Is belief in the unseen irrational?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-03-2016, 11:17 AM (This post was last modified: 20-03-2016 11:25 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(20-03-2016 10:59 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(20-03-2016 10:42 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.
My apologies again. There are 2 threads I am replying to at the exact same time in the very same sub section of these forums & the exact same topic of empirical evidence.
You are right. No where in this post have you stated any distinction between empirical evidence and non empirical evidence. I have misinterpreted your base premise.
Do you still wish to proceed with out conversation from before the misunderstanding?

What is your base premise pertaining to the question of "If belief in the unseen is irrational?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2016, 11:26 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
Double post
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2016, 11:27 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
If by "unseen" - you're implying that which cannot be tested and verified - yes - that is irrational.


The very definition of rationality is "Rationality is the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason. Rationality implies the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, or of one's actions with one's reasons for action."

Thus anything that can be confirmed through logical, repeatable testing is rational. Even if it cannot be seen. (Gasses, electrical force, ect)

Anything that cannot, isn't.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2016, 11:27 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(20-03-2016 11:17 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(20-03-2016 10:59 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  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.
My apologies again. There are 2 threads I am replying to at the exact same time in the very same sub section of these forums & the exact same topic of empirical evidence.
You are right. No where in this post have you stated any distinction between empirical evidence and non empirical evidence. I have misinterpreted your base premise.
Do you still wish to proceed with out conversation from before the misunderstanding?

What is your logic pertaining to the question of "If belief in the unseen is irrational?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2016, 11:28 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(20-03-2016 08:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If a theory becomes "proven" is it still a Theory or a Fact?
Yes
(20-03-2016 08:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Is the concept of Gravity a Theory or a Fact?
Yes
(20-03-2016 08:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Do you believe in both theories and facts?
Yes
(20-03-2016 08:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Is the concept of God a Theory or Fact?
Neither
(20-03-2016 08:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Do you believe in Gravity but not God?
Yes

That was easy...

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like LostLocke's post
20-03-2016, 11:30 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(20-03-2016 11:27 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  If by "unseen" - you're implying that which cannot be tested and verified - yes - that is irrational.


The very definition of rationality is "Rationality is the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason. Rationality implies the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, or of one's actions with one's reasons for action."

Thus anything that can be confirmed through logical, repeatable testing is rational. Even if it cannot be seen. (Gasses, electrical force, ect)

Anything that cannot, isn't.
How did you arrive at the conclusion that it "cannot" be confirmed?
Did you test your claim?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2016, 11:39 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(20-03-2016 11:28 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  
(20-03-2016 08:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If a theory becomes "proven" is it still a Theory or a Fact?
Yes
(20-03-2016 08:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Is the concept of Gravity a Theory or a Fact?
Yes
(20-03-2016 08:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Do you believe in both theories and facts?
Yes
(20-03-2016 08:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Is the concept of God a Theory or Fact?
Neither
(20-03-2016 08:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Do you believe in Gravity but not God?
Yes

That was easy...
Duly noted.
I have lost interest in your logic at this time.
I haven't reached your level of understanding as yet.
You're answer to a question between a & b is neither a, b, none or both. No explanation of your one word answer is given.
Will return when I learn to speak your language.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2016, 11:45 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(20-03-2016 08:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If a theory becomes "proven" is it still a Theory or a Fact?

Outside of formal systems, "proven" is a vacuous term.

(20-03-2016 08:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Is the concept of Gravity a Theory or a Fact?

Neither. It's a law. Which is what happens to theories when they grow up.

(20-03-2016 08:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Do you believe in both theories and facts?

Nope. Theories yes. Facts no.

(20-03-2016 08:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Is the concept of God a Theory or Fact?

Neither. God is a superstition.

(20-03-2016 08:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Do you believe in Gravity but not God?

It's not a matter so much of believing but rather that one is of practical value and one is not.

(20-03-2016 08:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  What is the underlying difference in the approach you used to believe in either one?

Pragmatics.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2016, 11:51 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(20-03-2016 08:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If a theory becomes "proven" is it still a Theory or a Fact?
Is the concept of Gravity a Theory or a Fact?
Do you believe in both theories and facts?
Is the concept of God a Theory or Fact?
Do you believe in Gravity but not God?
What is the underlying difference in the approach you used to believe in either one?

A hypothesis, once proven, becomes a theory. The concept of gravitational attraction is a theory—proven to be so by the consistent replication of its posits.

Scientific theories are differentiated from hypotheses in that a theory must explain actual observations. And those observations are considered factual.

The concept of gods is not a theory, but, to be generous, it's more like a hypothesis. Personally, I regard the concept of God or gods as just a fanciful notion, like the believers who claim the Earth is flat.

I do accept the gravitational theory, but I don't accept the notion of God or gods in any way, shape or form.

The major difference in my belief status for each is that the former is supported by observable, replicable empirical evidence whereas the latter has no supporting evidence whatsoever (other than subjectively in some people's minds).

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2016, 11:55 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(20-03-2016 11:45 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(20-03-2016 08:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If a theory becomes "proven" is it still a Theory or a Fact?

Outside of formal systems, "proven" is a vacuous term.

(20-03-2016 08:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Is the concept of Gravity a Theory or a Fact?

Neither. It's a law. Which is what happens to theories when they grow up.

(20-03-2016 08:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Do you believe in both theories and facts?

Nope. Theories yes. Facts no.

(20-03-2016 08:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Is the concept of God a Theory or Fact?

Neither. God is a superstition.

(20-03-2016 08:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Do you believe in Gravity but not God?

It's not a matter so much of believing but rather that one is of practical value and one is not.

(20-03-2016 08:20 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  What is the underlying difference in the approach you used to believe in either one?

Pragmatics.
I believe your logic differs greatly from that of the average atheist.
My interest in your world view has now peaked.

Gravity is not a fact, but a law? I like this idea.
What is the underlying difference?

Proven is a vacuous term. I like the statement.

Theory or Superstition? What is the underlying difference as it relates to God?

What makes belief in Gravity more practical than belief in God?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: