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

[fagin]

If that's an example, the rest of your 'book' must be turgid dross.

You shouldn't really quote your own lack of understanding to refute other peoples' arguments.

But do carry on. Rinse and repeat.

 

[fagin]

ps. I thought Trump was mankind's strongest tool?

 

[abaddon]

@PGJ. How do you justify the beliefs that YOU hold?

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

This suggests that you misunderstand the way that things work. New data should be the trigger to updating what one accepts (remember the first usage of believe, again?) provided that the data is trustworthy and relevant enough. You've got the data already at the point that your "observation" can be meaningfully updated.

Emotion-based thinking. You found out through personal unhappiness that faith is far from the most trustworthy method to judge truth, overgeneralized, and latched onto science without taking the time to understand the philosophy that produced it, underlies it, and grants it much of its power. Had you taken the time to do so properly, you wouldn't be making the remarkably basic mistakes that you are with "non-beliefism."

You forget that science is a system that is constantly updated.

That science has models that require reconstitution, does not suddenly render science to be a belief.

*raises an eyebrow* Once a believer like me? That quite suggests that you've been paying little to no attention to what I've said. I was raised as a Christian, but haven't been an adherent of any faith or religion... for a decade and a half, maybe? I am very much a proponent of reason, logic, and valid arguments more than anything else, which is why we're clashing.

You are still one who believes, (i.e. a believer).

That you reject non-beliefism, means that you still sillily believe in things, such as science, despite the fact that science holds true regardless of belief.

The remainder of your responses are highly nonsensical, and so I shan't bother to grant them attention beyond this sentence's scope.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

@PGJ. How do you justify the beliefs that YOU hold?

Are you projecting?

That you have beliefs, does not suddenly render me a believer in anything.

Belief is for toddlers, that are unable to observe that one need not believe in science, for science holds true regardless. Furthermore, belief opposes the scientific methodology, and humans are better of with science.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

If that's an example, the rest of your 'book' must be turgid dross.

You shouldn't really quote your own lack of understanding to refute other peoples' arguments.

But do carry on. Rinse and repeat.

Are you one of those blood transfusion refusers? Are you a theist or a conspiracy theorist?

 

[steenkh]

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.

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.

These statements seem to be disconnected to what I said. Could you explain?

Alternatively, your statements might mean that you do not think that scientific assumptions, i.e. axioms could be false. In that case, you might explain why that is not a belief.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Do you have evidence for your assertions about the beliefs of other posters?

Because if you are making assumptions about other people's beliefs without evidence... that is called a belief, my good man. Best stop assuming before your brain rots. I read in your OP that that happens.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

These statements seem to be disconnected to what I said. Could you explain?

Alternatively, your statements might mean that you do not think that scientific assumptions, i.e. axioms could be false. In that case, you might explain why that is not a belief.

Simply, that science (of high concern for evidence) is a system that faces constant updating, does not suddenly render it to be a belief (that by definition has little concern for scientific evidence)

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Do you have evidence for your assertions about the beliefs of other posters?

Because if you are making assumptions about other people's beliefs without evidence... that is called a belief, my good man. Best stop assuming before your brain rots. I read in your OP that that happens.

Wrong.
Belief can occur with evidence. (..although belief has low concern of evidence, and thus opposes science)

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Why do " skeptics' " responses here indicate difficulty in observation that belief opposes science?

Is dictionary usage such a difficult task?

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Wrong.
Belief can occur with evidence. (..although belief has low concern of evidence, and thus opposes science)

I did not say that belief always occurs without evidence, I saisd that you have no evidence, so your assumptions are neccesarily based on belief.

Stop contradicting yourself.

 

[fagin]

If that's an example, the rest of your 'book' must be turgid dross.

You shouldn't really quote your own lack of understanding to refute other peoples' arguments.

But do carry on. Rinse and repeat.

Are you one of those blood transfusion refusers? Are you a theist or a conspiracy theorist?

Regular blood donor, atheist, and no.

You are free to believe me or not.

However I have absolutely no idea what that has to do with my original statement, which was really aimed at just how badly you communicate.

Wrong.
Belief can occur with evidence. (..although belief has low concern of evidence, and thus opposes science)

Do you really believe that?

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

I did not say that belief always occurs without evidence, I saisd that you have no evidence, so your assumptions are neccesarily based on belief.

Stop contradicting yourself.

Why would you express such nonsense? (Note I approach your response here not you)

That beings here reject non-beliefism (as shown in their negating responses) is clear evidence that they express that they believe in things like science. (although science holds true regardless of belief)

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Regular blood donor, atheist, and no.

You are free to believe me or not.

However I have absolutely no idea what that has to do with my original statement, which was really aimed at just how badly you communicate.



Do you really believe that?

You need contact a dictionary.

No standard dictionary is without some flavour of belief, with at least one definition that designates low evidence concern...

 

[steenkh]

Simply, that science (of high concern for evidence) is a system that faces constant updating, does not suddenly render it to be a belief (that by definition has little concern for scientific evidence)

Holding an axiom for true is not a belief because there is plenty of evidence for it? The initial resistance against quantum physics was precisely because it broke the axiom that everything was repeatable. Now we know that this axiom can be broken, but it is still not a belief to assume it is self-evidently true?

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Why would you express such nonsense? (Note I approach your response here not you)

That beings here reject non-beliefism (as shown in their negating responses) is clear evidence that they express that they believe in things like science. (although science holds true regardless of belief)

No, rejecting your little made up and poorly formulated belief system does not mean anything other than a rejection of what you have written. You can not infer people's 'true motives' from that.

In fact, people have told you that they reject what you have written because it is inconsistent, fallacious, and poorly worded. This does not mean that they harbor secret beliefs that compell them to oppose you. It just means they can read.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Regular blood donor, atheist, and no.

You are free to believe me or not.

However I have absolutely no idea what that has to do with my original statement, which was really aimed at just how badly you communicate.



Do you really believe that?

Dross' primary meaning is something rubbish.

That my book recalls of health neglection abound belief, is rather than rubbish, not so.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Holding an axiom for true is not a belief because there is plenty of evidence for it? The initial resistance against quantum physics was precisely because it broke the axiom that everything was repeatable. Now we know that this axiom can be broken, but it is still not a belief to assume it is self-evidently true?

Observing standard definitions, that science has models that require re-constitution, does not suddenly render science to be a belief.
Science is not perfect, but it is mankind's best tool, and it is not compatible with belief, that lacks high concern for scientific evidence.
And thus, belief fundamentally opposes science.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

No, rejecting your little made up and poorly formulated belief system does not mean anything other than a rejection of what you have written. You can not infer people's 'true motives' from that.

In fact, people have told you that they reject what you have written because it is inconsistent, fallacious, and poorly worded. This does not mean that they harbor secret beliefs that compell them to oppose you. It just means they can read.

Non-beliefism simply recalls that belief opposes science.
Non-beliefism did not manufacture the above factum; that belief opposes science persists whether or not non-beliefism exists.