Moderated Is belief itself dangerous for your brain? (A rethink is in order)

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Cherry picking won't help your case, Jordan. Individual bacterium do not think.


.

Bacteria think..

No, that's not what the article said. Your ability to understand simple concepts is under question.

[IMGw=220]http://i.imgur.com/kFdLQf8.jpg[/IMGw]

(A)


On the contrary to your remark that they don't think, here is additional data from the article:

"Pamela Lyon, of the University of Adelaide and the ANU, has been arguing for some time that this makes what bacteria do a form of cognition."


(B)

Also, I didin't cherry pick.
You might have noticed that John S. Wilkins (the article's author) is a philosopher.
I simply extracted what was likely to be valid data from the article, that is data with respect to actual biologists.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of belief as an evolutionary trait.

It seems like you simply don't understand the first thing about what's needed to follow this sort of discussion.



That's like saying you have a choice to find pastry tasty.

What scientific evidence can you show us, regarding belief as a set trait in humans, that humans cannot avoid?

[IMGw=220]http://i.imgur.com/35te6Qx.jpg[/IMGw]

 

[Belz...]

"Pamela Lyon, of the University of Adelaide and the ANU, has been arguing for some time that this makes what bacteria do a form of cognition."

I've already addressed this. Individual bacterium do not think.

What scientific evidence can you show us, regarding belief as a set trait in humans, that humans cannot avoid?

Why would I present evidence for a claim that I didn't make?

Seriously, you seem incapable of following the discussion. I can't help you with that.

Here's an example, from your sig:

"non beliefism" = atheism minus theism

Atheism already doesn't have theism. How can you subtract theism from atheism? That makes no sense.

 

[steenkh]

Likewise, one can choose not to employ belief.

Really?

Science is built on the premise that under the same circumstances, the same things will happen. For instance, if I drop a ball, it will fall, and if I do it again, it will fall again.

That premise is a belief. It certainly has a lot of evidence for it, but it is a belief nonetheless, and this specific belief is one that certain theists do not have. Their god can change the laws of nature from one moment to the next, and since it is a god-in-the-gap argument, it cannot be disproved.

 

[Chanakya]

Hilarious thread! They've moved it to R&P now. Shouldn't this go under Humor?


PGJ, I don't believe you're 100% sane. Do you agree with my non-belief?

*gets ready to duck to avoid the graphics*

 

[John Jones]

I had read them.

Both articles express that bacteria can think, but not in the same way as mammals. Doesn't remove the factum that they think, regardless.




That is nonbeliefism's point Argumemnon; why would one choose Y, given that X is better?

KneeGrow, please.

You haven't made a single defensible point in the many months you have been trying. You keep falling back on equivocation fallacies and appeals to false definitions.

Don't make me read you like The New York Times once again.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

I've already addressed this. Individual bacterium do not think.



Why would I present evidence for a claim that I didn't make?

Seriously, you seem incapable of following the discussion. I can't help you with that.

Here's an example, from your sig:



Atheism already doesn't have theism. How can you subtract theism from atheism? That makes no sense.

I noticed you switched from bacteria, to individual bacterium don't think, about a post ago.

Still doesn't change that you said bacteria didn't think, several posts ago.

Also, where did I express the words "individual bacterium think"?

Why did you express that bacteria (not individual bacterium) didn't think?


FOOTNOTE:
It appears there is an error in your short term memory.

Did you forget this quote of yours, via reply #77?:

Choose"? We're talking about evolution, here. There's no choice there.

So, you need to provide evidence, as to why you garner that humans cannot avoid belief.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

KneeGrow, please.

You haven't made a single defensible point in the many months you have been trying. You keep falling back on equivocation fallacies and appeals to false definitions.

Don't make me read you like The New York Times once again.

Nonbeliefism occurs on a simple description; that no critically thinking human somebody should select belief (that by definition, can include non science) instead of the scientific methodology.

It is empirically observed that scientific methodology cannot include non scientific methodology, but however, that belief can include non science, and such is non beliefism's premise.


One need not trust/believe in science, such that one applies it...

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Really?

Science is built on the premise that under the same circumstances, the same things will happen. For instance, if I drop a ball, it will fall, and if I do it again, it will fall again.

That premise is a belief. It certainly has a lot of evidence for it, but it is a belief nonetheless..

Wrong.

That flat earthers exist, does not disregard gravitational theory, and that scientists may believe in equations, does not alter the behaviour of those equations.

 

[Belz...]

I noticed you switched from bacteria, to individual bacterium don't think, about a post ago.

Still doesn't change that you said bacteria didn't think, several posts ago.

Also, where did I express the words "individual bacterium think"?

Why did you express that bacteria (not individual bacterium) didn't think?

I didn't switch anything. I waited to see if you'd spot your mistake, and gave you several chances to do so, before springing the trap.

Saying "humans don't fly" is the same as saying "a human doesn't fly", by the way. That bacteria colonies exhibit certain behaviours changes nothing about the fact that bacteria don't think.

But again, you seem completely out of your depth in a discussion that uses reason.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

I didn't switch anything. I waited to see if you'd spot your mistake, and gave you several chances to do so, before springing the trap.

Saying "humans don't fly" is the same as saying "a human doesn't fly", by the way. That bacteria colonies exhibit certain behaviours changes nothing about the fact that bacteria don't think.

But again, you seem completely out of your depth in a discussion that uses reason.

Go back to post 54.
Why lie?
Are you trolling?

Bacteria don't have nervous systems. Ergo they don't think.

So you definitely switched, only to confuse yourself further.

Also, recall this data by actual biologist:

On the contrary to your remark that they don't think, here is additional data from the article:

"Pamela Lyon, of the University of Adelaide and the ANU, has been arguing for some time that this makes what bacteria do a form of cognition."

Why bother to lie though?

Are you aware that others here can easily navigate to the replies, and quickly uncover that the error you accused me of doing, is non existent, and instead that you blundered?

 

[fagin]

Repeating the same thing ad nauseum doesn't make you righter.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Repeating the same thing ad nauseum doesn't make you righter.

Argumemnon could perhaps evolve, with your remark above...

 

[Chanakya]

Repeating the same thing ad nauseum doesn't make you righter.

So you believe.

He doesn't believe in believing at all, remember? So what you say won't apply to him.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Hilarious thread! They've moved it to R&P now. Shouldn't this go under Humor?


PGJ, I don't believe you're 100% sane. Do you agree with my non-belief?

*gets ready to duck to avoid the graphics*

The grade of intellect reflected in some of these responses are almost laughable.

I would therein not oppose to this thread's moving to humour section.

 

[fagin]

The grade of intellect reflected in some of these responses are is almost laughable.

I would therein? not oppose to this thread's? moving to humour section.

You should always check your spelling, grammar, and general 'does this make sense' before criticising the intellect of others.

Or perhaps, like bacteria, this thread has a form of cognition?

 

[Chanakya]

Just kidding, PGJ. I don't really think you're nuts. And you're doing great work here. What better way to spend the time of day, after all, than spreading laughter and cheer all around?

But you didn't answer my question. If someone walks up to you and tells you "PGJ, I don't believe you're 100% sane. Do you agree with my non-belief?", what would you tell them (apart from the put-downs, in words and graphics)?

 

[Belz...]

Go back to post 54.
Why lie?
Are you trolling?

So you definitely switched, only to confuse yourself further.

Look, I've made every effort to explain things to you: bacteria have no nervous system. Ergo they cannot think. Like individual neurons in your brain can't think. The whole of the brain, however, may have emergend properties such as thought. Do you understand this?

Why bother to lie though?

Are you aware that others here can easily navigate to the replies, and quickly uncover that the error you accused me of doing, is non existent, and instead that you blundered?

Yes, I'm aware of that, and so far you seem to be the only one confused by what I'm telling you. This is all an attempt by you to divert from your initial mistake of countering my post with bacteria as an example when they are irrelevant to that post.

 

[Thermal]

Atheism already doesn't have theism. How can you subtract theism from atheism? That makes no sense.

Not to defend this poster's comedy routine argument, but I gather he means that the very concept of theism is inadmissible in his stated premise of rejecting beliefs, so it should not logically be used in his definition (it is not properly atheism if a faith-based theism is rejected in toto). Kind of like someone wouldn't claim to be anti-invisible-pink-unicorn. He wants to advocate rationality by rejecting belief wholesale...which highlights his misunderstanding of what belief is. It was a funny word game initially but is dragging on a bit now.

 

[fagin]

I believe you may be correct.

 

[Belz...]

Not to defend this poster's comedy routine argument, but I gather he means that the very concept of theism is inadmissible in his stated premise of rejecting beliefs, so it should not logically be used in his definition (it is not properly atheism if a faith-based theism is rejected in toto). Kind of like someone wouldn't claim to be anti-invisible-pink-unicorn. He wants to advocate rationality by rejecting belief wholesale...which highlights his misunderstanding of what belief is. It was a funny word game initially but is dragging on a bit now.

If correct, that may be even more stupid. PGJ's entire shtick seems to be word salad dressed up as erudition and intelligence.