Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bonduca · 07-16-2002, 04:17 PM

Quote:

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?

Actually, you and I would be in complete agreement. So, no.

Quote:

You are welcome to keep using this term,

Why, thank you.

Quote:

I simply consider it insulting and unecessary so I wonder why you continue to use it?

It is your constitutionally protected right to have your own opinion about any title I give any fictional character from my childhood. Land of the free, home of the brave, and so on.

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]

Eudaimonist · 07-16-2002, 04:20 PM

Quote:

luvluv wrote:
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.

None of which in any way damages my point. Didn't you read my second sentence? I didn't say that hope requires a belief in the inevitability of a positive outcome -- merely its possibility. I acknowledge that there are irrational people that create problems. However, there are also rational people that solve problems. It is the existence of rational people that gives me good cause for hope.

This debate is silly. I'm an atheist, and I do have hope. Why are we even debating the issue?

luvluv · 07-16-2002, 04:20 PM

That didn't exactly answer the question.

daemon · 07-16-2002, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
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?

Okay, let's take a look at this scenario in depth. A person looks at their situation, and could come up with a myriad of positions about the eventual outcome:
1) The incredibly optimistic stance: I will survive this disease. Not an entirely rational desire, but an understandable one.
2) The hopeless stance: I won't survive this disease. This stance is no more rational than the first one. The odds state there is a chance of survival. Ignoring that is not rational.
3) The rational stance: I have a chance of surviving this disease. The fact is that this is a hopeful stance, and it is factually accurate. Yet you insist it is irrational. Why?

Why is (2) more rational than (3)?

bonduca · 07-16-2002, 04:26 PM

It appears that because luvluv thinks things hopeless without some sort of god hovering about doing little of any real benefit, he feels the rest of us must also see things this way.

luvluv · 07-16-2002, 04:29 PM

Because the odds are you won't survive the disease. And the more accurate restatement of 3 would be "I have a very slight chance of surviving."

But you are essentially restating my point: believe this not because logic dictates it but because it is useful.

luvluv · 07-16-2002, 04:30 PM

Nonsense, cuz. I am asking why hope and God are not equally illogical propositions.

Eudaimonist · 07-16-2002, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bonduca:
It appears that because luvluv thinks things hopeless without some sort of god hovering about doing little of any real benefit, he feels the rest of us must also see things this way.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, bonduca. He thinks hope requires belief of the likelihood (>50% chance) of a positive outcome, and not its possibility. I can't relate to his notion of hope.

daemon · 07-16-2002, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
Because the odds are you won't survive the disease. And the more accurate restatement of 3 would be "I have a very slight chance of surviving."

Fine. That's still more hopeful than 2. So why isn't stance 2 more logical, since hope can't be logical?

I just noted that you appear to be stating that 2 actually is more logical than 3. Given that you appear to believe that contradicting fact is rational, I can't help but believe you to be a madman.

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: daemon ]

luvluv · 07-16-2002, 04:38 PM

The only statement consistent with logic a person in that position could say is: "It is unlikely that I will survive this disease." If a person asked them what the chances were of them surviving, a person whose life is dedicated to logic could only say "Not very good." Any other answer would be illogical.

Euda, I asked a direct question.

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

07-16-2002, 04:20 PM	#83
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	That didn't exactly answer the question.

07-16-2002, 04:26 PM	#85
bonduca Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: . Posts: 1,653	It appears that because luvluv thinks things hopeless without some sort of god hovering about doing little of any real benefit, he feels the rest of us must also see things this way.

07-16-2002, 04:29 PM	#86
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Because the odds are you won't survive the disease. And the more accurate restatement of 3 would be "I have a very slight chance of surviving." But you are essentially restating my point: believe this not because logic dictates it but because it is useful.

07-16-2002, 04:30 PM	#87
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Nonsense, cuz. I am asking why hope and God are not equally illogical propositions.

07-16-2002, 04:38 PM	#90
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	The only statement consistent with logic a person in that position could say is: "It is unlikely that I will survive this disease." If a person asked them what the chances were of them surviving, a person whose life is dedicated to logic could only say "Not very good." Any other answer would be illogical. Euda, I asked a direct question.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.