TESTING the results of two different ways of thinking (page 3)

LittleToe

Zen:
For a change I find myself agreeing with you (but don't let it go to your head ).

Aren't most things subjective? (unless you go to the extreme of destruction testing).

tetrapod.sapien

Terry can you use "THE BALONEY KIT" in this testing.

parsimony rarely, if ever, falls on the side of mystical or magical explanations. just by virtue of the fact that rational explanation has to be falsifiable, makes it more economic and trustowrthy in determining the most likely reality.

TS

LittleToe

..and the "most likely" isn't always the correct answer.

LT, of the "I'm not impressed by statistics" class

DanTheMan

Is life rational? Does it make any sense, when you come down to it? Rationalism and logic really have no *final* ends, only a Mr. Spock method of dealing with the myriad problems of life which in itself may not be a bad way to go. But mysticism always has, and always will have one element in its makeup that makes it the clear winner over rationalism: a sense of an ultimate reality that is beyond words and logic. And of course you may counter that by stating that to believe in an "ultimate reality beyond words" is useless mystical speculation, but my answer to that would be, so what? What's your reason for living? I guarantee that *somewhere* in your answer to that, there is a mystical element.

tetrapod.sapien

LT,

absolutely. i could be wrong regarding a lack of belief in a god, of whatever sort. however, with regards building one's life around a worldview that has no supporting evidence, and is unfalsifiable, i'll take the parsimonious lack of belief route and live my life accordingly.

sincerely,

TS

LittleToe

Tetra:
Again you astound me at your poor memory. Haven't I told you time and time again that the "facts" and "evidence" that I was presented with convinced me? It might not be something I can put in a matchbox and show YOU, but neither are my beliefs based on a vaccum.

So, meanwhile I take it that you're going to use the rationalist mindset to prove the rationalist mindset must be correct. Have I read you right?

tetrapod.sapien

What's your reason for living? I guarantee that *somewhere* in your answer to that, there is a mystical element.

Dan,

interesting!

personally, my reason for living is to pass my genome on. afterall, i am but an expression of gene survival. although, i have no conscious intention to pass my genes on, as i have intellectually hijacked the biological force of life: genetic survival via computation. so in the end, my life is actually purposless, biologically, since i fly in the face of evolution by natural selection. it's fine though, being a brief anomaly in time. all the more reason to enjoy life.

perhaps this is one of the only explanations that lack a mystical element. of course i could have missed it.

cheers,

TS

LittleToe

So let me get this right - you are the culmination of thousands of years of evolution, finally able to free yourself from the primitive mystical thinking ability of your predecessors, and it's brought you to the point of self-selecting your genome for destruction.

There IS a God, and He's laughing at you...

DanTheMan

ts, if that's what gets ya out of bed in the morning, then more power to ya! lol

tetrapod.sapien

Tetra:

Again you astound me at your poor memory. Haven't I told you time and time again that the "facts" and "evidence" that I was presented with convinced me? It might not be something I can put in a matchbox and show YOU, but neither are my beliefs based on a vaccum.
So, meanwhile I take it that you're going to use the rationalist mindset to prove the rationalist mindset must be correct. Have I read you right?

LT,

i have not forgotten what you explained to me at all. actually, i had comented on it, and then back spaced it all, as i have no real problem with your personal explanation. it's the hypocrites you seem to stand up for in debates that i take exception to.

i must say, you're a curious specimen. i realize that you have a personal, and very real relationship with jesus. and i suppose, in all fairness, the irony of the fact that you cannot falsify the "evidence", like the prophets of old, is surely not lost on you. the difference, i wonder, between you and i, must be that i would have to be able to falsify this "evidence" independently, and you just went with the flow?

i have admited i could be wrong. can you do the same? i am surprised that you do not recall me saying on more than a single occasion that i respect someone like you who says they had a certain experience, but refuse to try and prove the subjective. or perhaps you missed those threads? or it has been too long since i said such. well, let it be said again.

and you have read me wrong. my entire worldview is based on probability. this may not impress someone like you who has absolute personal truth handed to them in person by a deity, but sorry, i can't do any better than that. and i dare say that the people you stick up for can do much better themselves.

TS

TESTING the results of two different ways of thinking

Share this