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

[fuelair]

The 70's called. They want their font back.

 

[fuelair]

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.

And?

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

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?

Yes, it goes without saying that beings without the ability to think also lack the ability to believe. As for dogs, how would you know if they have belief?

Insects and non-human animals lack the ability to think?
There is scientific data to the contrary of your comment above...

(1) Crow solves 8-step puzzle. source
(2) Bees learn tasks by watching other bees. source


FOOTNOTE:
Your dog aligned comment appears to be ..irrelevant.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Good job missing the question.

Addendum: I can't decide if I believe you did that on purpose or if I think that you did it on purpose. Let me know which option is best suited. I'll let you know what my dog thinks and/or believes.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Good job missing the question.

Addendum: I can't decide if I believe you did that on purpose or if I think that you did it on purpose. Let me know which option is best suited. I'll let you know what my dog thinks and/or believes.

As far as scientific data (that I have detected thus far) expresses, humans are unlike many other species; humans have the "luxury" of selecting to believe in things; placing trust in sequences especially without evidence...

FOOTNOTE
Humans appear to be the only species that believe in Gods.
Belief appears to be a cognitive process that befalls merely humans; ironically 10^14+ neurons for our body size, has garnered that we can reject logic in other ways that animals with less intelligence per pound physically can't compute.

 

[John Jones]

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?

Your image is scary.

 

[Aridas]

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

By definition belief, which is 1) an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists, is intrinsically part of how science works and how we can understand each part of it in a useful way. Additionally, the other main usage of belief, 2) trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something, is fundamentally part of how things work when it comes to why we would value science over non-science in the first place.

Now, faith is unnecessary for science to function well, and you may well be confusing belief and faith, but your mistake doesn't make your "nonbeliefism" any less nonsensical or self-contradicting.

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.

Belief is not a paradigm in the first place, though all paradigms do include beliefs. Faith isn't a paradigm either, for that matter. Your argument falls apart utterly and completely from the start because of its false premises, before getting to the rest of the implications of what you're pushing that would fundamentally undermine the actual reasons why science is as valuable and reliable as it is and effectively turn it into a faith-based paradigm.

No, you don't need to believe; one can rank events on probabilities, and act from there.

To be able to rank events based on probabilities requires believing the probabilities to be actually be the case. Acting from there requires beliefs surrounding how one should react if certain things are true. Belief is a fundamental part of how people can make or affect decisions consciously and even potentially can make assessments in a rational manner. Your attempted approach to how to handle the topic is naive and counter-productive.

 

[Peregrinus]

Give me your thoughts heathens (theists feel free too)]

What's your point? Heathens are most decidedly theists. Even those who anthropomorphize.

 

[Belz...]

Insects and non-human animals lack the ability to think?
There is scientific data to the contrary of your comment above...

(1) Crow solves 8-step puzzle. source
(2) Bees learn tasks by watching other bees. source

Perhaps if you read my entire post before commenting, it would help. The part you highlighted was a response to the part of your post about bacteria. If you lose track of the conversation this easily this isn't going to be very productive.

Your dog aligned comment appears to be ..irrelevant.

How can it be irrelevant since it directly addresses your point: you do not know if dogs have beliefs and thus you can't say they operate just fine without beliefs.

Furthermore, it could be that beliefs work particularily for humans. That other animals don't have beliefs don't in any way counter my argument.

 

[Aridas]

What's your point? Heathens are most decidedly theists. Even those who anthropomorphize.

Err... no. Heathen refers to, in short, one who is an unbeliever in your (major) religion. Yes, the usage in this thread has been especially ironic.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

(A)

By definition belief, which is 1) an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists, is intrinsically part of how science works and how we can understand each part of it in a useful way. Additionally, the other main usage of belief, 2) trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something, is fundamentally part of how things work when it comes to why we would value science over non-science in the first place.

Now, faith is unnecessary for science to function well, and you may well be confusing belief and faith, but your mistake doesn't make your "nonbeliefism" any less nonsensical or self-contradicting.

You might have missed (or intentionally omitted) that belief is to accept something as true...(especially without evidence):

(B)

Belief is not a paradigm in the first place, though all paradigms do include beliefs. Faith isn't a paradigm either, for that matter. Your argument falls apart utterly and completely from the start because of its false premises, before getting to the rest of the implications of what you're pushing that would fundamentally undermine the actual reasons why science is as valuable and reliable as it is and effectively turn it into a faith-based paradigm.

To be able to rank events based on probabilities requires believing the probabilities to be actually be the case. Acting from there requires beliefs surrounding how one should react if certain things are true. Belief is a fundamental part of how people can make or affect decisions consciously and even potentially can make assessments in a rational manner. Your attempted approach to how to handle the topic is naive and counter-productive.

Simply, one can do science absent belief.
Belief is a paradigm... (yes, a paradigm is a pattern, and life is patterns)

Belief is a paradigm that opposes science, as it can include non-science.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Perhaps if you read my entire post before commenting, it would help. The part you highlighted was a response to the part of your post about bacteria. If you lose track of the conversation this easily this isn't going to be very productive.

I hadn't lost track; you were in error while expressing that non-human animals etc were not thinking constructs. My response directly addressed that error of yours..

Conversation history (paraphrasing):
(1) Jordan: Non-human animals etc don't appear to require belief to do tasks.
(2) Argumemnon: It goes without saying that beings without the ability to think, can't believe...
(3) Jordan: Why would you express that non-human animals can't think?

Following the conversation history, it appears you mentioned (2), because you garnered non-human animals did not think, and so, did not have the ability to believe in order to do tasks.

How can it be irrelevant since it directly addresses your point: you do not know if dogs have beliefs and thus you can't say they operate just fine without beliefs.

Furthermore, it could be that beliefs work particularily for humans. That other animals don't have beliefs don't in any way counter my argument.

It is likely quite irrelevant:

Belief appears to be a cognitive process that befalls merely humans; ironically 10^14+ neurons for our body size, has garnered that we can reject logic in ways that animals with less intelligence per pound physically can't compute.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Err... no. Heathen refers to, in short, one who is an unbeliever in your (major) religion. Yes, the usage in this thread has been especially ironic.

Non-beliefism designates that one lacks belief in all things. (and instead observe the scientific method as valid, a method that by definition, is opposed to the concept of belief)

An unbeliever lacks belief in religions, and particularly observes science as valid.

Could you explain why you garner/interpret, that non-beliefism rejects the unbeliever?

Where is the irony?

Is science not compatible with the unbeliever's prognosis?

Why do your thought cycles produce the above error (highlighted in yellow)?

 

[Aridas]

You might have missed (or intentionally omitted) that belief is to accept something as true...(especially without evidence):

Especially isn't even close to exclusively. When dealing with belief in the more philosophical context that you would have to be for the purposes of what you're doing, it's neutral, at base, as has been kept fairly clear in my usage and the points actually made.

Simply, one can do science absent belief.
Belief is a paradigm... (yes, a paradigm is a pattern, and life is patterns)

Contrafactual assertion does not constitute evidence. "Belief" fundamentally cannot be a paradigm, though paradigms are sets of specific beliefs, very much including the paradigm that you're trying to push.

Belief is a paradigm that opposes science, as it can include non-science.

That is no more true and meaningful than the claim "Red is a shade of red that opposes crimson, as it can include non-crimson." Belief is not a paradigm in the first place and trying to claim it inherently opposes science simply because some beliefs are not scientific is completely fallacious.

Non-beliefism designates that one lacks belief in all things. (and instead observe the scientific method as valid, a method that by definition, is opposed to the concept of belief)

Except that the scientific method is not opposed to the concept of belief and your insistence that it is opposed is farcical. It can reasonably be argued to be opposed to some specific beliefs and categories of beliefs, but not belief as a generality.

An unbeliever lacks belief in religions, and particularly observes science as valid.

Well, yet again, you're missing the the not so subtle and extremely important nuance in play and are inserting nonsense. An unbeliever in your (major) religion very certainly can believe in a religion. Muslims, for example, have been called heathens by a number of Christians for a long, long time. Going further than that, there's nothing about being either a heathen or a more generally unbelieving unbeliever that means that the person observes science to be valid. That's an entirely separate variable, after all, and many, many Christians and Muslims (and the followers of most other religions) accept science to be valid.

Could you explain why you garner/interpret, that non-beliefism rejects the unbeliever?

Where is the irony?

You were the one calling everyone else here a heathen and, given what you've actually said, are quite clearly the one pushing to adopt a science-praising religion. *shrug*

Is science not compatible with the unbeliever's prognosis?

Question inapplicable, given that it was formed based on false premises.

Why do your thought cycles produce the above error (highlighted in yellow)?

That you've reflexively identified my thoughts as an error while clearly not actually paying attention to what's said is not valid evidence that an error actually was made. That you are being shown to be employing quite fallacious arguments and false premises serves as pretty strong evidence that the error is in your thought cycles, on the other hand.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Especially isn't even close to exclusively. When dealing with belief in the more philosophical context that you would have to be for the purposes of what you're doing, it's neutral, at base, as has been kept fairly clear in my usage and the points actually made.

I didn't mention anywhere that that meant exclusively...

Contrafactual assertion does not constitute evidence. "Belief" fundamentally cannot be a paradigm, though paradigms are sets of specific beliefs, very much including the paradigm that you're trying to push.

A paradigm may be a pattern, contrary to your belief:

Beliefs are patterns, life is patterns as far as science goes.

Except that the scientific method is not opposed to the concept of belief and your insistence that it is opposed is farcical. It can reasonably be argued to be opposed to some specific beliefs and categories of beliefs, but not belief as a generality.

You might have missed it, but science cannot include non-science, where as belief can...

Well, yet again, you're missing the the not so subtle and extremely important nuance in play and are inserting nonsense. An unbeliever in your (major) religion very certainly can believe in a religion. Muslims, for example, have been called heathens by a number of Christians for a long, long time. Going further than that, there's nothing about being either a heathen or a more generally unbelieving unbeliever that means that the person observes science to be valid. That's an entirely separate variable, after all, and many, many Christians and Muslims (and the followers of most other religions) accept science to be valid.

You were the one calling everyone else here a heathen and, given what you've actually said, are quite clearly the one pushing to adopt science as religion. *shrug*

False.
You may notice that I referred to two groups:
(1) Heathens.
(2) Theists.

Heathens may include atheists.

Question inapplicable, given that it was formed based on false premises.


That you've reflexively identified my thoughts as an error while clearly not actually paying attention to what's said is not valid evidence that an error actually was made. That you are being shown to be employing quite fallacious arguments and false premises serves as pretty strong evidence that the error is in your thought cycles, on the other hand.

It is still observable that your thoughts on the matter are errors.

 

[Explorer]

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.

Science is not a "belief", it is a methodological process used to help determine whether not a belief is true.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Science is not a "belief", it is a methodological process used to help determine whether not a belief is true.

A valid remark.

I ask why beings bother to contact belief.

Belief is not only redundant (science is true regardless of belief), but also, belief inherently opposes science; it concerns especially non-evidence.

 

[Mojo]

What is belief's LD₅₀?

 

[Mojo]

You may notice that I referred to two groups:
(1) Heathens.
(2) Theists.

Heathens may include atheists.

Heathens also includes theists.

 

[Belz...]

I hadn't lost track; you were in error while expressing that non-human animals etc were not thinking constructs.

Pay attention: I was refering to bacteria, which YOU brought up.

Conversation history (paraphrasing):
(1) Jordan: Non-human animals etc don't appear to require belief to do tasks.
(2) Argumemnon: It goes without saying that beings without the ability to think, can't believe...
(3) Jordan: Why would you express that non-human animals can't think?

It's interesting that you're only paraphrasing yourself, here, and dishonestly so at that.

Following the conversation history, it appears you mentioned (2), because you garnered non-human animals did not think, and so, did not have the ability to believe in order to do tasks.

It only appears that way because you lost track of the conversation.

It is likely quite irrelevant:

I love that you're quoting yourself as a refutation.