Atheism: The Death Of Hope.

[The Pixie]

I don't think the authors were suggesting that we pretend, but that religious belief has real survival value. ...

So what should we do if it is not true? We either accept it is not true or we pretend it is. Personally, I would choose the former.

In any case, I was replying to you, not the authors. You chose to use this to start a thread in apologetics. Do you think it has any apologetics value? I am at a loss as to what that might be other than a recommendation that we pretend God exists if we think he does not.

You said in the OP:

So spiritual beliefs seem to both offer hope and help humans cope. And that these beliefs are deeply ingrained. So one wonders why militate atheists seek to destroy this natural coping mechanism, why do they want so to kill hope?

Atheists do not want to kill hope. We do not believe God exists. Either we encourage people to accept that, with the unwanted side effect of losing hope, or we pretend God exists to help reinforce other people's delusions.

[shunyadragon]

I don't think the authors were suggesting that we pretend, but that religious belief has real survival value. Of course this brings up some interesting questions, did the evolutionary process create us to believe false things to better cope, our do we instinctively know that there is "something/someone" out there? As a Christian I vote for the latter.

The problem is from the human perspective there is likely no difference. Pascal's wager.

[seer]

Atheists do not want to kill hope. We do not believe God exists. Either we encourage people to accept that, with the unwanted side effect of losing hope, or we pretend God exists to help reinforce other people's delusions.

But do you know that God does not exist? Can you prove that? No you can't, so it is an assumption. At least with agnosticism there is the possibility of hope since there is the possibility of something greater.

[shunyadragon]

But do you know that God does not exist? Can you prove that? No you can't, so it is an assumption. At least with agnosticism there is the possibility of hope since there is the possibility of something greater.

This view it becomes an assumption either way, and a poor argument.

[seer]

The problem is from the human perspective there is likely no difference. Pascal's wager.

Really Shuny, stop with the "human perspective" nonsense - it is getting tired.

[The Pixie]

But do you know that God does not exist? Can you prove that? No you can't, so it is an assumption. At least with agnosticism there is the possibility of hope since there is the possibility of something greater.

I am not sure at all, I just think it is unlikely.

So what is your point? Should I therefore pretend there is a God on the basis that there might be? Should I try to delude others that God definitely exists if I think it is unlikely he exists?

[seer]

I am not sure at all, I just think it is unlikely.

So what is your point? Should I therefore pretend there is a God on the basis that there might be? Should I try to delude others that God definitely exists if I think it is unlikely he exists?

Well this thread is mostly about militant atheist that evangelize. I mean think about it, most people believe in some form of God, some kind of after life. It gives them hope and purpose - why do some atheists want to undermine that? I mean even if they are correct, so what if some people find comfort in that belief? What does the atheist gain by destroying this hope?

[The Pixie]

Well this thread is mostly about militant atheist that evangelize. I mean think about it, most people believe in some form of God, some kind of after life. It gives them hope and purpose - why do some atheists want to undermine that? I mean even if they are correct, so what if some people find comfort in that belief? What does the atheist gain by destroying this hope?

Teaching the truth. Some people think that that is important.

[shunyadragon]

Really Shuny, stop with the "human perspective" nonsense - it is getting tired.

Tiring to you is a problem you have to deal with. It is indeed the reality of what people believe and not believe, which is two sides of the same coin.

[seer]

Teaching the truth. Some people think that that is important.

But that is the point, you don't know that atheism is "the truth." Besides what moral weight does the "truth" have in a godless universe compared to a belief that helps one cope and brings happiness? How would the "truth" be more beneficial in this instance? How is hopelessness more beneficial than hope?

[The Pixie]

But that is the point, you don't know that atheism is "the truth." Besides what moral weight does the "truth" have in a godless universe compared to a belief that helps one cope and brings happiness? How would the "truth" be more beneficial in this instance? How is hopelessness more beneficial than hope?

I am not sure it is the truth, but I think it is. What more can I go on? Do we only promote the things we are 100% sure of? Personally, I would trust the opinion of someone who could admit he was not entirely sure over the opinion of someone who was dogmatic, as the former would be more capable of changing his mind if new evidence comes to light.

Personally, I think the truth is important. I would rather know the truth than not. I guess party of that would be trust, safety and security. Can I be secure under a rulership that I did not trust? How could I trust that leadership that I did not believe valued truth?

How can you even have knowledge without truth? Science and technology, for example, are founded on truth, as is history.

Do you trust your religious leaders? Would you trust them if they had the same cavalier attitude to the truth as you are proposing? Of course not. The truth is important even without God.

Is the truth more important than false hope? I think it is.

[seer]

I am not sure it is the truth, but I think it is. What more can I go on? Do we only promote the things we are 100% sure of? Personally, I would trust the opinion of someone who could admit he was not entirely sure over the opinion of someone who was dogmatic, as the former would be more capable of changing his mind if new evidence comes to light.

Personally, I think the truth is important. I would rather know the truth than not. I guess party of that would be trust, safety and security. Can I be secure under a rulership that I did not trust? How could I trust that leadership that I did not believe valued truth?

How can you even have knowledge without truth? Science and technology, for example, are founded on truth, as is history.

Do you trust your religious leaders? Would you trust them if they had the same cavalier attitude to the truth as you are proposing? Of course not. The truth is important even without God.

Is the truth more important than false hope? I think it is.

Ok so you are devoted to truth, fine - that does not change the fact that you don't know if atheism is the truth. You believe that God is unlikely, fine again. So you attack the faith of others, undermine their hope and happiness based on what you personally find unlikely? Really?

[The Pixie]

Ok so you are devoted to truth, fine - that does not change the fact that you don't know if atheism is the truth. You believe that God is unlikely, fine again. So you attack the faith of others, undermine their hope and happiness based on what you personally find unlikely? Really?

If we are to find the truth (individually or as a people), then people should be educated to as many viewpoints as possible. If your viewpoint appears to be nonsense, then I have a duty to point it out if I am to promote the search for truth. You may then argue that I was wrong, that your viewpoint in coherent, and that is fine too, as that also allows us to step closer to the truth, whatever it may be.

The alternative is to stop people promoting a viewpoint unless they are utterly convinced. I think that that would be bad. Being convinced of your opinion is not necessarily a good guide to how secure that opinion is, especially in discussions like this, where evidence is scant and emotions are high.

If you have truth on your side, then any attack is likely to fail. It seems to me that that is not the case (especially given how Christians cannot agree between themselves on important issues).

[seer]

If we are to find the truth (individually or as a people), then people should be educated to as many viewpoints as possible. If your viewpoint appears to be nonsense, then I have a duty to point it out if I am to promote the search for truth. You may then argue that I was wrong, that your viewpoint in coherent, and that is fine too, as that also allows us to step closer to the truth, whatever it may be.

The alternative is to stop people promoting a viewpoint unless they are utterly convinced. I think that that would be bad. Being convinced of your opinion is not necessarily a good guide to how secure that opinion is, especially in discussions like this, where evidence is scant and emotions are high.

If you have truth on your side, then any attack is likely to fail. It seems to me that that is not the case (especially given how Christians cannot agree between themselves on important issues).

First, this is not how many atheists approach the subject, many high profile atheists. If you really think like you stated above then I wouldn't call you an atheist but an agnostic. Which I have no problem with. But when a Dennett or a Harris or a Dawkins paint people of faith as idiots or fools that is where I draw the line, especially in light of the fact that they can not prove their position nor disprove ours.

[The Pixie]

First, this is not how many atheists approach the subject, many high profile atheists. If you really think like you stated above then I wouldn't call you an atheist but an agnostic. Which I have no problem with. But when a Dennett or a Harris or a Dawkins paint people of faith as idiots or fools that is where I draw the line, especially in light of the fact that they can not prove their position nor disprove ours.

So you define an atheist as some who paints people of faith as idiots? We will have to agree to disagree on that, but I suspect the dictionary would confirm my own defintion as someone who does not believe there is a god.

I await to see what your second point will be.