luvluv

At any rate, perhaps this is moot because atheism does not offer hope. Most of the materialistic or deterministic or empircal premises upon which atheism is founded would seem to be set against any notion of hope.

daemon

Reasonably true. Atheism does not entail any notions about the state of anything other than the existence of the supernatural.
*cough* Please reread Goliath's post. The second post on the first page.

bonduca

Perhaps not to you, luvluv, but I personally find great comfort in this:

John Page

One can have a false god (as well as a false hope). I'm led to believe that the devil is much better with contracts.

tronvillain

Atheism alone, the lack of belief in God (or in many cases the belief in lack of God) does not offer hope, but it is certainly not "set against any notion of hope." The only hopes which it dimishes are those for things such as divine intervention.

luvluv

Euda, people have a tendency to behave irrationally towards each other. From the background of historical evidence and purely objective investigation, I have no logical grounds on which to believe that people will use their abilities to remedy problems rather than create them? People do solve problems. People also create problems. What makes me think that one propensity will forever outshine the other? History tends to teach me the reverse.

daemon

How exactly would I prove it was hope or God? That's my point: from a purely logical standpoint both answers are untenable.

bonduca:

It does because the deity happens to be the one I worship. If I called your dad a douche-bag based on my life experience with him, it would still be insulting to you wouldn't it? You are welcome to keep using this term, I simply consider it insulting and unecessary so I wonder why you continue to use it?

A) Hope is a belief. It is a positively held notion about the outcome of an event. Hope makes a positive decision about numerous specific events. Neutral hope is an oxymoron.

B) What is the logical basis for having hope in an unlikely prospect? If logic dictates that only 1 percent of people survive a certain disease, how can I logically have hope that I am that one percent rather than the other ninety and nine?

philechat

Many great philosophers preached "against" irrational hopes, among them Nietzsche, Albert Camus, Spinoza, and also the Hindu text Bhagavad Gita.

All things are accomplished through action and discipline. Those who set their mind toward winning lottery tickets and heavenly rewards are passive and irresponsible beings.

luvluv

Well, I wish I could be as naive as you in that instance bonduca. From a purely logical standpoint, I have no reason to believe that people will put their abilities into solving problems rather than putting their abilities into creating them as a result of seeking to selfishly benefit themselves. Self-interest is not usually as enlightened as we would like to believe.

Icarus

I doubt anyone cares, but as a former Christian minister I am somewhat troubled by this utilitarianistic enterprise. I am concerned that there should exist theists (and atheists for that matter) who allow the personal desire of upward mobility--even if it is merely within the divine economy--to have any influence over their position in this matter.

Just before leaving university, I once was invited by a professor to write down all the reasons I had for loving God. I strained to find just the right words, the perfect expression of all he meant to me, but I couldn't come up with anything. Somewhat embarrassed I looked around the room only to find many other students staring off into space as I had been, also unable to complete the assignment. Once ten minutes had passed, the professor asked someone to offer a thought on the matter, but no one did. He sat down on the desk behind him, smiled, and began to explain how he had no difficulty amassing responses from his freshmen but that his seniors always had difficulty. The freshmen always had a laundry list of reasons: for giving them loving parents, for helping them out with peer pressure, for sending Jesus to die for them, yada yada yada. He considered his seniors' sudden lack of articulation to his success as a professor. He did for one simple reason:

The faculty had finally gotten it through our heads that one must love God for who he is, rather than for what he does. Any genuine love must be far more personally sacrificing than to rest on the laurels of what is best for me. To love God for what he offers you is simply conditional. It introduces the possibility that if circumstances were different you might not love God. It also acts as a wall from ever getting to really know him for more fundamental reasons. Finally, for reasons many atheists here have already pointed out, it precludes you from even entertaining a life of a remarkably different quality. If you would rather live life blissfully ignorant of truth, so long as you were happy, have you ever really made a choice? Have you ever really considered other options than the one that offers you the most comfort, condolence, and hope? Did you ever really choose to love God, or did you simply follow the path of least resistance?

I would say that if your faith is contingent upon circumstance, you cling to God for some reason other than love. It may be fear, or some other defensive compulsion, but it is not what your God wants from you.

But why listen to me; I'm an atheist, what do I know? I know that by clinging to circumstance you will never approach God, but that by letting go you will only find emptiness. That is what I think of all this, but as I said before I doubt anyone cares.

Icarus

luvluv

Icarus, I said I did not offer my comment as a reason to believe, but as a reason why many may believe.

And what one does is an intrinsic part of who they are, whether they are God or a human being.