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

[abaddon]

TL; DR.

FOOTNOTE:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/inexistent

You seem hell bent on your path of outright mockery. I tried to help you, but your attention span seems insufficient to even read a few brief paragraphs.

TLR version your presentation skills suck.

I took the time and trouble to explain why and you went chasing the squirrel.

Well, tough. You get no further allowances from me. Your bridges are well and truly burned. Heretofore (notice correct usage), I was at least willing to make a modicum of mercy for your shoddy presentation. No longer. You may take an unlikely anatomical excursion.

 

[abaddon]

Quote the value-less, invalid response if yours.

On the contrary, I had long presented many a fact (including image captures of standard definitions and Wikipedia Data), that responders simply selected to ignore.


Here is a simple task:

Present evidence (a quote of mine amidst this thread) where I supposedly disregarded facts.

This one. That is not how 'amidst' should rightly be deployed and you don't know that. Furthermore you think that makes you seem erudite when in fact it is simply amusing abuse of language you do not understand.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

This one. That is not how 'amidst' should rightly be deployed and you don't know that. Furthermore you think that makes you seem erudite when in fact it is simply amusing abuse of language you do not understand.

Such is belief's embarrassing design.

You may simply trivially repair your ignorance herein, by quickly searching for word usage guidelines, prior to posting nonsense:

http://sentence.yourdictionary.com/amidst

 

[BStrong]

Synonym for "elephant" is "mammoth."

Synonym for "mammoth" is "large".

Synonym for "large" is "generous".

Synonym for "generous" is "honest".

Thus, elephants are honest.

Obviously true because no elephant I'm familiar with has ever lied to me or stolen from me.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

You seem hell bent on your path of outright mockery. I tried to help you, but your attention span seems insufficient to even read a few brief paragraphs.

TLR version your presentation skills suck.

I took the time and trouble to explain why and you went chasing the squirrel.

Well, tough. You get no further allowances from me. Your bridges are well and truly burned. Heretofore (notice correct usage), I was at least willing to make a modicum of mercy for your shoddy presentation. No longer. You may take an unlikely anatomical excursion.

Yes, your responses are undoubtedly mockable.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Dear God in Heaven, one... last.... time:

You provide in post #124 four definitions for 'belief'.

Three of the four primary definitions make no mention of lacking concern for evidence (the fourth, by use of the word 'especially', really doesn't either but that nuance is clearly beyond your ken).

The third usage in Merriam specifically defines belief as:



You are cherry-picking one definition and torquing the meaning of 'especially' to suit your argument, whilst (Drink!) criticizing others on basic dictionary usage.

This shall perhaps be of aid:

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed image which was in breach of rule 0 and rule 12

 

[JayUtah]

You may simply trivially repair your ignorance herein, by quickly searching for word usage guidelines, prior to posting nonsense:

Or maybe you should take your own advice, seeing that "when" and 'whence" don't mean anything close to the same thing. Write however you want, but your attempt to impress beyond your language ability means many of your posts wind up as unintelligible gibberish. You're trying to sound well educated, but you just end up looking like an idiot.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Or maybe you should take your own advice, seeing that "when" and 'whence" don't mean anything close to the same thing. Write however you want, but your attempt to impress beyond your language ability means many of your posts wind up as unintelligible gibberish. You're trying to sound well educated, but you just end up looking like an idiot.

I tire of your absent-evidence aligned responses.

You need present how I had supposedly misused 'whence'.


FOOTNOTE:

Here is a guide, that shall perhaps be of aid:

http://sentence.yourdictionary.com/whence

 

[abaddon]

Yes, your responses are undoubtedly mockable.

Grinding english again, I see.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 0

You really have nothing to say and no means to say it. You claims are risible.

No more coddling for you.

At first, I was willing to grant that perhaps simple terms were being misunderstood and could be corrected. I was wrong. You unscientifically refuse any correction.

What is the correct scientific response to the statement "You are wrong because..."? The answer is "Oh, hello, I didn't consider that. Let me think again.". That is how science and scientists operate.

Your response is not that. Your response is to double down and insist that you are right and everyone else must perforce be wrong. You are intentionally obviating science and the scientific method in favour of your personal beliefs.

Ironic, isn't it.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

popcorn anyone?

 

[JayUtah]

I tire of your absent-evidence aligned responses.

Gibberish.

You need present how I had supposedly misused 'whence'.

Right here.

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

http://sentence.yourdictionary.com/whence

Yes, those all correctly describe "whence" as a reference to place. You used it as a synonym for "when" (i.e., time) because you didn't know that "whence" is not just a fancier form of "when."

If you want to sound illiterate, by all means keep writing the way you do.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Grinding english again, I see.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited moderated content

You really have nothing to say and no means to say it. You claims are risible.

No more coddling for you.

At first, I was willing to grant that perhaps simple terms were being misunderstood and could be corrected. I was wrong. You unscientifically refuse any correction.

What is the correct scientific response to the statement "You are wrong because..."? The answer is "Oh, hello, I didn't consider that. Let me think again.". That is how science and scientists operate.

Your response is not that. Your response is to double down and insist that you are right and everyone else must perforce be wrong. You are intentionally obviating science and the scientific method in favour of your personal beliefs.

Ironic, isn't it.

Well not to dredge up the past but I pointed out other forums that smartly gave him the boot. In their words he needed to Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform.

 

[abaddon]

This shall perhaps be of aid:

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited previously moderated content

Wheee. That is exactly what the god cranks do. You seem to believe that this impresses somebody. It doesn't. It is exactly what the god-botherers do de riguer. One can judge a person by the company they keep, and you continue to park your thinking with the gullible religions.

 

[BStrong]

Grinding english again, I see.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited moderated content

You really have nothing to say and no means to say it. You claims are risible.

No more coddling for you.

At first, I was willing to grant that perhaps simple terms were being misunderstood and could be corrected. I was wrong. You unscientifically refuse any correction.

What is the correct scientific response to the statement "You are wrong because..."? The answer is "Oh, hello, I didn't consider that. Let me think again.". That is how science and scientists operate.

Your response is not that. Your response is to double down and insist that you are right and everyone else must perforce be wrong. You are intentionally obviating science and the scientific method in favour of your personal beliefs.

Ironic, isn't it.

Anyone else notice the irony in a poster pushing "non beliefism" while simultaneously insisting we should believe that his "theory" has any validity?

ETA - considering how bad he is with standard english I doubt he knows the military alphabet.

I concur with your sentiment.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Anyone else notice the irony in a poster pushing "non beliefism" while simultaneously insisting we should believe that his "theory" has any validity?

ETA - considering how bad he is with standard english I doubt he knows the military alphabet.

I concur with your sentiment.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 12

One need not believe in the factum, that belief by definition, opposes science.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

I apologize par the usage of non-layman bound sentence structure.

I am not trained as an artificial intelligence (deep learning) researcher (via institution), and thereafter, I had absorbed deep learning absent university's frame.

Machine learning papers tend to utilize sophisticated sentence structures; I entail such a manner, whence I may reduce the aforesaid structures.

As an example, observe this simple artificial neural network, of mine via github:

https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/SIMPLE-NEURAL-NETWORK

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove enormous page stretching picture. You have linked to it, there is no need to also clutter the page with such a large picture.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Wheee. That is exactly what the god cranks do. You seem to believe that this impresses somebody. It doesn't. It is exactly what the god-botherers do de riguer. One can judge a person by the company they keep, and you continue to park your thinking with the gullible religions.

(1) Non-beliefism: "Stop believing in everything; for belief opposes science, by definition."

(2) Abbadon: "I reject (1)."

Thusly, that Abbadon rejects (1), designates that Abbadon "smartly" garners that belief (that has low concern for evidence) does not oppose science (that has high concern for evidence).

 

[Nay_Sayer]

(1) Non-beliefism: "Stop believing in everything; for belief opposes science, by definition."

(2) Abbadon: "I reject (1)."

Thusly, that Abbadon rejects (1), designates that Abbadon "smartly" garners that belief (that has low concern for evidence) does not oppose science (that has high concern for evidence).

How can I take you seriously if you don't use multiple fonts, caps and colorful MS paint illustrations, Without those you could be mistaken for some random internet loon.

 

[JesseCuster]

I apologize par the usage of non-layman bound sentence structure.

You should apologise for that clunky sentence.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

You should apologise for that clunky sentence.