Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

[xterra]

This is from post #287, which I am unable to quote directly, because the quote button gives me a blank file. The direct link is http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12835283&postcount=287

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.

David,

It appears to me that part of the misunderstandings here relate to your use of the word "project."

I don't know whether the word in Portuguese has different meanings than it does in English, but for most English speakers, in the way in which you seem to be using it, "project" means "a specific set of actions to accomplish a specific goal." So I set up a project to build a house, or a project to develop a business.

Your use seems to be related to "a philosophy of life" or "a set of ideas or guidelines" that may or may not have a goal for the end of a person's life – unless of course that goal is whatever the religion tells the person.


Perhaps because you grew up in a society where the Catholic Church is as much a part of the environment as air, you don't see that for most people who grow up where (any) religion is more like a choice of which sport to play, that religious atmosphere means very little. It's not something that we see around us constantly, not something that we find affecting our lives.

xterra

 

[abaddon]

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

You thought wrong. That misconception is no part of any science.

But the Hindu concept of an eternal cyclic universe could exist. The universe could be created then destroyed then created again.

Sure and it could be universe forming pixies doing it. So what?

 

[acbytesla]

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.

It's absolutely impossible to calculate the possibility of a God because we have absolutely NO credible evidence that points to a god. None.

There was a time when God or gods explained virtually every natural phenomenon. Zeus threw bolts of lightning and thunder was created by Thor's hammer. Illnesses were caused by evil spirits. And then science took over and then we learned that there are natural causes for all those things.

God isn't an answer to anything as best as I can tell. He's only an excuse to stop looking for the actual answer.

 

[acbytesla]

The belief is that God has always existed. That may not seem possible in our way of thinking, but that's what I seem to recall a spirit guide saying.

My question is does anyone have any credible evidence to support that belief? I'll roll my eyes until I see some.

The time to believe something is when there is evidence. Otherwise you'll end up believing some pretty stupid stuff.

 

[Thor 2]

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.

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).

Yes the classic response Pixel but you won't convince theists with it. Not interested in explaining how God came into existence, their eyes just glaze over as they claim God was always there.

 

[Robin]

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.

You still don't seem to understand my question.

You say many atheists are making a mistake.

A mistake implies they are either doing something wrong, or not doing something they should be doing, or doing something they should not be doing.

OK so far?

So you recommend that they should have a vital project.

But when pressed for details about this vital project it turns out to be the everyday stuff that nearly everybody, atheist or not, already does in any case.

So you are saying that there is something that atheists do is wrong, but your recommendation is for them to continue doing what they were already doing.

Do you not understand why I have a problem with that?

What I am looking for, is what you are recommending for atheists to do that is not something they are already doing?

Does that make the question clear?

 

[Lithrael]

Yes thanks Robin, that’s where Mo has me confused too.

 

[David Mo]

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

The problem with your nonsense is you were talking about atheists not theists. (...)

You're unfortunately deflecting the subject. The issue that has been raised is the difference between God and comic heroes in people's beliefs. The atheist will be discussed later if you are willing to answer the question I have raised:

The most important difference between God and Spiderman is its effect on people's beliefs: 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.
It is totally accessory whether you like or dislike the name I have invented to highlight the protective aspect of God in the belief of his faithful.

 

[David Mo]

This is from post #287, which I am unable to quote directly, because the quote button gives me a blank file. The direct link is http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12835283&postcount=287



David,

It appears to me that part of the misunderstandings here relate to your use of the word "project."

I don't know whether the word in Portuguese has different meanings than it does in English, but for most English speakers, in the way in which you seem to be using it, "project" means "a specific set of actions to accomplish a specific goal." So I set up a project to build a house, or a project to develop a business.

Your use seems to be related to "a philosophy of life" or "a set of ideas or guidelines" that may or may not have a goal for the end of a person's life – unless of course that goal is whatever the religion tells the person.


Perhaps because you grew up in a society where the Catholic Church is as much a part of the environment as air, you don't see that for most people who grow up where (any) religion is more like a choice of which sport to play, that religious atmosphere means very little. It's not something that we see around us constantly, not something that we find affecting our lives.

xterra

The word project is commonly used to designate the goals that a person sets in their life. There are partial goals, such as getting a job or winning a game of petanque. But it is also commonly assumed that I have some general goals that govern my life. Indeed, one can speak of a philosophy of life, if we include in it the essential question of what I can expect from my life and what I should do with it. But the idea of philosophy of life is limited to the conscious. What I advocate here is that the life project has an important unconscious component. (Not to mention that to pronounce the word philosophy in this forum is to open the box of thunder and fury.)

This conception is not religious. It is defended by atheist philosophers like Sartre.

It may be that my Catholic environment influences me to think that the decision to dispense with God to form my life project is "dramatic" and I cannot avoid "anguish". It's probably that people here understand these concepts in a psychological rather than a philosophical sense. I would have to explain them better. But I believe that in addition to this the forists who are disproportionately indignant because I calmly expose my ideas have other reasons to become nervous. Maybe they don't feel as confident as they appear.

 

[David Mo]

You still don't seem to understand my question.

You say many atheists are making a mistake.

A mistake implies they are either doing something wrong, or not doing something they should be doing, or doing something they should not be doing.

OK so far?

So you recommend that they should have a vital project.

But when pressed for details about this vital project it turns out to be the everyday stuff that nearly everybody, atheist or not, already does in any case.

So you are saying that there is something that atheists do is wrong, but your recommendation is for them to continue doing what they were already doing.

Do you not understand why I have a problem with that?

Indeed, you have a problem with this, but this is not my fault.

Everyone has a life project but not everyone is aware of it. For example: there is a participant in this forum who denies having a life project. So the thing is not as obvious and simple as you pretend.

Secondly, you have the problem that you only read half-heartedly what I write . Because besides saying that everyone has a life project I say that there are two components in it: a conscious part and an unconscious part. These two parts can come into conflict and the unconscious part may impose itself on the conscious. For this or other reasons the life project may be wrong (if it is based on things that don't exist like God or absolute values, for example) or incoherent (if it claims to be free but denies the freedom to think, for example). That is why some atheists may be wrong about. They are not wrong because they have a life project, as you say that I say, but to have a life project that is inconsistent with their atheism. I beg you to retain the latter, because otherwise our discussion is stuck in a dead-end loop.

It would be like a politician who claims to be left-wing but votes in favour of reactionary laws. It is quite common. The same goes for atheists who, without realising it, adopt "religious" points of view. Like many communists, for example.

 

[David Mo]

Yes thanks Robin, that’s where Mo has me confused too.

I don't think it is me who is confusing you. Read my last comment, please.

 

[Robin]

I don't think it is me who is confusing you. Read my last comment, please.

So basically all you are saying is that atheists will tend to make mistakes when reasoning about our lives that are different to the kinds of mistakes that Theists make when reasoning about their lives?

 

[David Mo]

So basically all you are saying is that atheists will tend to make mistakes when reasoning about our lives that are different to the kinds of mistakes that Theists make when reasoning about their lives?

"All you are saying is that [some] atheists will tend to make mistakes when reasoning about our [their] lives that are different to the kinds of mistakes that Theists make when reasoning about their lives" [in many respects and similar in other].

Now, yes. This is what I am saying.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Sure and it could be universe forming pixies doing it. So what?

I like pixies. Especially Disney pixies.

I'm gonna go with that.

Pixies are God.

 

[acbytesla]

You're unfortunately deflecting the subject. The issue that has been raised is the difference between God and comic heroes in people's beliefs. The atheist will be discussed later if you are willing to answer the question I have raised:

The most important difference between God and Spiderman is its effect on people's beliefs: 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.
It is totally accessory whether you like or dislike the name I have invented to highlight the protective aspect of God in the belief of his faithful.

No! You were talking about atheists. It is you that said the moronic statement about atheists and you keep pretending that what Christians believe about their God has any relevance to what an atheist believes.

 

[David Mo]

No! You were talking about atheists. It is you that said the moronic statement about atheists and you keep pretending that what Christians believe about their God has any relevance to what an atheist believes.

This is a new evasive.
After evading the problem several times it seems to me that it is clear that you have got yourself into an absurd dead end from which you don't know how to get out.

And now you pretend going out from the impasse by entering into a new dead-end.

It is impossible for the atheist not to take in mind the theist's belief in God. I don't know how you define an atheist, whether the one who doesn't believe that God exists or the one who believes that God doesn't exist. Or the one who claims that God does not exist. I don't care. In all of them the belief of the atheist is defined as the opposite of the believer. The atheist denies the theist's belief because it seems absurd, false, metaphysical or whatever you want. Therefore, he has to take into account what the believer says. I don't know how else atheism could be defined.

That's why what theists believe "has relevance" for atheists. If you are thinking of another kind of relevance, that is not what I have said.

 

[JesseCuster]

The word project is commonly used to designate the goals that a person sets in their life. There are partial goals, such as getting a job or winning a game of petanque. But it is also commonly assumed that I have some general goals that govern my life. Indeed, one can speak of a philosophy of life, if we include in it the essential question of what I can expect from my life and what I should do with it. But the idea of philosophy of life is limited to the conscious. What I advocate here is that the life project has an important unconscious component. (Not to mention that to pronounce the word philosophy in this forum is to open the box of thunder and fury.)

I'll be honest. I haven't a scooby what you're talking about.

Sounds like you're overthinking a whole load of nothing.

 

[Robin]

"All you are saying is that [some] atheists will tend to make mistakes when reasoning about our [their] lives that are different to the kinds of mistakes that Theists make when reasoning about their lives" [in many respects and similar in other].

Now, yes. This is what I am saying.

"their"? You don't include yourself?

Also, perhaps you could have said this in the first place instead of couching it in confusing language about "nausea", "meaning" and "projects".

 

[Robin]

When you said "nausea" I thought you meant it in the Sartre sense as a sense of existential anxiety about the absurdity of life.

 

[Robin]

Sure, atheists probably make all sorts of mistakes when reasoning about our lives. And it is quite likely that we make different kinds of mistakes to those made by theists.

After all we are an imperfect result of a long haphazard process of biological and cultural evolution. It would be more surprising if any of us didn't make mistakes when reasoning about our own lives.