Is belief in the unseen irrational?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-03-2016, 09:43 AM (This post was last modified: 20-03-2016 09:59 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(20-03-2016 09:07 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(20-03-2016 08:58 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.
I understand your misunderstanding of the question (I think)
Did you assume that I think there is a difference between direct & indirect contact based on the question?
This is probably because you don't know my world view enough and decided to make an assumption about me based on the question.
Allow me to clarify:
I do not believe anything is absolutely provable. I do not have the ability to draw a distinct line between the concepts of direct and indirect. To me everything could be an illusion & nothing meets the definition of direct. I maintain the fact that I could be wrong.
That being said I am still interested in the logic of how everyone else thinks.
I am currently trying to understand what is the underlying difference between an Atheistic logic and a Theistic logic.
To do this I am asking questions and examining the logic.
This is a summary of what I have gathered thus far:
A distinction has been made along the lines of emperical evidence as the basis of rational belief from the Atheistic perspective. There are however some Atheists that also believe you can have rational belief absent the presence of emperical evidence.
My question is :
if the Theistic community also practice their belief in the absence of emperical belief would this not classify as rational belief also? If not then why?

I maintain the fact that my understanding of the answers given here could be wrong and do not express the views of all Atheists and Theists alike.

I believe:
To begin understanding the logic of anyone I must first disregard any presuppositions I have about the world and listen to their base premises & assume them to be correct for the sake of understanding. I try to follow their logic and see if i will arrive at the same conclusions without adding in any assumptions of my own.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2016, 09:55 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(20-03-2016 09:43 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(20-03-2016 09:07 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  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.
I understand your misunderstanding of the question (I think)
Did you assume that I think there is a difference between direct & indirect contact based on the question?
This is probably because you don't know my world view enough and decided to make an assumption about me based on the question.
Allow me to clarify:
I do not believe anything is absolutely provable. I do not have the ability to draw a distinct line between the concepts of direct and indirect. To me everything could be an illusion & nothing meets the definition of direct. I maintain the fact that I could be wrong.
That being said I am still interested in the logic of how everyone else thinks.
I am currently trying to understand what is the underlying difference between an Atheistic logic and a Theistic logic.
To do this I am asking questions and examining the logic.
This is a summary of what I have gathered thus far:
A distinction has been made along the lines of emperical evidence as the basis of rational belief from the Atheistic perspective. There are however some Atheists that also believe you can have rational belief absent the presence of emperical evidence.
My question is :
if the Theistic community also practice their belief in the absence of emperical belief would this not classify as rational belief also? If not then why?

I maintain the fact that my understanding of the answers given here could be wrong and do not express the views of all Atheists and Theists alike.

You say you don't have the ability to draw a distinct line but you did draw a distinction line... soooo... what do you exactly mean here then??

But if you didn't think there was a distinct line, where did this idea of a difference between direct and indirect come from then?

"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, 10:15 AM (This post was last modified: 20-03-2016 10:25 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(20-03-2016 09:55 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(20-03-2016 09:43 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I understand your misunderstanding of the question (I think)
Did you assume that I think there is a difference between direct & indirect contact based on the question?
This is probably because you don't know my world view enough and decided to make an assumption about me based on the question.
Allow me to clarify:
I do not believe anything is absolutely provable. I do not have the ability to draw a distinct line between the concepts of direct and indirect. To me everything could be an illusion & nothing meets the definition of direct. I maintain the fact that I could be wrong.
That being said I am still interested in the logic of how everyone else thinks.
I am currently trying to understand what is the underlying difference between an Atheistic logic and a Theistic logic.
To do this I am asking questions and examining the logic.
This is a summary of what I have gathered thus far:
A distinction has been made along the lines of emperical evidence as the basis of rational belief from the Atheistic perspective. There are however some Atheists that also believe you can have rational belief absent the presence of emperical evidence.
My question is :
if the Theistic community also practice their belief in the absence of emperical belief would this not classify as rational belief also? If not then why?

I maintain the fact that my understanding of the answers given here could be wrong and do not express the views of all Atheists and Theists alike.

You say you don't have the ability to draw a distinct line but you did draw a distinction line... soooo... what do you exactly mean here then??

But if you didn't think there was a distinct line, where did this idea of a difference between direct and indirect come from then?
Where did I draw a distinct line? Was it in the form of a question? My apologies if I made you mistake my empathy when determining the logic of others for my actual conclusion on the matter.
Is it not possible that some Atheists will not share the same logic as you do?
That particular question is directed at those that see a distinction between direct and indirect contact.
If you do not share the same distinction then you need not answer that question and I will probably ask a different questioning based on your base premise.
I haven't understood your base premise on the topic of direct and indirect contact. Would you care to state it now? There are quite a number of cross replies so I may not be able to determine if you are also exercising empathy when replying to a question that was specifically posted towards another poster.

P.S. You may have missed this part in my last reply because I was editing it the same time you were replying:
"I believe:
To begin understanding the logic of anyone I must first disregard any presuppositions I have about the world and listen to their base premises & assume them to be correct for the sake of understanding. I try to follow their logic and see if i will arrive at the same conclusions without adding in any assumptions of my own."
My apologies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2016, 10:26 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(19-03-2016 09:02 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Is belief in the unseen irrational?

Yes in the religious context. It is stupid to make claims about things you have no evidence for.

But in science no. For example we cannot literally see the center of a black hole, but based on math and physics we can extrapolate what goes on inside because of the data of what we do see it having an effect on the material it sucks in that we do see.

Same with dark matter. Currently we don't know everything there is to know about it or what causes dark matter, but we DO see the effects on the material that surrounds it.

But more importantly the word "belief" is improper in framing the question.

Beliefs are opinions. Knowledge can be tested.

There is no need to have "faith" or "believe" in scientific method. The good thing is that disputes in competing claims get solved through testing and peer review. Mere belief does not require that quality control.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Brian37's post
20-03-2016, 10:31 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(20-03-2016 10:26 AM)Brian37 Wrote:  
(19-03-2016 09:02 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Is belief in the unseen irrational?

Yes in the religious context. It is stupid to make claims about things you have no evidence for.

But in science no. For example we cannot literally see the center of a black hole, but based on math and physics we can extrapolate what goes on inside because of the data of what we do see it having an effect on the material it sucks in that we do see.

Same with dark matter. Currently we don't know everything there is to know about it or what causes dark matter, but we DO see the effects on the material that surrounds it.

But more importantly the word "belief" is improper in framing the question.

Beliefs are opinions. Knowledge can be tested.

There is no need to have "faith" or "believe" in scientific method. The good thing is that disputes in competing claims get solved through testing and peer review. Mere belief does not require that quality control.
Can you explain what you mean by "get solved"?
Is "getting solved" a temporary situation?
It was once solved the Pluto was a planet. I believe this is no longer the case.

In your opinion what is the difference between knowing and believing?

Is "knowing" that Pluto was a planet not the same as having faith in the scientific method?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2016, 10:32 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(20-03-2016 10:15 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(20-03-2016 09:55 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You say you don't have the ability to draw a distinct line but you did draw a distinction line... soooo... what do you exactly mean here then??

But if you didn't think there was a distinct line, where did this idea of a difference between direct and indirect come from then?
Where did I draw a distinct line? Was it in the form of a question? My apologies if I made you mistake my empathy when determining the logic of others for my actual conclusion on the matter.
Is it not possible that some Atheists will not share the same logic as you do?
That particular question is directed at those that see a distinction between direct and indirect contact.
If you do not share the same distinction then you need not answer that question and I will probably ask a different questioning based on your base premise.
I haven't understood your base premise on the topic of direct and indirect contact.

P.S. You may have missed this part in my last reply because I was editing it the same time you were replying:

You flat out said in post #67: "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."

What is that based on? Not that I care because even questions you can say are leading, this is not a question at all but merely a statement you gave.

EVEN if this is just your "determining the logic of others" where did that come from. What creates these established thoughts. Who made you think that? what made you think that? why do you think its worthy to state? What do you think it will accomplish..

The point of contention I had is your concept of the question of this pyramid via sensory data spawn from this notion of direct/indirect. What makes indirect no personal, what makes indirect not empirical? what makes directly not as likely impersonal as indirect? Not in even a language altering way, it's just not any more reliable. None of these data points or distinctions is definitively and certainly more reliable than the other. They still have a good potential of false inferences and misleading data collection. If you're looking for absolute data, these direct ways are still 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
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
20-03-2016, 10:41 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(20-03-2016 09:10 AM)Heatheness Wrote:  
(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: i-approve-of-this-post.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
20-03-2016, 10:42 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(20-03-2016 10:32 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(20-03-2016 10:15 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Where did I draw a distinct line? Was it in the form of a question? My apologies if I made you mistake my empathy when determining the logic of others for my actual conclusion on the matter.
Is it not possible that some Atheists will not share the same logic as you do?
That particular question is directed at those that see a distinction between direct and indirect contact.
If you do not share the same distinction then you need not answer that question and I will probably ask a different questioning based on your base premise.
I haven't understood your base premise on the topic of direct and indirect contact.

P.S. You may have missed this part in my last reply because I was editing it the same time you were replying:

You flat out said in post #67: "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."

What is that based on? Not that I care because even questions you can say are leading, this is not a question at all but merely a statement you gave.

EVEN if this is just your "determining the logic of others" where did that come from. What creates these established thoughts. Who made you think that? what made you think that? why do you think its worthy to state? What do you think it will accomplish..

The point of contention I had is your concept of the question of this pyramid via sensory data spawn from this notion of direct/indirect. What makes indirect no personal, what makes indirect not empirical? what makes directly not as likely impersonal as indirect? Not in even a language altering way, it's just not any more reliable. None of these data points or distinctions is definitively and certainly more reliable than the other. They still have a good potential of false inferences and misleading data collection. If you're looking for absolute data, these direct ways are still flawed.
The post in question stemmed from another posters logic on the matter of empirical evidence and its relation to belief.
You didn't ask me what is my belief on the matter of direct and indirect contact, so why did you assume that the points stated were my own belief?
You asked me a a question based on a question I asked another poster. That question was based specifically on the topic of differences in direct and indirect evidence posted by the other poster.

Somewhere along the way your cross examination of my question failed to recognize the fact that the question was lead by another poster and not by me.

For me to be leading a question I have to be the leader right?

I maintain the fact that I could be wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2016, 10:48 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(20-03-2016 10:41 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(20-03-2016 09:10 AM)Heatheness Wrote:  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: i-approve-of-this-post.jpg]
My apologies if your desire to have my questions censored goes unheeded. It is not within me to stop asking questions.

Concerning my communication skills:
I have been diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome aka High Functioning Autism.
It affects the way we understand the logic of others and the way we communicate our understanding.
So you may be quite right.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2016, 10:59 AM (This post was last modified: 20-03-2016 11:08 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(20-03-2016 10:42 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(20-03-2016 10:32 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You flat out said in post #67: "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."

What is that based on? Not that I care because even questions you can say are leading, this is not a question at all but merely a statement you gave.

EVEN if this is just your "determining the logic of others" where did that come from. What creates these established thoughts. Who made you think that? what made you think that? why do you think its worthy to state? What do you think it will accomplish..

The point of contention I had is your concept of the question of this pyramid via sensory data spawn from this notion of direct/indirect. What makes indirect no personal, what makes indirect not empirical? what makes directly not as likely impersonal as indirect? Not in even a language altering way, it's just not any more reliable. None of these data points or distinctions is definitively and certainly more reliable than the other. They still have a good potential of false inferences and misleading data collection. If you're looking for absolute data, these direct ways are still flawed.
The post in question stemmed from another posters logic on the matter of empirical evidence and its relation to belief.
You didn't ask me what is my belief on the matter of direct and indirect contact, so why did you assume that the points stated were my own belief?
You asked me a a question based on a question I asked another poster. That question was based specifically on the topic of differences in direct and indirect evidence posted by the other poster.

Somewhere along the way your cross examination of my question failed to recognize the fact that the question was lead by another poster and not by me.

For me to be leading a question I have to be the leader right?

I maintain the fact that I could be wrong.

The post in question was after 8 back to back posts between just you and me. I don't know what else to think you think it is from. I think you are wrong here because it was me.. not some other poster who was talking about the direct/indirect evidence questions with you before that.

This was ENTIRELY a back and forth for posts stemmed from me questioning what the implications were in your leading questions in the post last night about the pyramids vs other empirical evidence ideas. When you ask, why did you assume, you're implying or proclaiming that I assumed ... So the I'm just asking question bit is notably false. Or you're just failing at some attempt to try to remain, idk neutral or something, but you keep misstepping.

Also, makes you proclaim I "ASSUMED" the points stated were your belief? What of my posts makes you indicate I assumed that? Like I'd be curious if you see that somewhere. I don't think that... I'm still trying to get where you get your basis from. Even if it's from another person.. Give me that data, I want to know where your collecting and formulating this idea from. That's what I'm after. I'm not asserting it's YOUR idea I want to know where you get the idea itself from.

Can you possibly be honest? or is it entirely an approach of intentional dodging as much as possible. I for one, would like to think there are fellow wide ranging skeptics. I just think you're so close to having a good mindset but so flawed by a few approaches that don't have any basis when you tear it down. It's quite interesting that only positive rep views of yours come from Girly and me. Probably because we have a somewhat similar mental view and as far as my case, i like yours to an extend. it's just jumbled in some strangeness and not in some way that i think one ought to think like me. I just see flaws in too many of your argument or where you draw the line in things, such as your view of personal experience. Which I think one so inclined to a deep skepticism would be so motivated to question extensively.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: