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

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

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.

[IMGw=350]http://i.imgur.com/JYrZOW4.jpg[/IMGw]

Ironically, rather than 'hand waving away' that words have multiple meanings, the prior image had underlined that fact.

It is silly to garner that multiple meanings of a word (within a particular dictionary) oppose each other; for opposite meanings are discovered amidst sequences, called....antonyms.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

One need not believe in empirically observed sequences...

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

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.

[IMGw=350]http://i.imgur.com/P9OKdTN.jpg[/IMGw]


(1) That nonbeliefism encourages science, does not warrant that non-beliefism alone encourages science.

(2) That theists are scientists, does not suddenly render them non-scientists. However, theistic mannerisms have been observed to disregard scientific progress.

(3) That Newton was religious, does not suddenly render belief to possess a different definition, it had long been shown that belief while having the possibility of concerning evidence, does not primarily concern evidence.
Eg: Newton failed to compute some regime of Calculus, when he believed that such a region was merely God calculable. Such a problem was later solved by an atheist called Laplace.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

(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.

One who fails to recognize that belief does not have high concern for scientific evidence, is one who fails to comprehend that scientific methodology has high concern for evidence.

Regardless of your failure, belief (while having the probability of concerning evidence) does not, by definition, have high evidence concern.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Yes, quite strange that a poster who prides himself on his use of logic does not see that this is a fallacy.

I seem to remember some chappie called Newton, as well.

Such mentality is one of belief's flaws.

Rather than contact evidence, beings tend to adopt the nonsensical whims of others, absent critical thinking, as indicated in quotes betwixt 'Mojo' and 'Porpoise of Life' above.

Albeit, my quote below applies:

(1) That nonbeliefism encourages science, does not warrant that non-beliefism alone encourages science.

(2) That theists are scientists, does not suddenly render them non-scientists. However, theistic mannerisms have been observed to disregard scientific progress.

(3)
That Newton was religious, does not suddenly render belief to possess a different definition, it had long been shown that belief while having the possibility of concerning evidence, does not primarily concern evidence.
Eg: Newton failed to compute some regime of Calculus, when he believed that such a region was merely God calculable. Such a problem was later solved by an atheist called Laplace.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

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?

Does belief especially concern evidence?
No.
That scientific methodology highly concerns scientific evidence, while belief does not, should have clearly underlined for you, that these sequences oppose.

Do explain, why you falsely express, that a system that barely concerns evidence (i.e. belief), does not undermine/oppose a system that highly concerns scientific evidence. (i.e. science)

 

[abaddon]

One who fails to recognize that belief does not have high concern for scientific evidence, is one who fails to comprehend that scientific methodology has high concern for evidence.

Regardless of your failure, belief (while having the probability of concerning evidence) does not, by definition, have high evidence concern.

I don't believe you. You have no evidence. Therefore you are wrong.

Isn't that how non beliefism works?

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

I don't believe you. You have no evidence. Therefore you are wrong.

Isn't that how non beliefism works?

The very definition of belief expresses that it is especially absent evidence.

That it is especially absent evidence, yields that it has no high concern for evidence.

FOOTNOTE:
Non-beliefism entails that one lacks belief in all things, including non-beliefism or science, not surprisingly.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Such mentality is one of belief's flaws.

Rather than contact evidence, beings tend to adopt the nonsensical whims of others, absent critical thinking, as indicated in quotes betwixt 'Mojo' and 'Porpoise of Life' above.

Albeit, my quote below applies:

Nope, you simply committed a logical error when you claimed:

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

That A promotes B, does not mean that a rejection of A is a rejection of B. Multiple other things can also lead to B, and A can be false for other reasons than its promotion of B.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Nope, you simply committed a logical error when you claimed:


That A promotes B, does not mean that a rejection of A is a rejection of B. Multiple other things can also lead to B, and A can be false for other reasons than its promotion of B.

(1) Non-beliefism: Belief, barely concerning science, opposes scientific methodology, which highly concerns science.

(2) Believers: "(1) is invalid".


NOTE:
The believers' tag represents not merely theists amidst this thread, but by extension, every poster (with the exception of myself) who proceed to falsely express that belief does not oppose science.


Thusly, I made not any logical error nor claim, and thereafter, your expressions are invalid.

 

[abaddon]

The very definition of belief expresses that it is especially absent evidence.

That it is especially absent evidence, yields that it has no high concern for evidence.

FOOTNOTE:
Non-beliefism entails that one lacks belief in all things, including non-beliefism or science, not surprisingly.

I don't believe you.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

I don't believe you.

Your non-belief is optimal, as far as science prescribes.

 

[abaddon]

Your non-belief is optimal, as far as science prescribes.

Great. So since I don't believe you the null hypothesis is that you are wrong.

 

[fagin]

(1) Non-beliefism: Belief, barely concerning science, opposes scientific methodology, which highly concerns science.

(2) Believers: "(1) is invalid".


NOTE:
The believers' tag represents not merely theists amidst this thread, but by extension, every poster (with the exception of myself) who proceed to falsely express that belief does not oppose science.


Thusly, I made not any logical error nor claim, and thereafter, your expressions are invalid.

Carry on talking like that, and you are going to have a hard time when you finally make it to high school.

 

[Thermal]

(1) Non-beliefism: Belief, barely concerning science, opposes scientific methodology, which highly concerns science.

(2) Believers: "(1) is invalid".


NOTE:
The believers' tag represents not merely theists amidst this thread, but by extension, every poster (with the exception of myself) who proceed to falsely express that belief does not oppose science.


Thusly, I made not any logical error nor claim, and thereafter, your expressions are invalid.

Drink!

 

[abaddon]

Drink!

Shurely we can't keep dronking thish mush?

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Thusly, I made not any logical error nor claim, and thereafter, your expressions are invalid.

Yes, yes you did.
You claimed that rejecting your 'non-beliefism' automatically rejects science, because 'non-beliefism' is in favor of science.

That is a fallacy.

(Just as much as "Hitler liked omelettes, so rejecting Hitler opposes omelettes" would be fallacious. But I know how you deal with analogies and other figurative language, so just ignore my little illustration)

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Do you believe that belief is dangerous? If so, all you have to do is stop believing that.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Great. So since I don't believe you the null hypothesis is that you are wrong.

Come... is it but not yet the hour whence you shall disregard belief's false necessitation?

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Yes, yes you did.
You claimed that rejecting your 'non-beliefism' automatically rejects science, because 'non-beliefism' is in favor of science.

That is a fallacy.

(Just as much as "Hitler liked omelettes, so rejecting Hitler opposes omelettes" would be fallacious. But I know how you deal with analogies and other figurative language, so just ignore my little illustration)

Sequence: That belief by definition opposes science, is not fallacious.

However, that you reject the above sequence is silly; that you emphasize a construct that opposes science , designates not surprisingly, that you oppose science.

Thusly I had not erred, whence you had blundered.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Sequence: That belief by definition opposes science, is not fallacious.

True, that is just incorrect. But that wasn't what you wrote. You wrote:

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

Which is an example of denying the antecedent.

However, that you reject the above sequence is silly; that you emphasize a construct that opposes science , designates not surprisingly, that you oppose science.

Ah, informal fallacies too? Expanding the repertoire? This is a strawman, because nothing I have written suggests that I hold belief to be greater than science.

Thusly I had not erred, whence you had blundered.

Verily, good sir, t'was thou who hadst blundered, not I. Thine archaisms cannot occlude such!