Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Eudaimonist · 07-16-2002, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
Euda, I asked a direct question.

Please repeat the question.

Icarus · 07-16-2002, 04:43 PM

luvluv,

Why do you think my remarks are addressed individually to you or something in particular you said? It is a blanket statement providing commentary on the thrust of this thread itself, a critique of why the original question is of any interest at all.

Who you are is far more than the sum of your actions, that is unless I am mistaken in supposing that you are not a proponent of behavioralism. Intentions, motivations, beliefs, dreams, emotions, interests, reservations, regrets--not a single one of these is necessarily made evident by my current action, yet they comprise a great deal of my personality and what makes me lovable. I doubt many would love me for my typing skills or, more pertinently, for exhibiting them at this moment. Some might respect me for my generosity, though by that alone they would never know me. Many would admire me if I ran into a burning building to save someone else's child, but they could not love me for it. It is only when one learns what is inside, beyond the apparent, that one knows another intimately enough to love them.

I stand by what I said. One cannot love God based on circumstance. One must go further inside and experience God intimately and know and feel who he is in order to love him. To elevate God's alleged behavior as a compelling reason to either love God or choose theism rapes the meaning of love and leaves the remnants a hollow version of themselves. You can't judge a book by its cover, isn't that what they say?

Icarus

daemon · 07-16-2002, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
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.

Yet the statement "it is possible that I will survive this disease" is factually 100% true. Why is this statement "illogical?"

By the way, this sounds exactly like the hogwash I was spouting about 3 months before I went agnostic.

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

luvluv · 07-16-2002, 04:46 PM

I'm sorry, you answered it, I skipped your post. The question was why I should believe that people will solve more problems than they will create. We both admit that both progress and regress is possible, but there are no logical grounds as to why I should consider one option or the other more likely.

If I were to assign positive and negative outcomes a probablity based on past experience, the only logical conclusion would be to hold no position as to what the future will bring.

luvluv · 07-16-2002, 04:48 PM

daemon, you are ignoring the role of probability, which is avoiding evidence. We assign likliehoods to the possibility of outcomes in our life. The likliehood we would have to rely on concerning our survival would indicate it is overwhelmingly probable that the person would not survive. You can ignore the evidence of probability, but that would make you hopeful because it would make you less logical.

David Mathews · 07-16-2002, 04:51 PM

Hello Everyone,

I think it safe to say:

1. Atheism is considered beneficial by atheists.

2. Theism is considered beneficial by theists.

I also think it safe to say:

3. Atheists cannot evaluate or determine how much better/worse their life would have been if they had been a theists.

4. Theists cannot evaluate or determine how much better/worse their life would have been if they have been atheists.

I believe the following principles are also true:

5. Theists and atheists both make mistakes, commit sins and do things which are harmful to themselves and others.

6. Theists and atheists all possess a mixture of virtues and vices. No one in either group is either perfectly good or absolutely evil.

7. Most of the decisions that theists/atheists make in the course of their life are not predicated upon their belief/non-belief in God.

8. Most of the negative opinions that theists may have of atheists, and atheists may have of theists, are based upon prejudice, bigotry and ignorance.

9. Theists who praise their own virtues are as foolish as atheists who praise their own virtues.

10. Theists and atheists must live at peace in the same society and this can only occur if both groups display tolerance towards each other.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

luvluv · 07-16-2002, 04:53 PM

Not to hog the post, but I do think hope embodies something more than saying a postive outcome is possible. We are perhaps describing two different forms of hope, which could also be a good debate. The hope that Christians is offered is not the hope that things could possibly be all right, it is the belief that things will be all right in the end. At most, an atheist can say it is possible for things to be all right.

Hope is the expectation of good results, not the possibility of good results. As I Christian, I expect everything in my life to work out for my good. At least that is what constitutes the Christian or religious notion of hope.

Though, again, I would say that unless the probability selects for the thing hoped for, a logical person would have no reason for expecting an outcome beneficial to himself. If the probability suggested that he should die, he would have to expect to die.

So even if an atheist could have hope it would be a less effective hope and less proactive hope than that of the theist or the specifically Christian. My hope is totally unaffected by odds. If I had that disease, and if I believed that it was God's will for me to survive, I would fully expect to survive. Period. I would argue that people in deprived circumstances need this kind of hope, which atheism cannot offer.

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

luvluv · 07-16-2002, 04:55 PM

Amen, Dave Matthews.

daemon · 07-16-2002, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
daemon, you are ignoring the role of probability, which is avoiding evidence.

No, the role of possibility is quite explicitly acknowledged in that statement. Try looking up "chance" in the dictionary.

Quote:

We assign likliehoods to the possibility of outcomes in our life. The likliehood we would have to rely on concerning our survival would indicate it is overwhelmingly probable that the person would not survive. You can ignore the evidence of probability, but that would make you hopeful because it would make you less logical.

You still have yet to address my argument. Let me make it very clear to you:
1 implies "I believe I have a 100% chance of survival." It is factually in error. It is not a reasonable belief.
2 implies "I believe I have a 0% chance of survival." It is also factually in error. It is not a reasonable belief.
3 implies "I believe I have a chance of survival." It is factually accurate, even if it does ignore other information, but all statements will.

Belief 2 is false and hopeless. Belief 3 is true and hopeful. Yet you insist that 2 is more logical than 3. If you think provably false beliefs are rational, I cannot see how any further rational discussion can be had. Either explain how statement 2 is true and 3 false, or please discontinue your logically disproven assertion that hope is inherently illogical.

Anunnaki · 07-16-2002, 05:06 PM

Dave Mathews forgot number 11.

11.)Atheists are ignorant that they are slaves of Satan. (this is according to Daves website).

07-16-2002, 04:53 PM	#97
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Not to hog the post, but I do think hope embodies something more than saying a postive outcome is possible. We are perhaps describing two different forms of hope, which could also be a good debate. The hope that Christians is offered is not the hope that things could possibly be all right, it is the belief that things will be all right in the end. At most, an atheist can say it is possible for things to be all right. Hope is the expectation of good results, not the possibility of good results. As I Christian, I expect everything in my life to work out for my good. At least that is what constitutes the Christian or religious notion of hope. Though, again, I would say that unless the probability selects for the thing hoped for, a logical person would have no reason for expecting an outcome beneficial to himself. If the probability suggested that he should die, he would have to expect to die. So even if an atheist could have hope it would be a less effective hope and less proactive hope than that of the theist or the specifically Christian. My hope is totally unaffected by odds. If I had that disease, and if I believed that it was God's will for me to survive, I would fully expect to survive. Period. I would argue that people in deprived circumstances need this kind of hope, which atheism cannot offer. [ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

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

07-16-2002, 04:43 PM	#92
Icarus Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Arlington, TX Posts: 28	luvluv, Why do you think my remarks are addressed individually to you or something in particular you said? It is a blanket statement providing commentary on the thrust of this thread itself, a critique of why the original question is of any interest at all. Who you are is far more than the sum of your actions, that is unless I am mistaken in supposing that you are not a proponent of behavioralism. Intentions, motivations, beliefs, dreams, emotions, interests, reservations, regrets--not a single one of these is necessarily made evident by my current action, yet they comprise a great deal of my personality and what makes me lovable. I doubt many would love me for my typing skills or, more pertinently, for exhibiting them at this moment. Some might respect me for my generosity, though by that alone they would never know me. Many would admire me if I ran into a burning building to save someone else's child, but they could not love me for it. It is only when one learns what is inside, beyond the apparent, that one knows another intimately enough to love them. I stand by what I said. One cannot love God based on circumstance. One must go further inside and experience God intimately and know and feel who he is in order to love him. To elevate God's alleged behavior as a compelling reason to either love God or choose theism rapes the meaning of love and leaves the remnants a hollow version of themselves. You can't judge a book by its cover, isn't that what they say? Icarus

07-16-2002, 04:46 PM	#94
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	I'm sorry, you answered it, I skipped your post. The question was why I should believe that people will solve more problems than they will create. We both admit that both progress and regress is possible, but there are no logical grounds as to why I should consider one option or the other more likely. If I were to assign positive and negative outcomes a probablity based on past experience, the only logical conclusion would be to hold no position as to what the future will bring.

07-16-2002, 04:48 PM	#95
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	daemon, you are ignoring the role of probability, which is avoiding evidence. We assign likliehoods to the possibility of outcomes in our life. The likliehood we would have to rely on concerning our survival would indicate it is overwhelmingly probable that the person would not survive. You can ignore the evidence of probability, but that would make you hopeful because it would make you less logical.

07-16-2002, 04:51 PM	#96
David Mathews Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: st. petersburg Posts: 622	Hello Everyone, I think it safe to say: 1. Atheism is considered beneficial by atheists. 2. Theism is considered beneficial by theists. I also think it safe to say: 3. Atheists cannot evaluate or determine how much better/worse their life would have been if they had been a theists. 4. Theists cannot evaluate or determine how much better/worse their life would have been if they have been atheists. I believe the following principles are also true: 5. Theists and atheists both make mistakes, commit sins and do things which are harmful to themselves and others. 6. Theists and atheists all possess a mixture of virtues and vices. No one in either group is either perfectly good or absolutely evil. 7. Most of the decisions that theists/atheists make in the course of their life are not predicated upon their belief/non-belief in God. 8. Most of the negative opinions that theists may have of atheists, and atheists may have of theists, are based upon prejudice, bigotry and ignorance. 9. Theists who praise their own virtues are as foolish as atheists who praise their own virtues. 10. Theists and atheists must live at peace in the same society and this can only occur if both groups display tolerance towards each other. Sincerely, David Mathews

07-16-2002, 04:55 PM	#98
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Amen, Dave Matthews.

07-16-2002, 05:06 PM	#100
Anunnaki Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: I`ve left and gone away Posts: 699	Dave Mathews forgot number 11. 11.)Atheists are ignorant that they are slaves of Satan. (this is according to Daves website).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.