Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

[Thor 2]

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.

How you can recommend I urgently watch a video explaining Dawkins position, when I have quoted stuff to you with obvious reference to the same video, is beyond my comprehension.

Dawkins refers to himself as an atheist with some reluctance because he doesn't think the word should exist. In the same way we don't refer to ourselves as afairyists if we lack belief in fairies. It is you that lacks comprehension methinks.

 

[David Mo]

How you can recommend I urgently watch a video explaining Dawkins position, when I have quoted stuff to you with obvious reference to the same video, is beyond my comprehension.

Dawkins refers to himself as an atheist with some reluctance because he doesn't think the word should exist. In the same way we don't refer to ourselves as afairyists if we lack belief in fairies. It is you that lacks comprehension methinks.

Effectivelly, you have not understood.
Our discussion was about the concepts of atheism and agnosticism. My point was not whether Dawkins calls himself one thing or another, but how Dawkins uses words. That is, if he uses "atheism" and "agnosticism" as me or as "lack of belief". The first is true, as the video shows.

It was one more sample that the definitions that I used here were those of the expert people in the subject and that the way in which they are used in Internet is mainly jargon of bloggers and forums. I don't care if this jargon is used or not. That works for me meanwhile it be effective. But let us be aware of this and don't let you accuse me of clouding the debate. Because that is false.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

Ah, I remember now. You've easily used the chart to identify both dimensions and realized you are a gnostic atheist.

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.

No, I don't watch unsolicited videos.

Does this one make it any easier for you?

 

[Robin]

This discussion is proof that atheists are cockeyed optimists thinking this discussion will get anyplace.

 

[Thor 2]

Effectivelly, you have not understood.
Our discussion was about the concepts of atheism and agnosticism. My point was not whether Dawkins calls himself one thing or another, but how Dawkins uses words. That is, if he uses "atheism" and "agnosticism" as me or as "lack of belief". The first is true, as the video shows.

It seems I have some company here in the misunderstanding of David Mo. Now you say "lack of belief" where as before it was "refusing the belief". You can't see the difference here?

It was one more sample that the definitions that I used here were those of the expert people in the subject and that the way in which they are used in Internet is mainly jargon of bloggers and forums. I don't care if this jargon is used or not. That works for me meanwhile it be effective. But let us be aware of this and don't let you accuse me of clouding the debate. Because that is false.

Getting foggier by the minute.

 

[Athyrio]

This discussion is proof that atheists are cockeyed optimists thinking this discussion will get anyplace.

It’s probably because of their unbridled enthusiasm.

 

[BadBoy]

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.

Lack of evidence. Time to believe something is when there is sufficient evidence for it. Otherwise it's a don't know. The "not knowing" makes me an Agnostic. The lack of belief in any God or Gods because of my "not knowing" makes me an Atheist.

Being convinced or not is binary. Either you are convinced - for whatever reason a God exists makes you a theist. If you are not unconvinced you are an Atheist. You could also be an Atheist because you are convinced a God definitely does not exist, but then you wouldn't be Agnostic either.

The burden of proof lays with the claim. So far the theists have been really really really bad at providing me with convincing evidence of his existence. So I'm left unconvinced.

 

[BadBoy]

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.

The Atheist doesn't need a God to justify what he wants to do.

 

[BadBoy]

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.

Depends on whose point of view. For me as an Atheist Christians don't have it easier because they need to justify the bad decisions they make. Doing wicked things in the name of their god requires justification which requires they show God exists and that what she/he/it commands is necessarily moral.

In my opinion Theists bury this deep deep down in their cognitive dissonance or try to resolve it with some week ass apologetics.

 

[abaddon]

The Atheist doesn't need a God to justify what he wants to do.

That is part of the problem here. The atheist has no need of a god, but has a justification nevertheless. That justification, while not a god, still exists. DM would have it that no justification is even possible without a god and any claims for any non-god justifications provided are thus necessarily invalid.

 

[David Mo]

Ah, I remember now. You've easily used the chart to identify both dimensions and realized you are a gnostic atheist.

So what?

No, I don't watch unsolicited videos.

What a pity. You need it.

Does this one make it any easier for you?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_267445dbb34da228d5.jpg[/qimg]

This silly joke doesn't help anyone. Being 100% sure is practically impossible. Therefore, Dawkins' explanation might help you understand it. I know, you don't want to hear anything that can change your ideas. What can we do?

 

[David Mo]

This discussion is proof that atheists are cockeyed optimists thinking this discussion will get anyplace.

Do you believe that this kind of discussion leads anywhere? Yes, you are a big optimist.
Notwithstanding, this kind of discussions teach a lot of things.

 

[David Mo]

It seems I have some company here in the misunderstanding of David Mo. Now you say "lack of belief" where as before it was "refusing the belief". You can't see the difference here?

Getting foggier by the minute.

Lack of belief can be the result of refusing a belief. It depends on the context. If you don't explain this, I don't know what you're trying to say.

Anyway, I have used the expression "lack of faith" as a reference to the Internet jargon. Not mine. In my opinion, it's confusing. This has nothing to do with the quote you made. The fog is thickening... into your head.

 

[David Mo]

Lack of evidence. Time to believe something is when there is sufficient evidence for it. Otherwise it's a don't know. The "not knowing" makes me an Agnostic. The lack of belief in any God or Gods because of my "not knowing" makes me an Atheist.(...)
The burden of proof lays with the claim. So far the theists have been really really really bad at providing me with convincing evidence of his existence. So I'm left unconvinced.

The lack of belief in any God or gods because of their "not knowing" made Thomas Huxley an agnostic. Given that Huxley coined the term is one more reason why I prefer Huxley's terminology and not yours.

But whatever the name, the burden of proof falls on the one who claims the existence of a thing. If you say "I don't believe" you don't have to put any proof before the believer makes his move. Call yourself an atheist, an agnostic or Maria de las Mercedes.

 

[BadBoy]

That is part of the problem here. The atheist has no need of a god, but has a justification nevertheless. That justification, while not a god, still exists. DM would have it that no justification is even possible without a god and any claims for any non-god justifications provided are thus necessarily invalid.

oh I agree. I like Matt Dillahunty's explanation or Sam Harris's the Moral Landscape.

My main points around this area as I see it is:

1. Making Moral decisions or pronouncements is sometimes very hard. Often situations are complicated and it's hard to know what is the "most moral" action in many situations
2. Our moral values - or at least our sense of whats right or wrong probably comes from the fact we depend on each other to survive. But within that there emerges some level of competitiveness for survival for you family/clan/tribe/country/race.
3. Obviously no holy book can be used as a Moral Guide because they are often full of obviously bad stuff. We take the good and leave the bad. I don't see any evidence for godly inspired sense of morality. Most of us certainly have some sense for it, but I see no reason that it should come from a God. And anyway - where is gods answer for the more difficult moral questions - all I see is disagreement, discussion and sometimes war and violence on moral issues (homosexuality, stem cell research, abortion etc etc). I don't see any help from any God there.
4. The history of the world I think reflects points 1 and 2. I think what we have in the world is entirely what you get with no God and a primate species where their morality is still catching up with their recently evolved intelligence.

 

[David Mo]

Depends on whose point of view. For me as an Atheist Christians don't have it easier because they need to justify the bad decisions they make. Doing wicked things in the name of their god requires justification which requires they show God exists and that what she/he/it commands is necessarily moral.

In my opinion Theists bury this deep deep down in their cognitive dissonance or try to resolve it with some week ass apologetics.

A distinction must be made between justifying to others and justifying oneself. For the believer, the justification of the evils of the world, including one's own, becomes difficult before non-believers. But if the believer is fanatical enough the opinion of unbelievers does not give a damn. God wants it and that's it.

 

[David Mo]

DM would have it that no justification is even possible without a god and any claims for any non-god justifications provided are thus necessarily invalid.

Look, I don't know how to tell you this isn't what I say anywhere. I'm an atheist and I think I'm more justified in doing what I do than the vast majority of believers I know. And I leave a little room only so to not appear dogmatic.

Just because I believe that the atheist has a problem with the justification of his acts does not mean that I affirm that this problem can only be solved inside of theism.

I no longer know what language to speak to you in order for you to understand.

 

[BadBoy]

The lack of belief in any God or gods because of their "not knowing" made Thomas Huxley an agnostic. Given that Huxley coined the term is one more reason why I prefer Huxley's terminology and not yours.

But whatever the name, the burden of proof falls on the one who claims the existence of a thing. If you say "I don't believe" you don't have to put any proof before the believer makes his move. Call yourself an atheist, an agnostic or Maria de las Mercedes.

The reason why it can be important is because Theist's often try to redirect the burden of proof onto the Atheist. "You cant prove god doesn't exist!" as if this wins some kind of argument. When you explain to them what you mean by Atheist in order to show them they actually have the burden of proof they tend to say something like "oh, then your just an Agnostic" which tends to imply that you (me) just haven't figured it out yet but that they have - like they are ahead of the curve and you just need to catch up.

It's all semantics and word play but it can be annoying. It is possible to be an Agnostic Theist or an Agnostic Atheist. You can be an Atheist for different reasons, including being convinced a god doesn't exist. Theists are often Agnostic because they rely on their faith. They can't be sure there is a God and admit they cannot prove it, but they are convinced nonetheless.

Even if I accept your definition for Atheist (which I don't, even your dictionary paste doesn't entirely support it), it still leaves the theist with everything to still to do to be able to rationalize their belief in a creator of the universe.

 

[BadBoy]

A distinction must be made between justifying to others and justifying oneself. For the believer, the justification of the evils of the world, including one's own, becomes difficult before non-believers. But if the believer is fanatical enough the opinion of unbelievers does not give a damn. God wants it and that's it.

well we all live in this world together and if the believers want to take actions that affect my well being then they damned well better have a good rational for it other than "I feel it in my balls".

 

[BadBoy]

A distinction must be made between justifying to others and justifying oneself. For the believer, the justification of the evils of the world, including one's own, becomes difficult before non-believers. But if the believer is fanatical enough the opinion of unbelievers does not give a damn. God wants it and that's it.

Also, though this probably doesn't happen enough, but I think Atheists are on safer ground (morality is easier) because their moral actions are situational and subjective with respect to that. A rational thought out argument can be proposed for a moral pronouncement, that can then be discussed and evaluated and changed. This IMO is far superior to a Theist just invoking their book or ancient tradition.