• 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

Banned
ProgrammingGodJordan
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
1,718
Location
Jamaica
[IMGw=256]http://i.imgur.com/5Eau0w9.jpg[/IMGw]

Hi heathens, I am here "atheisting" on a daily basis.
Anyway, it appears belief is "toxic" to the brain because:

(1) Belief can include non science, while science cannot.

(2) "..that flat earthers exist, (i.e. beliefs in supposedly flat earth) does not disregard gravitational theory, and that scientists believe, does not suddenly change the behaviours of equations in scientific descriptions."


The second quote comes directly from my shameless plug below:

online book on amazon (free for unlimited users)
Give me your thoughts heathens (theists feel free too)
FOOTNOTE:
Scientific data that shows that strong belief may be toxic:

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1088868313497266
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My first thought is how could you possibly think this belongs in SMMT rather than R&P? Do you have any links to any actual science, perhaps? Like from neurophysiology or neuropsychology or some such?
 
Last edited:
So... No science. You're starting your own cult PGJ?
Both your point 1 and 2 are complete non-sequiturs and even if they weren't, do not say anything about the 'toxicity' of belief.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
So... No science. You're starting your own cult PGJ?
Both your point 1 and 2 are complete non-sequiturs and even if they weren't, do not say anything about the 'toxicity' of belief.
Click to expand...

Let's break down the snippets in the original post:

(1) Belief by definition, can occur especially absent proof, and thus, belief can include non science, and other unreliable paradigms.

(2) Science by definition, does not include non science.

(3) Believing in a flat earth, in no way, invalidates gravitational theory.

(4) Believing in equations, does not alter such equations' behaviours.

Where is the 'non sequitur'?



PS:
Although cults can be simple movements absent religion (see google), it must be noted that non beliefism is not a religion.
SIDENOTE
Noticing your username, what do you garner is life's purpose?
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Let's break down the snippets in the original post:

(1) Belief by definition, can occur especially absent proof, and thus, belief can include non science, and other unreliable paradigms.
Click to expand...

Can, as in potentially. But that isn't your claim. Your claim is that belief itself is toxic, not that certain applications of it can be problematic.

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
(2) Science by definition, does not include non science.
Click to expand...
And pancakes by definition do not include non-pancakes. Not at all related to whether belief is inherently toxic.

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
(3) Believing in a flat earth, in no way, invalidates gravitational theory.

(4) Believing in equations, does not alter such equations' behaviours.
Click to expand...
True, but this has nothing to do with whether or not belief is in itself toxic.


ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Where is the 'non sequitur'?
Click to expand...
You know, all those sentences where you claim to support an assertion, but only mention things that do not follow from or lead to your assertion.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Hi heathens, I am here "atheisting" on a daily basis.
Anyway, it appears belief is "toxic" to the brain because:

(1) Belief can include non science, while science cannot.
Click to expand...

This nonsense, again? This is just as thoroughly fallacious and dismissable as the first few times you tried to push it. Belief and science address different, but overlapping things. To either understand or perform science in any meaningful fashion and for one to have any reason to accept results as meaningful, one must hold a set of beliefs to be true. There's literally no way to get around that to get to the position that belief is inherently bad and thus we should only rely on science, which is a belief itself, regardless. An irrational and ignorant belief that would be rejected if you were consistently applying the principles that you've claimed to be pushing, no less.
 
Last edited:
Incoherent premise, use of confusing graphics, lists, multiple highlights and bolding.

All the hallmarks...
 
Porpoise of Life said:
Can, as in potentially. But that isn't your claim. Your claim is that belief itself is toxic, not that certain applications of it can be problematic.


And pancakes by definition do not include non-pancakes. Not at all related to whether belief is inherently toxic.


True, but this has nothing to do with whether or not belief is in itself toxic.



You know, all those sentences where you claim to support an assertion, but only mention things that do not follow from or lead to your assertion.
Click to expand...

Belief is quite the sub-optimal paradigm.

You may have noticed things such as:

(1) Terrorism (products of strong belief)

or

(2) Death of children (Caused by theistic parents that believe that some God will save their children)


The list goes on and on...
Pretty toxic indeed..

One would have to be blind, to not notice belief's toxicity.


Are you so enamoured with belief, that you can't see the above?

[IMGw=384]http://i.imgur.com/P16leIY.jpg[/IMGw]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aridas said:
This nonsense, again? This is just as thoroughly fallacious and dismissable as the first few times you tried to push it. Belief and science address different, but overlapping things. To either understand or perform science in any meaningful fashion and for one to have any reason to accept results as meaningful, one must hold a set of beliefs to be true. There's literally no way to get around that to get to the position that belief is inherently bad and thus we should only rely on science, which is a belief itself, regardless. An irrational and ignorant belief that would be rejected if you were consistently applying the principles that you've claimed to be pushing, no less.
Click to expand...


As Neil Tyson says, one need not believe in science for science to hold true.

Remember, belief is a faulty paradigm that can allow nonsense/non science, where as science is already the most reliable paradigm, that cannot include non science.

FOOTNOTE:

No, you don't need to believe; one can rank events on probabilities, and act from there.
 
theprestige said:
PGJ, "toxic" is a value judgement. How do you decide which values to optimize for?
Click to expand...

There is a non-trivial probability that life's goal state/purpose/meaning occurs on the horizon of optimization. (See "Dissipative Adaptation", by physicist Jeremy England)

Artificial intelligence models are non-trivial optimizers.

Right now, artificial intelligence researchers are in demand. (There is actually a shortage)

If some belief systems are observed to oppose science, then this opposes life's likely goal state, as beliefs can halt the development of artificial intelligence; i.e. cause death or inactivity of human brains that could perhaps contribute to the development of AI in some way.
 
bluesjnr said:
Incoherent premise, use of confusing graphics, lists, multiple highlights and bolding.

All the hallmarks...
Click to expand...

All the hallmarks of this forum's awesome text editing functionality...
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
Belief is an evolutionary trait. It's actually a positive, even if it's not rational or very useful in science or fact-based research.
Click to expand...


I ponder....

Insects/bacteria/non-human animals don't appear to require belief to fulfill complex tasks (some doing tasks better than human, or human-relevant/useful tasks that human can't do at all), while complex human brains fancy believing?
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
I ponder....

Insects/bacteria/non-human animals don't appear to require belief to fulfill complex tasks (some doing tasks better than human, or human-relevant/useful tasks that human can't do at all), while complex human brains fancy believing?
Click to expand...

Yes, it goes without saying that beings without the ability to think also lack the ability to believe. :rolleyes: As for dogs, how would you know if they have belief?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom