Is belief in the unseen irrational?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-03-2016, 08:34 AM (This post was last modified: 20-03-2016 08:37 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
I guess the post I'm actually questioning is why "in person" or "directly" are concept of alleged difference.

What is the supposed significance or difference that highlights this notion?

"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
20-03-2016, 08:34 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(20-03-2016 07:35 AM)Bucky Ball 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.

How about we pretend NO intelligence.
Then drop the "pretend".
Than add a dash of whining about a disability.
Bake.

That cooks up pretty much what we got here.
Facepalm
Duly noted.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2016, 08:36 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(20-03-2016 08:34 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I guess the post I'm actually questioning is why "in person" or "directly" are concept of alleged difference.

What is the supposed significance or difference that highlights this notion?
I assumed they mean the same thing. Did I indicate otherwise? If I did it may have been a typo. My apologies.

Are you asking me what is the difference between direct contact and indirect contact with evidence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2016, 08:38 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(20-03-2016 08:36 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(20-03-2016 08:34 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I guess the post I'm actually questioning is why "in person" or "directly" are concept of alleged difference.

What is the supposed significance or difference that highlights this notion?
I assumed they mean the same thing. Did I indicate otherwise? If I did it may have been a typo. My apologies.

Oh I worded that poor. I didn't mean to say THOSE are two different things, I am trying to understand your reasoning of putting those two things (same thing different phrase) in contrast to an alternative to that.

Is seeing something directly vs INdirectly really understood different? Are they not both through lenses? via eyes and other devices. Are they not both interpretive understanding of sensory input based on wavelength gatherings? Is seeing something in infrared different from seeing something in visiblelight?

I'm just not understanding the justification for you to seemingly input a difference here.

"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
20-03-2016, 08:39 AM (This post was last modified: 20-03-2016 08:49 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(20-03-2016 08:38 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(20-03-2016 08:36 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I assumed they mean the same thing. Did I indicate otherwise? If I did it may have been a typo. My apologies.

Oh I worded that poor. I didn't mean to say THOSE are two different things, I am trying to understand your reasoning of putting those two things (same thing different phrase) in contrast to an alternative to that.

Is seeing something directly vs INdirectly really understood different? Are they not both through lenses? via eyes and other devices. Are they not both interpretive understanding of sensory input based on wavelength gatherings? Is seeing something in infrared different from seeing something in visiblelight?

I'm just not understanding the justification for you to seemingly input a difference here.
Are you asking me what is the difference between direct contact and indirect contact with evidence?
I assume it would be the same difference between Empircal evidence and non Empircal evidence. If there isn't a difference why did they use the word Empircal?

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/nonempirical
I assumed nonemperical means faith driven or theory driven. It is an indirect approach of viewing evidence. Do you think I have misunderstood the meaning?

Is it possible that belief in the unseen requires nonemperical evidence whereas belief in the seen requires emperical evidence.
Are they both forms of rational thinking? If not where do they both lie on the spectrum of rationality?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2016, 08:47 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(20-03-2016 08:39 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(20-03-2016 08:38 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Oh I worded that poor. I didn't mean to say THOSE are two different things, I am trying to understand your reasoning of putting those two things (same thing different phrase) in contrast to an alternative to that.

Is seeing something directly vs INdirectly really understood different? Are they not both through lenses? via eyes and other devices. Are they not both interpretive understanding of sensory input based on wavelength gatherings? Is seeing something in infrared different from seeing something in visiblelight?

I'm just not understanding the justification for you to seemingly input a difference here.
Are you asking me what is the difference between direct contact and indirect contact with evidence?
I assume it would be the same difference between Empircal evidence and non Empircal evidence. If there isn't a difference why did they use the word Empircal?

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/nonempirical
I assumed nonemperical means faith driven or theory driven. It is an indirect approach of viewing evidence. Do you think I have misunderstood the meaning?

I would indicate these are two different concepts and not directly connected in terms of establishment.

I'm still just curious what you think something such as the great pyramids is different from seen "in person" and "not in person" because I haven't a good notion from a skeptical approach to note how one is supposedly more significant

I don't get what from seeing the pyramid counts as direct or indirect. Where is the boundries from direct and indirect coming from. That's what I don't get and why I'm prodding this. I don't understand these dividing lines you seem to indicate. Where do they come from and what is the base line?

"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
20-03-2016, 08:58 AM (This post was last modified: 20-03-2016 09:05 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(20-03-2016 08:47 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(20-03-2016 08:39 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Are you asking me what is the difference between direct contact and indirect contact with evidence?
I assume it would be the same difference between Empircal evidence and non Empircal evidence. If there isn't a difference why did they use the word Empircal?

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/nonempirical
I assumed nonemperical means faith driven or theory driven. It is an indirect approach of viewing evidence. Do you think I have misunderstood the meaning?

I would indicate these are two different concepts and not directly connected in terms of establishment.

I'm still just curious what you think something such as the great pyramids is different from seen "in person" and "not in person" because I haven't a good notion from a skeptical approach to note how one is supposedly more significant

I don't get what from seeing the pyramid counts as direct or indirect. Where is the boundries from direct and indirect coming from. That's what I don't get and why I'm prodding this. I don't understand these dividing lines you seem to indicate. Where do they come from and what is the base line?
I understand. The dividing line would be as follows:
Observing the pyramids directly, personally & emperically
As opposed to
Observing the pyramids indirectly, impersonally & non empirically.

Would you like me to post the google meanings of directly, personally emperically, indirectly, impersonally & non empirically?
If you were to ask me what I assume the words mean I will repeat it word for word as is described by google. I maintain the fact that I could be wrong.

Would you like an example of visually observing the Pyramids Directly vs Indirectly?
Directly: Being able to visually observe the pyramids in direct proximity by standing next to them.
Indirectly: Being able to visually observe the pyramids indirectly by books/pictures/websites
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2016, 09:07 AM (This post was last modified: 20-03-2016 09:14 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(20-03-2016 08:58 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(20-03-2016 08:47 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I would indicate these are two different concepts and not directly connected in terms of establishment.

I'm still just curious what you think something such as the great pyramids is different from seen "in person" and "not in person" because I haven't a good notion from a skeptical approach to note how one is supposedly more significant

I don't get what from seeing the pyramid counts as direct or indirect. Where is the boundries from direct and indirect coming from. That's what I don't get and why I'm prodding this. I don't understand these dividing lines you seem to indicate. Where do they come from and what is the base line?
I understand. The dividing line would be as follows:
Observing the pyramids directly, personally & emperically
As opposed to
Observing the pyramids indirectly, impersonally & non empirically.

Would you like me to post the google meanings of directly, personally emperically, indirectly, impersonally & non empirically?
If you were to ask me what I assume the words mean I will repeat it word for word as is described by google. I maintain the fact that I could be wrong.

No because a google definition of a word doesn't really at all get to anything about the idea or meaning a person has of the word. Or tell me what you mean by the concept. Saying directly means, without changing direction/with nothing or no no one in between just leads to more questions of what those lines are.

Words are labels described supposed ideas, what you intent or want to describe isn't beholden to the dictionary definitions. Dictionary definitions REFLECT the supposed usage and understanding of words they're not magical arbitrators of the truth of what a word means. I am responding because I'm curious what YOU think based on your claims of being so skeptical about everything but this is a basis for that which makes a fellow person attempting to be perpetually skeptical in as many ways as possible in this forms curious.

I guess the actual point may be summed up to better ask you. Do you think something can be witnessed directly? How is standing next to something seeing it directly? How is that different from seeing it in a photo/webfeed?

I guess it's questioning, what is direct about this "standing next to it" difference. Is there not as much potential interference no matter how close you are from the sensory data, from the wavelengths of light between the lense of your eye to the object and back to your brain to be understood. Is there not just as much potential interference that makes this not a seemingly so personal data accumulation? That's how the idea appears to me at least. It just seems a bit too flawed.

"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
20-03-2016, 09:10 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(19-03-2016 09:02 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Is belief in the unseen irrational?

Your post is irrational. You have consistently posted questions that are void of any context or frame of reference. It is my opinion based on my experiences that you do this for one or more of a couple reason:

You are trying to lead people to your own hidden conclusions or agenda. By posing questions or statements that are incomplete of context, you can feed bits of information to your audience in order to lead them down the garden path with the goal of manipulating the outcome.

Or... you either have poor communication skill or are having English as a second language issues. Since your syntax seems fine as a whole I don't think you are not native English speaking and that leaves poor communication skills. This could be genuine or could be intentional to aid in the above purpose.

I see all of these as disingenuous and frankly, trolling techniques. It is my estimation that you are playing the fool on purpose. I wanted to express my disappointment in your posts because, though I won't be addressing you anymore, you come into our atheist safe space (or mostly safe) of which we have little in our world and toy with us. Some posters here like that, I am not one of them.

Just so you know, I am not buying your innocent act BS.

Ta.

[Image: dnw9krH.jpg?4]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Heatheness's post
20-03-2016, 09:18 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(20-03-2016 07:32 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(20-03-2016 07:24 AM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  you seem to be hung up on not being able to prove the pyramids exist unless you go there personally. . there is this thing called google earth that you can use to see them. there are also photographs of the pyramids. id count both things as decent evidence. unless there is some massive and elaborate conspiracy going on. try to find a photograph of god or locate him on google earth, then ill consider it.
You may not be aware of my beliefs my friend so I will tell you now.
Please look at my signature. Even if I saw the pyramids personally I still would not be convinced that it existed outside of our perception of it.
Proof is an illusion & yet I maintain the fact that I may be wrong.

I only seek the logic behind everyone's statements. If I find flaw I point it out. I could be wrong and I am open to correction.

Would you like to know why I seek the logic behind everyone's statements?

Concerning your statement about the way you proved the pyramids exist:
Your approach is admittedly subject to deceit although highly unlikely. Anyone that requires proof of the existence of the Pyramid has to contend with the possibility that it may be a deceit. Simply ignoring the possibility does not mean the possibility of it being a conspiracy does not exist. Science & logic do not eternally exclude possibilities when drawing conclusions, so why should a rational thinking person be different?

People that believe in God may be subject to deceit in the same way belief in the Pyramids are subject to deceit. I could be wrong.
I wish to compare the logic of how Atheists prove the Pyramids exist and how Theists prove God exists by the same assumptions and see which one is more believable.

There are many books/articles/websites/people which state that the Pyramids exists. Did you conclude it's existence based on that?
There are many books/articles/websites/people which state that the God exists. Did they conclude it's existence based on that?

logic goes hand in hand with reality. im not even sure how you personally determine what is logical if you dont trust your perception. i think they have a word for people like that and its called crazy. you should seek immediate professional help. because the thought of someone driving a car around who doesnt trust any of his senses is pretty scary. personally i think you have seen the matrix one too many times. i really dont understand why anyone believes in god, so i couldnt answer that for you. i already explained the pyramids. so are you saying that if you personally touch, lick, see, smell, and hear a say... dog, you still dont fully believe that it exists?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: