Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

[ynot]

The atheist does not believe in the god of the theist but does not want to know anything about the god of the theist. In other words, he doesn't believe in something he doesn't know what it is.
Amazing!

Utter philoso/theist-babble rubbish! Do you really not know that many (if not most) atheists are ex-theists (including ex-priests/ex-clergy/ex-etc.)?

 

[David Mo]

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

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

Sounds to you.

 

[David Mo]

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

I said it a long time ago. I'm not responsible if you understand now.

 

[David Mo]

Atheism is defined as being in opposition to theism, yes. But it simply does not follow logically that atheists have to take into account theistic beliefs when doing anything.

The only time I take into account theistic beliefs is when I'm discussing the subject of theistic beliefs

(...)
Indeed ordering your life according to that which you do not believe or things which are not the case seems to me to be a primary mistake in reasoning about your life.

I'm not saying that the atheist should order his life around what the believer says. When I say that the atheist has to take into account the beliefs of the believer I mean that he should know and keep in mind those beliefs when defining his atheism or trying to distinguish religion from other types of myths. The latter is what we were talking about.

It simply doesn't follow that I must somehow 'take into account' the beliefs of theists, because I'm an atheist. Take into account how? Take into account when doing what?

What is it I'm doing to take into account theists beliefs?

Take into account: Keep in mind in the sense of knowing something/to be aware of and apply this knowledge when necessary.

 

[David Mo]

Now you're just being silly. How it is defined is important for communication but the moment you tell us some wild ass story that you have no evidence for we can dismiss it as quickly as big foot.

Empty comment. You don't need write if you has nothing to tell.

 

[David Mo]

So then atheists should concern themselves with the consequences of disbelief,
while consequences don't effect the truth value of any belief ?
If the consequences are too grave then what ?

The atheist must be concerned that his values are not infected by religious thinking. The atheist should be concerned about creating values for himself and not depending on a supreme authority, be it God, Science or Comrade President Mao Zedong. That is called moral autonomy.

I do not understand what "grave" consequences this can have for anyone. I don't know if truth makes us happier, but freer, of course.

 

[David Mo]

The problem David is the task is impossible.

What "god of the theist" are we talking about, that we should get to know?

The gods you know and, above all, the god you're talking about.
It doesn't make sense to stop talking about dogs because you don't know all the dog breeds.

 

[David Mo]

OK, go ahead and define god.

Wouldn't it be interesting if we could get a panel of theists to comment on David's definition.

I define myself as an atheist in terms of the gods I have heard of and, above all, those that are relevant to our culture. If you tell me what god you believe in, we will discuss it. And if it's a very rare god that they worship in one of the Moluccas, we'll have to find out what kind of god is.

In general, whenever I have heard of a god, it is a being endowed with superhuman powers that has some (great) influence on human's life. But the god that interests me, because it is the one that touches me, is the God of all the perfections that try to impose us in the contemporary societies. Let it be called Allah, Yahweh, Jesus Christ, or something similar.

When you convince me of the existence of one of those, I will stop calling myself an atheist.

And I remind you that you are deviating from the topic.

 

[David Mo]

However, many of us came to be atheists because we knew too much about theists' ridiculous beliefs. So please don't stop cajoling us into investigating them further, because the more we know about theists beliefs the more it will support our unbelief!

That wasn't the problem. We were discussing the differences between two types of myths: God and comic book heroes. I said that in order to enter into this debate one had to know what a believer understands by God, what his belief consists of. You don't need to study theology for that. It's that simple.

I'm afraid there are people around here who don't like me and are willing to discuss anything I say by attributing to me what's in their heads, not mine.

 

[David Mo]

Utter philoso/theist-babble rubbish! Do you really not know that many (if not most) atheists are ex-theists (including ex-priests/ex-clergy/ex-etc.)?

And what does this have to do with the definition of atheism?

 

[David Mo]

Summarizing the topic of the latest comments:
Topic: Differences between superheroes and God.

My opinion: there is a similarity and some differences.
Similarity: Both are myths. Neither God nor superheroes exist.
Differences: Traits of "God" that are absent in superheroes.
-Believers think that God really exists.
-Believers think that God is a protective Superfather (Almighty, etc.) "Big Father", if you want.
-Therefore, belief in God gives believers a meaning in their existence. Subjective meaning, if you want.

Objection of some participants in this thread:
Atheists don't need to take into account what the believers think their God is.

My answer:
A-theist means "without God". "God" is included in the definition. Given that God doesn't exist, it only means here "the idea of God in whom believers believe". Therefore the atheist needs to know/take into account what the theist thinks that God is.

And this is my point. And no more!!

I suggest that the problem with this strange debate is basically that some people here give the words “take into account” many meanings that I don't give. Please stick to my words.

 

[abaddon]

A-theist means "without God". "God" is included in the definition.

Semantic garbage.

Any and all gods are included in atheism, not your imaginary "God". No god is specifically implied in atheism, any and all so-called "God"s are. Since there are many thousands of such so-called "God"s none of which are consistent with each other, let alone any reality, your insistence that atheists must define exactly which "God" they do not believe in is an astonishingly idiotic idea from it's inception.

For an atheist, "God"s belong in the same category as leprechauns or pixies. Imaginary the lot of them.

Now you might claim that I have made an affirmative claim and thus bear some burden of proof for that claim.

Fine, then. I claim that I do not believe in any god or gods of any sort. As evidence for this claim is the simple fact that I do not believe in any god or gods of any sort.

You appear to claim that a sort of god (which you carefully decline to define) exists. What is your evidence for this entity?

 

[JoeMorgue]

David Mo I'm gonna blow your mind here.... careful what I'm about to tell you is so world shattering in it's paradoxical, nay mind twisting in it's contradictory nature that few can gaze into the abyss that this very fact creates without going made, such is the power of the Lovecraftian concept.

Apple Jacks... don't even taste like apples.

 

[Robin]

The atheist does not believe in the god of the theist but does not want to know anything about the god of the theist. In other words, he doesn't believe in something he doesn't know what it is.
Amazing!

So you know all about the things you don't believe? You know all the details of all the world religions? You know how to cast an I Ching, make an astrology chart?

 

[Robin]

I said it a long time ago. I'm not responsible if you understand now.

You don't care if you waste people's time couching a commonplace opinion in such misleading terms?

 

[The Common Potato]

It is impossible for the atheist not to take in mind the theist's belief in God.

David, I can't speak for other atheists here but I rarely think of God unless I come across believers try to rationalise or justify their beliefs.

 

[The Common Potato]

In many (most?) cases it's the opposite - the atheist doesn't believe because he does know what it is.

Ignoring everything a theist believes is not the same as not knowing what the theist believes.

SNIP...

This sounds not too dissimilar to the idea that everyone would be a Truther / Apollo denier / Bigfooter etc., of only they were aware of the 'evidence' .

 

[The Common Potato]

I fully accept that my morals and the way I look at the world are influenced by the fact I'm British and a lapsed Catholic and middle aged etc. Not being influenced by one's own upbringing would be strange.

 

[Robin]

This is why I don't like the term "atheist". People draw such bizarre conclusions from it.

Not believing in God doesn't define me. It isn't my creed, my ideology or my identity.

It is just one of the many things I don't believe. Like astrology, flat-earth cosmology and politicians promises

 

[I Am The Scum]

The atheist does not believe in the god of the theist but does not want to know anything about the god of the theist. In other words, he doesn't believe in something he doesn't know what it is.
Amazing!

To describe doubting God's existence as "not knowing what it is" is, to say the least, sloppy wording. It would be more appropriate to say that one is or is not familiar with religious stories. And, as it turns out, atheists are actually quite familiar with religious stories, even more than the ones who supposedly "know what it is."