Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

[Robin]

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.

Yep. The world, considered as the deliberate work of a super-intelligent being, seems pretty fourth rate.

But considered as the result of blind forces, it is pretty amazing and we can make allowances for people on the same basis.

In my experience atheists are a pretty optimistic bunch.

 

[ehhz]

For example: one of the first things that Socrates/Plato taught was to define and compare.

Remind me which dialogue this is found in?

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.

Why?

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.

I don't incline towards Protagoras' ideas in the slightest.

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?

Scarcely any of those philosophers you've listed are contemporary. In any case, I'll admit that Sartre and Wittgenstein have piqued my interest, the latter who seems to have crossed paths with several of these individuals.

 

[David Mo]

Uh oh, someone said ‘philosophy’ in earshot of David Mo!
It only bothers me that some people who call themselves rational, skeptical and atheists maintain an unjustified phobia of something they really don't know in depth.
And it amuses me to see that there are people who attack every philosophy using a particular philosophy. As if theirs were the Bible of the atheist.
I'm also bothered by certain philosophies.I say this from my particular philosophy. Know yourself. That's where you have to start.
I believe that there is a confusion between philosophy and religion that has been preached by believers as I way to save their irrational beliefs and has been uncritically accepted by a certain branch of positivist atheism. This a Internet commonplace on the Anglo-Internet, but in academic circles it's absolutely out of the picture.

I am atheist and I think that atheism is something more complex than a set of slogans.

It only bothers me that some people who call themselves rational, skeptical and atheists maintain an unjustified phobia of something they really don't know in depth.
And it amuses me to see that there are people who attack every philosophy using a particular philosophy. As if theirs were the Bible of the atheist.
I'm also bothered by certain philosophies.I say this from my particular philosophy. Know yourself. That's where you have to start.
I believe that there is a confusion between philosophy and religion that has been preached by believers as I way to save their irrational beliefs and has been uncritically accepted by a certain branch of positivist atheism. This a Internet commonplace on the Anglo-Internet, but in academic circles it's absolutely out of the picture.

I am atheist and I think that atheism is something more complex than a set of slogans.

 

[David Mo]

That is why the question of this thread cannot be answered with a slogan.

Of course, atheism implies some dramatic question. You cannot abandon religion and continue to live like nothing has happen. This is the existential "nausea" that every one copes as he can. There are lucid ways and illusory ways.

But for all I know religious people are not free of this kind of nausea. They rationalize it in other ways like doubt, God's silence and distressing mystery of a terrible god.

I think that religious people are more prone to illusory ways that atheist. It seems more consolatory, in principle. But it is ironic that this illusory consolation leads them to new anguishes that come from a dependence of a terrible father. How do you be calm with an incomprehensible and violent father? It is useless that I constantly repeat that my Father loves me if I see how He treat his creatures.

That is why that questioning about the advantages or disadvantages of religion is an useless question. Be lucid and search your way. There is not other that is valid for you. The head-in-the-sand solution is not even useful for ostriches.

 

[David Mo]

Remind me which dialogue this is found in?

Deleted because repeated.

 

[David Mo]

Remind me which dialogue this is found in?

It is a common tactics of the figure of Socrates in all Plato's dialogues. Given that it is specially marked in the early it is usually attributed to Socrates himself.

Scarcely any of those philosophers you've listed are contemporary. In any case, I'll admit that Sartre and Wittgenstein have piqued my interest, the latter who seems to have crossed paths with several of these individuals.

In history, the contemporary age is the one that succeeds the modern age. More or less from the twentieth century onwards.

I am glad you have found Wittgenstein is interesting . There are more philosophers that hold similar point of views in Anglo-Saxon world. Sartre is more complex. I have an ambivalent position about both. And I have learn a lot from both. This is my personal approach to philosophy: you can learn things with almost every philosopher if your approach is critical and without preconceptions. Sometimes you say "I had not thought so!". This is my way, as Sinatra said.

 

[ehhz]

It is a common tactics of the figure of Socrates in all Plato's dialogues. Given that it is specially marked in the early it is usually attributed to Socrates himself.

What about drawing contrasts?

In history, the contemporary age is the one that succeeds the modern age. More or less from the twentieth century onwards.

What's your assessment of Goethe?

Sartre is more complex.

How come?

I have an ambivalent position about both. And I have learn a lot from both. This is my personal approach to philosophy: you can learn things with almost every philosopher if your approach is critical and without preconceptions. Sometimes you say "I had not thought so!". This is my way, as Sinatra said.

I see, I can agree with that.

 

[fromdownunder]

I am atheist and I think that atheism is something more complex than a set of slogans.

I can't see anything complex about lacking a belief in each and every version of the various gods supported by people around the world. Apart from the occasional post on a BB, my lack of belief rarely, if ever, effects any part of my life or my interaction with others. Most days, thoughts of god or religion, or lack of, don't come within miles of my radar.



It just sits there in the background as a part of my life, far less important than deciding what to eat for breakfast, or what time to go to bed. It is, to me, just the natural order of things and I see no reason to otherwise defend it, get on a soap box and promote it, or even bother to think about it outside of the odd post here and on FSTDT.


There is nothing particularly exciting, or difficult, or important about living without a god belief. Its not even all that different than many people who live with a god belief, and pop off to Church once a week, and trying to claim a higher moral ground, or the slightest feeling of importance or rebellion is just, well, "meh".

Norm

 

[David Mo]

What about drawing contrasts?

What's your assessment of Goethe?

How come?

I see, I can agree with that.

Drawing contrast with?

I have not read anything by Goethe except some fragments of Faust. I cannot hold any assesment.

Because Sartre is half a philosopher and half a writer.

 

[David Mo]

I can't see anything complex about lacking a belief in each and every version of the various gods supported by people around the world. Apart from the occasional post on a BB, my lack of belief rarely, if ever, effects any part of my life or my interaction with others. Most days, thoughts of god or religion, or lack of, don't come within miles of my radar.



It just sits there in the background as a part of my life, far less important than deciding what to eat for breakfast, or what time to go to bed. It is, to me, just the natural order of things and I see no reason to otherwise defend it, get on a soap box and promote it, or even bother to think about it outside of the odd post here and on FSTDT.


There is nothing particularly exciting, or difficult, or important about living without a god belief. Its not even all that different than many people who live with a god belief, and pop off to Church once a week, and trying to claim a higher moral ground, or the slightest feeling of importance or rebellion is just, well, "meh".

Norm

To reject the father is difficult.
To find the truth by yourself is not easy.
To build the meaning of life without the instruction book is not easy.

 

[Kid Eager]

To reject the father is difficult.
To find the truth by yourself is not easy.
To build the meaning of life without the instruction book is not easy.

What inanity is this? You appear to have adopted a fundamental tenet in your argument that to be an atheist one must have left a religion and/or abandoned religious beliefs. That does not define atheism.

ETA - to your second platitude: there is nothing in atheism that requires one to find truth (for whatever arbitrary definition of truth you’re using here) on a solo basis.

To the third platitude: “the” instruction book?? which instruction book? What meaning - and whose version of meaningfulness are you using? Is easy the desired approach?

 

[erlando]

Having no underlying spiritual beliefs to mitigate suffering, are atheists inevitably seeing the world through a glass darkly?

Who says atheists suffer?

The best realizations you can have as a human is a) This life is the only one you get. Make the most of it, and b) Life has no meaning or purpose. It just happens.

Having made these realizations humans are free to enjoy life.

In short the answer is "No".

 

[Darat]

Who says atheists suffer?



The best realizations you can have as a human is a) This life is the only one you get. Make the most of it, and b) Life has no meaning or purpose. It just happens.



Having made these realizations humans are free to enjoy life.



In short the answer is "No".

I think it may be a bit of projection. Imagine if you have a belief system in which suffering is necessary, that everything that happens to you and everyone else is part of an overall plan, that stopping the 3 year old being raped repeatedly by soldiers is to do a disservice to the spirit that is currently that child. Perhaps then you'd want to think that everyone else had such a terrible, bleak and horrifying view on life as a form of comfort?

I'm just glad that my beliefs don't mean I'm doing wrong if I try to prevent other people from suffering. Which of course is not an "atheist " belief.

 

[fromdownunder]

To reject the father is difficult.
To find the truth by yourself is not easy.
To build the meaning of life without the instruction book is not easy.

What are you talking about? What father? What truth? I know the meaning of life (42) because I have read the instruction book trilogy, which is in five parts, and I accept towel day as my truth.

But your stuff above looks like it comes straight from the extremist religious fanatic handbook, and the bits that come out of a bull that helps roses grow. It's as though you think that somehow being an atheist is some sort of higher calling, when in fact, it is at least arguable that the lack of belief in gods is the default position.

Norm

 

[Lithrael]

Of course, atheism implies some dramatic question. You cannot abandon religion and continue to live like nothing has happen. This is the existential "nausea" that every one copes as he can. There are lucid ways and illusory ways.

To reject the father is difficult.
To find the truth by yourself is not easy.
To build the meaning of life without the instruction book is not easy.

Pardon? Similar to Norm and Kid: nothing demands I seek any kind of ‘deeper truth’ and at no point did I embrace anything enough to characterize my current position as an abandonment of anything. It is in fact totally possible to be honestly comfortable with ‘meaning is whatever you make it.’ At the end of the day I’m a fancy animal and I’m allowed to ignore the nasty side effects of cognition like the ability to develop existential dread.

I don’t have a problem with philosophy, it’s interesting, I’m just not into it.

 

[David Mo]

Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it isn't convenient or necessary. Don't shoot yourself in your interpretations. I am not defending religion.

Religion offers a comfortable way of life to those who do not wish to face reality lucidly. The three points I mentioned refer to that illusory comfort: protective father, predetermined sense and dogma for everything.

I don't know what your anger is about. It seems to me that atheism cannot offer this triple protective shield and leaves man alone with himself. There is a challenge.

 

[David Mo]

At the end of the day I’m a fancy animal and I’m allowed to ignore the nasty side effects of cognition like the ability to develop existential dread.

If you solve the problems of existence as an animal I don't know what to say. It doesn't work for me.

 

[quadraginta]

Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it isn't convenient or necessary. Don't shoot yourself in your interpretations. I am not defending religion.

Religion offers a comfortable way of life to those who do not wish to face reality lucidly. The three points I mentioned refer to that illusory comfort: protective father, predetermined sense and dogma for everything.

I don't know what your anger is about. It seems to me that atheism cannot offer this triple protective shield and leaves man alone with himself. There is a challenge.

Why?

You seem to assume that everyone (anyone?) would need such a shield, or feel its absence.

I certainly don't.

 

[quadraginta]

If you solve the problems of existence as an animal I don't know what to say. It doesn't work for me.

Sounds like a personal problem.

 

[David Mo]

Why?

You seem to assume that everyone (anyone?) would need such a shield, or feel its absence.

I certainly don't.

Religion is a shield only for those who lack lucidity and courage.