Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

[David Mo]

Sorry Mo, I have no idea what you mean here.

Is it just me, or am I correct in saying that no one here has argued that the highlighted is not correct? I would think we would all agree more or less to that wouldn't we?

I am struggling here Mo, I can't put my finger on it but it feels as though you keep changing your argument to the extent that I'm not even sure what we are discussing anymore.

That's what I've been saying from the beginning. If you find something I said that contradicts the above, say so and we discuss it. I look forward to your response.

NOTE: I have only been objected to the use of an inappropriate expression. I corrected it right away.

Blaming is easy. Giving proof is not.

 

[David Mo]

BTW, we may have some evolutionary innate instinct for some morals - if you want to even term them as such.

Generally small groups of people require each other to survive. Not killing people could just be innate and instinctive. Ants don't kill each other - generally - as far as I know. Lions within a pride don't eat each other either. Some stuff maybe doesn't need discussion?

The human species has no moral instinct in the scientific meaning of "instinct". This is not defended even by the most staunch defenders of the natural good such as De Waals.

If we had a moral instinct, all human moral behaviours would be the same. Obviously this is not the case.

 

[erwinl]

They are not true, but believers think so and this is the subject.

In your post they were stated as truisms, so I took them as such.

There are many people who believe in fairies? Really? How much?

I know a lot of people, who are into earth religions and believe in spirits.

But. Aside from this belief not being as organised as other religions, there's, in essence, no difference between them.

 

[David Mo]

In your post they were stated as truisms, so I took them as such.



I know a lot of people, who are into earth religions and believe in spirits.

But. Aside from this belief not being as organised as other religions, there's, in essence, no difference between them.

See my 7:50 AM commentary. Do you think any ghost has the characteristics I have pointed out? Don't you see the difference between believing in spirits and believing in God?

 

[Robin]

You'll tell me where you get those moral ideas that are self-evident.

Why don't you quote the part you are referring to?

I don't recall using the expression 'self-evident' about anything.

 

[erwinl]

See my 7:50 AM commentary. Do you think any ghost has the characteristics I have pointed out? Don't you see the difference between believing in spirits and believing in God?

For both the existence has not been proven, or even logical.
The fact that one imaginary creature is assigned more characteristics than the other, makes no difference.

 

[David Mo]

Why don't you quote the part you are referring to?

I don't recall using the expression 'self-evident' about anything.

You asserted that the problem of moral substantiation was a simple one and that philosophy was discarded because a consensus cannot be agreed on philosophical basis.
In that case, either your moral foundation is scientific and theoretical (which I don't think it is) or self-evident.
In either of the two possibilities it will be so certain that it will not admit discussion. Otherwise it would be one more philosophical alternative and not easy, which is what I suppose.

 

[David Mo]

For both the existence has not been proven, or even logical.
The fact that one imaginary creature is assigned more characteristics than the other, makes no difference.

That's a likeness. I noted at least six differences.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

God is all-powerful.
God is eternal.
God is absolutely good.
God grants immortality.
God punishes with eternal sorrows.
God has cults.
God has churches.
Belief in fairies is extinct or reduced to four lunatics.

I suppose an expert in the anthropology of religions could point out more differences, but these already seem to me sufficient in relation to the subject we are dealing with.

You could compile a similar list for Superman. That doesn't confer on me any special reason to have to justify my disbelief in Superman, nor to fret about how the human race will fare without Superman to save us from disasters either. Of course there are a lot of people who profess to believe in God's fanfiction which is probably not true at all for Superman but as far as I'm concerned that's their own business and doesn't confer any special duty on me whatsoever.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

That's a likeness. I noted at least six differences.

Does God have a red cape? What about laser vision? Does He leap tall buildings in a single bound? Has He an alter-ego who's a mild-mannered newspaper reporter?

Does compiling a list of differences between one pretend entity and another tell us anything useful?

 

[abaddon]

You asserted that the problem of moral substantiation was a simple one and that philosophy was discarded because a consensus cannot be agreed on philosophical basis.

You will not allow any consensus. As soon as there is any hint of a consensus, you swiftly alter your argument.

In that case, either your moral foundation is scientific and theoretical (which I don't think it is) or self-evident.

False dichotomy. A moral foundation can be completely arbitrary. Let's say that I decide that my moral foundation is Skittles. If I believe that to be the case, then any action can be objectively determined to be morally good or bad on the basis of whether or not it provides me with Skittles. Thus going to the supermarket and buying bags of skittles is objectively morally good. Working to earn money is objectively morally good as it provides a means to buy more Skittles. Volunteering at a homeless shelter is objectively morally bad as it provides no Skittles and may actively consume them to my detriment. And so on. Given the foundation, these are undeniably objective moral judgments. Given the foundation, those are not just objectively moral, they are foundationally substantiated.

In either of the two possibilities it will be so certain that it will not admit discussion.

There are not merely two.

Otherwise it would be one more philosophical alternative and not easy, which is what I suppose.

It matters not what you may or may not suppose.

 

[Lithrael]

On another planet it is possible that the freethinker would never have heard of gods and one day, while traveling to another planet, learned that some strange beings pretend that there are gods and he rejected the idea and became an atheist. This seems impossible to me on our planet where religion is omnipresent. In our societies one becomes a freethinker in continuous contact with theists of all kinds. Freedom of thought is especially built against the pressure of religions.

In any case, one becomes free in the struggle to be free from various physical, mental and ideological ties. It is not that first one is free and then one removes this or that determination. They are processes that go together. Or rather, it is the same process.

Therefore, the expression "free from God" seems to me to be valid even for the atheist who has never been a believer. Or "they become free when they reject the god claims". They summarize the same idea.

I missed this one. I think this (the above) way of framing the idea really is what is rubbing people the wrong way. Because you seem to feel it essentially means the same as this (the below) which I think everyone here agrees with you when you say:

(...) from what I have observed, it is true that the theist considers his moral principles to be based on submission to God's precepts and that the atheist must justify them with the sole use of his reason and freedom of thought. Whatever adjustments you make, this is so evident that I still do not understand what is going on in your head to discuss it.

I disagree with this part:
“In any case, one becomes free in the struggle to be free from various physical, mental and ideological ties. It is not that first one is free and then one removes this or that determination. They are processes that go together. Or rather, it is the same process.”

As with your alien hypothetical, and perhaps it’s just a disagreement on how to use words, I would not say the alien becomes free of a society’s god-given constraints only when the alien learns about them. The alien has been free the entire time. It’s getting hung up on the word ‘atheist’ to say a person must hear about gods before they can be an atheist. Like the old idea that we don’t have a word that means ‘not a stamp collector,’ but that’s just because we don’t need such a word. If we had such a word, everyone who isn’t a stamp collector could be identified by that word. Not just people who had been exposed to the idea of stamp collecting and decided it wasn’t for them.

 

[erwinl]

That's a likeness. I noted at least six differences.

A difference is only real if the entity is real.
Is it? Are they?

 

[Robin]

You asserted that the problem of moral substantiation was a simple one.

Again quote the part where I said that, I don't recall saying it.

I said that the answers to two questions you posed were easy and they were. If you recall I went straight on in the next post to refine one of the questions and said this version of the question was not so easy to answer.

But that is different to saying the problem of moral substantiation was a simple one.

I fact if you will recall the point I was making was about clarity in defining a problem and asking the right questions being an important first step in problem solving.

How you thought I was saying that we needed to do this if I thought the problem was easy.

Again, if you recall, I said earlier that moral substantiation was probably impossible. I know you read that part because you commented quite a bit on it.

 

[Robin]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on imaginary stuff.

As I understand it David thinks that imaginary things should be ranked as more or less important based on the properties they would have if they were not imaginary and the number of people who believe they are not imaginary.

The rest of us say that the "imaginary" part makes all of that irrelevant.

 

[Robin]

God is all-powerful.

God is eternal.

God is absolutely good.

God grants immortality.

God punishes with eternal sorrows.

God has cults.

God has churches.

Paging Bertrand Russell, paging Bertrand Russell.

Or if he is not available can the present King of France please report to the front desk.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Paging Bertrand Russell, paging Bertrand Russell.

Or if he is not available can the present King of France please report to the front desk.

Will you settle for the King of Spain?

 

[BadBoy]

On another planet it is possible that the freethinker would never have heard of gods and one day, while traveling to another planet, learned that some strange beings pretend that there are gods and he rejected the idea and became an atheist.

Yes, I definitely disagree here, and from my own personal experience. I can imagine this is how a theist would view this, and even some Atheists. But I suspect it depends entirely on their individual background.

Here's an alternative thought experiment. Suppose some advanced Aliens who know there is no God visit different worlds. Some have theists and some don't. To them they don't disbelieve, they just view the theists as being mistaken and wrong. As has been explained by other people (in a different way - I think stamps and fairies were mentioned) if said Aliens visited that had inhabitants that thought their world was flat and sitting on the top of a turtle, they would not become active disbelievers of that.

 

[David Mo]

You could compile a similar list for Superman. That doesn't confer on me any special reason to have to justify my disbelief in Superman, nor to fret about how the human race will fare without Superman to save us from disasters either. Of course there are a lot of people who profess to believe in God's fanfiction which is probably not true at all for Superman but as far as I'm concerned that's their own business and doesn't confer any special duty on me whatsoever.

So do I. They are not reasons to believe in God, but differences between the belief in God and other fictional entities.

Does God have a red cape? What about laser vision? Does He leap tall buildings in a single bound? Has He an alter-ego who's a mild-mannered newspaper reporter?

Does compiling a list of differences between one pretend entity and another tell us anything useful?

Yes, it is useful to analyze their different consequences. For example, there are many temples where people pray to a Savior god. There are no Superman temples or people pray to Superman Savior. It's a big difference, isn't it?

 

[David Mo]

You will not allow any consensus. As soon as there is any hint of a consensus, you swiftly alter your argument.

False dichotomy. A moral foundation can be completely arbitrary. Let's say that I decide that my moral foundation is Skittles. If I believe that to be the case, then any action can be objectively determined to be morally good or bad on the basis of whether or not it provides me with Skittles. Thus going to the supermarket and buying bags of skittles is objectively morally good. Working to earn money is objectively morally good as it provides a means to buy more Skittles. Volunteering at a homeless shelter is objectively morally bad as it provides no Skittles and may actively consume them to my detriment. And so on. Given the foundation, these are undeniably objective moral judgments. Given the foundation, those are not just objectively moral, they are foundationally substantiated.

I suppose arbitrary is not desirable. If you're comfortable with that, that's your problem. In any case, you can't say that arbitrariness is objective. They are opposing concepts. Be immoral if you want to, but at least be logical.