Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

[David Mo]

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.

The dictionary you mention was etymological. The English dictionaries I have consulted either use the meaning I use or mention the two possible meanings without mention the combination "Atheist agnostic", etc.. There are exceptions but few. Here is the Encyclopedia Britannica, which is a reference text:

Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/atheism )
​

Of course the theist is setting you a semantic trap when he says that if you are actually an agnostic you are "out of the curve". I don't know what that means, nor why being an agnostic leaves you behind, but you are lost if you accept the starting point that there is a "real" or "authentic" meaning of the word "atheist" or "agnostic". There they'll nail you with quotes like the Encyclopaedia Britannica or Huxley to show that you don't know what you're talking about.

Names are flatus vocis, i.e. air in the mouth. What really matters are things. Don't stick to the name and go to the idea, to the meaning. You are someone who doesn't believe in God. You shouldn't present any proof. It is the task for the believer. They will try to show off with names. Don't let them. Go to the idea like a bull-dog.

 

[David Mo]

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.

You are right from this point of view. The discomfort of the atheist comes rather in the discussion on the existence of objective values. Not so much when you argue with theists, but with relativists.

 

[Robin]

You are right from this point of view. The discomfort of the atheist comes rather in the discussion on the existence of objective values. Not so much when you argue with theists, but with relativists.

I am sure why you make the distinction between theists and relativists.

If the theist rule is "obey a certain powerful supernatural force" then that position is as relativist as any

For example the supernatural force can say "Thou shalt not kill" one minute and "kill everything that breathes" the next and the theist will say they are both good actions.

An atheist at least has the option of having a consistent approach to morality.

 

[Robin]

Moreover even an inconsistent approach is not relativist unless the person doing it insists that the inconsistent actions are both good.

For example an atheist who buys an expensive television instead of sending the money to a charity that saves lives can admit that the action was selfish and not good, whereas the 'prosperity' Christian can insist it is a virtuous action, obeying God's desire that they should have luxuries in life

 

[Thor 2]

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.

More obfuscation.

So you think a person can say to himself/herself "I refuse to believe this" and as a result a "lack of belief" follows? Talk about arse about face backwards.

 

[8enotto]

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.

Finally this is explained for me. In religion classes the nuns and group leaders always insisted situational ethics was bad, the worst type for one. Obedience to god and his bible was perfect, if you took it as they selectively edited out the meanest stuff.

In a test of many questions concerning ethical decisions I blew up the results to where several nuns couldn't figure how to be in both extremes and lightly across the middle. They were suppose to be metering your gullibility and adherence to what they taught.
To have swallowed the hook and sinkers, then be nibbling on the bobber was acceptable, at least for them.

I wasn't taught to blindly trust early on. Making my own choices was critical to sanity.

 

[David Mo]

I am sure why you make the distinction between theists and relativists.

If the theist rule is "obey a certain powerful supernatural force" then that position is as relativist as any

For example the supernatural force can say "Thou shalt not kill" one minute and "kill everything that breathes" the next and the theist will say they are both good actions.

An atheist at least has the option of having a consistent approach to morality.

The relativist is the one who affirms that things are true or false according to his point of view. This is blasphemy for the theist because there is a higher criterion according to which things are absolutely true or false: the divine will. And you can know the truth if you submit to the divine commandments, directly or indirectly manifested to you. The claim to know the truth by one's own means is pride. Sin of pride.

And if you have doubts that God has chosen you to sacrifice against the infidels, you are doomed. Go to the lions singing praises to God, my son. More harm hell does and more pleasure Glory gives.

Of course, this degree of fanatical belief is not easy to achieve, but it works at lower levels of demand.

Satisfactory? It depends on how the believer faces the contradiction between the level of requirement and the force of doubt. Schizophrenic or useless.

 

[David Mo]

Moreover even an inconsistent approach is not relativist unless the person doing it insists that the inconsistent actions are both good.

For example an atheist who buys an expensive television instead of sending the money to a charity that saves lives can admit that the action was selfish and not good, whereas the 'prosperity' Christian can insist it is a virtuous action, obeying God's desire that they should have luxuries in life

Everybody has problems of conscience with the contradiction between private life and public effects. I doubt that honest believers can avoid them. Didn't say the Christ "give all your riches to the poor and come with me"? How many Christians give all their riches? And so on.

 

[David Mo]

So you think a person can say to himself/herself "I refuse to believe this" and as a result a "lack of belief" follows?

In a world where there were no spiders no one could have arachnophobia.
In a world where there were no believers no one could be called an unbeliever.
When someone declares himself unbelieving it is because a belief is incredible to him. For a good or bad reason, is it not?

 

[David Mo]

Finally this is explained for me. In religion classes the nuns and group leaders always insisted situational ethics was bad, the worst type for one. Obedience to god and his bible was perfect, if you took it as they selectively edited out the meanest stuff.
(...)

I wasn't taught to blindly trust early on. Making my own choices was critical to sanity.

I mean, make all the decisions you want as long as they're not against what I'm telling you. At least in my case, what I had to think was clearly indicated in the catechism. Just in case.
And as far as I know, the free examination of the Bible was a Luther's crazy idea that was quickly forgotten as soon as his disciples began to think on their own.

 

[Robin]

The relativist is the one who affirms that things are true or false according to his point of view.

OK, that is another definition clash, I was using: "Relativism: the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute."

I doubt that many non-believers are relativists in the way you are using the word. Or in the sense I have given, for that matter.

 

[David Mo]

OK, that is another definition clash, I was using: "Relativism: the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute."

I doubt that many non-believers are relativists in the way you are using the word. Or in the sense I have given, for that matter.

Your definition works for me if we add "or personal perspective."
I don't know if there are many or few in the world, but in this forum there are a few.

 

[JesseCuster]

The discomfort of the atheist comes rather in the discussion on the existence of objective values.

What discomfort? I don't feel this discomfort. Is this a thing that you have determined exists for all atheists, that exists for you as an atheist, or that you've reasoned all atheists must feel therefore they do regardless of some of them telling you they don't feel that discomfort?

Where did this idea come from of this discomfort and why do you think it's something that you can apply to all atheists?

 

[Robin]

I have no idea why anyone would think that discussion of objective values would cause any discomfort to non-theists.

There appears to be two major schools of thought among non-theists here. Firstly those who believe there are objective moral values, for example Sam Harris. Then there are those who say there are no objective moral values, but that we can still approach morality with a consistent, logical approach. Peter Singer is an example of this latter group.

There is more discomfort among theists about the idea of objective moral values.

For example there is the question of whether God could command that child rape is good and if that would make it good.

But if not then morality does not come from God after all.

At this point theists tend, like Euthyphro, to remember urgent appointments elsewhere.

 

[David Mo]

I have no idea why anyone would think that discussion of objective values would cause any discomfort to non-theists.

Where did this idea come from of this discomfort and why do you think it's something that you can apply to all atheists?

The way you respond, I suspect "discomfort" is a false friend. I am not referring to a state of anxiety. Maybe "concern" is better. That is, the feeling that a problem needs to be solved and it is not easy. This is the problem of what I ought to do and how to build a good life project.

I think the world would be better if everyone were more rational and thought seriously about serious things. And this also applies to atheists. Why not?

 

[David Mo]

There appears to be two major schools of thought among non-theists here. Firstly those who believe there are objective moral values, for example Sam Harris. Then there are those who say there are no objective moral values, but that we can still approach morality with a consistent, logical approach. Peter Singer is an example of this latter group.

There is more discomfort among theists about the idea of objective moral values.

For example there is the question of whether God could command that child rape is good and if that would make it good.

But if not then morality does not come from God after all.

At this point theists tend, like Euthyphro, to remember urgent appointments elsewhere.

Note: Sam Harris is not my idol. He hasn't even understood the problem. I have read some thing by Singer but it was not about the problem. I don't like him, but this is a simple suspicion.

The problem with theists is not that they don't believe in absolute values but what God's representative on earth they listen to. When one hears so many voices the offer is dizzy.

 

[Lithrael]

The way you respond, I suspect "discomfort" is a false friend. I am not referring to a state of anxiety. Maybe "concern" is better. That is, the feeling that a problem needs to be solved and it is not easy. This is the problem of what I ought to do and how to build a good life project.

Oh!! Well that is a completely different flavor, and, sure, ok, I don’t object to that. If all you’ve meant the whole time is that, people who aren’t just regurgitating the predetermined moral structure that was fed to them, see that they have to figure one out for themselves (and that if they put much thought into it, it may have uncomfortable and/or unresolved bits in it), then I already agreed with you on that point.

 

[Robin]

.

The problem with theists is not that they don't believe in absolute values but what God's representative on earth they listen to. When one hears so many voices the offer is dizzy.

That is not the issue.

If they believe that morality depends on God's commands then they do not believe in absolute morality

On the other hand if they believe in absolute morality then they don't believe that God's command is the source of morality.

 

[Thor 2]

So you think a person can say to himself/herself "I refuse to believe this" and as a result a "lack of belief" follows? Talk about arse about face backwards.

In a world where there were no spiders no one could have arachnophobia.
In a world where there were no believers no one could be called an unbeliever.
When someone declares himself unbelieving it is because a belief is incredible to him. For a good or bad reason, is it not?

That you would think this is an effective answer to my post is a source of wonder to me.

 

[David Mo]

Oh!! Well that is a completely different flavor, and, sure, ok, I don’t object to that. If all you’ve meant the whole time is that, people who aren’t just regurgitating the predetermined moral structure that was fed to them, see that they have to figure one out for themselves (and that if they put much thought into it, it may have uncomfortable and/or unresolved bits in it), then I already agreed with you on that point.

We can be happy to have reached an agreement. But I have stated my position a long time ago.

It may be that my Catholic environment influences me to think that the decision to dispense with God to form my life project is "dramatic" and I cannot avoid "anguish". It's probably that people here understand these concepts in a psychological rather than a philosophical sense. I would have to explain them better.

And I still in my position. 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.

You can see that my position was clear, although not well understood by some. I don't know why.

When faced with a problem, people react differently according to their character or personality. One person may be anxious and another may be calm. I'm not saying that all atheists are the same, as some in this forum have misinterpreted.... repeatedly. But this is a psychological problem and it was not my point of view. I was asking a philosophical question: How to solve the problem of moral values autonomously? And I believe that this is an essential and difficult problem. It's not easy and it is essential. That's why I called it "dramatic". If you don't like the word, put another one yourself.