Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

[Lithrael]

OK. But I wasn't arguing about this kind of social opportunism (very common). I was arguing about the assumption of someone who truly believes.

Yes, but I’m serious. What good is faith doing a guy whose faith in doing right by god is just what the community already wants but with ‘and god is on your side’ tacked on? I mean literally, is it just there to make it easier to get up in the morning and be part of the community cause you feel like you’re on Team Good God? That doesn’t sound like it’s about morals so much as it sounds sounds like the classic opiate of the masses take on things.

 

[David Mo]

I think part of the problem is not using the proper "jargon" and talking at cross purposes to each other.

Why or when a jargon is proper?

 

[David Mo]

Yes, but I’m serious. What good is faith doing a guy whose faith in doing right by god is just what the community already wants but with ‘and god is on your side’ tacked on? I mean literally, is it just there to make it easier to get up in the morning and be part of the community cause you feel like you’re on Team Good God? That doesn’t sound like it’s about morals so much as it sounds sounds like the classic opiate of the masses take on things.

That's how it sounds.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Why or when a jargon is proper?

When it enhances communication rather than hindering it.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Why do you think that discussing the meaning of the word "atheism" is "a form of apologetics"?

Because the apologist is not discussing the "atheist world view" (whatever that might mean). Instead, they are dissecting the word "atheist" in an attempt to pigeonhole the atheist into a position that they don't actually hold.

The preferable option is very straightforward:

1. Ask the atheist what they mean when they call themselves an atheist.
2. Debate the perspective that is offered (assuming a disagreement is present at this point).
3. If you don't think the word "atheist" accurately describes their views, get over it, then return to step 2.

 

[Thor 2]

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.

Would be nice if you just admitted to your mistake. You would gain kudos from this.

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.

Shameful of you to blend two things together like this to try and score points. My reference to historical figures in no way suggested they were not English speakers. The remark about the English was about the forum. I think you know this but are desperate to maintain credibility.

Incidentally Richard Dawkins put himself on 6 on a scale of 1 to 7, regarding belief in God - 7 being the highest degree of disbelief. He calls himself an atheist non the less, and I feel confident would find "refusing the belief" not an accurate description of his mindset.

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

The old "you are a Wiki freak" line....... How tedious.

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.

"Incapable of seeing wider horizons" .... and you managed to glean this from my scribblings?

 

[Robin]

And even more reasons I don't label myself as an atheist.

 

[David Mo]

When it enhances communication rather than hindering it.

When two don't communicate we can blame each other or both of them. How do you know you're not to blame?

Thor2 blamed me for using a non-English definition. I provided four relevant English-speaking personalities who used my definition. Can you provide us with another reliable criterion?

 

[David Mo]

Because the apologist is not discussing the "atheist world view" (whatever that might mean). Instead, they are dissecting the word "atheist" in an attempt to pigeonhole the atheist into a position that they don't actually hold.

The preferable option is very straightforward:

1. Ask the atheist what they mean when they call themselves an atheist.
2. Debate the perspective that is offered (assuming a disagreement is present at this point).
3. If you don't think the word "atheist" accurately describes their views, get over it, then return to step 2.

I don't see any "pigeonhole" in points 1 and 2 if "perspective" only entails what "atheist" means. If the "apologist" is intended to mix what words mean with what reality is, this is a easily detectable trap. This trap begins with "what really means X" or "what X really is".
You can see that I have not intended anywhere to cheat you so.

This verbal trap is easily soluble when one knows that meanings are not true or false, but only appropriate to a verbal context. See Silverman's quote in #819.

Another way of solution is to ignore the conflicting words and go straight to the things in the basement. For example: In a discussion about the burden of proof (I think this is what you have in mind), it is not useful to discuss what "atheist" really means, but to identify two positions: those who believe that God exists and those who do not (names taken away). If the debate on this point is reversed, the verbal trap disappears and the ball will be in the "apologists" court.

You can see that a discussion about names can be very useful to disentangle some verbal traps.

 

[David Mo]

Would be nice if you just admitted to your mistake. You would gain kudos from this.

May be it would be nice but false.

Shameful of you to blend two things together like this to try and score points. My reference to historical figures in no way suggested they were not English speakers. The remark about the English was about the forum. I think you know this but are desperate to maintain credibility.

Incidentally Richard Dawkins put himself on 6 on a scale of 1 to 7, regarding belief in God - 7 being the highest degree of disbelief. He calls himself an atheist non the less, and I feel confident would find "refusing the belief" not an accurate description of his mindset. :

I know the forum is in English. And that you understand that the "modern" English-speaker use your definition and that what others can do doesn't matter. That's why I quoted four of the greatest "modern" experts who use the term atheism just like me. In English.

Because -I beg your pardon-, Dawkins uses the word "atheism" like me: To know/affirm that God doesn't exist. You need urgently to watch this Youtube where Richard Dawkins explains what atheism and agnosticism are. In only 3'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkgYgJEH-e4

It would be fine if you admitted your mistake. Thank you.

 

[David Mo]

And even more reasons I don't label myself as an atheist.

If I had to guide myself through this forum I would abandon atheism and go into a convent... to pray at the Spaguetti Monster.

 

[Robin]

If I had to guide myself through this forum I would abandon atheism and go into a convent... to pray at the Spaguetti Monster.

i don't know why you are getting hung up on this word "atheist".

Apparently you mean one thing by it and most (if not all) of the others mean something else by it.

Some here simply lack a belief in God or gods and some here, like myself, believe that there are no gods or God.

There is nothing unclear about that.

 

[David Mo]

i don't know why you are getting hung up on this word "atheist".

Apparently you mean one thing by it and most (if not all) of the others mean something else by it.

Some here simply lack a belief in God or gods and some here, like myself, believe that there are no gods or God.

There is nothing unclear about that.

At first I tried to resist the subject, but others attracted me.
It doesn't matter. There is some contact thread.

I don't care how everyone wants to call themselves (atheist or agnostic, agnostic atheist or gnostic atheist) if their position is clear.
One says, "I have no belief about the existence of God". Some in this forum call it "atheism. Dawkins calls it "agnosticism. Well, let's call it "X" and discuss it. Not the name, the concept. OK?

It seems to me a very indefinite position. Let's discuss this, if you will. But let's not discuss again what it's called, much less what the real name of this position is.

 

[RoboTimbo]

When two don't communicate we can blame each other or both of them. How do you know you're not to blame?

Thor2 blamed me for using a non-English definition. I provided four relevant English-speaking personalities who used my definition. Can you provide us with another reliable criterion?

Here are two more images illustrating the correct usage of the theist/atheist and gnostic/agnostic measures.





Which quadrant did you say you identified as?

 

[David Mo]

Here are two more images illustrating the correct usage of the theist/atheist and gnostic/agnostic measures.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/26744525ea4fd028ac.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2674450683f9dcc64f.jpg[/qimg]

Which quadrant did you say you identified as?

Why do you say it's correct? I don't think so. I prefer the one that appears in 0:15 of this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkgYgJEH-e4

Watch it, please.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I thought it was important to you to answer questions. You missed this one.

Which quadrant did you say you identified as?

 

[Lithrael]

Is it just me or does the conversation go away every time I’ve grabbed a thread I think is interesting? Though as I understand it Mo is sort of devil’s advocate on a lot of this, and technically that is work. So I am sort of sitting here going ‘debate me!!’ like a potato with a coffee.

 

[David Mo]

I thought it was important to you to answer questions. You missed this one.

If you explain what the names of the squares and the diagram itself mean, I will respond. Well, I actually did it a few days ago with a proposal that resembled yours... My goodness! You were the one who made it! What a memory you have. See my comment #658 and don't make me repeat what I've already said, please.

Have you watched the Hawkins video I recommended? Don't you want to know why I prefer it to yours? Better this way, because the subject seems to me to be taken off the rail.

 

[David Mo]

Is it just me or does the conversation go away every time I’ve grabbed a thread I think is interesting? Though as I understand it Mo is sort of devil’s advocate on a lot of this, and technically that is work. So I am sort of sitting here going ‘debate me!!’ like a potato with a coffee.

Don't tell me. What devil am I defending?

 

[Hellbound]

The idea that it's praiseworthy to obey the voices in your head to the lengths of killing your own children has never appealed to me, even if they're going to say they were kidding just before you do it.

Everyone comes out of that story looking like a dick.

Reminds me of a passage by Eric Flint in a short story:

Hey, it's true, He does [over-react]. Read the Bible. A little hanky-panky in Sodom and Gomorrah? BRONZE AGE HIROSHIMA. Eat the wrong fruit? LIVE BY THE SWEAT OF YOUR BROW, CHILDREN BORN IN SORROW, PMS--the whole nine yards. Violate the building code? ALL LANGUAGES CAST INTO CONFUSION; MILLENNIA OF TRIBAL WARFARE. Eat shellfish? LOCUSTS. Jaywalk? SEVEN LEAN YEARS. Don't recycle? PLAGUE. Do this, ETERNAL DAMNATION; do that, ETERNAL DAMNATION. Strict is one thing. That Guy's into leather.