Freethought & Rationalism Archive

winstonjen · 12-01-2002, 12:09 AM

First, I think I should define what I consider to be false hope. It is a 'hope' in something that one KNOWS is false - it has no chance of occuring, for example, living forever without growing old. I do not consider winning the lottery to be a false hope (unless of course, one does not enter the lottery), since someone has to win, although the chances are very small.

However, if someone never has hope in something, they are never disappointed, so I prefer no hope to an unrealistic, false hope.

Gamaliel · 12-01-2002, 05:45 PM

let's see if I understand...you have hope that not having hope will lead to no disappointment?

Amie · 12-01-2002, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by winstonjen:
 It is a 'hope' in something that one KNOWS is false - it has no chance of occuring, for example, living forever without growing old.

hmmm since I believe in the afterlife, I see that as an eventuality

I get what you are saying though however I would consider that living on earth forever without growing old would be a case of "no hope"...
I don't have your same definitions for false hope. If I were to tell my ex husband that I want to get back together with him...that would give him false hope since he would maintain the possibility that we could work out while I know that will never happen because I am not in love with him
Technically speaking if somebody "knows" something won't happen or knows something is false...wouldn't that be "no hope"?

However, I may be missing the boat here...very long weekend and I just got home...
Amie~

winstonjen · 12-01-2002, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
let's see if I understand...you have hope that not having hope will lead to no disappointment?

Ironic, yes, but I do feel that way.

Quote:

hmmm since I believe in the afterlife, I see that as an eventuality

I meant living forever on this Earth.

12-01-2002, 07:08 PM

"First, I think I should define what I consider to be false hope. It is a 'hope' in something that one KNOWS is false - it has no chance of occuring, for example, living forever without growing old. I do not consider winning the lottery to be a false hope (unless of course, one does not enter the lottery), since someone has to win, although the chances are very small.
However, if someone never has hope in something, they are never disappointed, so I prefer no hope to an unrealistic, false hope. "

My reply : First of all, YOU consider it as false hope, thus for you, it is a false hope.

Secondly, no one knows such thing as Life after death is false or not because no one comes back from death to prove it true or false.

Thirdly, chance of winning a lottery has nothing to do having hope, it is simply act of luck and chance.

Fourthly, Having any hope IS better than none. It will give you something to strife for rather than sitting like something waiting to decompose.

winstonjen · 12-01-2002, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seraphim:

Thirdly, chance of winning a lottery has nothing to do having hope, it is simply act of luck and chance.

Similar things. People hope they will win the lottery, just as they hope for other things, and they all have a probablity attatched.

Quote:

Fourthly, Having any hope IS better than none. It will give you something to strife for rather than sitting like something waiting to decompose.

Wrong. If you find out later that the hope was never there to begin with, that you were merely deceiving yourself, then you may feel foolish for believing in a false promise.

12-01-2002, 09:13 PM

"Similar things. People hope they will win the lottery, just as they hope for other things, and they all have a probablity attatched."

My reply : Wrong. People buy lottery tickets simply because there is a chance of winning, not prove that they will win. In this context, they rely on faith rather than chance alone.

In Pascal's Wagers, it is more easier to put faith in something rather than say it doesn't exist and then live to regret it.

"Wrong. If you find out later that the hope was never there to begin with, that you were merely deceiving yourself, then you may feel foolish for believing in a false promise"

My reply : Wrong again.
IF you find out later that there is no life after death, it will be simply "No one Cares" senario, simply because you will be death and no one will care if you will exist after your death.

Having faith is about living with Hope, not about dying and going to heaven or hell. This is why it is better to have faith for it will help you to live and strife forward rather than fooling yourself into thinking that you know everything there is to know.

winstonjen · 12-01-2002, 09:48 PM

Pascal's Wager is an appeal to fear, just like The "Boogeyman" or similar things. It is not about true morality or belief, but about scaring someone into believing.

12-01-2002, 09:57 PM

"Pascal's Wager is an appeal to fear, just like The "Boogeyman" or similar things. It is not about true morality or belief, but about scaring someone into believing. "

My reply : Sorry, I disagree. I did study it properly when I was challenged to talk about it last time.

I believe Pascal's Wager is more toward logical approach on WHY people decide to believe in God and religion than rather choose not to dispite of the fact that God is something they cannot prove exist.
The answer is simply - It is better to believe in something rather than disbelieving it and find out the later that you had mistaken.

If you believe in God (despite of lack of proof) and later (when you die) that such belief was true, than you will win your wager.
If you don't believe in God and later find out you are wrong, you will lose.
If you believe in God and later found out that God doesn't exist and there is no life after death, you will not lose anything simply because you will be dead.

Thus, Having faith is about living, not about dying and things after death alone.

winstonjen · 12-01-2002, 10:02 PM

Belief in God based on Pascal's Wager is like someone putting a gun to your head and telling you to worship God. An action under such duress isn't a free choice. In other words, they believe because they fear Hell.

And I would win my wager if I went to Hell, because the Christian God is a mass genocidal maniac, who allows priests to rape altar boys. There is no way I want to spend eternity near that deity.

12-01-2002, 12:09 AM	#1
winstonjen Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 3,425	False Hope VS No Hope First, I think I should define what I consider to be false hope. It is a 'hope' in something that one KNOWS is false - it has no chance of occuring, for example, living forever without growing old. I do not consider winning the lottery to be a false hope (unless of course, one does not enter the lottery), since someone has to win, although the chances are very small. However, if someone never has hope in something, they are never disappointed, so I prefer no hope to an unrealistic, false hope.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-01-2002, 05:45 PM	#2
Gamaliel Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: FL Posts: 13	let's see if I understand...you have hope that not having hope will lead to no disappointment?

12-01-2002, 07:08 PM	#5
Seraphim Guest Posts: n/a	"First, I think I should define what I consider to be false hope. It is a 'hope' in something that one KNOWS is false - it has no chance of occuring, for example, living forever without growing old. I do not consider winning the lottery to be a false hope (unless of course, one does not enter the lottery), since someone has to win, although the chances are very small. However, if someone never has hope in something, they are never disappointed, so I prefer no hope to an unrealistic, false hope. " My reply : First of all, YOU consider it as false hope, thus for you, it is a false hope. Secondly, no one knows such thing as Life after death is false or not because no one comes back from death to prove it true or false. Thirdly, chance of winning a lottery has nothing to do having hope, it is simply act of luck and chance. Fourthly, Having any hope IS better than none. It will give you something to strife for rather than sitting like something waiting to decompose.

12-01-2002, 09:13 PM	#7
Seraphim Guest Posts: n/a	"Similar things. People hope they will win the lottery, just as they hope for other things, and they all have a probablity attatched." My reply : Wrong. People buy lottery tickets simply because there is a chance of winning, not prove that they will win. In this context, they rely on faith rather than chance alone. In Pascal's Wagers, it is more easier to put faith in something rather than say it doesn't exist and then live to regret it. "Wrong. If you find out later that the hope was never there to begin with, that you were merely deceiving yourself, then you may feel foolish for believing in a false promise" My reply : Wrong again. IF you find out later that there is no life after death, it will be simply "No one Cares" senario, simply because you will be death and no one will care if you will exist after your death. Having faith is about living with Hope, not about dying and going to heaven or hell. This is why it is better to have faith for it will help you to live and strife forward rather than fooling yourself into thinking that you know everything there is to know.

12-01-2002, 09:48 PM	#8
winstonjen Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 3,425	Pascal's Wager is an appeal to fear, just like The "Boogeyman" or similar things. It is not about true morality or belief, but about scaring someone into believing.

12-01-2002, 09:57 PM	#9
Seraphim Guest Posts: n/a	"Pascal's Wager is an appeal to fear, just like The "Boogeyman" or similar things. It is not about true morality or belief, but about scaring someone into believing. " My reply : Sorry, I disagree. I did study it properly when I was challenged to talk about it last time. I believe Pascal's Wager is more toward logical approach on WHY people decide to believe in God and religion than rather choose not to dispite of the fact that God is something they cannot prove exist. The answer is simply - It is better to believe in something rather than disbelieving it and find out the later that you had mistaken. If you believe in God (despite of lack of proof) and later (when you die) that such belief was true, than you will win your wager. If you don't believe in God and later find out you are wrong, you will lose. If you believe in God and later found out that God doesn't exist and there is no life after death, you will not lose anything simply because you will be dead. Thus, Having faith is about living, not about dying and things after death alone.

12-01-2002, 10:02 PM	#10
winstonjen Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 3,425	Belief in God based on Pascal's Wager is like someone putting a gun to your head and telling you to worship God. An action under such duress isn't a free choice. In other words, they believe because they fear Hell. And I would win my wager if I went to Hell, because the Christian God is a mass genocidal maniac, who allows priests to rape altar boys. There is no way I want to spend eternity near that deity.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.