Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

[Dave Rogers]

Supposed you have never heard what is a Spirit-Wrestler you should ask: In what is different your god?

No, I shouldn't, because I don't give a flying **** what kind of fiction another bunch of over-tuned pattern generators has dreamed up to explain things they don't understand.

Dave

 

[David Mo]

You are free to call it what you wish, of course.

The point is that for any reasonably clear proposition I can take a position, either I believe, I disbelieve or I do not have enough grounds for either of those positions.

For unclear propositions I could not be said to have a belief, nor really could anyone else.

Any reasonably clear proposition surrounding god or Gods that I have heard so far I have found implausible.

I also note that the very best minds of humanity have been trying to make a case for a God for millenia and we do not have one yet, so I find it implausible that a good argument is going to be forthcoming about any such entity.

If that is what you call "atheism", then yes, I suppose I could be described as such.

I don't define myself that way.

So, yes, of course you can consider a proposition implausible independent of supporting arguments.

(Your own words in italics)
a) Any reasonably clear proposition surrounding god or Gods that I have heard so far I have found implausible.

b) I also note that the very best minds of humanity have been trying to make a case for a God for millenia and we do not have one yet, so I find it implausible that a good argument is going to be forthcoming about any such entity.

c) So, yes, of course you can consider a proposition implausible independent of supporting arguments.

In b and c you stand by considering the (dis)value of proofs of the existence of god and in c you consider it is irrelevant. Either there is a contradiction between a-b and c or c is a simple irrelevant nuance.

The point is that for any reasonably clear proposition I can take a position, either I believe, I disbelieve or I do not have enough grounds for either of those positions.

What is your position?

 

[David Mo]

No, I shouldn't, because I don't give a flying **** what kind of fiction another bunch of over-tuned pattern generators has dreamed up to explain things they don't understand.

Dave

That is to say: you have a fixed position and don't consider to be interesting to check it. Then you are a dogmatic.

 

[abaddon]

You have a bad memory. I give my standard definition of god some comments ago. I have repeated it in my last comment. I hope you would like it.

Why should your "standard" mean anything? It is by definition peculiar to YOU and thus not standard at all by any measure.

YOU are the very person berating atheists for disbelieving in any god which they cannot or have not a priori defined. Yet here you are, disbelieving in a god that you have not been able to rightly define. At best your so called "standard" definition (which is by no means standard by any measure) merely refers to a narrow subset of claimed gods and is thus rendered rather pointless given that many claimed gods fall outside that narrow definition.

 

[Dave Rogers]

That is to say: you have a fixed position and don't consider to be interesting to check it. Then you are a dogmatic.

Coming from you, I find that amusing. Your position throughout this discussion is that belief in a God is the default, and that this must be rejected in order to become an atheist. My experience, and that of many others, differs, yet you refuse to consider those experiences worthy of consideration.

Dave

 

[David Mo]

Why should your "standard" mean anything? It is by definition peculiar to YOU and thus not standard at all by any measure.

YOU are the very person berating atheists for disbelieving in any god which they cannot or have not a priori defined. Yet here you are, disbelieving in a god that you have not been able to rightly define. At best your so called "standard" definition (which is by no means standard by any measure) merely refers to a narrow subset of claimed gods and is thus rendered rather pointless given that many claimed gods fall outside that narrow definition.

Instead of saying that my definition is not suitable for the major religions of today's world, why don't you quote some of them that don't fit my definition? If you don't give examples, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[David Mo]

Coming from you, I find that amusing. Your position throughout this discussion is that belief in a God is the default, and that this must be rejected in order to become an atheist. My experience, and that of many others, differs, yet you refuse to consider those experiences worthy of consideration.

Dave

Your experience of what? Do you have experiences of God? Do you know of any religion that does not define God as I have? Why don't you explain yourself better?

I know the ideas of God that are made into the major religions of today and I stick to it to define the concept. This is logical. But I'm also willing to change my definition of god if I'm given reasons. Not to do so would be dogmatic.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Your experience of what?

My experience of never having had to reject a belief in a superfather figure because I never had any such belief to reject.

Dave

 

[The Common Potato]

What burden of proof? We (the atheist bunch hereabouts) are telling you what they think. You views on our lack of beliefs are worthless.

I'm with Dave Rogers: I also don't give a flying **** (defo an illegal high tackle in the new rugby world!) what you think.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Perfect: You are saying that the absence of belief in god ("atheism") is the opposite of the presence of belief in gods (theism). Therefore, if you want to justify or explain the absence of belief in the gods in your head, you have to have the concept of god.

Do you believe squorniks exist?

Dave

 

[Robin]

(Your own words in italics)
a) Any reasonably clear proposition surrounding god or Gods that I have heard so far I have found implausible.

b) I also note that the very best minds of humanity have been trying to make a case for a God for millenia and we do not have one yet, so I find it implausible that a good argument is going to be forthcoming about any such entity.

c) So, yes, of course you can consider a proposition implausible independent of supporting arguments.

In b and c you stand by considering the (dis)value of proofs of the existence of god and in c you consider it is irrelevant. Either there is a contradiction between a-b and c or c is a simple irrelevant nuance.

The point is that for any reasonably clear proposition I can take a position, either I believe, I disbelieve or I do not have enough grounds for either of those positions.

What is your position?

Are you claiming that these statements are not consistent with each other???

If you think there is an inconsistency show the inconsistency.

 

[Robin]

In b and c you stand by considering the (dis)value of proofs of the existence of god and in c you consider it is irrelevant. Either there is a contradiction between a-b and c or c is a simple irrelevant nuance.

Perhaps you could rephrase this confusing sentence and try to be more precise as to what you think the contradiction or alleged 'irrelevance' is.

It is perfectly clear that one does not need to have heard supporting arguments in order to refute a proposition.

It is perfectly clear that refuting an argument in favour of a proposition does nothing to refute the proposition itself, it is a fallacy to think otherwise.

I have maintained these positions consistently.

I mentioned the fact that there has never been a successful argument for millenia to underline the fact that there is really no point in listening to more arguments.

Now does that help clear up your confusion about what I said?

 

[David Mo]

My experience of never having had to reject a belief in a superfather figure because I never had any such belief to reject.

Dave

What burden of proof? We (the atheist bunch hereabouts) are telling you what they think. You views on our lack of beliefs are worthless.

I'm with Dave Rogers: I also don't give a flying **** (defo an illegal high tackle in the new rugby world!) what you think.

Not only the ideas that one has had are rejected, but other people who in one way or another pretend that their ideas are the good ones. You won't tell me that you've never heard of the Last Judgment and paradise and hell and that there are people who think that those who don't believe in God go to hell. Do you accept or reject these ideas?

 

[David Mo]

Do you believe squorniks exist?

Dave

I can't believe that squorniks exist because I've never heard of things by that name. Neither good nor bad, neither high nor low, neither colored nor blue... (On the contrary, I have heard more about gods than I would like).

If you give the definition we'll see what you're talking about (I imagine you've invented the name, but I don't know what you're trying to do with it).

 

[Dave Rogers]

I can't believe that squorniks exist because I've never heard of things by that name.

You have now. Do you believe they exist?

More importantly, if I can't be bothered to give you a decent definition of them, or if I change the definition every time you decide you don't believe in the existence of the one I just gave you, at what point do you conclude that I'm simply wasting your time?

At that point I can say that you aren't an asquornikist, because you haven't studied them in enough detail to determine whether or not they exist.

Dave

 

[David Mo]

Perhaps you could rephrase this confusing sentence and try to be more precise as to what you think the contradiction or alleged 'irrelevance' is.

I mentioned the fact that there has never been a successful argument for millenia to underline the fact that there is really no point in listening to more arguments.

Now does that help clear up your confusion about what I said?

You're masking your propositions. In the context of your proposition (b) "so" is a conjunction and synonymous with "therefore". That is, you find X implausible because the arguments you have heard in favor of X are implausible. This is contradictory to saying that your belief is independent of X's arguments.

My opinion depends on the implausibility of the arguments in favour of X.
My opinion is independent of the arguments in favour of X.

Blatant contradiction.

It is perfectly clear that one does not need to have heard supporting arguments in order to refute a proposition.

As I said before, this is not the case with "God exists" proposition. I beg you to review my answer (#535). (Only exception: that the concept of God that someone defends is contradictory in itself or semantically inappropriate, as I said).

It is perfectly clear that refuting an argument in favour of a proposition does nothing to refute the proposition itself, it is a fallacy to think otherwise.

The rebuttal of a proposition can be decisive or simply lower the probability of that proposition. You yourself have come to the conclusion that God is implausible from the successive refutations of the arguments in his favour "for millennia" (in your very words). Don't tell me that you now retract what you said.

You have not been consistent at all. This is the classic problem of to deconstruct an argument and treating the fragments as separate pieces. A mess.

 

[David Mo]

You have now. Do you believe they exist?

More importantly, if I can't be bothered to give you a decent definition of them, or if I change the definition every time you decide you don't believe in the existence of the one I just gave you, at what point do you conclude that I'm simply wasting your time?

At that point I can say that you aren't an asquornikist, because you haven't studied them in enough detail to determine whether or not they exist.

Dave

If you give a contradictory, confusing or changing definition of X I would tell you to precise your definition and come back when it is precise. This happens very often with design religions and mysticism. I don't know what you're trying to get out of it because it's very simple.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If you give a contradictory, confusing or changing definition of X I would tell you to precise your definition and come back when it is precise. This happens very often with design religions and mysticism. I don't know what you're trying to get out of it because it's very simple.

No, it isn't. You're arguing that, in order to be an atheist, it is necessary to study any and all concepts of god that exist, and reject them all. This is an unachievable burden, because most religions have mutable and highly individual definitions of god. In order to be an atheist according to your definition, one would have to devote one's entire life to the study of theology. And, if the result were that one remained an atheist, one would have spent an entire lifetime studying things that don't exist. It's nothing more than timewasting, and it's the inevitable result of reversing the burden of proof.

I don't believe in any gods. I won't believe in any gods unless and until I see credible evidence that they exist. I honestly don't care what else anyone says about gods; give me evidence, or I have no interest.

Dave

 

[David Mo]

No, it isn't. You're arguing that, in order to be an atheist, it is necessary to study any and all concepts of god that exist, and reject them all.
Dave

That's not what I said. I said that to be an atheist one has to have an idea of what believers believe God to be. That you don't need to know all the religions there are and have been in the world, but to establish an operative definition based on what you know.

If someone argues that his concept of God is not included in that operative definition, we must limit atheism to what is known or kindly ask the believer to expose the idea of God that he has. I have already given that operative definition at least twice.

This does not mean at all having to know all past, present and future religions.

 

[Lithrael]

The idea that you need to pin down the definition of a word as it’s being used by the person you’re talking to is fine and sensible. The idea that we need to finally arrive at a true all-purpose meaning of a word like god or love in order to chat with someone who says “I am an atheist” or “I am in love” is neither necessary nor productive. Though of course it can be great fun to sit down and try to hammer out such a definition, no conclusion will actually be reached, ever.