Is belief in the unseen irrational?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-03-2016, 11:09 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(19-03-2016 11:06 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(19-03-2016 10:54 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Is this an answer or another question? Can we return to the topic?

Why would you think that?

I make no assertions. I am only asking questions.

By your own admission, your topic is intentially vague, is this so you can draw out answers that will never satisfy you, so you can then move the goal posts?
I do not wish to be satisfied. I only wish to read the answers to my questions and questions to my answers. Have I established any goal posts as yet? Is the establishment of a goal post not an assertion?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2016, 11:26 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(19-03-2016 10:49 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I have no points or conclusions as yet. Pretend I'm artificial intelligence trying to understand human logic.


I already think you're being artificially stupid, so there is that.



(19-03-2016 10:49 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Are you stating that belief in the existence of something is not always based on emperical evidence?


Belief should be scaled to the available evidence.


If a friend that you trusted told you that they couldn't keep your plans for the weekend because they got sick, provided they have a history of being truthful with you in the past (previous evidence of truthful behavior), then you can be reasonably certain that they are telling the truth about something so mundane.


If however a random person accosted you in the street about their savior the Dark Lord FireApe, and you took them at face value, you are a very gullible person who probably has beliefs in a lot of unsubstantiated bullshit. If you then covered your privates in peanut butter and jumped off a bridge because of this belief, you would be a fucking dumbass and the recipient of a Darwin Award for removing yourself from the gene-pool.


[Image: die.png]


Belief without evidence is what we call 'gullibility'. It is identical to religious 'faith'. If you value accuracy in your beliefs, neither is a good thing to be.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
19-03-2016, 11:32 PM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2016 11:41 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(19-03-2016 11:26 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(19-03-2016 10:49 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I have no points or conclusions as yet. Pretend I'm artificial intelligence trying to understand human logic.


I already think you're being artificially stupid, so there is that.



(19-03-2016 10:49 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Are you stating that belief in the existence of something is not always based on emperical evidence?


Belief should be scaled to the available evidence.


If a friend that you trusted told you that they couldn't keep your plans for the weekend because they got sick, provided they have a history of being truthful with you in the past (previous evidence of truthful behavior), then you can be reasonably certain that they are telling the truth about something so mundane.


If however a random person accosted you in the street about their savior the Dark Lord FireApe, and you took them at face value, you are a very gullible person who probably has beliefs in a lot of unsubstantiated bullshit. If you then covered your privates in peanut butter and jumped off a bridge because of this belief, you would be a fucking dumbass and the recipient of a Darwin Award for removing yourself from the gene-pool.


[Image: die.png]


Belief without evidence is what we call 'gullibility'. It is identical to religious 'faith'. If you value accuracy in your beliefs, neither is a good thing to be.
Are you saying that I can believe in something based on the credibility of it's source regardless of me examining the emperical evidence?
Can I apply this logic to God's existence?

I am trying to understand what are your ground rules for believing in the existence of something.
Hopefully I can apply it to the Pyramids & God and see which one is more believable.

You said believing your friend was sick without any emperical evidence was reasonable, but you also said believing in something without emperical evidence is being gullible.
Is gullible another word word irrational? If not can we discuss irrational first and then move on to gullible later?
Is reasonable another word for rational?

At present I have no assertions. You control the game my friend.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2016, 11:40 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(19-03-2016 11:32 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Are you saying that I can believe in something based on the credibility of it's source regardless of me examining the emperical evidence?
Can I apply this logic to God's existence?

I am trying to understand what are your ground rules for believing in the existence of something.
Hopefully I can apply it to the Pyramids & God and see which one is more believable.

At present I have no assertions. You control the game my friend.



Confidence in your beliefs should be scaled to the available evidence, provided you value your beliefs being accurate.


Believe in a god all you want, but without evidence for your belief, it just makes you a credulous and gullible idiot who doesn't care about the accuracy of their beliefs.


A belief held without sufficient evidence (or in the face of contradictory evidence) makes one gullible, and far more likely to hold onto demonstrably false beliefs as 'true'.



Now stop JAQ'ing off and go fuck yourself.

[Image: large.gif]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
19-03-2016, 11:58 PM (This post was last modified: 20-03-2016 12:11 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(19-03-2016 11:40 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(19-03-2016 11:32 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Are you saying that I can believe in something based on the credibility of it's source regardless of me examining the emperical evidence?
Can I apply this logic to God's existence?

I am trying to understand what are your ground rules for believing in the existence of something.
Hopefully I can apply it to the Pyramids & God and see which one is more believable.

At present I have no assertions. You control the game my friend.



Confidence in your beliefs should be scaled to the available evidence, provided you value your beliefs being accurate.


Believe in a god all you want, but without evidence for your belief, it just makes you a credulous and gullible idiot who doesn't care about the accuracy of their beliefs.


A belief held without sufficient evidence (or in the face of contradictory evidence) makes one gullible, and far more likely to hold onto demonstrably false beliefs as 'true'.



Now stop JAQ'ing off and go fuck yourself.

[Image: large.gif]
The part where you said "believe in a God all you want"
Is this response addressed to me or a someone else? If it is then I would like you to know at I do not know if God exists.
Are you assuming I am a theist?

I am only discussing emperical evidence as it relates to believing in the existence of God.

So far I have gathered from the posters the following:
1. A lack of emperical evidence makes belief in God's existence irrational
2. You do not always need emperical evidence to rationally believe some things exist like the pyramids.
3. Directly perceiving something (gravity) without any emperical evidence for its existence is sufficient to believe in it.
4. Directly perceiving something (supernatural presence) without any emperical evidence for its existence is not sufficient to believe in it
4. Things exist whenever momsorroundedbyboys says it exists and they don't exist if she says they don't exist either.
5. Credibility of the person making the claim makes it rational (pyramids)
6. Credibility of the person making the claim about God's existence is irelevant.

It's a good thing we haven't established any goal posts or this would all seem very contradictory.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2016, 12:18 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(19-03-2016 10:44 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  So then you can move the goal posts at your will?

I'm just asking questions trying to understand your [lack of] logic.

/thread.

Exactly what I thought when I read the OP, just leaving him self as much wiggle room as possible. It is funny too cause as soon as you catch him in some of his bullshit he gets real specific real fast, definitions start flying out of his ass, arguing the most unimportant, and often unrelated, minutia.

After several months of trying to get him to answer basic questions, repeating points over and over in my last thread with him, even giving him one more chance to which he ignored it was not till I tossed him on ignore that he was finally willing to answer basic questions. Granted not even the ones I asked but it was THEN that he tried, once he know I didn't care and wasn't going to pursue it.

He's just a common garden variety attention whore.

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
[+] 5 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
20-03-2016, 12:30 AM (This post was last modified: 20-03-2016 12:35 AM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
At work.

(19-03-2016 11:58 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I am only discussing emperical evidence as it relates to believing in the existence of God.

So far I have gathered from the posters the following:
1. A lack of emperical evidence makes belief in God's existence irrational
2. You do not always need emperical evidence to rationally believe some things exist like the pyramids.
3. Directly perceiving something (gravity) without any emperical evidence for its existence is sufficient to believe in it.
4. Directly perceiving something (supernatural presence) without any emperical evidence for its existence is not sufficient to believe in it
4. Things exist whenever momsorroundedbyboys says it exists and they don't exist if she says they don't exist either.
5. Credibility of the person making the claim makes it rational (pyramids)
6. Credibility of the person making the claim about God's existence is irrelevant.

No.

You definitely seem to have missed the points/meanings of the original answers to which you're posting.

As well as misinterpreting/misconstruing their meaning.

Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peebothuhul's post
20-03-2016, 12:31 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
Fek! Double post. ( >_< )
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
20-03-2016, 12:40 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(19-03-2016 11:58 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(19-03-2016 11:40 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Confidence in your beliefs should be scaled to the available evidence, provided you value your beliefs being accurate.


Believe in a god all you want, but without evidence for your belief, it just makes you a credulous and gullible idiot who doesn't care about the accuracy of their beliefs.


A belief held without sufficient evidence (or in the face of contradictory evidence) makes one gullible, and far more likely to hold onto demonstrably false beliefs as 'true'.



Now stop JAQ'ing off and go fuck yourself.

[Image: large.gif]
The part where you said "believe in a God all you want"
Is this response addressed to me or a someone else? If it is then I would like you to know at I do not know if God exists.
Are you assuming I am a theist?

I am only discussing emperical evidence as it relates to believing in the existence of God.

So far I have gathered from the posters the following:
1. A lack of emperical evidence makes belief in God's existence irrational
2. You do not always need emperical evidence to rationally believe some things exist like the pyramids.
3. Directly perceiving something (gravity) without any emperical evidence for its existence is sufficient to believe in it.
4. Directly perceiving something (supernatural presence) without any emperical evidence for its existence is not sufficient to believe in it
4. Things exist whenever momsorroundedbyboys says it exists and they don't exist if she says they don't exist either.
5. Credibility of the person making the claim makes it rational (pyramids)
6. Credibility of the person making the claim about God's existence is irelevant.

It's a good thing we haven't established any goal posts or this would all seem very contradictory.


Was I somehow unclear in my last post?


[Image: x3Llf6v.gif]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
20-03-2016, 01:03 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(19-03-2016 09:02 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Is belief in the unseen irrational?

This depends entirely on what you mean by "unseen". Completely unevidenced? Yes, belief in completely unevidenced things is irrational. In evidence, but not personally witnessed? No, belief in such things is not irrational.

(19-03-2016 11:58 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  1. A lack of emperical evidence makes belief in God's existence irrational

Pedantry: a lack of logical necessity, combined with the null hypothesis being that it does not exist and a lack of evidence to overturn said null hypothesis, make belief in the existence of gods irrational.

(19-03-2016 11:58 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  2. You do not always need emperical evidence to rationally believe some things exist like the pyramids.

Yes, you do. We have empirical evidence that the pyramids exist.

What you mean is that you do not have to personally witness the pyramids to rationally believe that they exist.

(19-03-2016 11:58 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  3. Directly perceiving something (gravity) without any emperical evidence for its existence is sufficient to believe in it.

Directly perceiving gravity is empirical evidence for its existence.

(19-03-2016 11:58 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  4. Directly perceiving something (supernatural presence) without any emperical evidence for its existence is not sufficient to believe in it

No one has ever directly perceived a supernatural presence.

They have perceived a great number of things that they believe are supernatural presences, but this is not the same thing.

(19-03-2016 11:58 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  5. Credibility of the person making the claim makes it rational (pyramids)

Availability of the evidence makes a claim rational. That the person making the claim is credible is a consequence of this, not the cause.

(19-03-2016 11:58 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  6. Credibility of the person making the claim about God's existence is irelevant.

No one has any relevant credentials when it comes to establishing the existence of a god.

"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
[+] 7 users Like Unbeliever's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: