It was a question, as shown by the question mark at the end of the word.
I'll admit that I was assuming that you'd say no, but that's not the same thing as putting words in your mouth.
You put a question in my mouth. Assuming is something that you do in your head. You agree right? Yes?
Mediocre said:
Logically, that makes perfect sense. Practically, it does not.
Considering practicality highlights one's opinions. Practically, it does to you and doesn't to me. Logic is of course one's own opinion as well. If you'd like to assume that your version of reality holds true to all instances I'm sure 6 billion people might beg to differ, more or less.
Of course, you brought up logic, so I answered logically and not practically. I would ask that you do not digress in conjecture for the sake of an argument. =D
Mediocre said:
Hell, I don't even believe that you know for sure what your senses tell you. Not everything you see, feel or hear is real. I personally, have never experimented with any hallucinatory drugs, but anyone who has could certainly tell you that they make you sense things that aren't real. I've thought I've felt, heard or seen things which I later realized hadn't actually happened.
Hallucniagens making you sense unreal things is typical of, and quite similar to, being fatigued and seeing things, of being sleepy and sensing things, as well as when you're sober and are mistaken or momentarily "caught off senses". Forgive the figure of speech. Of course on hallucinigens you see some things you wouldn't in the other cases, but that holds true for being in a state of fatigue etc. When I'm sleepy I see black cloaks floating around the corner of my eye, but a hallucinagen wouldn't provoke even a vision of a black cloak in the same manner.
But your argument here (you cannot trust your senses), this we agree on. I don't think you know
for sure what your senses tell you, that is why I mentioned the process your body uses to place bias on your senses, your soul.
Mediocre said:
For all I know, we could even be in some kind of Matrix-like world of illusion, and nothing we sense is real.
However, it makes no sense to believe this because there is no evidence for it. If you act on a belief like that, it will have entirely negative effects.
You're suggestion action on no evidence? You get me wrong once again on the same point. You assume considering it could be black I think it's white, when I'm saying that because it could be black, it could be black or white.
Do you understand this? I'm trying to tell you
Don't rule out something because it's improbable.
Don't rule something in because it is probable. The latter seems to be what you are stuck on, disregarding a possibility because it is not likely. (I.E. Unicorns are not likely, but unless you are omni-psychic there very well could exist one, perhaps a genetic experiment, etc).
Mediocre said:
That is why I, and many people, choose to actively disbelieve in many things that we see no evidence for.
It is my personal opinion that this logic:
No evidence, therefore disbelief
Is flawed. I think it should be aligned like this:
No evidence, therefore don't form an opinion, only state facts/theories/opinions that you do have.
Accordingly, I made an argument about a supposed science research project, expressed that it was second hand information, but that it was considerable for theory on senses/
Mediocre said:
Personally, my disbelief is not absolute, and if I were presented with convincing evidence that I was wrong I would definitely change my mind.
In cases where evidence is easily faked, this would turn you into a sheep, just like the rest of the population.
If you don't believe me, consider WWII era Germans and Russians. Born good people, through propoganda grew to hate billions of people they don't know because the TV showed evidence that changed their mind. Convincing evidence, due in very small part to such a trifle thing as a leader's charismatic voice.
Yes, charisma can be convincing. This is often about the mood of the listener. Clairvoyance is INDEED brought about by atmosphere, I can profess this in truth from personal experience. Take it at your leisure.
Mediocre said:
I don't consider myself agnostic about leprechauns and other fantastical creatures, because, unlike God (not the Christian God, but any God) leprechauns are supposed to be living on this same planet with billions of human beings on it. The fact that no one has ever convincingly documented an encounter with a leprechaun or captured one leads me to believe that they don't exist.
Once more ignorance does not form solid evidence against.
There are hundreds of accounts in D'uh! Ireland.
Why would billions of humans encounter a
hidden race in one country?
I think you mean taht "leprechauns are supposed to be living on this same [country] with [hundreds of thousands of people] on it. The fact that [their history and literature is blanketed in accounts, variably mythical and truthful] leads me to believe that [they could exist].
Now I'm putting words in mouths, forgive me ^^; take it as my own quote if you wish.
Mediocre said:
If you remain agnostic about everything that you haven't seen, that's fine. However, it is just as reasonable to disbelieve it as it is to remain neutral.
Despite my foreign views I follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. I don't support churches, as they seem to be businesses these days.
My point, it is not reasonable to disbelieve it unless
YOU ACTUALLY HAVE PROOF! Proof to disbelieve it.
Someone tells you your house is on fire while you're in it and the whole of it is visible where you sit? Bah, you shouldn't believe that, it's an 800+ dollar fine for crank calling a fire engine.
It's reasonable to disbelieve that your house is not on fire because you can see it is not, but what if in case, the man who told you it was on fire was an electrician, and was working next to your house! Then you would have lost your house due to disbelief without proof.
Mediocre said:
I've never sensed anything that conflicted with any scientific law or theory that I am aware of. I've read about lots of scientific theories that I've never personally seen any evidence for (like quantum theory), but nothing I've observed has ever run counter to my understanding of the current scientific theories.
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you contradicting yourself?
A teacher of mine in high school said science theories and the solid laws they are built upon change every second as the scientific community observes the changes the world makes.
How science observes law is the same intagible experience that humans suffer, you cannot be sure, but you can form an opinion.
Does this mean concrete scientific law is an opinion?
Yes.
How can this be true?
How about the concrete science law for THOUSANDS of years that the earth was flat? Believe me ancient geologists had many many tools to measure the flatness of the earth, but not the roundness.
It's like today in science, Big-bang for example.
There are many tools to prove the Big-bang, that made it science law. It wasn't until scientists started using tools that could disprove it that the science community rejected it as law and reduced it to theory, and then it was further rejected by mainstream scientists that found better theories, forcing it into a public "hypothesis" state.
(Note: If you the reader was taught this is school, I am almost sure it is due to outdated textbooks).
I have never studied Quantum Physics either, but the things in this world that I know the most about, like skateboarding, eating habits, and martial arts, I never studied. I learned from experience.
Please do not think I'm writing this angrily or to get a "one up" on you. I'm just trying to make myself clear so that you can better understand my view on these subjects.
