Thermal
August Member
I ponder:
(A)
Rationality betwixt the
Recall:
(B)
Amidst thine musings, you plummet forshortenedly betwixt the God-ish inassailabilityianism of the premise.
...Peons...
Moderated Is belief itself dangerous for your brain? (A rethink is in order)
- Thread starter ProgrammingGodJordan
- Start date
I ponder:
(A)
Rationality betwixt the
Recall:
(B)
Amidst thine musings, you plummet forshortenedly betwixt the God-ish inassailabilityianism of the premise.
...Peons...
JesseCuster
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 4, 2016
- Messages
- 2,159
Are you being deliberately obtuse or can you genuinely not understand my point?
At no point in the post of mine that you quoted and responded to did I say that I "don't fancy science". I said or implied absolutely nothing of the sort.
My comment was clearly not about the pros or cons of science, but about the rather desperate sounding declaration at the very start of the book about how it contains "no opinion, faith emotion nor bias......" etc.
People who read the book can and will decide themselves about how opinionated, biased, emotional, etc. it is. When people read the book, they will be able to decide if it is biased or not, emotional or not, opinionated or not, etc. based upon what is actually written in the book. Telling people at the very start of your book that it is unbiased, unemotional and unopinionated is not going to make them believe that it is actually these things.
It's not like you're quoting from a review where the reviewer read the book, noted these positive qualities and wrote the up in a review. No, what you're doing is arrogantly declaring your own opinion about your book at the very start in order to try and convince people before they even read the book, just how coldly logical and scientific and just darn awesome it is.
Like I said, this sets off red flags for me. It's like your telling your readers what they should think of your book before that actually read it, instead of letting them form their own opinion after actually reading it, which is generally how these things should work.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Did I say that your book contained no valid sources?
I'm not here to debate Biblical contradictions and why people would believe such a ridiculous book as the Bible. I asked about it because you randomly mentioned the Bible and its contradictions in the introduction to your book and it seemed to be mentioned in the introduction for no obvious reason. What I wanted to know was why you mentioned Christianity and Biblical contradictions in the introduction. The introduction does not say that there is a section of the book dedicated to these things and that you will discuss the problems with religion and the problems with religious scriptures. You just randomly mention the Bible and Biblical contradictions in the midst of an introduction that seems to randomly and vaguely mention topics like artificial intelligence, quantum mechanics, the meaning of life, Biblical contradictions, etc. and there's no apparent reason for the relevance of these topics or there connection with each other or with the overall theme of the book. Is the book about these topics? Are there chapters about these various topics? The introduction is so poorly written that I can't tell what it's actually getting at. It doesn't appear to be making any attempt to actually introduce what's going to be in the book as it doesn't mention that these topics are going to be discussed in the book and why they're mentioned in the introduction. It's like you just rambled on about various subjects (that may or may not be important topics in the book) in the introduction for some reason or other, without stopping to think about what the purpose of the introduction actually was and what you expect your readers to get out of the introduction.
The introduction to a book should do as the name implies, introduce the book to the potential reader. Let them know what the book is about. What the motivation was for writing the book. What topics will be discussed. What the overall theme is. Things like that. Instead, what you've appeared to have done is string together a bunch of random sentences that obliquely mention various topics that have no apparent connection with each other and no explanation is given to the reader about the relevance of these subjects and their connection to the overriding theme of the book. The sentences are disconnected from each other. They don't seem to follow from each other. Its all rather strange and random reading to me.
TL;DR version: Having read the introduction to your book, I don't actually know what the book is really about. That does not inspire me to want to read the actual book. The introduction should give me some idea of what to expect in the book itself.
Anyway, make of this criticism what you will, but if you're going to bother responding to it, please responding to what I'm actually criticising about the introduction to your book, not what you imagine I'm criticising about it, which is what you appear to have done.
Belz...
Fiend God
I feel so small right now.
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2014
- Messages
- 4,950
It is empirically observed that a vegan diet cannot include non vegan foods, but however, that snacks can include animal products.
Categories do not include other categories that they must exclude by definition. This does not need saying. You're not saying anything here.
Belz...
Fiend God
Excellent thread summary.
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Repeating the question, because ProgrammingGodJordan still has yet to even explain why he sees this logical principle to be valid, much less has presented a valid defense of this logic.
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
Quite the irrelevant sequence above.
That belief may inherently include non-science, should indicate to any normal human thinker that belief is not compatible with science.
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
(1) Grade may mean set. So, my usage of 'are' is valid.
(2) Therein is a valid word thereafter.
(3) Not opposing to something, is valid.
https://english.stackexchange.com/q...gree-with-set-or-the-plural-noun-that-follows
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
Are you being deliberately obtuse or can you genuinely not understand my point?
At no point in the post of mine that you quoted and responded to did I say that I "don't fancy science". I said or implied absolutely nothing of the sort.
My comment was clearly not about the pros or cons of science, but about the rather desperate sounding declaration at the very start of the book about how it contains "no opinion, faith emotion nor bias......" etc.
People who read the book can and will decide themselves about how opinionated, biased, emotional, etc. it is. When people read the book, they will be able to decide if it is biased or not, emotional or not, opinionated or not, etc. based upon what is actually written in the book. Telling people at the very start of your book that it is unbiased, unemotional and unopinionated is not going to make them believe that it is actually these things.
It's not like you're quoting from a review where the reviewer read the book, noted these positive qualities and wrote the up in a review. No, what you're doing is arrogantly declaring your own opinion about your book at the very start in order to try and convince people before they even read the book, just how coldly logical and scientific and just darn awesome it is.
Like I said, this sets off red flags for me. It's like your telling your readers what they should think of your book before that actually read it, instead of letting them form their own opinion after actually reading it, which is generally how these things should work.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Did I say that your book contained no valid sources?
I'm not here to debate Biblical contradictions and why people would believe such a ridiculous book as the Bible. I asked about it because you randomly mentioned the Bible and its contradictions in the introduction to your book and it seemed to be mentioned in the introduction for no obvious reason. What I wanted to know was why you mentioned Christianity and Biblical contradictions in the introduction. The introduction does not say that there is a section of the book dedicated to these things and that you will discuss the problems with religion and the problems with religious scriptures. You just randomly mention the Bible and Biblical contradictions in the midst of an introduction that seems to randomly and vaguely mention topics like artificial intelligence, quantum mechanics, the meaning of life, Biblical contradictions, etc. and there's no apparent reason for the relevance of these topics or there connection with each other or with the overall theme of the book. Is the book about these topics? Are there chapters about these various topics? The introduction is so poorly written that I can't tell what it's actually getting at. It doesn't appear to be making any attempt to actually introduce what's going to be in the book as it doesn't mention that these topics are going to be discussed in the book and why they're mentioned in the introduction. It's like you just rambled on about various subjects (that may or may not be important topics in the book) in the introduction for some reason or other, without stopping to think about what the purpose of the introduction actually was and what you expect your readers to get out of the introduction.
The introduction to a book should do as the name implies, introduce the book to the potential reader. Let them know what the book is about. What the motivation was for writing the book. What topics will be discussed. What the overall theme is. Things like that. Instead, what you've appeared to have done is string together a bunch of random sentences that obliquely mention various topics that have no apparent connection with each other and no explanation is given to the reader about the relevance of these subjects and their connection to the overriding theme of the book. The sentences are disconnected from each other. They don't seem to follow from each other. Its all rather strange and random reading to me.
TL;DR version: Having read the introduction to your book, I don't actually know what the book is really about. That does not inspire me to want to read the actual book. The introduction should give me some idea of what to expect in the book itself.
Anyway, make of this criticism what you will, but if you're going to bother responding to it, please responding to what I'm actually criticising about the introduction to your book, not what you imagine I'm criticising about it, which is what you appear to have done.
TL; DR.
Try to be more precise in your expressions.
Please organize your thought cycles, and reconstruct a concise, small response.
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
I would direct them to my book.
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
[IMGw=320]http://i.imgur.com/sA6PAz9.jpg[/IMGw]
Belief standard definition:
To accept something as true, especially absent evidence.
Thusly, simply, that belief may primarily include non-scientific methodology, should indicate to humans beyond the age of childhood, that belief opposes science...
fagin
Philosopher
Nope, set is still singular, and I can't be bothered with the rest of your word salad.
Your 'literary' affections are tiresome.
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
To clarify, the 'set' occured with respect to a relative clause, in tandem with 'intellect', which may be plural.
https://english.stackexchange.com/q...gree-with-set-or-the-plural-noun-that-follows
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
For those that appear to be enamoured with belief, take a listen to Neil deGrasse Tyson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtBnm0X50VQ
[IMGw=1000]http://i.imgur.com/ZeKmERL.png[/IMGw]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtBnm0X50VQ
[IMGw=1000]http://i.imgur.com/ZeKmERL.png[/IMGw]
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
PGJ I don't believe a word.
Do you have a diagram for me? <g d r>
Do you have a diagram for me? <g d r>
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
That "liquid" may inherently include liquids that are not in the human body should indicate to any normal human thinker that liquid is not compatible with the human body. If you actually did embrace this logic of yours, you would be forced not to drink any liquids (and try to remove any that are already present)! I wonder, are you even able to understand how the logical principle that you're employing fails in both theoretical and practical application?
Employing an argument from authority when he's dumbing things down into a talking point for the masses doesn't actually support your case, especially when he was addressing a notably different argument in the first place.
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
You need attempt avoid silly, irrelevant anecdotes.
Your words do not alter the factum, that belief, can allow non-scientific methodology, while science cannot.
I am disappointed that it is not then clear to you, that belief opposes science, as it is a construct that primarily allows non-science.
FOONOTE:
Neil Tyson is addressing the very same issue that my book addresses; that belief is worthless, opposing science by definition.
You should also recall that such an authority is quite knowledgeable on the matter of science, probably more so than yourself.
[IMGw=200]http://i.imgur.com/35te6Qx.jpg[/IMGw]
I am curious, how is Neil's point supposedly "notably different" than the point(s) I make amidst the original post and above?
Last edited:
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Highlighting the faults in the logic that you're employing is hardly silly or irrelevant. Logical principles need to be generally true to be valid to employ as an argument, not specially pleaded to be relevant for one case and not others. Doing things like you are is something of a hallmark of the nastier aspects of religion... and quite frankly, I have no intention of inserting religious thinking into my atheism.
Of course it doesn't. Nor was there any attempt to argue that it did. Rather, it was highlighting how you are attempting to grossly and fallaciously misuse that rather trivial fact to try to support a harmful, ignorant, and internally contradictory "understanding."
There are effectively uncountable kinds of liquids that will kill you if you drink them and frequently even if you are near them, and that very possibly includes the overwhelming majority of kinds of liquids. Does that make it any more reasonable or valid to say that liquids are not compatible with the human body? Or, shockingly, could you admit that maybe, just maybe, a more nuanced approach is needed to validly address the issue than to proclaim all liquid to be in opposition to the human body and should thus be removed from the human body?
More specifically, certain kinds of beliefs do oppose science by definition. Trying to overgeneralize that fact into a rejection of all belief, however, is to ignore the nature of what belief actually is and what functions it serves, on top of committing multiple logical fallacies.
And I didn't claim that the weakness necessarily laid with him, though I very strongly suspect that Tyson and I would very quickly agree in a discussion on the topic, when it comes the points that I was actually making. After all, this is very basic stuff that we're talking about and it would surprise me quite a bit if he actually disagreed with a counter to that statement that said "Reality is what's true regardless of what one believes about it. Science is simply the most reliable tool that we have to determine what reality actually is, by far." To draw on a couple of Tyson's quotes myself to further reinforce that, though, given that he's the subject in question, "The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you." and "Knowing how to think empowers you far beyond those who know only what to think."
Back to your understanding of the matters at hand, though... that does seem to be a place of great weakness. Hence one of the reasons why I pointedly differentiated between belief and faith at the beginning of discussion and why I've been highlighting how the logic that you've been employing is little more than special pleading and overgeneralization.
Hmm? In response to a questioner who was vaguely waffling about different people believing different things, he responded with the claim that science doesn't require one to believe in it for to be true. That is quite true, given that truth is not mutable or dependent upon outside subjective validation to actually be the case. It's also a reference to the fact that the scientific method is all about focusing on the beliefs regarding the best methods to gather and evaluate information rather than on the desired end beliefs. It's about the how, in other words, more than the what. To repeat the quote from earlier for emphasis, "Knowing how to think empowers you far beyond those who know only what to think." That's certainly not a rejection of all kinds of belief, there. A rejection of beliefs based on fallacious logic, perhaps, but not all belief by a long shot.
Last edited:
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2016
- Messages
- 483
Algebra!
non-beliefism = atheism minus theism
then
non-beliefism = a
Don't know how that helps, but it's what the problem reduces to.
non-beliefism = atheism minus theism
then
non-beliefism = a
Don't know how that helps, but it's what the problem reduces to.
Thermal
August Member
So you keep saying. And as it has been repeatedly pointed out to you on several threads now, the use of 'especially' does not imply the exclusivity you think it does. Belief can mean to accept as true without evidence (faith) and it can also mean to accept as true with evidence (as in a scientific belief). You are having an inexplicably difficult time grasping the latter.
A human beyond the age of childhood can normally grasp the concept of scientific or rational belief. Faith may not withstand the rigors of the scientific method, but you persistently employ the wrong term (belief).
Just look at what you wrote above: because belief may be unfounded on science, you assert it opposes science. No, Baba Louis. It may sometimes oppose science, which is not a particularly profound observation. It's really not that complicated.