TESTING the results of two different ways of thinking (page 10)

tetrapod.sapien

LT,

Unless it has some kind of substance no-one in their right mind is going to cede authority to such a source, surely?
What's wrong with an individual having their own experience, even if subjective and un-provable to another human-being? Why do we all have to have the same experiences to agree? Can't we extrapolate? Why does that HAVE to be based outwith the bounds of the rational?

this is exactly why there are atheists debating with the worldview you take. you have to appreciate that an atheist sees the bible and religion as one of the largest memetic rip offs in the history of the human world. and yet:

Why do we all have to have the same experiences to agree? Can't we extrapolate?

is exactly the attitude that got us the big rip-off in the first place.

TS

LittleToe

Tetra:But he did appear to my neighbour...

I've already told you that it's subjective. In your case you'd seek medical attention, and they'd probably tell you there was nothing wrong with you. Of course I can't say that it wouldn't snap your mind, given that you resist the idea so strongly. Maybe he takes pity on you, and doesn't appear for the sake of your mental health

4. my only other option is to assume he is simply being polite to his friend, not that he actually thinks he CANNOT be wrong.

Is that REALLY the only other option? Gawd you fundamentalist-rationalists are black and white...

you are not independently verifying the existence of jesus, and it can't be because he doesn't want to be verified. he loves us, and wants us all to be saved, doesn't he?

Sorry, but you're making assumptions here. You're assuming that he wants to be verified, that he loves everyone (including those that don't love him), that he wants everyone to be saved, and that he cares for furry aquatic creatures. Upon what do you base those statements? What "facts" do you have at your disposal?

The Deist would tell you that He doesn't give a shyte.

Why do we all have to have the same experiences to agree? Can't we extrapolate?
is exactly the attitude that got us the big rip-off in the first place.

On the contrary, it brought us the "enlightenment", as people extrapolated and argued about their thoughts. They genuinely examined other perspectives, attempting to put themselves in the shoes of others.

If the word "reasoning" doesn't include the ability to be "reasonable", where does that leave us?

tetrapod.sapien

The Deist would tell you that He doesn't give a shyte.

what is that supposed to mean? i know what deists believe. are you a deist and a xian? how does that work? fascinating! i would hope that jesus has love & mercy for those who do not love him back (forgive them father, for they know not what they do). and that he wants to be known. i thought you said you read the bible everyday?

so what about my questions regarding what jesus says about the questions i raised earlier? it's okay if you do not want to talk about them, but at least let me know so.

and i have one further question (feel free to call me out on my atheism if you feel like having some fun with me):

i assume that it is safe to assume that if jesus had not appeared to you, but mohamed or zeus had instead, that you would not be a xian? please advise.

Gawd you fundamentalist-rationalists are black and white...

i do get a little godmatic sometimes, eh?

Of course I can't say that it wouldn't snap your mind, given that you resist the idea so strongly

i can say that it would probably snap my mind, yes. but, i'm a quick learner, so i guess i'd figure something out.

TS

Narkissos

This is just to say that I found Pole's epistemological comments very helpful here.

The question is not whether rational or mystical thinking is valid but where each one of them is. Extrapolation is hazardous both ways.

(Btw I agree that Thales is a much better eponym for the "rational" side -- actually as opposed to mythology rather than mysticism).

tetrapod.sapien

But he did appear to my neighbour...

LT,

did you and your neighbor see him together? or was there any unique information passed between the respective sessions to verify you were both talking to the same guy? would you even be willing to run a test like this?

or am i missing something here? (smart-aleky remarks aside, lol)

TS

BrendaCloutier

Damn, when I started reading this thread I thought it would answer everything.

Oh Ballistic, this thread does answer Everything! That the final decision on God, gods, Athiesm, Agnosticism, Evolution (or Creation for that matter) and Mysticism/Rational reality are all unprovable unless one has an open mind and are willing to make a leap of "faith" in order to believe the evidence or statements presented. No matter how "scientific" or "rational" the evidence and statements are.

ballistic

Brenda,

personally, I'm on the one hand impressed by what people have to say, and the firmness of their convictions, yet on the other hand wonder how they can live life thinking they have all the answers, my life would be nothing if it wan't a search, a search for answers. Not just answers to the grand unified theory, but also mysticism and rational thinking but the search for human meaning. Yes, it might sound romantic, but what is the point in cold logic if that's all the earth is here for?

** of the "more we know, the more we realise we don't know" class **

tetrapod.sapien

hey brenda,

atheism, yes. i agree. it is impossible to know conclusively. all we have are probablities and logic. most atheists have a lack of belief. but some make the jump and assert that there is no god.

but, with regards evolution, i don't understand how the evidence for the theory requires a leap of faith? the evidence all points in a single direction regarding biodiversity, so far. where would the leap of faith be?

cheers,

TS

tetrapod.sapien

Yes, it might sound romantic, but what is the point in cold logic if that's all the earth is here for?

there is a possibility that you or i may not have a say in this at all, ballistic. if it is cold and uncaring, then it is cold and uncaring. i would prefer that it were not. but everywhere i have looked so far, i see the universes indifference to our survival. we survive in spite of the universe, which is ironic since the universe is what provided us with the possibility of life in the first place.

:)

TS

ballistic

Yes, too true TS, I have let cold nature hold me in it's grasp. Just me sitting in a storm on a mountain at night knowing I would die if nature let me. It's a cold universe we live in, and we are so fragile.

I guess that's why I'm an enviromentalist.

My coment was rather about why we are here in the first place. I guess I'm a firm believer in Victor Frankel's "Search For Meaning"

TESTING the results of two different ways of thinking

Share this