Is Unbelief Possible?

[Mudhammam]

Actually it's observable.

You don't think this is actual footage, right?

[psychoslice]

I don't think its actual footage, it might be animated of how they think it would look ?

[Rampant.A.I.]

Why do I get the impression that belev2know was a bot or an A.I ?

Not skeptical enough to be an A.I. But with great belief comes great regurgitation.

[Hezekiah]

Do you need to jump into the sun to see what's going on in there?
Or you can accept that hydrogen is fused into helium?

Yes I know through experience that the sun is hot, and what makes it hot doesn't matter to me, its interesting, but it doesn't matter.

I agree, I think you make a good point. Something can't truly be known, and irrevocably** true unless experience is had. You might be able to go on and say that because of this, the purest form of knowledge or knowing is experience.

At that point I would guess that belief would not only not be needed, but it may not even be existent to any degree. Belief is needed until experience is had.

However in the case of ignorance- like if someone has zero knowledge that the experience exists, and then suddenly the experience happens (for example: a surprise party, an unexpected gift, etc.), belief never existed, and in that case true unbelief has taken place because no aspect of the surprise event was concieved on any level.

Assuming all this one step further, belief stems from knowledge. Without knowledge of any sort belief would have no foundation for existence. Belief can be based off of our experienced-knowledge or our belief-knowledge. Knowledge firm in theories, ideas and consepts - or Knowledge firm in personal experience.

But maybe I'm not making any sense.

**(maybe not entirely "irrevocable" but not ultimately true because false or fabricated experiences are not impossible.)

EDIT:

After re-reading I had a change of heart. I don't think Belief is non-existent when experience is had but strengthened. Belief is still to be had since false experience can be had (for example: a friend tricking you into believing a story of his. Or making you think there's someone behind you, and you believe it enough to turn around, but there's no one there. You believed you were experiencing someone behind you watching you, when none of that was true at all.) Because you based your belief in a concept or idea, it was more likely to fail you. Base your belief in experience and its much less likely, but still liable to fail. Therefore, if belief was placed in the idea of something perfect outside our own potential to corrupt (or affect) it, you've accounted for human error in quest for 100% pure unadulterated truth.

But I'm just tossing out ideas. Thoughts?

[Belev2Know]

HEZ: "However in the case of ignorance- like if someone has zero knowledge that the experience exists, and then suddenly the experience happens (for example: a surprise party, an unexpected gift, etc.), belief

Wiki: ]

never existed, and in that case true unbelief has taken place because no aspect of the surprise event was concieved on any level."

Because you based your belief in a concept or idea, it was more likely Wiki: to fail Wiki: you."

---

tor: I think you will still find, as "scientists" technically argued Java ape man and Piltdown hoaxes spewed as 'FACT' in grade school for me...
and argue Neanderthal is a diseased bone possibility in curvature findings still to date...

"black hole" detailed existence as 'fact' would not hold up in any legal venue , yet, however one BELIEVES it it's 'un-ness'...

As far as my writing and grammar , which I addressed in introductory post:
it will only improve as I read others' semantics; but i know for a fact the eloquence of another grammatically working 'properly' the writ -is not always about any wisdom of the 'claimed-knowledge', necessarily; and enough times not the knowledge of anything surely, too.

It is why I await real questions about OP and OP reply's sticking to a thread, and not adjectival judgements nor cliche phrase-generality, - such as seeing belief exists in all 'unbelief' or one is not communicating on any bloggable level.

[Esquilax]

tor: I think you will still find, as "scientists" technically argued Java ape man and Piltdown hoaxes spewed as 'FACT' in grade school for me...
and argue Neanderthal is a diseased bone possibility in curvature findings still to date...

Normally I wouldn't bother with this, but you've entered into my wheelhouse here and, more importantly, I hate to see such presumptuous disregard for science, scientists, and evolution, so... you get the correction spiel.

Do you happen to know anything at all about Piltdown man? I rather doubt it; I get the feeling that you heard it was proven fraudulent and decided you knew all you needed to about it, and therefore the science surrounding it. What you probably didn't know, in that case, was that the American Museum of Natural History displayed it as a mix of human and ape fossils- this turned out to be correct- when it was initially discovered, and not as a missing link. Given the lack of scientific tests that could properly verify this, the Piltdown fossils were put into storage until they were brought out after such tests were available and proven to be fraudulent, but even as early as 1913 there were scientists reporting that Piltdown was a combination of ape and human fossils, and the correct prediction that it was a human and orangutan fossil set was first made in 1923. Given this, I find it very hard to believe that you were taught that Piltdown was a factual example of a missing link, unless you're over ninety years old, or making this up. But the science was self correcting for the Piltdown fossil's incorrect nature decades before whatever schooling you went through, so you're just wrong here.

I don't even know what you're talking about with Java man; from the outset the Java fossils were considered incomplete and hence less than useful, but the current consensus is that they are hominid fossils, so... again, just wrong.

The absolute best you could say is that your grade school biology textbooks were oversimplified on account of your age at the time, but that hardly reflects on the science involved, given that this was way ahead of your education before you even had it.

I don't mean to derail the thread, just... I dislike having falsehoods portrayed as facts. Do a little research before you speak, next time.

[Belev2Know]

and Java was spewed as fact in the late 60's and before REAL scientific (scientia=knowledge) adhered to regular conjecture.
Please find
theories of your ideas of my ideas of "science" are inaccurate as one I am in the science of refrigeration and thermal energy transfer, sir.

Fine
move on before we spend info pardoning of the statue-d "Lucy" in St Louis and the removal of the three horse conjecture of the missing.. removed from sight in the last decade...

Facts are spewed for grant monies, and is my point, and off the backs of the taxpayers so many times and lost : both real and unreal infinite'm

---

and of the other , an 18 KM radius of "discovery " of other non-scientific purports... or the Smithsonian piled with murdered Pigmy bones of 'sure things' is what I am pointing to the likes of.

I grew up among a most noted scientist, and just somewhat similar to Isaac Newton, and had a hundred working patents that you are benefiting from today...
wrote 3 booklets on "... Life" and repeatedly told (and ASME) to always, in all things: "Look for the design in everything" quite the science of knowledge, not stopping at mere relative conjecture

no one here believes evolution does not exist on this side of the screen, just concerned with others' tangent theories disregarding ALL SCIENCE

[SteelCurtain]

My eyes hurt trying to decipher your gibberish. It's a lost cause.

[Belev2Know]

s;

I do not understand the reference to your slang for the beautiful coital acts say in a marriage of defined man and woman ...

However
what is your question about which idea or sentence, scientifically?

Now when I make some time, I will try to clarify.

C U Soon

[Esquilax]

and Java was spewed as fact in the late 60's and before REAL scientific (scientia=knowledge) adhered to regular conjecture.

Funny, because Java man is a fact, and it is an example of Homo Erectus. You literally do not know what you're talking about.

Fine
move on before we spend info pardoning of the statue-d "Lucy" in St Louis and the removal of the three horse conjecture of the missing.. removed from sight in the last decade...

Sorry, Lucy was real too, she's forty percent of a skeleton of an Australopethicus Afarensis.

Facts are spewed for grant monies, and is my point, and off the backs of the taxpayers so many times and lost : both real and unreal infinite'm

You only get the grant money to continue coming in if your facts turn out to, indeed, be factual.

The fact that every one of your examples here, bar Piltdown, are legitimate scientific discoveries that are warped into supposed "hoaxes" by creationist frauds leads me to believe your only research into this stuff is from those same fraudsters. Care to provide your references, so we can see the quality of your research material?

and of the other , an 18 KM radius of "discovery " of other non-scientific purports... or the Smithsonian piled with murdered Pigmy bones of 'sure things' is what I am pointing to the likes of.

Without references, it's hard to even know what you're talking about. Throw some links out.