• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
I tire of your silly anecdotes.
Click to expand...

I tire of you making false accusations and then running away when they're challenged.

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Simply, if one is to do science, one shall do so with high concern for evidence,
Click to expand...

Of course.

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
and so, one shall avoid belief (which is not in the regime of high evidence concern)
Click to expand...

And yet, to actually do science, accepting (believing) things at least provisionally is necessary. To employ the information that science provides, accepting (believing) things is necessary. For that matter, using a common language requires accepting (believing) things.

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
As with theistic writing, your response above is straddled with contradiction.
Click to expand...

Contradiction that you've failed to identify, much less defend.

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
The typical dictionary can quickly be used to purge you confusion, amidst the scenario above.

Thusly, your response is but inconsequential...
Click to expand...

Nope. The dictionary doesn't even remotely answer the question being asked. Your "evidence concern" line of argument is utterly fallacious, after all. Perhaps you could demonstrate other examples where you think the logic you're employing works, though?
 
Last edited:
Porpoise of Life said:
I don't believe your non-beliefism, which makes me more non-beliefist than you. Checkmate.
Click to expand...

Yes, it would be silly that I advise that one believes in non-beliefism, did you miss the original post?
Here are a few things to observe:

(1) I lack belief in myself. (Not surprisingly, as I lack belief in all things)
(2) I lack belief in non beliefism. (Not surprisingly, as I lack belief in all things)

Thusly, I advise not that one believe in any a sequence... not surprisingly.
 
Aridas said:
Nope. The dictionary doesn't even remotely answer the question being asked. Your "evidence concern" line of argument is utterly fallacious, after all. Perhaps you could demonstrate other examples where you think the logic you're employing works, though?
Click to expand...

Look in the dictionaries once more, for the word belief. (Perhaps a thousand times more, if the need arises)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Yes, it would be silly that I advise that one believes in non-beliefism,<snipped drivel>

Here are a few things to observe:

(1) I lack belief in myself. (Not surprisingly, as I lack belief in all things)
(2) I lack belief in non beliefism. (Not surprisingly, as I lack belief in all things)
Click to expand...

1. Lacking belief in one's self shows a lack of self-esteem. Keeping working on your writing skills and perhaps you'll be able to put out something that makes sense.

2. We're back to reading and writing in English. What this sentence says is that you do not belief in this hogwash you're spouting. Now, while I actually believe this to be true - that you don't believe what you're saying (half the time what you're writing doesn't make sense, anyway), you want us to believe that you do not believe in anything, not even yourself. Sad, so sad.

I don't think it's belief you lack. More like writing skills and English comprehension. The motif with all the pix and oversize printing does fall into your low self-esteem bit, you overcompensate for attention.

But, as I posted above, Porpoise won. Therefore, you (and non-beliefism) lose.

But non-beliefism doesn't exist.....because no one, not even you, believes in it! You say so yourself. So, please, stop self-editing your dictionary, actually LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF BELIEF (hint: it's been posted here) and find someone to explain it to you in small words in whatever your native language is (I'm hoping it's not English).
 
desmirelle said:
...But, as I posted above, Porpoise won. Therefore, you (and non-beliefism) lose...
Click to expand...

Hang on. PGJ dealt me three silly memes in his responses. Playing PGJ five-card, three silly memes beats one logical conclusion. I won.

In a previous thread, poster Slowvehicle made a game where you had to drink when PGJ wrote 'betwixt', IIRC. There is a wiggly red line under the word 'thusly' that shows when you quote him. For fun, I looked up 'thusly'. Usage note from dictionary.com:

Some speakers and writers regard thusly as a pointless synonym for thus, and they avoid it or use it only for humorous effect.

Contemporary Examples

The next time I spoke to him on the phone, he greeted me with thusly : “Hello, you prick.”
Click to expand...

I'll be drinking upon further use of 'thusly'. Inebriation anticipated.
 
I'm sorry, MostlyDead, but Porpoise wins by not believing in non-beliefism. On the bright side, you must take a drink every time 'non-beliefism' is used so that your inebriation is guaranteed!!!!! No anticipation necessary.
 
desmirelle said:
1. Lacking belief in one's self shows a lack of self-esteem. Keeping working on your writing skills and perhaps you'll be able to put out something that makes sense.

2. We're back to reading and writing in English. What this sentence says is that you do not belief in this hogwash you're spouting. Now, while I actually believe this to be true - that you don't believe what you're saying (half the time what you're writing doesn't make sense, anyway), you want us to believe that you do not believe in anything, not even yourself. Sad, so sad.

I don't think it's belief you lack. More like writing skills and English comprehension. The motif with all the pix and oversize printing does fall into your low self-esteem bit, you overcompensate for attention.

But, as I posted above, Porpoise won. Therefore, you (and non-beliefism) lose.

But non-beliefism doesn't exist.....because no one, not even you, believes in it! You say so yourself. So, please, stop self-editing your dictionary, actually LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF BELIEF (hint: it's been posted here) and find someone to explain it to you in small words in whatever your native language is (I'm hoping it's not English).
Click to expand...

Simply, one need not believe in empirically observed sequences; and thusly, as I am empirically observable, I need not believe in myself.

One who disregards nonbeliefism, denies science, for nonbeliefism encourages science.

FOOTNOTE:
I needn't 'self edit' belief's definition, for standard definitions may be referenced:
9iNqu0E.png
 
Last edited:
desmirelle said:
I'm sorry, MostlyDead, but Porpoise wins by not believing in non-beliefism. On the bright side, you must take a drink every time 'non-beliefism' is used so that your inebriation is guaranteed!!!!! No anticipation necessary.
Click to expand...

One need not believe in empirically observed sequences...

Come,, is it but not yet time to doff your silly belief bound framework?
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Look in the dictionaries once more, for the word belief. (Perhaps a thousand times more, if the need arises)
Click to expand...

A fallacious claim remains a fallacious claim, whether it's looked at once or a thousand times. The first line in your self-quote is simply false assertion. The most damning fault there is that belief is not a system, no matter how many times you repeat it.

As for the second part? That's just a bunch of silly nonsense. Good for you, you can cherry pick. You can try to hand wave away that words frequently have multiple entirely distinct meanings. You can try to claim separation where there is none, rather than looking at where separation actually is. That doesn't mean that any of your attempts to claim things have any merit at all.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
One need not believe in empirically observed sequences...

Come,, is it but not yet time to doff your silly belief bound framework?
Click to expand...

I do doff my hat at your consistent mangling of the English language.

The jewel in the crown of these malapropisms is giving disbelief the suffix -ism, that usually denotes a belief system or doctrine. The very thing you say shouldn't exist.
Believing in not believing things (except for science, which can be believed without constant testing in day to day situations for some reason that is never given) does sound a little paradoxical.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
One who disregards nonbeliefism, denies science, for nonbeliefism encourages science.
Click to expand...
Fallacious argumentation. The first assertion does not follow from the second. Non-beliefism is not the only belief system that encourages science.

We also have the religious believers that made significant contributions to science, like the Jesuit monk Georges Lemaître who first proposed the theory of the expanding universe. You can hardly claim that he denied science.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
I needn't 'self edit' belief's definition, for standard definitions may be referenced:
[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/9iNqu0E.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...


Did those big red arrows and the red box appear in the definition when you found it, or did you put them there?

And have you looked up the definition of the word "especially" yet?
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
One need not believe in empirically observed sequences...

Come,, is it but not yet time to doff your silly belief bound framework?
Click to expand...

(Sigh) More proof that reading comprehension isn't part of your skill set. The post to which you referred was addressed to Mostly Dead.

NON-Beliefism (addressed to MostlyDead - drink!)

But since you brought it up......one does need to believe in the empirically observed sequences - you believe, if nothing else, that the person(s) who proved them were doing things correctly. Again, you've contradicted yourself. Simply using a phrase instead of the word "believe" does not mean you do not believe.

Empirically, you have failed on any level to present a logical, rational argument against believing. All you've done is repeat, (essentially) "I'm right because I want to be." Which isn't true. Just because you wish it doesn't make it true.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Simply, one need not believe in empirically observed sequences; and thusly, as I am empirically observable, I need not believe in myself.

One who disregards nonbeliefism, denies science, for nonbeliefism encourages science.

FOOTNOTE:
I needn't 'self edit' belief's definition, for standard definitions may be referenced:
[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/9iNqu0E.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...

The question isn't if you're observable, it's if your fantasies of relevance have any validity.

They don't
 
steenkh said:
Fallacious argumentation. The first assertion does not follow from the second. Non-beliefism is not the only belief system that encourages science.

We also have the religious believers that made significant contributions to science, like the Jesuit monk Georges Lemaître who first proposed the theory of the expanding universe. You can hardly claim that he denied science.
Click to expand...

Yes, quite strange that a poster who prides himself on his use of logic does not see that this is a fallacy.
 
steenkh said:
Fallacious argumentation. The first assertion does not follow from the second. Non-beliefism is not the only belief system that encourages science.

We also have the religious believers that made significant contributions to science, like the Jesuit monk Georges Lemaître who first proposed the theory of the expanding universe. You can hardly claim that he denied science.
Click to expand...


I seem to remember some chappie called Newton, as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom