• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

Scorpion said:
Have you ever had feelings of having been somewhere before that you know you had not been to, or things like that ?

I have, when I was a boy I visited the maritime museum, and I came to a cabinet with Nelsons sword in it. I seemed to recognise it and I felt a flood of emotion. I do not think I was Nelson, but I think I might have been a sailor on his ship. Because his crew all loved him like a father.
Click to expand...


This is a good illustration of the difference between yourself and the unbelievers who spar with you here. You seem to recognise the sword and automatically go for some mystical explanation. An explanation that sees you as a sailor on Nelson's ship.

No other more down to earth explanation of your recognition of the sword gets any consideration whatsoever.
 
abaddon said:
Correct.

Correct.

Correct

And there is your blunder. Morally, in your system of belief, you are obliged to NOT mitigate suffering at all because to do so would interfere with someone else's opportunity to grow and change and develop spiritually. Who are you to interfere with someone else's spiritual journey? By mitigating anyone's suffering, you might well be consigning them to have to repeat an incarnation to learn the lessons that you stopped by your intervention. Thus, in your system of belief, the correct and moral course of action is to let people suffer. It is, after all, their karma and something they must do in this life or the next, or the next, or the next. Are you going to intervene and condemn a suffering person to have to repeat the same suffering because you stopped it this time around the reincarnation merry-go-round? Or are you going to just let them suffer because they are "learning" valuable lessons?

This is where your crank belief fails. You, by your system, are morally bound to NOT helping the suffering because that hinders their "spiritual" development as a "soul".

Are you going to help some homeless person in need? According to your belief, you shouldn't because that would hinder their upward progression "spiritually".

It could be that you will help such a person. But that would be you looking out for your karma at the expense of the homeless persons karma. Just a tad narcissistic, no? You are OK and the devil take the hindmost, right?
Click to expand...


I would like to see a considered answer to this also Scorpion, as I recall having you backed against the wall, with similar questions on other threads. I recall something about the earth becoming a nicer place, so not so suitable for causing the suffering needed for spiritual development, on another thread. Never did get an answer to that one.
 
Let's see, I could believe that not following some bronze-age rules laid down by guys who wanted to keep the sheep-herders in line can condemn me to eternal torment; or...
Just live my life and try to be nice to my fellow humans. Hmm, it's a difficult problem....
NOT!
 
Trebuchet said:
Let's see, I could believe that not following some bronze-age rules laid down by guys who wanted to keep the sheep-herders in line can condemn me to eternal torment; or...
Just live my life and try to be nice to my fellow humans. Hmm, it's a difficult problem....
NOT!
Click to expand...


Such a dilemma true.

The prospects of getting a "get out of eternal torment card" seem to be slim, and Christian scriptural experts, seem to struggle with the messages in the Bible relating to this.

Luke 13:23, Matthew 7:14, Matt. 22:14, and other excepts regarding narrow gates and such, must give believers some anxiety. Especially those with big arses. On the positive side there should be lots for the saved to drool over, as they gaze in delight at the torment of the damned, as promised by Saint Tertullian.
 
Last edited:
Trebuchet said:
Is that from "Storm"? Gonna have to watch some Minchin tomorrow.

ETA: Or tonight. That's just as awesome as the first time. More Tim tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Believing in God does not justify optimism. Since `Many are called, but few are chosen' and impossible commands such as `One thing you lack [for eternal life]: go and sell all you have and give to the poor', Christians have every reason to be pessimistic about their personal future. At least, atheists are free from this kind of anxiety.

It is another thing to invent a god according to our desires. But you have to be a little silly to believe in something you've invented. Isn't it?
 
Scorpion said:
Have you ever had feelings of having been somewhere before that you know you had not been to, or things like that ?

I have, when I was a boy I visited the maritime museum, and I came to a cabinet with Nelsons sword in it. I seemed to recognise it and I felt a flood of emotion. I do not think I was Nelson, but I think I might have been a sailor on his ship. Because his crew all loved him like a father.
Click to expand...


Maybe you were someone he used the sword on. Got any French or Spanish ancestors?

:p
 
the Victory must have been crowded with all the spiritual antecedents of all the millions of small boys who jumped up and down when they saw Nelson's sword
 
Trebuchet said:
Let's see, I could believe that not following some bronze-age rules laid down by guys who wanted to keep the sheep-herders in line can condemn me to eternal torment; or...
Just live my life and try to be nice to my fellow humans. Hmm, it's a difficult problem....
NOT!
Click to expand...

Actually it makes you a better person than the believer who is only charitable and helpful in the expectation of a reward later on.
 
Trebuchet said:
And than those who use their belief to justify hatred, not only of those who believe otherwise, but of other races, LGBT people, and even women.
Click to expand...
Their suffering at the hands of religious nut jobs helps everyone's karma. See also: bullying in Steiner schools
 
Scorpion said:
Have you ever had feelings of having been somewhere before that you know you had not been to, or things like that ?

I have, when I was a boy I visited the maritime museum, and I came to a cabinet with Nelsons sword in it. I seemed to recognise it and I felt a flood of emotion. I do not think I was Nelson, but I think I might have been a sailor on his ship. Because his crew all loved him like a father.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is what is often referred to as "deja vu" and has been studied and is most likely caused by memory glitches. https://www.sciencealert.com/deja-vu-premonition-just-a-feeling-memory-familiarity-anne-cleary

This is a pop-sci type article but it references studies done and is a simple description of the phenomena.
 
The Norseman said:
Yes, this is what is often referred to as "deja vu" and has been studied and is most likely caused by memory glitches. https://www.sciencealert.com/deja-vu-premonition-just-a-feeling-memory-familiarity-anne-cleary

This is a pop-sci type article but it references studies done and is a simple description of the phenomena.
Click to expand...


I would have though most people would have read about the deja vu phenomena and know the explanations given - or at least know there where plausible explanations. Scorpion however doesn't know of this or just prefers the spiritual explanation?
 
Thor 2 said:
I would have though most people would have read about the deja vu phenomena and know the explanations given - or at least know there where plausible explanations. Scorpion however doesn't know of this or just prefers the spiritual explanation?
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not certain; I guess it can go either way.
 
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?--Douglas Adams
 
Scorpion said:
Having no underlying spiritual beliefs to mitigate suffering, are atheists inevitably seeing the world through a glass darkly?
Click to expand...
The Christian democratic states in WW2 were pulverized within weeks by the Germans, only the Orthodox/secular Greeks and godless Soviets really put up a good fight against the German advance. The Soviet ideology was spiritual in the sense of being animated by living dogma.

Spirituality should not be about feeling devout. Sentimentality precludes judgment. Mystics, shamans, and sham philosophers have their heads in the clouds. Philosophy in particular has shed it's formerly scientific character and has been made a trade of fools. It went off-the-rails when individuals such as Socrates and Parmenides turned their back on the observation of the senses and Protagoras came to the forefront with his controversial arguments.

The only clear-headed people today seem to be men of science. Consequently, every scientist as well as inventors who endeavor to investigate and discover the forces of nature can be considered spiritual, since they serve life. Every commodity you enjoy today is a product of science.

Theologians and priests run away from problems and contradictions when it suits them, such as Augustine, C. S. Lewis, and Albert Schweitzer. The Christians are probably the most pessimistic religionists, only rivaled by Buddhists (who are not atheists), despite Buddhism's realistic attitude towards suffering.

Catholicism eliminates effort by assuring forgiveness for sins while Protestantism eliminates effort by overemphasizing belief. Calvinism teaches a grotesque perversion of fate's operations by doing away with free will altogether.

In fact, most surviving religions seem to have degenerated into a fatalistic form, including Hinduism and Islam. Their adherents typically do not desire self-responsibility and prefer to leave their affairs to "god". I believe it was Julian "the Apostate" who was the first to accuse Christianity of being Oriental, for it has abandoned every sound notion promulgated by the Greeks/Romans.

Scorpion said:
"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." 1 Corinthians 13:12
Click to expand...
How convenient of you to omit the preceding verse and the context.

In this letter, "Paul" condemns knowledge without life, suggests that the pursuit of knowledge without application can barbarize. Ironically, the sovereignty of reason was originally proclaimed by Christianity before it shunned this faculty which has been generously bestowed upon mankind by a kind universe. Deists are closer to "god" than theists. Thomas Paine's Age of Reason is a bible in itself.
 
Last edited:
ehhz said:
Philosophy in particular has shed it's formerly scientific character and has been made a trade of fools. It went off-the-rails when individuals such as Socrates and Parmenides turned their back on the observation of the senses and Protagoras came to the forefront with his controversial arguments.
.
Click to expand...

You don't realize that you are doing philosophy. And a very bad one.

For example: one of the first things that Socrates/Plato taught was to define and compare. You compare ancient philosophers with modern science. That is a big mistake. If you are speaking of ancient philosophers you have to compare them with ancient scientists. Where the latter were? Oh, sure. You won't find pure philosophers separated from pure scientists. They were activities that went together. So they were just as clever as each other. By the way, I don't know what a strange mania you have caught from the poor Protagoras, of whom only a couple of phrases are known. For example: "Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not." I think it is suggestive.

If you want to compare contemporary science with philosophy you have to choose some contemporary philosophers. Do you know any? Wittgenstein, Carnap, Sartre, Rawls, Habermas, Foucault...? Someone else?
 
ehhz said:
Philosophy in particular has shed it's formerly scientific character and has been made a trade of fools. It went off-the-rails when individuals such as Socrates and Parmenides turned their back on the observation of the senses and Protagoras came to the forefront with his controversial arguments.
Click to expand...
The idea of science as an inductive process based on empirical data was first formally documented by Aristotle, who came after those you mention.

Since that time there has been a demarcation between science (or Natural Philosophy as it was previously known as) and philosophy.

There would be no point in philosophy trying to double up on science.

There is certainly a lot of philosophy that I regard as being close to (if not actual) gibberish, but that doesn't mean that philosophy as a whole is a waste of time.

The only clear-headed people today seem to be men of science.
Click to expand...
There are clear headed people in most professions. There are cranks in most professions, including science.
 
Uh oh, someone said ‘philosophy’ in earshot of David Mo!

Mark me down for ‘easier to be optimistic while irreligious, actually’ because I don’t have to deal with The Problem of Evil, which would bug me a lot if I was most flavors of Christian. There’s religions out there that probably wouldn’t give me brain aches though.

Overall knowing that the terrible things of the world are just cause ‘things happen’ and not necessary for, or a part of, anybody’s plan, leaves me far more settled than the alternative.

And knowing that the wonderful things of the world are just cause ‘things happen’ makes me feel, ironically I suppose, very blessed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom