Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

[Robin]

Unless you adopt the premise "Might is right", The theist can no more claim to have moral justification than a non believer.

Theists also try to dodge responsibility for cruel or selfish acts by saying that they do it, not because they wish to cruel and selfish, but rather because God commands it.

Non believers have no such convenient alibi.

 

[Robin]

Caramba, how strange language is English!

When someone says that in his experience people want to be X but often fall short of this and you interpret this to mean "Every single person I have ever met always succeeds in being X" then the problem is not the language, the problem is you.

 

[David Mo]

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.
.

The definition I give is the usual in philosophy and common language from the Modern Age. It was used by Rousseau, Voltaire, Diderot, d'Holbach, Marx, Russell, Th. Huxley and almost everybody. It is clear and distinct. The atheist affirms that God doesn't exist. The agnostic neither affirms not denies, he refrains from. It is based on the truth or falsity of a proposition that seems to be more clear that "belief" that is an indeterminate psychological state.

What you means with "atheist" is almost unknow in Europe and in academic circles. See, for example, the definition in the reference French dictionary, Trésor:

Qui nie l'existence de Dieu [Tout court]).
(He who denies the existence of God)​

Here the ethimology:

atheist (n.)

1570s, "godless person, one who denies the existence of a supreme, intelligent being to whom moral obligation is due," from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts).​

Anyway, I am not intending to launch a words war. Now you know how I use the word and I know how you use the word. Let us pass to more positive things.

There is not a "negative" act. Every act is in function of some causes and motives. Even the abstention is "pasive" only in the sense that means a lack of compromise with two or more parties. But abstention can be responsible or not, guilty or not... In any circumstances, when a judge request it, yo have to justify your abstention. Your "passivity" would be a bad response before a court. It is similar in front to moral or scientific problems. The most common question would be: "Why you don't decide?" Now the ball is on your court.

 

[David Mo]

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?

Both.Together or alternatively.
Through a book and/or a representative of the god on earth they say what to do.

 

[David Mo]

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

Nobody's arguing about it. The cynical atheist less than anyone else. Do you think he is wrong? Why?

 

[David Mo]

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.

Don't get mad, man! I'm not assuming you're a killer. I'm sure you're a good citizen and father. Because you have good reasons to be that way. You say you have good feelings and you follow them. You think it's a good decision to do so. But you know it may not be. There is the possibility, only the possibility, of not always doing good. Isn't there?

 

[David Mo]

Unless you adopt the premise "Might is right", The theist can no more claim to have moral justification than a non believer.

Theists also try to dodge responsibility for cruel or selfish acts by saying that they do it, not because they wish to cruel and selfish, but rather because God commands it.

Non believers have no such convenient alibi.

Here's the point. I am not justifying religious morality. I'm not saying that religious people are more moral than atheists (it doesn't seem so). I am referring to the justification of moral convictions, whatever they may be. It's easy for the Christian (problems arise from elsewhere): "Dieu le veult!" (killing infidels). The atheist has no god to justify what he wants to do. This is the difficulty. No alibi.

 

[David Mo]

When someone says that in his experience people want to be X but often fall short of this and you interpret this to mean "Every single person I have ever met always succeeds in being X" then the problem is not the language, the problem is you.

I doubt that all people want to be friendly, kind and caring and some fall to do it. Not the hooligans, fascists, fundamentalists, racists, aggressive people, violent husbands, etc. I see many people not falling, but seeking for the occasion to attack others with acts and words.

I appreciate your clarification but we continue in disagreement.

 

[Robin]

I doubt that all people want to be friendly, kind and caring and fall to do it.

And U never said that all people did.

Incidentally, do I take it as your position that most people want to be cruel, violent and selfish?

Since you continue to disagree with me on this subject then I assume you must be taking that position in opposition to mine.

 

[Robin]

Here's the point. I am not justifying religious morality. I'm not saying that religious people are more moral than atheists (it doesn't seem so). I am referring to the justification of moral convictions, whatever they may be. It's easy for the Christian (problems arise from elsewhere): "Dieu le veult!" (killing infidels). The atheist has no god to justify what he wants to do. This is the difficulty. No alibi.

If it is easy then what is the Christian justification for morality? If you say God, then you have to explain how they think God underpins morality. Is might right?

If not then what is the source of Christian morality?

 

[David Mo]

And U never said that all people did.

Incidentally, do I take it as your position that most people want to be cruel, violent and selfish?

Since you continue to disagree with me on this subject then I assume you must be taking that position in opposition to mine.

Well, I'd misinterpreted it.

Human behaviour is to complex and categories are so vague that it is difficult to say how much cruelty, selfishness, etc. there are in the world.
In a sense everybody is good and bad in some proportion. Otherwise we would be angels.
In a different sense, extreme bad people are not very common.

Many times evil and good are a question of social structures and cultural impulses.

You see, your question doesn't permit a yes or a no.

 

[David Mo]

If it is easy then what is the Christian justification for morality? If you say God, then you have to explain how they think God underpins morality. Is might right?

If not then what is the source of Christian morality?

Many questions together.

I am not speaking of to justify the Christian morality (a set of rules, beliefs, etc). I am speaking to the subjective feeling to be justified by. In principle, only in principle, it is easier to the Christian: you have a father that decides for you. "Be it done unto me according to your word", you know. Subsequent problems will arise, but we let the question here. I already mentioned them in another comment.

Out of subjectivity the sources of Christian morality are diverse. But this is not our subject.

 

[Robin]

Many questions together.



I am not speaking of to justify the Christian morality (a set of rules, beliefs, etc). I am speaking to the subjective feeling to be justified by. In principle, only in principle, it is easier to the Christian: you have a father that decides for you. "Be it done unto me according to your word", you know. Subsequent problems will arise, but we let the question here. I already mentioned them in another comment.



Out of subjectivity the sources of Christian morality are diverse. But this is not our subject.

It is just that you seem to be suggesting that the lack of justification is a problem unique to unbelievers, I am pointing out that it is something that applies to all humans.

Sure many believers feel they have justification. So do many non believers.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If we acquiesce to David's wishes and reserve the word "atheist" only to mean what people who wanted to talk about theism used it to mean; someone who declares their a-theism and wants to argue about it, what other word should we use for people who just don't have a belief in any Gods?

Back in the real world, those people are still atheists. The people who want to get all in your face about it are also atheists but they don't own the word. If they want a special name and maybe club rules and special badges then best of luck to them.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If we acquiesce to David's wishes and reserve the word "atheist" only to mean what people who wanted to talk about theism used it to mean; someone who declares their a-theism and wants to argue about it, what other word should we use for people who just don't have a belief in any Gods?

I like "Non-****-givers," personally.

Dave

 

[abaddon]

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!

Ah. No. Either your logic is faulty or your english comprehension, or both. Probably both.

 

[JesseCuster]

Here's the point. I am not justifying religious morality. I'm not saying that religious people are more moral than atheists (it doesn't seem so). I am referring to the justification of moral convictions, whatever they may be. It's easy for the Christian (problems arise from elsewhere): "Dieu le veult!" (killing infidels). The atheist has no god to justify what he wants to do. This is the difficulty. No alibi.

Therefore atheists can't fall back on the excuse that God commands it, for wanton, cruel and antisocial behaviour. Theists have books full of horrible edicts to do horrible things.

Therefore, by default, atheists should be more moral than theists, all else being equal. No?

Of course not, this is an extremely simplistic way of thinking about how anyone, theist or atheist, actually goes about choosing moral actions and justifying those actions. Any familiarity with human nature should make you aware of this, but it appears you're arguing in the pure abstract about constructs that don't reflect real human nature.

 

[Lithrael]

In my experience, not many religious people have the sort of unwavering confidence that they are doing exactly what their God wants, that Mo seems to be describing. It seems common for people to wrestle with what’s right when faced with stuff like ‘my congregation says god says “don’t get a divorce” or “disown your child because of x” or “even if you fall in love, don’t spend your life with y”’

It seems like those that really do go behead their kids for being outdoors at sunset or whatever are the only ones who truly believe in the conviction of their god given moral duty 100%, and they’re also the ones that everyone who’s gotten a little softer than that (aka, everyone in the world besides literal murderous fundamentalists, honor killers, etc) has decided collectively are Doing It Wrong; that gods don’t actually want you to behead kids for any reason really. And they (everyone else) could be wrong, couldn’t they, about whether gods really want that. Because what it’s reasonable for gods to want does seem to be a bit MUTABLE doesn’t it. Not quickly so.... but definitely, definitely mutable.

So I’m not getting the whole ‘only people who think they’re getting their morals from god can possibly feel like they know the real morals’ thing.

 

[David Mo]

If we acquiesce to David's wishes and reserve the word "atheist" only to mean what people who wanted to talk about theism used it to mean; someone who declares their a-theism and wants to argue about it, what other word should we use for people who just don't have a belief in any Gods?

Back in the real world, those people are still atheists. The people who want to get all in your face about it are also atheists but they don't own the word. If they want a special name and maybe club rules and special badges then best of luck to them.

Unbeliever, disbeliever, not believer are the more common. Both atheists and agnostics are usually not believers. Although there are some rare exception. In the meaning I use, of course.

An atheist may or may not want to argue about God. It simply states that God does not exist.

"Back of the world"? What world is your? To own the world? What world you own with a definition? All this sound strange. In the world of knowledge I know cultured and popular agoras. You can chose according your capacities and interests.

ADDED:
" I was without belief in any gods and thought it highly improbable that any supernatural beings exist. When I learned that this view is consistent with atheism, I became an atheist.

So, my “conversion” from agnosticism to atheism was more definitional than theological. In reality, depending on how terms are defined and their context, I can accurately call myself an atheist or an agnostic, as well as a humanist, secular humanist, freethinker, skeptic, rationalist, infidel, and more".
Herb Silverman.

 

[David Mo]

It is just that you seem to be suggesting that the lack of justification is a problem unique to unbelievers, I am pointing out that it is something that applies to all humans.

Sure many believers feel they have justification. So do many non believers.

By definition a believer has subjective justification for his belief in god. Otherwise he would not be a believer.
By definition a non-believer cannot resort to the alibi (your accurate expression) of a god, so he has to seek for himself the justification of his beliefs. In reason, in feeling, in custom or in its whim.
This is not to say that the beliefs of one are stronger than those of another. That depends on how firmly one believes in them, which is another matter.

NOTE: I remember you that justification = reasons to do or believe something.