Is atheism negative thinking?

[ninerbuff]

I'm more positive and optimistic than many believers. But I do know many from both sides that project "negative" attitudes. It's about how the person is and not necessarily the belief.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, it's negative thinking. Its all like, "No god," "No, thank you," "No belief," "No opinion one way or the other," "No, I don't think so," "No, I don't think," "No."

 

[Ungrateful]

Yes, it's negative thinking. Its all like, "No god," "No, thank you," "No belief," "No opinion one way or the other," "No, I don't think so," "No, I don't think," "No."

I disagree that those things imply a negative state of mind in any way whatsoever.

For example, if you were to ask me if I'm unhappy, I would say "no, not at all".

Concentrating on the denial aspect of the atheist view ignores what is affirmed.

 

[Willamena]

I disagree that those things imply a negative state of mind in any way whatsoever.

For example, if you were to ask me if I'm unhappy, I would say "no, not at all".

Concentrating on the denial aspect of the atheist view ignores what is affirmed.

So, if it were common to ask atheists about their ungodliness, they could be more positive...

 

[Ungrateful]

So, if it were common to ask atheists about their ungodliness, they could be more positive...

They might perhaps answer in the positive, but that would say nothing of their state of mind.

The point was that the word "no" and a negative state of mind have nothing to do with each other. I would answer "no" to the question I gave earlier if I had had a positive state of mind at the time.

As to "ungodliness", I've never quite worked out what's implied by that. I've usually heard it used in a derogatory fashion though. But as the notion of what is "godly" is as varied as people themselves, and something I don't believe in, I can't really address ungodliness either in any firm way.

Perhaps you think it means dishonesty, promiscuity, drunkenness, theft, violence? I'm not into those at all, and would not encourage others either. I never needed God to tell me what's wrong with them.

I can say that I wouldn't pass judgement or inflict suffering on someone because of theories I have about the nature of reality. I wouldn't punish children for the sins of their parents. I wouldn't force women to bear children regardless of their situation. I wouldn't prevent my offspring from receiving medical help. I wouldn't condemn any love that doesn't fit ancient narrow definitions. When I come across an inconvenient fact, I re-examine my thinking. The list could go on. If that's ungodly, I'm very cool with that indeed.

I've never been able to believe in this being in the texts, who created this suffering existence so he could demand our love, respect and worship with the threat of eternal suffering otherwise. "Tyrant" was the word that came to mind again and again, and still does. 2000 years ago, fear was thought a good way to ensure respect of the masses, and slavery and subjugation was the norm. Now most of us know better. God would have known that too, and a few other things besides. This has always been about the power of humans over each other, and needing a way to justify nasty acts.

One of the hardest things for me to take is about retalliation. I always advise against it, and have managed to avoid doing it in my own life for many years, and the cost has been worth it. There really is a point to it, in fact I seem to remember reading a few guys saying so. The major religions have an atrocious record for perpuating suffering with it, going against their own teachings, yet they still try and claim the moral high ground.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm more positive and optimistic than many believers. But I do know many from both sides that project "negative" attitudes. It's about how the person is and not necessarily the belief.

The faithful are the negative ones, for they reject atheism.
What a silly conversation.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yes, I suppose atheism can be negative thinking - it's saying "no" to irrationality regarding god.

However, skepticism is negative thinking on a much grander scale - it's saying "no" to irrationality regarding everything.

 

[zer0]

Yeah I agree. I think if you have it in your head that death is just moving onto heaven or such then aren't you more likely to die when the chance is presented? Where as the atheist has only this life, and must fight for life. As for optimistic or pessimistic they are both so in their own way. An atheist has optimism and pessimism just as theism does.

 

[Orias]

I've heard that many people say religious people are sometimes more likely to survive an operation or illness because they are more optimistic, and atheists don't as much because they are pessimistic. I don't think that is true because if you are truly prepared for death :thud: and no afterlife, reincarnation, nirvana, or any other supernatural consiousness, that means religion is more of a wishful thinking thing. Maybe atheists are realists and theists are idealists. Tell me your thoughts!

I think generalizing opens a door for more negative consequences.

Though I wouldn't consider "atheism" a path of "negative thinking". Just a path that we as "God(s)" share with "God".

 

[KittensAngel]

Atheism is rational conscious discrimination against the nonsense that is optimistic insecurity in one's sense of self, as that what is solely responsible for one's own thoughts and actions. That no thing exists that is invisible and then parents, polices, judges and grants boons to the beggar of them. Atheists are realists. Theists are fatalists. Because no matter what,they first believe they were born unworthy of love and respect by a higher power. Granted that lofty station by those who first accept themselves to be low life in need of being taken firmly in hand, by that what pulls the strings to their existence. That what they then believe they are owing for all that they enjoy and beseeching for all that they fall short of. Atheism is far from negative thinking. Theism however, is just that. Because Theism first requires self-deprecation of the believer, who think they themselves are not enough to live their life responsibly. At this moment a Theist died in hospital. A believer passed away on an operating table. A religious person sighed away their last breath of life, waiting for a transplant. And all the while they, if they were able, and their family and friends if they had any, prayed a donor would be found in time. At this moment an atheist died in hospital. An atheist is slowly succumbing to cancer, while friends and family, if they have any, are dealing with that certain fate in the way that best suits them. In this very second an atheist passed away in a car accident. And no thing unseen cared. And that atheist was not surprised. But at the end of the stories the Theist would be, when that fact applies to them too. Whether they believe it or not. *one of these days this server will allow my paragraphs to appear instead of one full on block of text.I think it's God, messing with me. Bad spaghetti monster, bad bad! ~wags finger in direction of Italy~*

 

[Orias]

Atheists are realists.

Theists are fatalists.

Where did you get this generalization from?

Because no matter what,they first believe they were born unworthy of love and respect by a higher power. Granted that lofty station by those who first accept themselves to be low life in need of being taken firmly in hand, by that what pulls the strings to their existence. That what they then believe they are owing for all that they enjoy and beseeching for all that they fall short of.

What?

Atheism is far from negative thinking. Theism however, is just that.

I'd hate to assume that your viewpoints of atheism are "positive" because you view theism as a negative.

Because Theism first requires self-deprecation of the believer, who think they themselves are not enough to live their life responsibly. At this moment a Theist died in hospital. A believer passed away on an operating table. A religious person sighed away their last breath of life, waiting for a transplant. And all the while they, if they were able, and their family and friends if they had any, prayed a donor would be found in time. At this moment an atheist died in hospital. An atheist is slowly succumbing to cancer, while friends and family, if they have any, are dealing with that certain fate in the way that best suits them. In this very second an atheist passed away in a car accident. And no thing unseen cared. And that atheist was not surprised.

What?

But at the end of the stories the Theist would be, when that fact applies to them too. Whether they believe it or not. *one of these days this server will allow my paragraphs to appear instead of one full on block of text.I think it's God, messing with me. Bad spaghetti monster, bad bad! ~wags finger in direction of Italy~*

Hmm...I think if I could understand most of what you said I wouldn't of been so quick to criticize.

But alas, this is not a debate thread. But clarifying would be nice, not to mention holding a view point other than a generalized One would also be more conducive to the OP.

Anyways best regards and Xeper,

Orias

 

[KittensAngel]

Where did you get this generalization from?

It's just as fair as those who "generalized" that atheists are pessimists. Deemed so by what? Not accepting something invisible empathizes with the human condition?

What?

Can't help you. I believe my point was rather clear.

I'd hate to assume that your viewpoints of atheism are "positive" because you view theism as a negative.

OK

What?

Just throw, "Generalized" at it and perhaps that will help.

Hmm...I think if I could understand most of what you said I wouldn't of been so quick to criticize.

Oh to the contrary. I think you've said exactly what you meant to impart as hyper critical judgment of that what you admit you fail to understand.

But alas, this is not a debate thread. But clarifying would be nice, not to mention holding a view point other than a generalized One would also be more conducive to the OP.

Anyways best regards and Xeper,

Orias

I find dismissive's like judging someone's personal observations as "generalized", to be not worth my time. The OP "generalized" atheism by asking if it was negative thinking. As such it was afforded a response by an atheist, in keeping with the tenor of the original question.

 

[Orias]

It's just as fair as those who "generalized" that atheists are pessimists. Deemed so by what? Not accepting something invisible empathizes with the human condition?

This doesn't answer my question, and doesn't justify anything none the less.

Can't help you. I believe my point was rather clear.


OK

Thanks for making that clear.

Just throw, "Generalized" at it and perhaps that will help.

The OP isn't looking for generalized statements, that defeats the purpose of being an individual.

Oh to the contrary. I think you've said exactly what you meant to impart as hyper critical judgment of that what you admit you fail to understand.

Yes, I often critisize those who speak in tongues

I find dismissive's like judging someone's personal observations as "generalized", to be not worth my time. The OP "generalized" atheism by asking if it was negative thinking. As such it was afforded a response by an atheist, in keeping with the tenor of the original question.

The OP didn't generalize atheism at all, simply because it asked the question of it potentially being "negative".

There may have been statements of general intrigue, but that does not at all make the topic generalized.

He is looking for an individual answer, based on the premise of experience. If you want to make general and unsupported claims then fine, but that does not help the purpose of the OP.

I digress, if you want to make a debate thread out of this I would gladly participate

 

[charles brough]

I've heard that many people say religious people are sometimes more likely to survive an operation or illness because they are more optimistic, and atheists don't as much because they are pessimistic.

I once sat in on a psychiatric hearing in which three legally insane individuals were being question in order to re-establish the state of their condition.

One of the patients had rationalized a grandiose paranoidal state to explain to him his syphilitic brain damage. It was that people had and were still injecting poison to him through his windows to "get" him because he "owned the world." I might add the poor fellow was happy enough. Insane delusions can provide escape.

I feel pleasure, however, with the real world. I am an atheist but classify myself as a non-theist. We who are non-theists are the scientific backbone of our civilization. We include deists, liberal-Christians (church-going deists), agnostics, pan-deists and atheists. Now, all we need is a new world-view system capable of uniting all of us non-theists and ending the old world's obsession with "spirits."

Let's stop cow-towing to nothing . . . :bow:

 

[Tor_Hershman]

Religious people are more likely to survive an operation BECAUSE they aren't murdered by one of many "Angels of Death" that are at MANY hospitals.

I had 3 open heart surgeries in one day and was given a much LESS than 50% chance of livin'.
We are machines, give a machine the correct workmanship - it will function.

OH yeah, and by "Angel of Death" I mean insane hospital worker. Most are great but it only takes one.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Atheism in and of itself is in no way a negative way of thinking. Atheists can be negative. Or positive. Or kinda-in-between. After all, they're just people.