Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I Choose Optimism

secularhumanism.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 222 posts

Re: I Choose Optimism

#121

Post by jason-phillips »

pessimizer wrote: post #116

People who choose what they believe have an entirely different understanding of the concept of belief than I do. Belief is something that is inflicted upon me by my environment, not something I choose based on the lifestyle I want or the people I want to associate with. Consumer belief? If I could choose my beliefs, I would choose to believe in an almost completely different set of things. All of my beliefs would be…

While I appreciate your perspective, the construct you described allows one to invalidate others' beliefs as being "wrong" because they don't adhere to the same reference point as yourself.

> All of my beliefs would be self-serving

This is not a true statement.

Why cannot one choose what one feels to be the most appropriate construct after careful inspection and introspection?

Re: I Choose Optimism

#122

Post by davisoneee »

neilwilson wrote: post #110
xmprt wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I follow your argument. I agree that debt is important for society to function however taking on debt that you don't invest into yourself is literally ruinous and not in a hypothetical way - tons of people's lives have been destroyed by getting into too much debt that they weren't able to pay back. > Yes. Because those you spent it with must have, or you wouldn't have been able to buy anything with it Th…

You must have a way of paying the debt back, or you wouldn't have been able to obtain the resource you did on a promise. The people doing the deal with you accepted your promise to repay. They don't do that for the fun of it. Debt is just a way of spending things without selling them first. You can either borrow against your car to spend it, or you can sell the car to spend it. Either way if you consume rather than b…

The financial crash would like to have a word with you.

Many people gave 'resources' to people who couldn't afford the debt, because with many layers of obfuscation, and perverse incentives for mortgage providers, they made it look like many more people could afford it than actually could.

Further...payday loans...loan sharks...people get money for things they can't afford, and can't realistically pay back, all the time.

Re: I Choose Optimism

#123

Post by curtainsforus »

eCa wrote: post #24
narcraft wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there hypothetically was a magical source of near infinite renewable energy that could be harnessed without negative side effects, would you be ok with 2600+ sqft homes and air conditioning? I sometimes get the impression that sustainability advocates/environmentalists are more anti-technolgy or anti-human than they are pro-nature and saying things like "there is no amount of renewable energy that will make [enjoy…

> "there is no amount of renewable energy that will make [enjoyable living standards] a sustainable way of living" doesn't make environmental reforms seem very palatable to me. Imagine that those environmentalists are correct. Doesn’t advocating for change, palatable or not, make them at their core more pro-human than most? They are, after all, trying to make the human species survive. > If it's substantially less th…

Build nuclear reactors.

Re: I Choose Optimism

#124

Post by bombcar »

jason-phillips wrote: post #121
pessimizer wrote: post #116

People who choose what they believe have an entirely different understanding of the concept of belief than I do. Belief is something that is inflicted upon me by my environment, not something I choose based on the lifestyle I want or the people I want to associate with. Consumer belief? If I could choose my beliefs, I would choose to believe in an almost completely different set of things. All of my beliefs would be…

While I appreciate your perspective, the construct you described allows one to invalidate others' beliefs as being "wrong" because they don't adhere to the same reference point as yourself. > All of my beliefs would be self-serving This is not a true statement. Why cannot one choose what one feels to be the most appropriate construct after careful inspection and introspection?

Once you realize you know way less about everything than you thought you did, and much of what is “known” is future conjectures with many parts, you realize you can select the optimistic view.

Re: I Choose Optimism

#125

Post by actionablefiber »

jason-phillips wrote: post #121
pessimizer wrote: post #116

People who choose what they believe have an entirely different understanding of the concept of belief than I do. Belief is something that is inflicted upon me by my environment, not something I choose based on the lifestyle I want or the people I want to associate with. Consumer belief? If I could choose my beliefs, I would choose to believe in an almost completely different set of things. All of my beliefs would be…

While I appreciate your perspective, the construct you described allows one to invalidate others' beliefs as being "wrong" because they don't adhere to the same reference point as yourself. > All of my beliefs would be self-serving This is not a true statement. Why cannot one choose what one feels to be the most appropriate construct after careful inspection and introspection?

I'm not sure I follow. I agree with what GP wrote. Their second paragraph is written in the first person. It's not a claim that everyone would do the self-serving thing. I would do the same as GP. I'd choose a set of beliefs that help me sleep at night and that make me a hoot at dinner parties instead of a Debbie Downer. I can't simply choose to do that, because those beliefs come from my experience with and observations of the world along with my deeply-held values.

Re: I Choose Optimism

#126

Post by orang2tang »

boxed wrote: post #65
ARandomerDude wrote: post #33

> For most of history, people thought: “The world is bad and, usually, it’s getting worse.” In other words, no longer did humans see themselves as mere pawns for the gods. What? Citation needed. A negative view of individual sin is certainly part of the Christian worldview, but gods are not, nor is an overall negative outlook. The whole point is that God loves his people enough to save them, the Church will expand, a…

> The whole point is that God loves his people enough to save them, the Church will expand, and Christ will return in glory. ish. It also promises that not even death is an escape, but that God will raise all the dead and judge an enormous majority to be literally thrown into a valley of fire. Reading the Bible I see more of a threat, than a promise.

But just as sin entered the world through one man, it was defeated through one man as well, Jesus Christ. There is no condemnation for anyone who believes in Jesus. So being saved from hell is quite simple, which is why it's called "the good news" or the gospel. And that's God's plan for humanity, and he's begging you to simply seek this man named Jesus.

God's wisdom is made that much more powerful in what some might call foolishness, just as he prescribed circumcision to the Jews. Abraham was required to put off his pride and simply believe God, that circumcision was a commandment from God for the Jews, and this faith in God is what saves. You don't think Abraham received a lot of judgement for prescribing circumcision?

Just as Christians receive judgement for prescribing the new circumcision, which is the circumcision of the heart to believe in Jesus Christ. It requires people to put off their pride, realize their very nature offends God (because he is perfect so anything less than perfect is an offense to him) and repent of their unbelief in the only begotten son of God, who knew our same struggles here on Earth and was killed without reason so that we could live. This belief covers our heads from wrath, because now when God looks at us he sees Christ.

So it's called the good news because it is. We can defeat death and enter into an unimaginable state of perfection. What I find with people who don't believe is that they're blinded by what they think Christianity is. So for you I would say you're blinded by the problem of hell. But if God tells us it is real, that is true and you have no say in the matter. Your belief or unbelief doesn't change the truth of the word of God. God is above politics, above human wisdom, and also above the people that claim his name.

I should note that I used to have the same opinion as you! No judgement!

Re: I Choose Optimism

#127

Post by [deleted] »

actionablefiber wrote: post #125
jason-phillips wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I appreciate your perspective, the construct you described allows one to invalidate others' beliefs as being "wrong" because they don't adhere to the same reference point as yourself. > All of my beliefs would be self-serving This is not a true statement. Why cannot one choose what one feels to be the most appropriate construct after careful inspection and introspection?

I'm not sure I follow. I agree with what GP wrote. Their second paragraph is written in the first person. It's not a claim that everyone would do the self-serving thing. I would do the same as GP. I'd choose a set of beliefs that help me sleep at night and that make me a hoot at dinner parties instead of a Debbie Downer. I can't simply choose to do that, because those beliefs come from my experience with and observat…

[deleted]

Re: I Choose Optimism

#129

Post by wizofaus »

worldshit wrote: post #114
mrandish wrote: post #4

It's easy (and popular) to be a pessimist but when I look at objective global data on decade+ time scales, the only rational conclusion is that things are generally getting better for more people in more places than ever before (data like global poverty, infant mortality, literacy, etc). That doesn't mean we don't still have a ways to go and it certainly doesn't mean that things aren't terrible for some people in som…

it's only gotten better if you look at food access, but food access != happiness; depression is rampant because we are being forced to live against our nature. I assure you, I hate being alive in the current world, even if my stomach is full. Moreover even that is most likely only temporary, we are living inside a consumerist bubble that will soon burst (growing social unrest, ravaging pollution, probably a major war…

Not entirely true, e.g. deaths from natural disasters have been on a steady decline over many decades despite such disasters becoming more common and more destructive. In general our ability to continue improving human life expectancy has seemingly defied the odds - even in 2022 despite covid and everything else, average life expectancy is expected to improve on 2021 in most countries (including the good ol' U S of A). It does feel a bit like quantity over quality though.

Re: I Choose Optimism

#130

Post by jason-phillips »

actionablefiber wrote: post #125
jason-phillips wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I appreciate your perspective, the construct you described allows one to invalidate others' beliefs as being "wrong" because they don't adhere to the same reference point as yourself. > All of my beliefs would be self-serving This is not a true statement. Why cannot one choose what one feels to be the most appropriate construct after careful inspection and introspection?

I'm not sure I follow. I agree with what GP wrote. Their second paragraph is written in the first person. It's not a claim that everyone would do the self-serving thing. I would do the same as GP. I'd choose a set of beliefs that help me sleep at night and that make me a hoot at dinner parties instead of a Debbie Downer. I can't simply choose to do that, because those beliefs come from my experience with and observat…

> I can't simply choose to do that, because...

To delve a little deeper, this statement shows that it's still a _choice_, even though the choice is apparently a refutation of choice, which is interesting. Asserting that this construct simply _is_, where choice isn't there or doesn't exist, doesn't pass the smell test.

The fact that one may choose to live a life only for oneself were one left to one's own devices is simply commentary about that individual. But again, one may choose not to do that.

Post reply on HN