Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

David Mo said:
No. I have not said that all atheists act the same as believers just for the sake of having a life project.
Click to expand...

I don't recall suggesting you said that.

But you have already agreed that the "vital project" of which you speak consists of things that nearly everyone, Theist or atheist, does in any case.
 
Last edited:
David Mo said:
I don't know what philosophy you're talking about either. It's not mine.
Click to expand...

That is pretty much what you said.

I even asked you to confirm that by "vital project" you meant everyday stuff that everybody does in any case and you agreed. You even quoted a part out of Moliere to underline the fact.

Are you now saying that the "vital project" is not everyday stuff that everybody does in any case?
 
Scorpion said:
The belief is that God has always existed.
Click to expand...
The belief that the universe/multiverse always existed is more parsimonious. If the idea of God always existing is acceptable to you then the idea of the universe/multiverse always existing must be equally acceptable - the two concepts are logically identical.

There's no need for god(s), and postulating their existence raises far more questions than are answered.
 
David, here is a recap

You were describing what a vital project consists of.

Me: "Isn't that just part of normal functioning human life?"
You: "Yes. I was not saying anything else."
Me: "I am lost here. The vital project of which you speak is to go on going the stuff we did when we had never heard of of the idea of a vital project?

In what sense were we making a mistake then, if we were doing the thing you are recommending already?"
You: "This is like Moliere's The Midle-Class Gentleman who was speaking in prose without knowing it:"

How have I misrepresented you?
 
Pixel42 said:
The belief that the universe/multiverse always existed is more parsimonious. If the idea of God always existing is acceptable to you then the idea of the universe/multiverse always existing must be equally acceptable - the two concepts are logically identical.

There's no need for god(s), and postulating their existence raises far more questions than are answered.
Click to expand...

I thought we knew the universe has only existed for around 14 billion years.

But the Hindu concept of an eternal cyclic universe could exist. The universe could be created then destroyed then created again.
 
Scorpion said:
I thought we knew the universe has only existed for around 14 billion years.
Click to expand...
That's the current understanding, yes. But an eternal multiverse, consisting of many (possibly an infinite number of) universes each of which begin and end, is not ruled out - even strongly indicated - by that same understanding. That would also answer the so-called fine tuning problem in that, however unlikely this particular universe might seem, it would be bound to occur amongst all the other possibilities which would also occur.
 
It's getting complicated to get along with you. I don't know whose fault it is, although I have an idea of that.

Let me see if I can explain the reference to Molière.
Atheists and Christians talk in prose, but that does not mean that what they say is the same.
Nor are all atheists the same, even though they all speak in prose. What they say is not always the same, even if they agree on some points and speak in prose.

The life project is the same as speaking in prose. Everyone has one but not everyone knowsthat he has something called a "life project". Like M. Jourdain, who didn't know he spoke prose.
Christians have a life project. So do the atheists. But that doesn't mean it's the same, because both life projects are different in their content.
Some atheists, not all, resemble Christians in that their life project includes principles of absolute value. Not all atheist life projects are the same.

I hope this will be clear.
 
Pixel42 said:
That's the current understanding, yes. But an eternal multiverse, consisting of many (possibly an infinite number of) universes each of which begin and end, is not ruled out - even strongly indicated - by that same understanding. That would also answer the so-called fine tuning problem in that, however unlikely this particular universe might seem, it would be bound to occur amongst all the other possibilities which would also occur.
Click to expand...

That seems an over complication by scientists to try to explain a Godless universe that is incredibly unlikely to exist. When the simple answer could be God created it.
 
Scorpion said:
That seems an over complication by scientists to try to explain a Godless universe that is incredibly unlikely to exist. When the simple answer could be God created it.
Click to expand...
An answer which just replaces the question with a different question is no answer at all, and certainly not a simple one. Postulating a god to explain the universe simply replaces the question "where did the universe come from" with the question "where did god come from". A universe/multiverse which always existed is a simpler explanation than a universe/multiverse which was created by a god which always existed. The god adds an extra, unnecessary, layer of explanation. It's a textbook application of Occam's Razor to remove it, along with the additional questions it raises (e.g. what was the god doing in the infinite amount of time before it created the universe, the problem of evil, etc etc).
 
David Mo said:
I have commented on those differences in several comments --#226 was the latter-- that you ignore over and over again.

We can go over them one by one:
The most important: the difference between believing that a fiction entity is a fiction entity and believing that a fiction entity is real.
The reader of Spiderman knows that his hero does not exist. The Christian believes that his God exists.
From here the differences between both beliefs are abysmal. I don't know how you can deny this.

Of course there are many kinds of Christianity. But the ones I know are based on the beliefs that I have described and summarized by the name of Superfather. That's what I'm talking about. Not the differences about the role of grace, the consubstantiality of the Son and these things that cause Christians to kill each other from time to time.
Click to expand...

This is the first time I have ever heard God referred to as SuperFather.

Maybe God wears tights and a cape with a big S on his chest.
Sounds like a comic book hero to me.
"Faster than a speeding bullet."
"Able to change a diaper with one hand."
"He's Superfather!"

The problem with your nonsense is you were talking about atheists not theists. Atheists don't believe that God has any of those qualities you and theists might assign to him/her/it. They don't believe a God exists. With or without a cape. So to us, one mythical being is EXACTLY like another. Nothing looks like nothing. And regardless of how many times that people might say that their nothing is special with super powers it appears exactly like that nothing that doesn't have any super powers.
 
No. I would call it realistic. much better than seeking peace of mind in a bearded guy and 'is son or any other diety that the world have come up with.
 
Scorpion said:
I thought we knew the universe has only existed for around 14 billion years.
Click to expand...

It depends on how you look at it. Current cosmology makes no claim to anything "before" the Big Bang. There is no eternity of nothingness that the universe suddenly springs into. Humans experience time sequentially, so it's hard to perceive of it as a dimension. But asking "what came before the Big Bang?" may be like asking "what is north of the North Pole?".

The universe, including all of spacetime, may, in a sense that is hard for us to apprehend, simply be.
 
Scorpion said:
That seems an over complication by scientists to try to explain a Godless universe that is incredibly unlikely to exist. When the simple answer could be God created it.
Click to expand...

Sort of like geology is complicated, and a simpler answer to "why does the volcano erupt?" is that the god who lives in it is pissed.
 
Scorpion said:
I thought we knew the universe has only existed for around 14 billion years.
But the Hindu concept of an eternal cyclic universe could exist. The universe could be created then destroyed then created again.
Click to expand...


No! ... the big bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago, and that produced the form of this universe that we can detect today. But the energy potential that produced the big bang, existed before the big bang.

Most likely, that energy potential has always existed, ie it's "eternal" (there's probably no other option). I.e.; the total energy of this universe (inc. any other universes in any multiverse) is probably fixed & constant (in fact, the total energy is actually Zero if you add up all the forces that act in opposing ways, ie attractive vs repulsive) ... all that happens to produce any universe (inc. ours) is that at various moments that eternal energy (a set of various interacting energy fields) changes it's state, to produce what we call a new universe via a process like the big bang.

The reason for that change of state is also fairly well understood, and I've explained it here many times before (you can find it explained in almost any popular level book on the Big Bang or on Multiverse models, such as the Many Worlds book by Alex Vilenkin, or anything from Alan Guth or dozens of others in this field).
 
IanS said:
No! ... the big bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago, and that produced the form of this universe that we can detect today. But the energy potential that produced the big bang, existed before the big bang.

Most likely, that energy potential has always existed, ie it's "eternal" (there's probably no other option). I.e.; the total energy of this universe (inc. any other universes in any multiverse) is probably fixed & constant (in fact, the total energy is actually Zero if you add up all the forces that act in opposing ways, ie attractive vs repulsive) ... all that happens to produce any universe (inc. ours) is that at various moments that eternal energy (a set of various interacting energy fields) changes it's state, to produce what we call a new universe via a process like the big bang.

The reason for that change of state is also fairly well understood, and I've explained it here many times before (you can find it explained in almost any popular level book on the Big Bang or on Multiverse models, such as the Many Worlds book by Alex Vilenkin, or anything from Alan Guth or dozens of others in this field).
Click to expand...

Oh, gosh, this all seems so dang complicated. Can't we just say "god!" and be done with it?

"Occam's Razor! Simplest answer! That's logic, I win, I win!"

(More seriously- I have yet to meet the believer who understands just why, as Pixel42 says, "goddidit!" isn't according to the Razor, it's in violation of it. It may be that it's simply baked into their way of thinking to confuse "simple" with "simplistic.")
 
Scorpion said:
That seems an over complication by scientists to try to explain a Godless universe that is incredibly unlikely to exist. When the simple answer could be God created it.
Click to expand...
Why is a Godless universe less likely to exist than God? What is the likelihood that God would exist? Picking one explanation over another on the basis that one of is more likely than the other when you've no way of determining the likelihood of either makes no sense.

You've also taken something you see as inexplicable or unlikely (a Godless universe) and replaced it with something just as inexplicable or unlikely (a God that created the universe. The thing is, we know the universe exists, so adding God to the equation just makes it much more complex by introducing a mysterious factor with unknown attributes whose existence has yet to be determined. It's not simple at all.

"God did it" is a far worse answer than "we don't know." There's nothing wrong with shrugging your shoulders and admitting you don't know why the universe exists.
 
Scorpion said:
It is said, God remains perfect and untouched by suffering. He simply created a system that would ultimately lead us back to him over countless lifetimes.

God does not tell soldiers what to do , he simply allows us free will to act as we see fit, but makes us answerable for our actions over many lives.

A trance medium once said, we are presently at the stage of spiritual evolution that equates to kindergarten.

The human race may take another million years to evolve to what we are intended to become.
Click to expand...
Nice to see you agree that your god is a terrible and repulsive entity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom