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

Porpoise of Life said:
True, that is just incorrect. But that wasn't what you wrote. You wrote:
Which is an example of denying the antecedent.


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.


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

No such fallacy occurred amidst my expression.

Ironically, you had displayed a rejection of science, whilst embracing belief.

A revisit:

(1) ProgrammingGodJordan
"Non beliefism underlines that belief by definition opposes science."


(2) Porpoise Of life:
"(1) is invalid."


(3) ProgrammingGodJordan:

One who disregards non-beliefism; i.e., a system as observed in (1), disregards science.


ProgrammingGodJordan said:
That you reject (1) 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.
Click to expand...
 
@Porpoise of life:

You had undoubtedly embraced belief, and thus you reject science:


Reply 179, on page 5, by myself:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
...it is scientifically observable, that the very concept of belief opposes scientific methodology.
Click to expand...




Reply 197, on page 5, by you, abound rejecting prior responses of mine, including 179...:
Porpoise of life said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Drink!
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/MqHVzaA.png[/qimg]

What invalid, scientifically unsound expression do you supposedly detect in the above?
Click to expand...

Well so much for that brief venture into coherent sentences.

But I'll state again in case you thought I was being sarcastic. The Old Testament is indeed scientifically unfounded.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
No such fallacy occurred amidst my expression.

Ironically, you had displayed a rejection of science, whilst embracing belief.

A revisit:

(1) ProgrammingGodJordan
"Non beliefism underlines that belief by definition opposes science."


(2) Porpoise Of life:
"(1) is invalid."


(3) ProgrammingGodJordan:

One who disregards non-beliefism; i.e., a system as observed in (1), disregards science.
Click to expand...

Whoo-hoo! Drink!

Hey brah...*MostlyDead sobs gently*...I love you man...You know dat?
 
abaddon said:
Do you english?
Click to expand...

He doesn't, at least not so anyone would notice.

We have read all this nonsense and thusly conclude that non-beliefism requires ...... failing English Comp, Logic and Debate. If he has a degree, it's in Liberal Arts. I bet his basket-weaving skills are awesome.

And the Old Testament makes more sense than him any day of the week. At least it has a storyline that can be followed.
 
Last edited:
desmirelle said:
He doesn't, at least not so anyone would notice.

We have read all this nonsense and thusly conclude that non-beliefism requires ...... failing English Comp, Logic and Debate. If he has a degree, it's in Liberal Arts. I bet his basket-weaving skills are awesome.

And the Old Testament makes more sense than him any day of the week. At least it has a storyline that can be followed.
Click to expand...

Here is a simple task; determine whether or not the following is scientifically unsound:

A framework that barely concerns evidence (i.e. belief) undermines/opposes a system that highly concerns scientific evidence. (i.e. science)




FOOTNOTE:
I earned a degree in Computer Science, via UWI, in 2015.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Here is a simple task; determine whether or not the following is scientifically unsound:

A framework that barely concerns evidence (i.e. belief) undermines/opposes a system that highly concerns scientific evidence. (i.e. science)
Click to expand...
False. All of it. A moments thought would tell you why that is. Simple question. When you get up in the morning do you immediately go to the lab and measure g and adjust your day according to the results?


ProgrammingGodJordan said:
FOOTNOTE:
I earned a degree in Computer Science, via UWI, in 2015.
Click to expand...
If so, I bet you never submitted a paper ever containing such mangled english as you have posted here.

ETA: And I don't believe you have any such degree. There is no evidence for it beyond your claim.
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
No such fallacy occurred amidst my expression.

Ironically, you had displayed a rejection of science, whilst embracing belief.

A revisit:

(1) ProgrammingGodJordan
"Non beliefism underlines that belief by definition opposes science."


(2) Porpoise Of life:
"(1) is invalid."


(3) ProgrammingGodJordan:

One who disregards non-beliefism; i.e., a system as observed in (1), disregards science.
Click to expand...
It's really simple PGJ. You did put forth a fallacious argument. If you keep denying that, it's either due to your ego, or your reading comprehension.
Probably both at the same time.
 
abaddon said:
False. All of it. A moments thought would tell you why that is. Simple question. When you get up in the morning do you immediately go to the lab and measure g and adjust your day according to the results?

If so, I bet you never submitted a paper ever containing such mangled english as you have posted here.

ETA: And I don't believe you have any such degree. There is no evidence for it beyond your claim.
Click to expand...


That you fail to prioritize scientific methodology/evidence amidst your thought cycles, does not suddenly render belief to be non-opposite to scientific methodology.

Here is yet another simple exercise:

Produce any event for which one has no choice but to employ belief, instead of scientific methodology; for you are yet to explain why my prior expression was false.



FOOTNOTE:

Here is an image capture of my degree via uwi:

[IMGw=400]http://i.imgur.com/z8Qeq3u.jpg[/IMGw]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
That you fail to prioritize scientific methodology/evidence amidst your thought cycles, does not suddenly render belief to be non-opposite to scientific methodology.

Here is yet another simple exercise:

Produce any event for which one has no choice but to employ belief, instead of scientific methodology; for you are yet to explain why my prior expression was false.



FOOTNOTE:

Here is an image capture of my degree via uwi:

[IMGw=400]http://i.imgur.com/z8Qeq3u.jpg[/IMGw]
Click to expand...
Fake.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
abaddon said:
Fake.
Click to expand...

Apart from a few courses, such as Discrete Mathematics, or Analysis of Algorithms, the degree entailed a non-trivial distribution of irrelevant studies;
for generally, optimal computer science schedules are observed to contain distinct Artificial Neural Network aligned courses, a sequence lacking in UWI's regime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom