Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

[David Mo]

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.

You may say that a person is free in general, but you cannot say that he is free of something in particular until you have the concept of that something. It may be a matter of terminology, but if I call myself an atheist it is because I am aware that there is something that is called "god" and I don't believe in it. It's difficult for me to call myself "without god" if I don't know what "god" means.

Can you say that someone is free of calandrajos without having any idea of what calandrajos are? Can you define yourself as an acalandrajist without knowing what a calandrajo is? Sounds pretty weird.

Keep in mind that what we are discussing is not like calling a person who does not believe in calandrajos, but that consequences have to consider oneself an acalandrajist. Therefore, in this case, to know what "god" means is necessary in order to call oneself an "atheist".

 

[David Mo]

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

I don't know what you mean by a "real difference," but analyzing differences between concepts or ideas is as valid and useful as analyzing differences between things. Entire branches of science work on that: logic and mathematics, for example.

 

[David Mo]

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.

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.

Must I assume from your non-answer that you do not have a solution that is acceptable to everybody about the fundamentals of morality? Is that answer too difficult for you to tell us what, if it exists? We must assume that we have no answers other than philosophical ones and that these are all debatable?
In that case my assertion that the atheist should be preoccupied, uncomfortable, or distressed (delete whatever does not apply) by the problem of moral substantiation is perfectly justified.

 

[David Mo]

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.

I don't know if I understand.

I believe a very simple thing that I don't know why it is being debated here (there seems to be a mania to debate everything): That ideas that people have in their heads influence the way they behave, whether they are false or true. If we want to explain the behavior of believers we have to analyze their beliefs.

Hell and thunders! Is this so hard to understand?

 

[David Mo]

Paging Bertrand Russell, paging Bertrand Russell.

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

What I'm saying has nothing to do with Russell. It's a simple analysis of the basic beliefs of believers (monotheists).

 

[David Mo]

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.

If those aliens know there's no god, they're atheists and there's nothing more to discuss.
I don't know why my example is seen from the point of view of a theist. At what point is it necessary to suppose that God exists in my example?

The problem of defining what the word "god" means is totally different from the problem of knowing if gods exist.

 

[David Mo]

There's a terrible suspicion that won't let me sleep. It seems to me that there are many people here who believe that when we define a thing it exists and that when we compare ideas we compare things.

Oh, dear.

 

[Ulf Nereng]

Well, the definition exists, surely? Of course, it is only useful in so far as it refers to something, be it real or imaginary. Perhaps the better question is whether a defintion is useful? And then if we can agree on it? For example, something must have gone wrong when someone labels both Venezuela and Denmark as "socialist" and then goes on to draw conclusions from that.

((Or, to get back to the OP, shouldn't it be part of the defintion of reality that it is real?))

ETA, sorry, that's the other topic!

 

[David Mo]

Well, the definition exists, surely? Of course, it is only useful in so far as it refers to something, be it real or imaginary. Perhaps the better question is whether a defintion is useful? And then if we can agree on it? For example, something must have gone wrong when someone labels both Venezuela and Denmark as "socialist" and then goes on to draw conclusions from that.

((Or, to get back to the OP, shouldn't it be part of the defintion of reality that it is real?))

ETA, sorry, that's the other topic!

Definitions are inevitable because they try to pinpoint the use of a word. When two people use the word in different ways there can be confusions that prevent talking about facts. For example, "Venezuela is a socialist state". Question: What is Socialism?

Questions of fact are settled with facts. If we agree that socialism implies state ownership of the means of production, we ask: In whose hands are the means of production in Venezuela?

When we don't reach an agreement on a single meaning we must check if there are two possible uses of a word. Let us suppose that socialism can mean the collective distribution of the profits of state-owned enterprises. Then the question will be: Are the profits of the state oil company socially shared in Venezuela?

If you apply it to the question of atheism, what we have seen is that there are two different meanings of the word "atheist". One is "a person who does not believe in God". Another is "a person who claims that God does not exist". Since it seems that it is not possible to agree on common meaning, the questions should be asked by avoiding names and using concepts. For example: Should a person who does not believe in the existence of God give proof that God does not exist?

Unfortunately, there seem to be people who believe that their definition is the only true one. They make it impossible to discuss facts and make all discussion sterile.

Your question wasn't off topic.

 

[Robin]

There's a terrible suspicion that won't let me sleep. It seems to me that there are many people here who believe that when we define a thing it exists and that when we compare ideas we compare things.

Oh, dear.

Paging Alexius Meinong, paging Alexius Meinong.

Or failing that, would all the possible fat, bald men in doorways please report immediately to the front desk.

 

[Ulf Nereng]

I would say that those who make the claim that there is no God (are no gods) are a subset of atheists (people who don't believe in gods). I count myself among those who don't believe in any gods, but I recognize that there is at least an epistemical possibility that such a being might exist.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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

I do not see why those differences should matter to non-believers.

The meaningful differences all are all dependent on one entity having believers and the other not. That Gods have temples or inquisitions or blasphemy laws is only a consequence of that: it's their believers who make those, they're not some characteristic of the imaginary being itself.

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?

When people make decisions which affect me, but based on imaginary stuff, that is significant. This doesn't mean there's any specially significant characteristic attributed to one imaginary thing but not to another, it's simply making the trivial point that other people are not necessarily going to reach decisions I agree with, in particular if they base their choices in part on rules whose authority I don't recognise. There's nothing special about Gods; it's believers you need to watch out for.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I would say that those who make the claim that there is no God (are no gods) are a subset of atheists (people who don't believe in gods).

I would agree with you.

And I'm not clear why that terminology should confound anyone's line of argument.

 

[Lithrael]

Can you say that someone is free of calandrajos without having any idea of what calandrajos are? Can you define yourself as an acalandrajist without knowing what a calandrajo is? Sounds pretty weird.

Me not knowing what concept a word refers to doesn’t change the state of my relationship to it up till I find out. Whatever it actually is, I already have some relationship to it now. If it refers to a dog that lives in my house, when I find out it means that, nothing changed. If it refers to a concept I never heard of before, that concept had no influence on me before, so it seems strange to say, only now, if I reject it, can I be said to be free of it.

 

[erwinl]

I don't know what you mean by a "real difference," but analyzing differences between concepts or ideas is as valid and useful as analyzing differences between things. Entire branches of science work on that: logic and mathematics, for example.

You can go analyzing the differences in characteristics assigned to entities like gods (or spirits or...). But in the end it is as useful as looking at the differences between the Hulk and Spiderman. It may be fun, but ultimately, in the final characteristic that really matters, they are the same. They don't exist.

 

[David Mo]

I would say that those who make the claim that there is no God (are no gods) are a subset of atheists (people who don't believe in gods). I count myself among those who don't believe in any gods, but I recognize that there is at least an epistemical possibility that such a being might exist.

In academic terminology since the 18th century what you call "atheist" is called "incredulous" or "non-believer" and is divided into two subgroups: those who claim that God does not exist (they are called atheists) and those who abstain from judging (they are called agnostics). In your terminology, atheists would be Gnostic atheists and agnostics would be agnostic atheists.


100% certainty is almost impossible. In general, one considers oneself an atheist (gnostic atheist) because one considers it highly unlikely that God exists, while the agnostic (agnostic atheist) does not manifest certainty in one sense or the other. He is about halfway between the theist and the atheist (agnostic atheist).

You can see that names have not any importance if we discuss concepts.

 

[David Mo]

I do not see why those differences should matter to non-believers.

The meaningful differences all are all dependent on one entity having believers and the other not. That Gods have temples or inquisitions or blasphemy laws is only a consequence of that: it's their believers who make those, they're not some characteristic of the imaginary being itself.


When people make decisions which affect me, but based on imaginary stuff, that is significant. This doesn't mean there's any specially significant characteristic attributed to one imaginary thing but not to another, it's simply making the trivial point that other people are not necessarily going to reach decisions I agree with, in particular if they base their choices in part on rules whose authority I don't recognise. There's nothing special about Gods; it's believers you need to watch out for.

The attitude of those who believe in something depends on the characteristics they attribute to that something. If atheists aren't worried about Superman fans, it's because they don't believe he's a god.
Of course an idea by itself doesn't hurt. It hurts the consequences of putting it into practice, which depend on what kind of idea that is.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Me not knowing what concept a word refers to doesn’t change the state of my relationship to it up till I find out. Whatever it actually is, I already have some relationship to it now. If it refers to a dog that lives in my house, when I find out it means that, nothing changed. If it refers to a concept I never heard of before, that concept had no influence on me before, so it seems strange to say, only now, if I reject it, can I be said to be free of it.

Ah, but have you considered all the hypothetical dogs which might live in your house? Invisible ones for example?

Of course this still does not mean non-dog-owners are a special case. It equally applies to dog owners. Mono-doggists may currently firmly believe they have no other dogs but Dog. But what if it turns out they have a previously unimagined second dog?

 

[David Mo]

Me not knowing what concept a word refers to doesn’t change the state of my relationship to it up till I find out. Whatever it actually is, I already have some relationship to it now. If it refers to a dog that lives in my house, when I find out it means that, nothing changed. If it refers to a concept I never heard of before, that concept had no influence on me before, so it seems strange to say, only now, if I reject it, can I be said to be free of it.

A calandrajo is not a dog. I'm sorry. You can't say you're an a-calandrajoist because you don't know what that is.

What I mean is that you can't get rid of a concept you don't know.
To speak of someone who lives on a planet where there is no war, I cannot call him a pacifist or a warmonger. These names suppose an opposition between two poles in relation to a defined line that is the war. It would be necessary to invent a new concept for someone who ignores what a war is and cannot be somewhere along that line.

To talk about someone who doesn't believe in God, you have to think that he lives in a world where the concept of God is omnipresent. It is like a line between those who affirm or deny that God exists. And it can be said that by rejecting the concept is an anti or a-theist and is released from the concept of god, because it does not affect him. YourHis relationship from now on will be one of opposition or indifference towards it.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If atheists aren't worried about Superman fans, it's because they don't believe he's a god.

I disagree. I think it's because they don't believe he exists.

What if a Superman believer decided to sabotage his plane so that they'd need to be rescued and he'd get to meet his hero?