The logical consequences of omnipotence

[Celi]

My point was that knowing that somebody is atheist doesn't tell you anything about their worldview, personality or beliefs (aside from non-belief in a theistic god, obviously).

Exactly.

Entertaining meaning and purpose would put you within the realm of metaphysics. Religious atheists would be an exception.

I've yet to come across an atheist who can rationalise a hopeful world view (Of those atheists actually capable of rational thought, most aren't).

What? I really don't understand what you're saying, and I think it might be because of that one word, 'hopeful'. Could you tell us what it means? Because you seem to be working from a different definition from the rest of us.

Edit:

Just "enough"

I very much doubt that you really think that's what I meant, but I'll clarify, just to be sure: I believe someone can give zir own life purpose, and that it has meaning to zirself and the people ze is close to. When I said that's 'enough' for me, I didn't mean that it barely crossed the threshhold of enoughness but that I'd prefer more, I meant that I was satisfied with it as opposed to craving a cosmic, objective meaning/purpose to life.

[fr0d0]

I meant that I was satisfied with it

I know you did. You manage without hope. Not an intrinsically bad thing. But less preferable.

---

'hopeful'. Could you tell us what it means?

To have a rationally based positive belief that universal goodness prevails.

[Celi]

I meant that I was satisfied with it

I know you did. You manage without hope. Not an intrinsically bad thing. But less preferable.

Again, please define 'hope'. I really don't get what you mean when you say that. Before you said that hope is meaning+purpose, which, besides not making any sense, doesn't apply here because atheists are (as I explained twice) not necessarily lacking either of those.

Edit: (Ug, talking through edits like this is getting irritating)

To have a rationally based positive belief that universal goodness prevails.

Ah. Well, while I don't see how adding meaning and hope together could get that, I actually have some understanding of what you're saying now. Not entirely, though. If you mean a belief that good wins, always, then that's not rationally based at all, and not at all preferable. If you mean a belief that trying to be good/kind is generally best, most atheists would agree with that, as would most people in general.

If you mean the belief that good people will be rewarded and evil people punished in the afterlife, I don't see why not believing it is 'less preferable'. As I tend to emphasize in discussions like this, people don't typically need a carrot on a stick to try and follow their own morals, and eternal torture isn't an acceptable punishment for anything. Unless you just can't accept the idea of permanent death (I have trouble with it myself), a chaotic universe is preferable to one that follows such unreasonable rules as that.

[Ryantology]

I've yet to come across an atheist who can rationalise a hopeful world view

I have yet to come across a theist who can rationalize anything. You can't even rationalize a hopeful worldview because your faith is utterly misanthropic.

[Esquilax]

To have a rationally based positive belief that universal goodness prevails.

Keep going. Could you also define what you mean by "universal goodness?" It's not a term I can intuit into just one definition, after all. Celi certainly couldn't.

As to hope... I think there's a fundamental disconnect between what you're thinking of and what we atheists are. To you, to any theist, hope is something objective; you've got your afterlife, where you assume you'll be eternally rewarded. That's fine, but you're drawing your hope from some other place, some other being you feel exists. Your hope exists outside of you.

To me, hope is something personal and subjective. I've got hopes, for my future, the people around me, even just in terms of what I want for lunch. Some of these are deeply held dreams for my future, and the source of the desire and joy in them that I'd need to achieve them. But I also have expectations that at least a few of these hopes might not get resolved. That's only rational- I'm just one guy, after all- but the fact that I recognize I'm living in a world that owes me nothing doesn't make my hope and meaning in life illegitimate, or any less powerful than the theist who feels he's been hand created by a deity.

[fr0d0]

If you mean a belief that good wins, always, then that's not rationally based at all

Only in your world view. In my world view is is entirely rationalised. You shouldn't judge what someone else thinks without first understanding it.

I tolerate your position. Would you tolerate mine?

---

If you mean a belief that trying to be good/kind is generally best, most atheists would agree with that, as would most people in general.

And that is the basis of Christianity. You begin to understand this rational stance. Where kindness ends, a belief in a good governing force takes over. Where you would have to concede that nature is neutral, a Christian makes no such concession, because of the purpose and meaning that shapes their world view.

I don't believe in carrot and stick. I have no use for afterlife, and death is death. It happens. What concerns me is now and how I get the most out of life. Given the choice of hope and no hope, I choose hope.

[The Grand Nudger]

Less disingenuous words could hardly be spoken about christianity. Bravo. The basis of christianity is the whole "christ" bit. That much should be plainly obvious. If you ever have the time and if you ever find an answer to what is good or kind about that "christ " bit - I'd love to hear it. Until such time as anyone can come up with that little gem I'm going to continue considering anyone who self identifies with the "christ" part of the narrative the absolute worst sort of person. The kind of person who would stab you in the liver for the "sins" that they themselves committed - to avoid whatever judgement and justice may come.......

[Celi]

If you mean a belief that good wins, always, then that's not rationally based at all

Only in your world view. In my world view is is entirely rationalised. You shouldn't judge what someone else thinks without first understanding it.

I tolerate your position. Would you tolerate mine?

...says the guy who just implied that I'm incapable of rational thought. Some people get really annoyed when this word is used incorrectly, but I'm fairly certain that's irony.

Would you care to defend that claim rather than playing the "You can't say I'm wrong because religious tolerance!" card?

If you mean a belief that trying to be good/kind is generally best, most atheists would agree with that, as would most people in general.

And that is the basis of Christianity. You begin to understand this rational stance.

No, that's the basis of following your own morals (aka not being a complete selfish ass). Do you really understand what you're implying when you say that being a good person is the basis of Christianity?

Where kindness ends, a belief in a good governing force takes over. Where you would have to concede that nature is neutral, a Christian makes no such concession, because of the purpose and meaning that shapes their world view.

Nature, by definition, is just the way things are. It's a set of fundamental laws that everything in the universe follows, nothing more. So I suppose you could call it neutral, but really that goes without saying, because the idea that nature could have some moral stance on anything is baffling, at least to me. In any case, we're talking about nature itself. It gets by just fine without God's guiding hand. As for our species, like every other species, it exists inside this universe and so evolved to make the most of it.

I don't believe in carrot and stick. I have no use for afterlife, and death is death. It happens. What concerns me is now and how I get the most out of life. Given the choice of hope and no hope, I choose hope.

Er, this part I think I agree with (except for possibly the last sentence, since I still don't understand what it is that you refer to by that word). I don't see how it fits into the rest of your argument, or Christianity, though.

[Ryantology]

Only in your world view. In my world view is is entirely rationalised.

The products of psychological imbalance cannot be rationalized.

And that is the basis of Christianity. You begin to understand this rational stance. Where kindness ends, a belief in a good governing force takes over.

The Christian notion of 'good' is what God says is good and this includes rape, torture, slavery, and genocide.

[fr0d0]

...says the guy who just implied that I'm incapable of rational thought.

lol

I don't have to refrain from torment to tolerate you

---

No, that's the basis of following your own morals (aka not being a complete selfish ass).

It's the beginning of the same thought process. You see benefit from interacting positively. Up to a point.

---

Do you really understand what you're implying when you say that being a good person is the basis of Christianity?

That's about as inaccurate as you could get. God is good. God is the root of good. A persons goodness has no bearing on his Christianity, only a potential fruit of it.

---

the idea that nature could have some moral stance on anything is baffling, at least to me

To me too