Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (77986)	10/21/2003 12:40:21 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

But if you think you've found THE answer, that would be illogical. If you want to believe your extreme, that's fine, but it's illogical to assert that you know it to be true. That's equally true of ANYTHING you think you know. You don't know that swimming is good for you, but you keep doing it anyhow, because on the basis of your current application of your rationality to your perception it is what you believe to be true. We always have to act on that basis. What agnostics do is apply that principle to the mundane things of life, but refuse to apply it to the important things of life. Which is irrational.

To: Lane3 who wrote (77986)	10/21/2003 4:07:13 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 82486

ROFl Agnsoticism is the choice to wait for data. When the data set is limited, you CAN make a choice without all the facts, but it is more rational to wait, if you think that there is no imperative to make a choice on limited data. While there ARE people who not only choose to believe on limited data, but also choose to believe they must choose to believe because it is imperative, they have made two decisions based on limited data- 1. that they MUST make a choice, and 2. that there choice, from the many Gods to chose from, is the correct one. Hard to call that two step rational. It is the choice to believe, and belief is not rational- that is why it is usually seen as a sort of "test" in most religions. If it were logical, and empirical, everyone religious (or maybe everyone above a certain IQ) would come to the same conclusion, but, of course, they don't.