Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

[David Mo]

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.

Ask a sociologist of religions if it is useless to distinguish a god from a comic hero. He'll be amazed.

 

[David Mo]

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

And since they do not believe that it exists, they do not believe that it promises eternal punishments, promulgates commandments, cults, etc. In other words, all the characteristics that are usually associated with a god and not a comic hero.
That's why the concept of god is different from that of a comic hero. And this matters to atheist.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You can't say you're an a-calandrajoist because you don't know what that is.

I can't categorise myself as disbelieving in a concept I never heard of, but other people who have heard of it may choose to categorise people as belonging to one group who believe in the concept and everyone else who does not, either because they never heard of it, or because they heard of it and rejected it as imaginary or because they heard of it, rejected it and declared to anyone who would listen that they thought it was nonsense.

If you need a range of terms to precisely delineate each type of person in the latter group then by all means have a try and they might catch on, but language rarely does as it's told.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

And since they do not believe that it exists, they do not believe that it promises eternal punishments, promulgates commandments, cults, etc. In other words, all the characteristics that are usually associated with a god and not a comic hero.
That's why the concept of god is different from that of a comic hero. And this matters to atheist.

Why are you fixating on the imagined characteristics of Gods as a special case?

I literally gave you an example of a bad thing a Superman believer might do which has nothing whatever to do with Superman promising eternal punishment. Commandments and cults are produced by believers not by the imaginary things they believe in, so there's no reason Superman believers couldn't do likewise.

Are you seriously arguing the only reason anyone would worry about an imaginary creature they believe in is if its powers include eternal damnation?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Ask a sociologist of religions if it is useless to distinguish a god from a comic hero. He'll be amazed.

Yeah, but why will he be amazed?

When there are Norse Gods who are comic heroes, that's clearly not the distinction. Hint: it's believers and what they do.

 

[JesseCuster]

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

Sometimes the concepts don't have any importance, like the rather pointless hairsplitting between different types of atheist - agnostics, strong atheists, weak atheists, agnostic atheists, gnostic atheists, etc.

It seems like a lot of pointless words debating the exact extent to which people don't believe in a thing that doesn't exist.

 

[Lithrael]

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.

Ah, I think I see how you are thinking of this concept, but I just do not agree.

Imagine a guy on this planet without war.
Test him with a novel situation where there is a need to take up arms against his fellow man.
If he will not fight, he is a pacifist. And he was a pacifist before you tested him. He just hadn’t had the opportunity to show it. His position did not change, so why should the word that describes his position change?

It seems the problem in communication here is that you consider ‘atheism’ to be a word that describes a relationship to gods, rather than a word that describes simply not having any beliefs in gods.

To me, someone who has never heard of any gods, does not have belief in any gods, and is an atheist.
To you, someone who has never heard of any gods, does not have belief in any gods, and is a ???

I can't categorise myself as disbelieving in a concept I never heard of, but other people who have heard of it may choose to categorise people as belonging to one group who believe in the concept and everyone else who does not, either because they never heard of it, or because they heard of it and rejected it as imaginary or because they heard of it, rejected it and declared to anyone who would listen that they thought it was nonsense.

If you need a range of terms to precisely delineate each type of person in the latter group then by all means have a try and they might catch on, but language rarely does as it's told.

I agree.

 

[David Mo]

I can't categorise myself as disbelieving in a concept I never heard of, but other people who have heard of it may choose to categorise people as belonging to one group who believe in the concept and everyone else who does not, either because they never heard of it, or because they heard of it and rejected it as imaginary or because they heard of it, rejected it and declared to anyone who would listen that they thought it was nonsense.

If you need a range of terms to precisely delineate each type of person in the latter group then by all means have a try and they might catch on, but language rarely does as it's told.

Because you maintain that the behavior of believers has nothing to do with their beliefs. That doesn't make sense. You invented as a proof a case that is totally imaginary or can happen only among millions. You invented a madman who believes Superman exists. I am not talking about madmen, but believers like those who are hundreds of millions. When a terrorist organization that prays to Superman exist we talk.

Furthermore, note that to adjust your example you had to change the beliefs of a Superman fan to make him a terrorist. That is an example of you think really that ideas cause the behaviour of believers. Do you want to be able to explain why a terrorist blew up a train bomb regardless of his beliefs? So why do you say yourself that the one that put a bomb in an airplane was because he believed Superman would save the plane? You contradict yourself.

 

[David Mo]

Yeah, but why will he be amazed?


When there are Norse Gods who are comic heroes, that's clearly not the distinction. Hint: it's believers and what they do.

An anthropologist would be hallucinating with this discussion.Because the anthropology of religions studies these by differentiating them from what is not religion. There is a controversy over whether magic is religion or not, but no one thinks of bringing Superman into the subject, except to explain the differences with a religion with a comparison.

Thor appears in Marvel comics as an imaginary hero. If you want to talk about the religion of Walhalla, we talk.

 

[David Mo]

Sometimes the concepts don't have any importance, like the rather pointless hairsplitting between different types of atheist - agnostics, strong atheists, weak atheists, agnostic atheists, gnostic atheists, etc.

It seems like a lot of pointless words debating the exact extent to which people don't believe in a thing that doesn't exist.

Concepts matter, the words that designate them don't always. Only if someone plays with words.

 

[David Mo]

Ah, I think I see how you are thinking of this concept, but I just do not agree.

Imagine a guy on this planet without war.
Test him with a novel situation where there is a need to take up arms against his fellow man.
If he will not fight, he is a pacifist. And he was a pacifist before you tested him. He just hadn’t had the opportunity to show it. His position did not change, so why should the word that describes his position change?

It seems the problem in communication here is that you consider ‘atheism’ to be a word that describes a relationship to gods, rather than a word that describes simply not having any beliefs in gods.

To me, someone who has never heard of any gods, does not have belief in any gods, and is an atheist.
To you, someone who has never heard of any gods, does not have belief in any gods, and is a ???

If you introduce the war on the planet where there are no wars it is no longer the planet where there are no wars. You denaturalize the example.

I don't define atheism in relation to gods, but in relation to the idea of god, which is something very different.

I'm not interested in what we call the inhabitants of the planet without wars. You can call him Pepito. It was an example that you have not assimilated. You have tried to change it to fit your belief instead of understanding it.

I'm interested in the difference between different kinds of beliefs or non-beliefs on this planet we're on. And I think it's absurd for someone to say he doesn't believe in gods if hey doesn't have in his head an idea of what the word "god" means. Among other things because on this planet everyone has heard of gods. Even those who refrain from believing in them.

I think you are trying to deny the obvious because you are afraid that the obvious is against your atheism. False idea. The obvious is against atheists that hidden themselves when a problem is posed to them.

 

[BadBoy]

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.

well obviously not the hulk, as that's silly. But spidey man, I've seen him for gods sake?

 

[BadBoy]

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.

Yes, I think it was Hitch that said that he was dismayed by Thomas Henry Huxley for coining that phrase (paraphrased).

"It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." - Huxley

However, when one rejects the god claims without sufficient evidence, one is then an Atheist.

 

[David Mo]

However, when one rejects the god claims without sufficient evidence, one is then an Atheist.

This is Huxley's opinion. I disagree.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Because you maintain that the behavior of believers has nothing to do with their beliefs.

No. That's clearly not what I think. It's not that the behaviour of believers has nothing to do with their beliefs, on the contrary it is that their beliefs are entirely self-created and have nothing to do with the thing in which they believe, since it does not in fact exist. That I chose Superman as an absurd example should not distract you.

I am entirely unafraid that the volcano God is angry.
I am however somewhat anxious that the volcano has begun smoking.
I am seriously worried that the islanders will decide the sacrifice of an unbeliever may appease the volcano God.

 

[JesseCuster]

Concepts matter

Depends on the concept.

 

[Robin]

This is the problem with labels in general.

Alice calls herself a Shrdluist meaning that she believes X,Y and Z

Bob uses the term Shrdulist to mean someone who believe W,X,Y and Z

Bob asks Alice to justify belief W Alice says "I don't believe W". Bob says, "I thought you were a Shrdluist", Alice says "I am"

Bob and Alice spend the next few years arguing about what a Shrdluist believes and neither W, X,Y or Z get discussed.

But there is no objective fact of the matter about what a word means.

Bob and Alice would be better to ditch the term "Shrdluist" and discuss their respective positions on W,X,Y and Z directly.

 

[Robin]

The matter of whether or not we should try to analyse the reasons for the behaviour of believers seems to be a new branch in this discussion.

I know lots of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs etc and I get along with them fine, I don't have to psychoanalyse them any more than they have to psychoanalyse me.

It might be useful to enquire into the psychological underpinnings of religious fanaticism of various types, but I am sure that I would not be up to that task without undertaking a degree and PhD in psychology.

In any case I am sure that nearly every person is a different case. I don't think the Anglican priest I follow on Twitter has the same motivations as, say, Franklin Graham. For a start the priest likes to tweet funny stories about his husband and I doubt that Franklin Graham does that.

I am not sure that Franklin Graham even has a husband. Maybe I could google it.

 

[Lithrael]

Ah, well, then perhaps for the purposes of the thread we can attack the question without using the contentious term!

A) Are people who once had god beliefs, and have shed them, inevitably pessimists?
A1) if they shed them primarily due to disillusionment?
A2) if they shed them primarily due to further consideration of facts/history?

B) Are people who have considered god beliefs and figured they don’t represent any truths about real gods, inevitably pessimists?
B1) if they were free to consider the question without much outside influence?
B2) if they considered the question in an environment of social expectation that they at least pay lip service to god beliefs?

C) Are people who have never considered any god beliefs, inevitably pessimists?

 

[David Mo]

No. That's clearly not what I think. It's not that the behaviour of believers has nothing to do with their beliefs, on the contrary it is that their beliefs are entirely self-created and have nothing to do with the thing in which they believe, since it does not in fact exist. That I chose Superman as an absurd example should not distract you.

I am entirely unafraid that the volcano God is angry.
I am however somewhat anxious that the volcano has begun smoking.
I am seriously worried that the islanders will decide the sacrifice of an unbeliever may appease the volcano God.

I beg your pardon but you are interpreting badly my comments. I am not saying that "the thing" God causes believers' behaviour. It is the idea they have of a non-existent thing. It is this false idea that lead them to don't eat pig meal, confess their sins or attack infidels. I don't think that you can deny that their ideas about what God wants make them do these things.