Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

Complaining about the word "atheist" is truly the lowest form of apologetics. It's the tell-tale sign of having nothing of substance to add to an argument.
 
JesseCuster said:
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..
Click to expand...

Sure, but you made it up, not me.

The reasons for being good or bad are very varied. They cannot be reduced to a single cause. There are very good Christians who see in the Bible only what is good. And there are very bad atheists who let themselves be carried away by selfishness. In morality algorithms do not work.

In my opinion theism provides more bad things than good things. But this is a long debate.
 
Last edited:
Lithrael said:
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”’
Click to expand...

You continue with the bad habit of taking what I say to the absurd in order to be able to rebut it better. Where did I say I'm talking about 100% trust? I have already said several times that there are nuances in everything. But I suppose that unless he is in a crisis that has him disoriented or he is apathetic, the person who attends, participates and declares his faith in the centers of worship has more moments of trust than mistrust and is reasonably sure that God advises and protects him.

And if someone says that God guides and protects him, I have no reason to assume that he does not believe what he says. Unless you have proof to contrary and he is not a true believer. And that's another case.
 
David Mo said:
(...) I suppose that unless he is in a crisis that has him disoriented or he is apathetic, the person who attends, participates and declares his faith in the centers of worship has more moments of trust than mistrust and is reasonably sure that God advises and protects him.
Click to expand...

The kind of faith that you only have when you’re not really particularly challenged is not very interesting to talk about. Why even bother debating moral fiber when you’ve got yourself a religion that just already does what you do, with a side of ‘hey everybody, be a bit more upstanding, look good in front of the kids, show up to help raise the barn even if you’d rather have a bit of a lie in’?

What I mean is that when people are faced with a crisis, they often end up saying to themselves, with conviction, “surely God can’t really mean for me to not love and put smooches on the person who would be my partner? Surely it’s my congregation that’s got it wrong,” AKA, at the end of the day, even as a true believer, they are using their OWN moral sense and mapping it onto God, instead of the other way around. They consider the core of their concept to be ‘God loves you and if he wants anything besides your faith, it’s for you to be a better person,’ and they use their own ideas of what it is to be a good person.

And the ones that decide the congregation is right, and that the God-given morals are what everyone said they were, are miserable. They either struggle with how God can want this and love them at the same time, or must figure that it’s their place in a Plan, to suffer. And atheists (and the religious who decide God couldn’t be so cruel) feel like that situation is a pointless shame.

And on the other extreme, the people whose culture demands things like honor killing, THEY will cleave hard to the idea their culture is right - because if they entertain the idea that it’s not right, they’d have to contemplate the idea that they killed their loved ones for no good reason. It’s, IMO, a completely intentional trap.

Short version: What use is it saying your morals have the strength of the word of god if they’re just good community standards anyways? So Goody Wemper can side-eye you harder?
 
Last edited:
David Mo said:
By definition a believer has subjective justification for his belief in god. Otherwise he would not be a believer.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if this is losing something in translation. Surely most religious believers are raised to believe from when they are little children. They believe in father Christmas, God, possibly fairies or ghosts. Gradually they learn that these things are just pretend. All except perhaps one, which adults still insist is a real thing.

So are these kids not believers? What level of "subjective justification" do they need to attain before you count them as believers? What if they spend their entire lives not thinking about "subjective justification" yet believing wholeheartedly in what they learned as tiny children? Are such people not believers?
 
David Mo said:
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)​

..........

Still more tosh.
Click to expand...


Denying the existence of God is somewhat different to "refusing the belief" as you stated before.

Referring to the opinions of historical figures does not cancel out the definition given by myself and modern atheists, and quoting a French dictionaries definition, doesn't shore up your case very much either. We are posting on an English language forum here. Many of the well known modern day atheists, (the majority in my estimation), have given the definition of their atheism as very much in line with my own. Just a lack of belief in gods, not a positive "God does not exist" assertion. This has been discussed at length on other threads. Did you miss these discussions?
 
I Am The Scum said:
I explained it very clearly in the second sentence you quoted.
Click to expand...

You don't explain anything there. You disqualify, which is something else. I will tell you more clearly:
Why do you think that discussing the meaning of the word "atheism" is "a form of apologetics"?
I don't see how it is but surely you can explain this. Do you can? Go ahead, please.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I'm not sure if this is losing something in translation. Surely most religious believers are raised to believe from when they are little children. They believe in father Christmas, God, possibly fairies or ghosts. Gradually they learn that these things are just pretend. All except perhaps one, which adults still insist is a real thing.

So are these kids not believers? What level of "subjective justification" do they need to attain before you count them as believers? What if they spend their entire lives not thinking about "subjective justification" yet believing wholeheartedly in what they learned as tiny children? Are such people not believers?
Click to expand...

A thermometer to measure the intensity of belief does not exist... until now. I think we can know that someone doesn't believe in God when he says it. Don't complicate things unnecessarily, please.

"Subjective justification" only means that someone does something thinking (subjective) that is the cause or motivation for doing it (justification). The subjective justification of the Christian is God-centered. God is the subjective justification of the Christian in order to do what he wants.
 
Thor 2 said:
Denying the existence of God is somewhat different to "refusing the belief" as you stated before.
Click to expand...
Utilicé esta frase adaptada a su concepto de ateísmo para explicar que la pregunta surgió independientemente del vocabulario. No era mi forma habitual de hablar.
I used this phrase adapted to your concept of atheism to explain that the question arose independently of the vocabulary. It was not my usual way of speaking. This was a concession to the progress of the debate. I would not have said it myself.

Thor 2 said:
Referring to the opinions of historical figures does not cancel out the definition given by myself and modern atheists, and quoting a French dictionaries definition, doesn't shore up your case very much either. We are posting on an English language forum here. Many of the well known modern day atheists, (the majority in my estimation), have given the definition of their atheism as very much in line with my own. Just a lack of belief in gods, not a positive "God does not exist" assertion. This has been discussed at length on other threads. Did you miss these discussions?
Click to expand...

Bertrand Russell wrote in English, Thomas Huxley wrote in English, Richard Dawkins writes in English, Sam Harris writes in English.... They all use the word "atheist" as I do: The one who claims that God does not exist or is highly improbable. If you want quotes, I'll give you quotes.

You have a problem: you live in the world of Wikipedia and you think this is the world of knowledge.

I have no problem going to your world -- I'm flexible -- but you seem incapable of seeing wider horizons. I don't deny that in some Anglo-Saxon contexts your jargon would be dominant, but don't tell me this is "English language" because it's ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom