Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

Robin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is "morality" a set of definite rules?
I see. You have a problem because you have not faith.

What is absolute is the commandment of God, even if the rule can change. In the facts, early Christians had a problem with Jewish Law. Was it divine or not? Has a Christian to accomplish the Law? It is funny to see Paul making a mess with the answer to this question. But faith is for this: accepting madness as Divine Wisdom. Easy, is it not?

ADDED: I think the problem with belief is that it is perverse in any of its senses.
Or the believer is a fanatic who does whatever he believes his god commands him to do. As aberrant as it is.
Or the believer is a hypocrite who has invented a god to justify what he really wants. No matter how aberrant.

He has discarded his responsibility in a fictional entity that justifies everything.

In both cases, absolute justification has produced absolute aberrations.
 
Last edited:
Thor 2 said:
That you would think this is an effective answer to my post is a source of wonder to me.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you never explain your objections and it's not easy to know what is in your mind.

I thought you had asked such a simple question that simple answers were enough.

The process of disbelief requires first knowing what a belief is and then why this belief is incredible to you.

If this answer don't correspond to what you have in mind, try to explain it clearly. I am not a mind reader.
 
Last edited:
David Mo said:
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.
Click to expand...
In the name of freedom???

Doesn't apply to anyone I know. As far as I know atheists don't believe in God because there is no such thing as God, not "in the name of freedom"

Perhaps the reason you are having trouble getting people to understand you is that you persist in these strangely inaccurate descriptions of atheism.
 
David Mo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Before you can solve a problem you have to define it.

What exactly is "the problem of moral values"?
 
The position you quote, Mo, reads to me as a completely different position to the later one that I agree with, even though you feel it is just a restatement of the same thing. I was here for it when you posted it too. I think your turn of phrase is working against you.
 
Robin said:
In the name of freedom???

Doesn't apply to anyone I know. As far as I know atheists don't believe in God because there is no such thing as God, not "in the name of freedom"

Perhaps the reason you are having trouble getting people to understand you is that you persist in these strangely inaccurate descriptions of atheism.
Click to expand...

Freedom of thought, autonomy of reason, freedom from submission to external orders... Sapere aude.

These are common themes since the Enlightenment. If they sound strange here it is not my fault.

You can be free without giving it that name. And sometimes you call yourself free without being free. It is not a question of names but of acts.
 
Last edited:
David Mo said:
Freedom of thought, autonomy of reason, freedom from submission to external orders... Sapere aude.

These are common themes since the Enlightenment. If they sound strange here is not my fault.

You can be free without giving it that name. And sometimes you call yourself free without being free. It is not a question of names but of acts.
Click to expand...
That doesn't address the issue at all.

The issue here is that you have stated that people discard the idea of a protective Superfather (I'm just going to use god to avoid confusion) in the name of freedom.

The phrase "in the name of" means that you are doing something with a stated motivation. To do something "in the name of God" means that you are explicitly naming God as your motivation to perform that act. To do something "in the name of freedom" means that freedom is your stated motivation to perform that cat.

Atheists may exercise freedom when becoming atheists, but they don't stop believing in God because they believe in freedom and that freedom is their motivation to disbelieve in God.

This is a communication problem, you're using phrases in English that clearly don't mean what you intend them to mean.
 
JesseCuster said:
That doesn't address the issue at all.

The issue here is that you have stated that people discard the idea of a protective Superfather (I'm just going to use god to avoid confusion) in the name of freedom.

The phrase "in the name of" means that you are doing something with a stated motivation. To do something "in the name of God" means that you are explicitly naming God as your motivation to perform that act. To do something "in the name of freedom" means that freedom is your stated motivation to perform that cat.

Atheists may exercise freedom when becoming atheists, but they don't stop believing in God because they believe in freedom and that freedom is their motivation to disbelieve in God.

This is a communication problem, you're using phrases in English that clearly don't mean what you intend them to mean.
Click to expand...

I've already said several times that I'm not going to discuss words but ideas. If you want us to say that the atheist frees himself from the tutelage of a Superfather, or that he exercises his freedom to think for himself, I don't care to say so. The idea is the same as I explained.

And if you have another similar objection, we'll discuss it. You see how quickly we've solved the communication problem.
 
David Mo said:
The problem is that you never explain your objections and it's not easy to know what is in your mind.

I thought you had asked such a simple question that simple answers were enough.

The process of disbelief requires first knowing what a belief is and then why this belief is incredible to you.

If this answer don't correspond to what you have in mind, try to explain it clearly. I am not a mind reader.
Click to expand...


Take it easy David you don't need to try and plumb the depths of my mind. When I first entered this discussion (post #795), I was merely questioning your unusual definition of atheist - your response has been obfuscation.

There is nothing else hidden in my mind that will add clarification so spare yourself the effort. :)
 
David Mo said:
Can I expect my values to be shared?
Click to expand...
By observation, no we cannot expect that others will value the same things that we do. It is an empirical fact that different people value different things. The best we expect is that there will be sufficient commonality in what we value that we can build a functioning society.

Can I judge other people?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is very easy. So easy that any fool can do it and most fools do. Especially with the advent of social media.

Those didn't seem such hard questions.
 
A better question might be, "is there any good that can come of judging others?".

That is a more subtle one. If I had been taken at birth and transported back to 1930's Germany and placed with a Nazi family then I would have probably grown up a Nazi and anti-Semite.

So there doesn't seem any point in judging others who did not have the same moral luck that I did.

On the other hand it does seem useful to share the opinion that certain behaviour is sufficiently harmful that it would be better for society that people did not engage in it.

So we need to make a distinction between saying to someone, "your behaviour is wrong" and judging them.
 
David Mo said:
I've already said several times that I'm not going to discuss words but ideas. If you want us to say that the atheist frees himself from the tutelage of a Superfather, or that he exercises his freedom to think for himself, I don't care to say so. The idea is the same as I explained.
Click to expand...
The idea is also wrong and nonsensical.

You seem to be incorrigibly stuck on this idea that someone who does not believe in God does so in order to get freedom from God.

I cannot rule out that there might be some tiny minority of hopelessly confused atheists who might disbelieve for this reason.

But for the vast majority of those of us who do not believe in God, we do not believe in God because, as far as we can tell, there is no God.
 
Robin said:
The idea is also wrong and nonsensical.

You seem to be incorrigibly stuck on this idea that someone who does not believe in God does so in order to get freedom from God.

I cannot rule out that there might be some tiny minority of hopelessly confused atheists who might disbelieve for this reason.

But for the vast majority of those of us who do not believe in God, we do not believe in God because, as far as we can tell, there is no God.
Click to expand...

If a philosopher concedes to logic then the discussion will not continue. Not having an outlet for their never-ending barrage of words is the worst thing that could happen. Telling you that you must do things that there is absolutely no reason to do seems to be one way to keep the words flowing.
 
David Mo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not for me. I think moral relativism is bunk.
 
David Mo said:
Note: Sam Harris is not my idol. He hasn't even understood the problem.
Click to expand...

I (and I am sure Harris also) would disagree with you there. Could it be you have misunderstood the problem - or even misunderstood Sam?

Anyway, if the truth is relative as the relativists claim then you are both correct. :rolleyes:
 
David Mo said:
I've already said several times that I'm not going to discuss words but ideas. If you want us to say that the atheist frees himself from the tutelage of a Superfather, or that he exercises his freedom to think for himself, I don't care to say so. The idea is the same as I explained.
Click to expand...
You are missing the point. Both of those are irrelevant.

Atheists are just not convinced given the (lack) of evidence - that's it. That makes them an Atheist. Some maybe completely thick and don't believe in God because they believe in fairies or goblins or universe farting pixies to quote Matt D. or that they just grew up in a secular non God believing family and community (like me) They are still Atheists.

You are either convinced of something, or your not. You cannot truly convince yourself that the color black is in fact light blue, if you already know it's black.

I can change my mind if I become convinced that a god does actually exist (maybe I could have a head injury that changes the way I feel) just as a theist may realize - usually after actually reading their holey book that a god doesn't exist.

Being an Atheist allows to "frees himself from the tutelage of a Superfather", but if you were never a theist to begin with, I'm not being freed by anything.



David Mo said:
And if you have another similar objection, we'll discuss it. You see how quickly we've solved the communication problem.
Click to expand...
Hardly
 
Last edited:
Robin said:
By observation, no we cannot expect that others will value the same things that we do. It is an empirical fact that different people value different things. The best we expect is that there will be sufficient commonality in what we value that we can build a functioning society.


Yes, it is very easy. So easy that any fool can do it and most fools do. Especially with the advent of social media.

Those didn't seem such hard questions.
Click to expand...

Very easy if you pass the buck with an irony.
To find the main shared values and bases to fair judgment are the most complicated problem of ethics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom