User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 46

  1. #11
    Nips away your dignity Fluffywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,422

    Default

    It's about what works for you and what doesn't.

    I'm not the type of person that could ever settle for anything less then truth. For as far as I can humanly possible unravel that truth. Hence I will always question my beliefs, and linger to the side that is best explained rationally. Which is atheism.

    Agnosticism just doesn't work for me. It'd be like burying a hatchet I really want to leave unburied.

    I need these concepts on my mind to be happy. I need to question them sufficiently to be happy with my opinion and stance towards it. Only that way can I be at peace with my beliefs.
    ~Self-depricating Megalomaniacal Superwolf

  2. #12
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nozflubber View Post
    This is funny....... you ask about unobserverable things and I think of the Atom, and you think of Spiritual stuff. Interesting. Cuz I gotta tell ya, I don't believe in Atoms, either!
    Haha, likewise. I came into this thread thinking of Dark Energy, Dark Matter, the Higgs boson/field, gravity, and time. I realized it was spiritually centered and quickly got bored.



  3. #13
    Nips away your dignity Fluffywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,422

    Default

    If you don't believe in atoms, then what -did- happen to Hiroshima? :/
    ~Self-depricating Megalomaniacal Superwolf

  4. #14
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,672

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Feops View Post
    Oblivion is a rational conclusion for lack of confidence in a supernatural system. If there is no basis for spiritual interactions then what you're left with is that big meaty lump in your skull. So before it was there, you didn't exist, after it's gone, you won't exist. Both are cases of non-existence, so to be dead is the same as before you were alive.
    But that 'rational' conclusion is riddled with assumptions.

    Most notably, that we know anything about before we were alive. The only conclusion I can come to about before I was alive is that I have no memories of it.

    I agree that the brain and the mind are strongly linked, but to say one causes the other or vice versa is impossible at the moment. Yes, it's a safe assumption to say if the brain changes, so does the mind. But what's to stop the brain from reforming? Afterall it won't 'go', merely change shape and evidence suggests come back in a few googelplex years. That's a massive extrapolation with our limited knowledge of the laws of physics, but an equal one to saying we'll cease to exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by nozflubber View Post
    This is funny....... you ask about unobserverable things and I think of the Atom, and you think of Spiritual stuff. Interesting. Cuz I gotta tell ya, I don't believe in Atoms, either!
    Except, the atom is observable.

    Not directly observable, but their effects can be seen. Some spiritual things can be disproven, but only the ones that need to be observable in order for them to be true.

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    Haha, likewise. I came into this thread thinking of Dark Energy, Dark Matter, the Higgs boson/field, gravity, and time. I realized it was spiritually centered and quickly got bored.
    Those are all very observable though. It would have been false advertising to put them in this thread.

    I suppose 'unobserved' would have been a better word.

    This isn't spiritually centered. None of the examples I gave in the OP are anymore spiritual than physics.

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post

    The rational position, from my point of view, is Agnosticism. No evidence, no assumptions.
    +1

  6. #16
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post

    Those are all very observable though. It would have been false advertising to put them in this thread.

    I suppose 'unobserved' would have been a better word.

    This isn't spiritually centered. None of the examples I gave in the OP are anymore spiritual than physics.
    They are not observable. They were created to explain observations and predicted by theories. That is not the same. In a way, I do not find Noz's skepticism on atoms all that unreasonable, however I myself believe there is sufficient evidence to say that they do indeed exist.



  7. #17
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,672

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    They are not observable. They were created to explain observations and predicted by theories. That is not the same. In a way, I do not find Noz's skepticism on atoms all that unreasonable, however I myself believe there is sufficient evidence to say that they do indeed exist.
    Last I checked gravity and time are names given to the observed effects. Nothing extra is added when people create these concepts.

    So, when someone observes masses enacting a force upon each other relative to their mass and the distance between them, they call it gravity. Completely observable.

    Dark matter and energy have some slight assumptions involved, which is why people are setting out to prove their existence by observing every type of effect they are supposed to have on the observable universe.

    I'm not sure about the Higgs Boson thing, but I do know there's a very large particle accelerator that was intended to allow us to observe it.

  8. #18
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post
    Last I checked gravity and time are names given to the observed effects. Nothing extra is added when people create these concepts.

    So, when someone observes masses enacting a force upon each other relative to their mass and the distance between them, they call it gravity. Completely observable.

    Dark matter and energy have some slight assumptions involved, which is why people are setting out to prove their existence by observing every type of effect they are supposed to have on the observable universe.

    I'm not sure about the Higgs Boson thing, but I do know there's a very large particle accelerator that was intended to allow us to observe it.
    I understand what you are saying now, and in how you say them, I agree. I do not doubt the existence of these things because of their effects on the universe, however so far their components are not observable as of yet. We have predictions on masses and components of these particles and energies but they elude interaction the electromagnetic spectrum, which is very bizarre. The graviton is such a tiny boson that we cannot find it yet, and furthermore, is a spin-2 particle, of which I do not think has ever been observed either. We also haven't found a gravity "wave" yet either.

    It just seems our criteria for "observable" is different.



  9. #19
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,672

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    I understand what you are saying now, and in how you say them, I agree. I do not doubt the existence of these things because of their effects on the universe, however so far their components are not observable as of yet. We have predictions on masses and components of these particles and energies but they elude interaction the electromagnetic spectrum, which is very bizarre. The graviton is such a tiny boson that we cannot find it yet, and furthermore, is a spin-2 particle, of which I do not think has ever been observed either. We also haven't found a gravity "wave" yet either.

    It just seems our criteria for "observable" is different.
    Fair enough. Essentially I don't think it's rational to say anything exists until it has been observed. I formed this belief from the premise 'existence is observation, nothing more'.

    Speculation about what exists based on limited observation is rational as well. As long as it remains just that, speculation, without further evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffywolf View Post
    Agnosticism just doesn't work for me. It'd be like burying a hatchet I really want to leave unburied.
    It's a fair enough from me to most of your post, except this bit.

    You can be an agnostic and not give up on finding an answer.

    I'm talking about weak agnosticism, which states we don't even know whether we can know about these things. As opposed to strong agnosticism, which states we can never know about these things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffywolf View Post
    I need these concepts on my mind to be happy. I need to question them sufficiently to be happy with my opinion and stance towards it. Only that way can I be at peace with my beliefs.
    I quite like not having an idea of what happens in these 'spiritual areas', makes life feel more like an adventure. Like you though, I want the truth more than that feeling.

    When I do speculate, it ends up like this The Pros and Cons of Eternity. That is vastly too limited for me to even consider it a coherent idea, as of yet.

  10. #20
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post
    Fair enough. Essentially I don't think it's rational to say anything exists until it has been observed. I formed this belief from the premise that, existence is only observation, nothing more.
    I think that premise is a sound one. But I actually think the opposite. It was "observed" that the sun revolved around the earth, for a very long time. However there wasn't a mechanism attributed to this. The universe used to be filled with ether because how else would the light waves propagate? We now use similar arguments for these things like dark matter and dark energy. "Well if it didn't exist, what could it be?"

    Until I can "see" the particles, forces, masses, ie, the mechanisms for some of these things I will always be skeptical and looking deeper for Truth.



Similar Threads

  1. [ESFP] Opinions on esfp's.
    By King sns in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 02-09-2009, 12:56 AM
  2. Opinions on Bush and Clinton (Moved from Obama muslim thread.)
    By Jeffster in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-03-2008, 09:56 AM
  3. [ISTP] please give an opinion on istp behavior
    By grendiecat in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-07-2008, 03:23 AM
  4. My Opinion on the Necessity for Shoes
    By disTant_eCHo in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 02-19-2008, 03:20 AM
  5. [NT] NT: Opinion on Smoking?
    By Usehername in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-09-2007, 04:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO