Is belief in the unseen irrational?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-03-2016, 09:25 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(23-03-2016 09:20 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Corrected on my failure to understand?
Are you correcting a question?

I am correcting your misunderstanding of the term "validity" and its relationship to logic as a field.

Or, rather, I am supplying the correct definition and pointing out that this means the relationship between thee two is not circular. There isn't much actual correcting going on, because that would require you to be capable of learning - and, as you are so brilliantly demonstrating through these constant irrelevancies, you really, really aren't.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
23-03-2016, 09:39 PM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2016 10:41 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(23-03-2016 09:25 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 09:20 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Corrected on my failure to understand?
Are you correcting a question?

I am correcting your misunderstanding of the term "validity" and its relationship to logic as a field.

Or, rather, I am supplying the correct definition and pointing out that this means the relationship between thee two is not circular. There isn't much actual correcting going on, because that would require you to be capable of learning - and, as you are so brilliantly demonstrating through these constant irrelevancies, you really, really aren't.
But I said:
"I hate it when my interpretation puts me down this circular road. Can anyone help?"
It means I don't understand the circular logic of "rational, logic & validity"

Let me explain what is happening:

I am saying
"I don't understand something and asking for help"
And you are replying with:
"No, you don't understand........"

There is no need for you to object to me saying "I don't understand something" when I already said "I don't understand something". What kind of teacher/corrector/human being does that?

Now concerning your "supplying what you think is the correct definition" point:
Maybe I never said this before but:
I am not asking you or anyone else here to point me in the direction of the evidence and tell me look (not that it isn't a good thing).
I am simply asking you and anyone else here to "explain" to me where did my interpretation go wrong based on the logic I supplied..

Each time you and everyone else here post a link and say "look" with a short answer I am most likely going to respond with "please explain" and you are going to get frustrated because all you are willing to do is "point and say look" with a short answer.

This is what is happening now:
Wether I actually look or not, once I say I don't understand you automatically assume I have ignored your evidence on the grounds that I didn't get the same conclusion as you or your peers. Chances are, I probably might understand it a bit more after looking but without your confirmation via some form of explanation I will very rarely exclaim "I understand" because I have no idea what you sent me looking for in the first place. In fact there are instances I exclaimed "I understand", only to be told I don't understand in the end. Is it that you have the right answer but make a game out of having me look for it instead of explaining it?
You fail to recognize the possibility that not everyone looking at the information will always come away with the same understanding as you.
The problem lies when I try to explain my interpretation of the evidence provided many of you absolutely refuse to correct any misinterpretations I made and just point back to the unexplained (by yourself) evidence as the only way I should proceed to find the answer.
I will then repeat the same cycle of seeking the answer as I did before without any changes in the short answer (point & say look) approach you gave me
The cycle repeats itself like the methods used to find the proverbial needle in a hay stack when you supposedly have the ability to guide my hand to find the needle by use of an explanation.
We are going to end up in an eternal struggle to correct me until I accidentally come across the answer in the "point & say look" short answer evidence you provided or someone actually takes the time to explain where my logic went wrong. People like ClydeeLee, Paleophyte, Chas, etc. actually take the time and get results in the form of my admittance to flawed logic and thus I admittedly get corrected and understanding is thereby achieved.
The problem is most of you prioritize the "point & say look" short answer method of correction over the "explanatory" method of correction.
In some cases many of you don't even know the difference between giving an answer and properly explaining an answer. When I say "can you explain", they reply "but we already did", referring to the "point & say look" short answer method that was given earlier.

What do you expect is going to happen if this keeps up? An eternity of back & forth over one seemingly insignificant point is going to be the outcome almost every time.

So please for the sake of "understanding" if nothing else, "properly explain your answers".

Just for the fun of it:
10 points for the next person to post a link and say look without a proper explanation. It's probably going to happen anyway so I'm just going to make a game of it from now on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2016, 09:42 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(23-03-2016 09:39 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Let me explain what is happening:

I am saying
"I don't understand something and asking for help"
And you are replying with:
"No, you don't understand........"

...and telling you where you went wrong.

Though, as it is becoming increasingly obvious that your memory for posts is about on par with that of a goldfish, this is apparently not sinking in.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
23-03-2016, 10:05 PM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2016 10:40 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(23-03-2016 09:42 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 09:39 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Let me explain what is happening:

I am saying
"I don't understand something and asking for help"
And you are replying with:
"No, you don't understand........"

...and telling you where you went wrong.

Though, as it is becoming increasingly obvious that your memory for posts is about on par with that of a goldfish, this is apparently not sinking in.
I wish you were telling me where I went wrong, but that isn't what you are doing. You are doing a "point & say look" short answer approach as a subsitute for properly explaining the answer.

Each time you and everyone else here post a link and say "look" with a short answer I am most likely going to respond with "please explain" and you are going to get frustrated because all you are willing to do is "point and say look" with a short answer.

This is what is happening now:
Wether I actually look or not, once I say I don't understand you automatically assume I have ignored your evidence on the grounds that I didn't get the same conclusion as you or your peers. Chances are, I probably might understand it a bit more after looking but without your confirmation via some form of explanation I will very rarely exclaim "I understand" because I have no idea what you sent me looking for in the first place. In fact there are instances I exclaimed "I understand", only to be told I don't understand in the end. Is it that you have the right answer but make a game out of having me look for it instead of explaining it?
You fail to recognize the possibility that not everyone looking at the information will always come away with the same understanding as you.
The problem lies when I try to explain my interpretation of the evidence provided many of you absolutely refuse to correct any misinterpretations I made and just point back to the unexplained (by yourself) evidence as the only way I should proceed to find the answer.
I will then repeat the same cycle of seeking the answer as I did before without any changes in the short answer (point & say look) approach you gave me
The cycle repeats itself like the methods used to find the proverbial needle in a hay stack when you supposedly have the ability to guide my hand to find the needle by use of an explanation.
We are going to end up in an eternal struggle to correct me until I accidentally come across the answer in the "point & say look" short answer evidence you provided or someone actually takes the time to explain where my logic went wrong. People like ClydeeLee, Paleophyte, Chas, etc. actually take the time and get results in the form of my admittance to flawed logic and thus I admittedly get corrected and understanding is thereby achieved.
The problem is most of you prioritize the "point & say look" short answer method of correction over the "explanatory" method of correction.
In some cases many of you don't even know the difference between giving an answer and properly explaining an answer. When I say "can you explain", they reply "but we already did", referring to the "point & say look" short answer method that was given earlier.

What do you expect is going to happen if this keeps up? An eternity of back & forth over one seemingly insignificant point is going to be the outcome almost every time.

So please for the sake of "understanding" if nothing else, "properly explain your answers".

Just for the fun of it:
10 points for the next person to post a link and say look without a proper explanation. It's probably going to happen anyway so I'm just going to make a game of it from now on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2016, 11:55 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(23-03-2016 10:05 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 09:42 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  ...and telling you where you went wrong.

Though, as it is becoming increasingly obvious that your memory for posts is about on par with that of a goldfish, this is apparently not sinking in.
I wish you were telling me where I went wrong, but that isn't what you are doing. You are doing a "point & say look" short answer approach as a subsitute for properly explaining the answer.

Each time you and everyone else here post a link and say "look" with a short answer I am most likely going to respond with "please explain" and you are going to get frustrated because all you are willing to do is "point and say look" with a short answer.

This is what is happening now:
Wether I actually look or not, once I say I don't understand you automatically assume I have ignored your evidence on the grounds that I didn't get the same conclusion as you or your peers. Chances are, I probably might understand it a bit more after looking but without your confirmation via some form of explanation I will very rarely exclaim "I understand" because I have no idea what you sent me looking for in the first place. In fact there are instances I exclaimed "I understand", only to be told I don't understand in the end. Is it that you have the right answer but make a game out of having me look for it instead of explaining it?
You fail to recognize the possibility that not everyone looking at the information will always come away with the same understanding as you.
The problem lies when I try to explain my interpretation of the evidence provided many of you absolutely refuse to correct any misinterpretations I made and just point back to the unexplained (by yourself) evidence as the only way I should proceed to find the answer.
I will then repeat the same cycle of seeking the answer as I did before without any changes in the short answer (point & say look) approach you gave me
The cycle repeats itself like the methods used to find the proverbial needle in a hay stack when you supposedly have the ability to guide my hand to find the needle by use of an explanation.
We are going to end up in an eternal struggle to correct me until I accidentally come across the answer in the "point & say look" short answer evidence you provided or someone actually takes the time to explain where my logic went wrong. People like ClydeeLee, Paleophyte, Chas, etc. actually take the time and get results in the form of my admittance to flawed logic and thus I admittedly get corrected and understanding is thereby achieved.
The problem is most of you prioritize the "point & say look" short answer method of correction over the "explanatory" method of correction.
In some cases many of you don't even know the difference between giving an answer and properly explaining an answer. When I say "can you explain", they reply "but we already did", referring to the "point & say look" short answer method that was given earlier.

What do you expect is going to happen if this keeps up? An eternity of back & forth over one seemingly insignificant point is going to be the outcome almost every time.

So please for the sake of "understanding" if nothing else, "properly explain your answers".

Just for the fun of it:
10 points for the next person to post a link and say look without a proper explanation. It's probably going to happen anyway so I'm just going to make a game of it from now on.

A fucking toddler requires less hand holding than this guy. Lots of us have gone point by point, explaining multiple angles and facets, given expansive and detailed explanations of where he goes wrong or does wrong in other threads.......and then he ignores it and pretends it never happened and asks the same question.

I think your approach Unbeliever is the smart one, why waste your time spoon feeding the wanker if he's just gonna spit it out and ask for more.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 12:02 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
I think I need another margarita to keep up with this thread Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like jennybee's post
24-03-2016, 12:58 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
After 26 pages of mind-numbing drivel, of the sort that noone has seen ever since the universe was created (= 6 days ago), i have now decided to give the Dunning Kruger effect a new name: Agnostic Shane effect.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
24-03-2016, 01:11 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(23-03-2016 11:55 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 10:05 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I wish you were telling me where I went wrong, but that isn't what you are doing. You are doing a "point & say look" short answer approach as a subsitute for properly explaining the answer.

Each time you and everyone else here post a link and say "look" with a short answer I am most likely going to respond with "please explain" and you are going to get frustrated because all you are willing to do is "point and say look" with a short answer.

This is what is happening now:
Wether I actually look or not, once I say I don't understand you automatically assume I have ignored your evidence on the grounds that I didn't get the same conclusion as you or your peers. Chances are, I probably might understand it a bit more after looking but without your confirmation via some form of explanation I will very rarely exclaim "I understand" because I have no idea what you sent me looking for in the first place. In fact there are instances I exclaimed "I understand", only to be told I don't understand in the end. Is it that you have the right answer but make a game out of having me look for it instead of explaining it?
You fail to recognize the possibility that not everyone looking at the information will always come away with the same understanding as you.
The problem lies when I try to explain my interpretation of the evidence provided many of you absolutely refuse to correct any misinterpretations I made and just point back to the unexplained (by yourself) evidence as the only way I should proceed to find the answer.
I will then repeat the same cycle of seeking the answer as I did before without any changes in the short answer (point & say look) approach you gave me
The cycle repeats itself like the methods used to find the proverbial needle in a hay stack when you supposedly have the ability to guide my hand to find the needle by use of an explanation.
We are going to end up in an eternal struggle to correct me until I accidentally come across the answer in the "point & say look" short answer evidence you provided or someone actually takes the time to explain where my logic went wrong. People like ClydeeLee, Paleophyte, Chas, etc. actually take the time and get results in the form of my admittance to flawed logic and thus I admittedly get corrected and understanding is thereby achieved.
The problem is most of you prioritize the "point & say look" short answer method of correction over the "explanatory" method of correction.
In some cases many of you don't even know the difference between giving an answer and properly explaining an answer. When I say "can you explain", they reply "but we already did", referring to the "point & say look" short answer method that was given earlier.

What do you expect is going to happen if this keeps up? An eternity of back & forth over one seemingly insignificant point is going to be the outcome almost every time.

So please for the sake of "understanding" if nothing else, "properly explain your answers".

Just for the fun of it:
10 points for the next person to post a link and say look without a proper explanation. It's probably going to happen anyway so I'm just going to make a game of it from now on.

A fucking toddler requires less hand holding than this guy. Lots of us have gone point by point, explaining multiple angles and facets, given expansive and detailed explanations of where he goes wrong or does wrong in other threads.......and then he ignores it and pretends it never happened and asks the same question.

I think your approach Unbeliever is the smart one, why waste your time spoon feeding the wanker if he's just gonna spit it out and ask for more.

He likes to stir the pot.

Shane: Do you like shoes?
Us: Yes.
Shane: So you are saying you really like shoes?
Us: Yes.
Shane: Then you like crocs.
Us: I didn't say I liked *all* shoes.
Shane: But you said you liked shoes, therefore crocs.
Us: I don't like crocs.
Shane: Are you saying crocs are not a shoe?

Tongue. I'm just teasing you, Shane.

And before you ask, I have seen crocs and can verify their existence Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jennybee's post
24-03-2016, 02:05 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(23-03-2016 05:23 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 03:53 PM)SYZ Wrote:  It's more than obvious that Shane has no real understanding of the propagation and/or perception of the electromagnetic radiation we call visible light. The endless nonsense about the colour blue being subjective or objective or whatever proves this. And he certainly confirms the old adage that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". In spades. Big Grin
All colors are subject to perception. This is why I say they are subjective.
It's in the definition I posted from wiki.

This is all I'm saying. I'm not arguing that colors don't exist, I'm simply saying that they are subjective in nature and therefore not an objectively true thing.

If you are arguing on behalf of colors being objectively true then I will object.
If you are not arguing that colors are objectively true then I cannot argue back.

And we got to this point because you seem to think that doesn't hold throw for other objects maintained and visualized through wavelengths and material forms.

At least that's the way you formulated questions upon. As if there is a real contrast to the position.

So lemme think it out this way, what is different about the presumed "seeing" of the pyramid of giza "in person" vs "seeing" it not "in person?"

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 03:32 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(19-03-2016 09:02 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Is belief in the unseen irrational?

Not unless it has a measurable effect, like dark matter and dark energy
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: