken back to this idea of believing in a superfather protective God that guided your moral choices and when you give up this belief, there's all this fallout that leads to this, that and the other, which no atheists here can actually identify with.

When you continually talk about atheists and what they do, what they should do, what they need to do, what they must do, etc. and they keep telling you that those things are actually things they do do, should do, need to do, must do, etc. because they don't do those things and there's no negative consequences for doing so, the confusion must firmly be put in your court, as you keep making declarations about atheists that they keep telling you are wrong, but you simply won't accept this, and keep saying wrong things about atheists.

You're simply quite wrong about the things you're saying about atheists and what it means to not believe in God.

That you and I don't agree on what atheism is and the consequences it has is the most normal thing in the world. I don't know why you are so outraged.
But I'm tired of telling you that the only relationship an atheist needs to have with God is to deny that he exists or to affirm his disbelief in him. Or do you believe that atheism is not one of those two things? That would be absurd.

And what I also believe and am willing to prove with texts is that, at least in the realm of Christianity, the Koran, Judaism and other similar religions God is the equivalent of a great Father, overpowering, protector and sanctioning. Or what do you think God is for a Christian?

All this has nothing to do with the fact that I don't believe. They are simple descriptions and definitions.

 

[David Mo]

I imagine he meant that he's always met friendly people, meaning that wherever he was, whenever he was, whatever culture people were from, wherever he worked, etc., there were always kind, considerate, friendly people.

That's not what the sentence says. The phrase says that he never found one thing and he always found the other. And if it doesn't mean this it would be enough for him to explain it to put an end to this stupid dispute.

You seem to think that if you become an atheist, by default you should become a selfish antisocial jerk, unless you go through some sort of anguish over your decision to not believe in God, and then rebuild your moral system from the ground up, justifying all your moral actions without referring to God. A strange idea that simply doesn't line up with how atheists actually think and behave.

I'm tired of explaining to you that this is not the alternative I'm giving you. I have explained more than three possibilities in the previous comments. If you are hooked on these two don't blame me.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

You seem to assume that wicked people are examples of what we would all become if we deny God and fail to think through our own justifications for our moral choices. I think that's nonsense. Can you indicate, for example, an underrepresentaion of religious people in prisons? I think not. In fact I've seen the opposite statistic claimed for US prisons on this forum.

 

[David Mo]

You appear to assume all humans are identical except for their conscious deliberations. This is not so.

I don't think humans are the same in everything, nor should they be. But I believe that the logic of things demands that there be better options than others from a logical or moral point of view. And that's what I'm explaining.
If you're upset about my choice, discuss it. But coming out with general lamentations about things I'm not saying isn't going to make this debate any better.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... I'm tired of telling you that the only relationship an atheist needs to have with God is to deny that he exists or to affirm his disbelief in him. Or do you believe that atheism is not one of those two things? That would be absurd. .

Atheism is not one of those two things. It is the lack of any belief in a God or Gods. And that's all.

You don't need to make a list of Gods and deny them. You don't need to tell anyone. You don't need a badge. You don't need to have heard of the Gods you lack belief in.

 

[David Mo]

You seem to assume that wicked people are examples of what we would all become if we deny God and fail to think through our own justifications for our moral choices. I think that's nonsense. Can you indicate, for example, an underrepresentaion of religious people in prisons? I think not. In fact I've seen the opposite statistic claimed for US prisons on this forum.

The alternative you propose is false. I have already spoken of other alternatives in other comments.
Many people find the justification for respecting moral standards in principles other than religious ones. This is done mechanically or reasoning. Even many criminals find justifications for remaining religious, which does not prevent them from killing. That's another issue. I spoke not of every person who ceases to believe in God, but of the one who thinks that if God has died he can do whatever he wants. I didn't mean the universal class of criminals who are criminals for many different reasons.

 

[David Mo]

Atheists don't deny the existence of God. That's loaded language. Denial implies a refusal to accept what is true

Atheists don't believe in God, they don't (necessarily) deny the existence of God. If you can't get these kind of basics straight, no wonder your confusion as to the needs, wants and motives of atheists. It seems you're just making up stuff based on how you manage

But sometimes I don't justify my moral behaviour. And I'm not an antisocial criminal.

Sometimes the only justification I have to do what I believe the right thing is "it's the right thing to do". Sometimes I don't feel the need to delve any deeper into my motives. Even though such a thing can be useful or interesting to do at times, it's not necessary for me to actually come up with any justification doing the right thing other

So you're wrong. If I don't come up with justifications for my actions, it doesn't mean become immoral, antisocial and criminal. Even doing those things doesn't imply a lack of justifications for your actions, as people who do those things regularly come up with justifications for doing bad things.

You're all jumbled and confused as to what atheists are and how they behave (and should behave) and have a very simplistic and misguided notion as to how human morals work and how they relate to belief in God.

I used the word atheist as it is common in most academic settings. If you prefer use your own meaning I would say: "I'm not saying all atheists were believers before. I'm talking about refusing the belief in God".

ADDED: May be this can illustrate the way I use the word "atheism":

“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods). (Stanford Encyclopedy of Philosophy. "Atheism")

* * *

I don't know what it means for you to justify. According to the Cambridge dictionary, it means: "to prove that something is reasonable, correct or true".
I imagine you have to justify, to others or to yourself, when your action may be considered dubious.
I'm not considering the possibility of you being an asocial psychopath. I suppose you handle your moral problems better than that because you think you have good reasons for doing what you do.

 

[Thor 2]

I used the word atheist as it is common in most academic settings. If you prefer use your own meaning I would say: "I'm not saying all atheists were believers before. I'm talking about refusing the belief in God".

ADDED: May be this can illustrate the way I use the word "atheism":

An unusual and confusing way to define atheists.

By saying "refusing the belief" you seem to be implying it is positive choosing action. I don't see it that way and I think many atheists are similar. I don't choose to refuse belief in God - I am compelled to disbelief.

I wonder where you get your information from. In your post # 780 you stated the average height of women in your country was 1.8 M, whereas the source I referred to says 1.6 M. You might like to review your sources.

 

[Steve]

An unusual and confusing way to define atheists.

By saying "refusing the belief" you seem to be implying it is positive choosing action. I don't see it that way and I think many atheists are similar. I don't choose to refuse belief in God - I am compelled to disbelief.

I wonder where you get your information from. In your post # 780 you stated the average height of women in your country was 1.8 M, whereas the source I referred to says 1.6 M. You might like to review your sources.

Is there a height requirement to be an atheist?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Is there a height requirement to be an atheist?

-------> You must be at least this tall to refuse to believe in gods.

 

[Robin]

I can't see how "a powerful supernatural being told me to" can be considered moral justification, even if there were such a being.

I asked this before, is it the fact of being supernatural or the fact of being powerful that makes people think that gods are arbiters of right and wrong?

 

[abaddon]

So, if God is dead, everything is allowed. Everything you like. Everything the other person would like to do to you. Absolute relativism.

This is not a banal answer. It shows that denial of God has important consequences for an atheist. He can totally despise others, be depraved, cruel, cowardly... No one is calling him to account.

Well, well...

Nope. That is trivially false. It is in fact the well worn christian fundy hypothesis that is trivially demonstrated to be untrue.

That you resort to such daft arguments is informative. To everyone else.

 

[abaddon]

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.

Utterly false. A moments thought would make that clear to you, but you always evade that.

As an atheist, I can state that I have never had any desire to go out murdering and stealing and raping everything in sight. Yet you claim that as an atheist I necessarily must do so with wild abandon.

Ask yourself why this "necessary" behaviour that you claim simply does not happen.

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.

Another possibility is that you are so enamoured of your own perceived intellectual superiority that you are blind to any other position.

You can spout all you like about atheists having no morals, but the facts on the ground show that to be a false proposition.

Think about that.

The proposition you make is that the only obstacle to anyone becoming a raping, murdering, lying thief is a magic book

The evidence is against you.