• 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:
John Jones, JayUtah, and Norseman:
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited moderated content


What do you beings garner is life's meaning/purpose/goal state (if applicable)?
Click to expand...

Your question begs the premise that life has a meaning or purpose. I don't agree that it does. What's the relevance of the question?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JayUtah said:
There is no "type of brain" that rejects your claims. Your claims are rejected because they're simplistic and poorly founded. You don't get to approach the debate of your claims with the presumption that you're an unsung genius and that everyone else is just too inferior to get you.
Click to expand...

No, I often complain that I could use a trillion more neurons, per my body mass.

It is simply baffling why complex minds reject logic/facts.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
John Jones, JayUtah, and Norseman:

Edited by Agatha: 
Edited moderated content


What do you beings garner is life's meaning/purpose/goal state (if applicable)?
Click to expand...

Do you imagine that it's about trying to impress people by babbling at length on subjects you don't understand in a language you don't grok?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JayUtah said:
Consider that that's not what they're doing. Consider that your understanding of what is factual and logical is incorrect. You don't get to approach debate of your claims with the presupposition that they are self-evidently correct.
Click to expand...

No, and although we shouldn't, beings here are neglecting already standard facts, such as the fact that belief by definition, has low concern for evidence, while science is bound by evidence.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
No, and although we shouldn't, beings here are neglecting already standard facts, such as the fact that belief by definition, has low concern for evidence, while science is bound by evidence.
Click to expand...

No, those are not "standard facts" in the sense that they established beyond dispute. You're simply foisting your own simplistic definitions and demanding that they be accepted without question. There isn't something wrong with your critics simply because they don't submit to your browbeating.
 
JayUtah said:
No, those are not "standard facts" in the sense that they established beyond dispute. You're simply foisting your own simplistic definitions and demanding that they be accepted without question. There isn't something wrong with your critics simply because they don't submit to your browbeating.
Click to expand...

These definitions are not "mine". (See google, or any standard dictionary)

So, those definitions are in fact standard, contrary to your feelings.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Is that your answer for life's meaning ... your pondering whether or not I imagine that life's meaning is to impress you beings?
Click to expand...

Well, yeah. Your sole purpose is to stroke your ego and mangle language in order to impress. It is not our fault that you do not impress. Perhaps, one might construe our amusement at your risible english fails as cruel, but hey, that is how the world rocks. Live with it.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
These definitions are not "mine". (See google, or any standard dictionary)
Click to expand...

You interpret what you read from these sources and impose that interpretation on others. That effectively makes it your personal definition. You demand that words must mean something just so, without nuance or context.

So, those definitions are in fact standard, contrary to your feelings.
Click to expand...

My feelings have nothing to do with it. Your abuse of language is fairly overt.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Yes, I am attempting to unravel what type of brains reject reply 466.
Click to expand...

Scooter, you may benefit from Googling poster JayUtah. He has modestly given you the short version of his CV, but his bragsheet is somewhat lengthy. Please Google away, so you know who you condescend to.

Regarding post #466, there are three reasonable conclusions a reader might reach:

1. You are trolling.
2. You are an idiot.
3. The English language poses some challenges for you.

Gonna roll with number three, giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Your claimed 'belief meaning zero' is only one of four primary definitions (and you interpret that wrongly, re: especially). The other three, that you provided, make no reference to a lack of evidence being fundamental to belief. You transparently gloss over this with a '...'.

re: 2. 'That belief has many meanings, does not suddenly erase that belief largely concerns non evidence.'

No, no, no. You have been claiming all along that belief has one consequential meaning, the oafish 'largely lacks concern for evidence' tripe. Posters have been explaining to you for pages that your usage is inadequate, which you reject in favor of your cherry-picked definition (which, ironically, is still wrong). Resorting to dictionary dueling is indeed silly, but when you make up definitions it drags the discussion to basics.

The type of brain that rejects post #466 is the type that is still working.
 
John Jones said:
No. It was a question. You have heard of the term, haven't you?
Click to expand...

Have not observed answer's definition?

Y1nrBWJ.png
 
JayUtah said:
You interpret what you read from these sources and impose that interpretation on others. That effectively makes it your personal definition. You demand that words must mean something just so, without nuance or context.



My feelings have nothing to do with it. Your abuse of language is fairly overt.
Click to expand...


Does belief largely concern, or not largely concern non-evidence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom