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

theprestige said:
Neill deGrasse Tyson is often comically wrong about matters of science. This has been pointed out to you before. Why do you continue to appeal to him as an authority? Is it because you *believe* in him?

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
Click to expand...

No belief required..His intellect simply likely exceeds those of this forum...
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Your words contrast the meaning of my words above.
Click to expand...

That is very inconvenient to you. If you had something, you would've presented it. Instead you're trying to sound smart and informed by using word salad, which most of us are quite used to dealing with.

Is English your native tongue?
Click to expand...

If it's yours, my second language is better than your first.
 
fagin said:
Once again, in some semblance of English, please.



I think that's called running away.

It's not our job to search the internet for random garbage that supports your even more random garbage.
Click to expand...

Yet another brain enamoured by belief.

Come...

..is it but not yet time to doff your silly belief bound regime?

Why do you garner that belief (having no high concern for evidence) does not oppose science (with no such lacking)?
 
Argumemnon said:
That is very inconvenient to you. If you had something, you would've presented it. Instead you're trying to sound smart and informed by using word salad, which most of us are quite used to dealing with.



If it's yours, my second language is better than your first.
Click to expand...

There is an enumeration of scientific evidences amidst the "non-sheeple" bound book of mine....
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Google it; for it is not hidden that beliefs means by which health is hindered.

Once more exercise care; that you fail to quickly uncover this publicly available evidence, does not suddenly render such data inexistent...
Click to expand...

I haven't failed anything, you have.
You started this thread claiming that you had scientific proof that belief in itself is toxic to the brain.
When asked for this evidence, you tell us to go google some anecdotes about religious extremists refusing health care.

Not only is that not scientific evidence, it isn't even evidence for your claim at all.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
I haven't failed anything, you have.
You started this thread claiming that you had scientific proof that belief in itself is toxic to the brain.
When asked for this evidence, you tell us to go google some anecdotes about religious extremists refusing health care.

Not only is that not scientific evidence, it isn't even evidence for your claim at all.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you need re-read (quite quite slowly) your response above..
 
@theprestige, try to think about the following:

MqHVzaA.png
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
See, that's the pseudo-intellectual word salad I was refering to. Hint: it doesn't make you look smart.
Click to expand...

I am dissatisfied; for I don't possess a trillion more neurons, per my body mass.

There is evidence that human cognition is not the limit on intelligence; machine learning algorithms already exceed humans in cognitive tasks.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Perhaps you need re-read (quite quite slowly) your response above..
Click to expand...

No, how about you provide proper scientific evidence for your assertion...
Quite ironic that someone starting a thread on the importance of pure unadulterated scientific thought plays so fast and loose with the rules he claims to defend.

Either your original claims were in such colorful prose that they can't be taken at face value, or you really think that the fact that some religious people do things against their best interest proves that all belief in and of itself is literally harmul for the brain.

I'm assuming it's the former, but then your claim changes to "Some beliefs that actively oppose science can, in specific cases, produce negative results that could have been prevented if the believer had been wiling to adjust their beliefs based on the available scientific research."
Which is such a platitude that it doesn't deserve its own thread.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:

(A)

Unlike you, that refused to observe evidence that bacteria can think, (data from actual biologist) if I encountered data that disregarded prior noted sequences of mine, in anyway, I would soon update my notations.
Click to expand...

Hmm? Did I do that? Or are you thinking of a different poster? By my recollection of that subject in this thread, I've played pretty much no part there. However, with that said, I do strongly question whether you actually understood what the links that were provided were saying, rather than what you wanted to think that they were saying.

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
I would gain no new data by willingly failing to update my observation.
Click to expand...

This suggests that you misunderstand the way that things work. New data should be the trigger to updating what one accepts (remember the first usage of believe, again?) provided that the data is trustworthy and relevant enough. You've got the data already at the point that your "observation" can be meaningfully updated.

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
How is it you think I came to invent non beliefism?
Click to expand...

Emotion-based thinking. You found out through personal unhappiness that faith is far from the most trustworthy method to judge truth, overgeneralized, and latched onto science without taking the time to understand the philosophy that produced it, underlies it, and grants it much of its power. Had you taken the time to do so properly, you wouldn't be making the remarkably basic mistakes that you are with "non-beliefism."

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Did you know I was not only once a believer like you, a Christian at that, for several years until 4 years ago?
Click to expand...

*raises an eyebrow* Once a believer like me? That quite suggests that you've been paying little to no attention to what I've said. I was raised as a Christian, but haven't been an adherent of any faith or religion... for a decade and a half, maybe? I am very much a proponent of reason, logic, and valid arguments more than anything else, which is why we're clashing.

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Unless the standard definitions of belief, and science change in particular ways, there would be no reason to update my notations, no need to update/delete nonbeliefism.
Click to expand...

So, again, why do you believe that belief itself qualifies as a paradigm, rather than simply being the stuff that paradigms are made of, when all the actual information available points very firmly towards the latter and away from the former?


ProgrammingGodJordan said:
(B)

For example, when I first mentioned that bacteria could think, I did so based on scientific evidence. (That I later presented to you here, via biologist Pamela)

Before I presented the source, you quickly invalidly expressed that bacteria couldn't think. That invalid behaviour probably occurred due to your belief bound mentality.

If you proceed, it probably shan't be the last time that you blunder, in a way that is avoidable.
Click to expand...

Care to quote me? I recall you having that discussion with Argumemnon, but not with me. It's possible that I did comment and it slipped my mind, of course, but that would have more to do with the simple fact that it's largely irrelevant to the points that I've actually been making. Of course, it's also true that I don't think that the evidence that you presented actually properly supports the claim that you are trying to make, too.

ETA: After a quick skim of the thread... I'm still not seeing anything that I said that you could be validly referring to.
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Careful, anecdotes may be unreliable. (And negligence of health on the horizon of belief, is real, rather than imaginary)

That most theists don't avoid doctors, does not eliminate the above fact in brackets.
Click to expand...

Yet, whether or not it's true is largely irrelevant when neither option even could actually support the claim that you made in any meaningful fashion. Certainly, some beliefs are harmful. That's not even close to a valid argument that all beliefs are harmful, though. If it's that, one can easily point at some people who believe strongly in employing evidence-based medicine to demonstrate that your claim is false.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
Yet, whether or not it's true is largely irrelevant when neither option even could actually support the claim that you made in any meaningful fashion. Certainly, some beliefs are harmful. That's not even close to a valid argument that all beliefs are harmful, though. If it's that, one can easily point at some people who believe strongly in employing evidence-based medicine to demonstrate that your claim is false.
Click to expand...

Yes, some beliefs are harmful, but also, it is scientifically observable, that the very concept of belief opposes scientific methodology.

Did you forget that science is mankind's best tool? Oops.

Recall:

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
MqHVzaA.png
Click to expand...
 
Porpoise of Life said:
No, how about you provide proper scientific evidence for your assertion...
Quite ironic that someone starting a thread on the importance of pure unadulterated scientific thought plays so fast and loose with the rules he claims to defend.
Click to expand...

You missed a post:

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
For those who are too lazy, here is data that shows belief's toxicity, see for example:

"Management of patients who refuse blood transfusion"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4260316/

[IMGw=500]http://i.imgur.com/cgDCpcV.jpg[/IMGw]
Click to expand...



Porpoise of Life said:
Either your original claims were in such colorful prose that they can't be taken at face value, or you really think that the fact that some religious people do things against their best interest proves that all belief in and of itself is literally harmul for the brain.

I'm assuming it's the former, but then your claim changes to "Some beliefs that actively oppose science can, in specific cases, produce negative results that could have been prevented if the believer had been wiling to adjust their beliefs based on the available scientific research."
Which is such a platitude that it doesn't deserve its own thread.
Click to expand...

Unless you were a human born yesterday, it is odd why you wouldn't recognize that a system that has little concern for scientific evidence (i.e. belief) blatantly opposes a system that highly concerns scientific evidence. (i.e scientific methodology) That belief can concern science, does not eliminate the fact that such is very little concern, by the standard definition of belief.
Not surprisingly, this opposes mankind's strongest tool, science.
 
Aridas said:
This suggests that you misunderstand the way that things work. New data should be the trigger to updating what one accepts (remember the first usage of believe, again?) provided that the data is trustworthy and relevant enough. You've got the data already at the point that your "observation" can be meaningfully updated.

Emotion-based thinking. You found out through personal unhappiness that faith is far from the most trustworthy method to judge truth, overgeneralized, and latched onto science without taking the time to understand the philosophy that produced it, underlies it, and grants it much of its power. Had you taken the time to do so properly, you wouldn't be making the remarkably basic mistakes that you are with "non-beliefism."
Click to expand...

sA6PAz9.jpg


You forget that science is a system that is constantly updated.

That science has models that require reconstitution, does not suddenly render science to be a belief.


Aridas said:
*raises an eyebrow* Once a believer like me? That quite suggests that you've been paying little to no attention to what I've said. I was raised as a Christian, but haven't been an adherent of any faith or religion... for a decade and a half, maybe? I am very much a proponent of reason, logic, and valid arguments more than anything else, which is why we're clashing.
Click to expand...

You are still one who believes, (i.e. a believer).

That you reject non-beliefism, means that you still sillily believe in things, such as science, despite the fact that science holds true regardless of belief.

The remainder of your responses are highly nonsensical, and so I shan't bother to grant them attention beyond this sentence's scope.
 
abaddon said:
@PGJ. How do you justify the beliefs that YOU hold?
Click to expand...

Are you projecting?

That you have beliefs, does not suddenly render me a believer in anything.

Belief is for toddlers, that are unable to observe that one need not believe in science, for science holds true regardless. Furthermore, belief opposes the scientific methodology, and humans are better of with science.
 
fagin said:
If that's an example, the rest of your 'book' must be turgid dross.

You shouldn't really quote your own lack of understanding to refute other peoples' arguments.

But do carry on. Rinse and repeat.
Click to expand...

Are you one of those blood transfusion refusers? Are you a theist or a conspiracy theorist?
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
steenkh said:
Really?

Science is built on the premise that under the same circumstances, the same things will happen. For instance, if I drop a ball, it will fall, and if I do it again, it will fall again.

That premise is a belief. It certainly has a lot of evidence for it, but it is a belief nonetheless, and this specific belief is one that certain theists do not have. Their god can change the laws of nature from one moment to the next, and since it is a god-in-the-gap argument, it cannot be disproved.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

That flat earthers exist, does not disregard gravitational theory, and that scientists may believe in equations, does not alter the behaviour of those equations.
Click to expand...
These statements seem to be disconnected to what I said. Could you explain?

Alternatively, your statements might mean that you do not think that scientific assumptions, i.e. axioms could be false. In that case, you might explain why that is not a belief.
 
Do you have evidence for your assertions about the beliefs of other posters?

Because if you are making assumptions about other people's beliefs without evidence... that is called a belief, my good man. Best stop assuming before your brain rots. I read in your OP that that happens.
 
steenkh said:
These statements seem to be disconnected to what I said. Could you explain?

Alternatively, your statements might mean that you do not think that scientific assumptions, i.e. axioms could be false. In that case, you might explain why that is not a belief.
Click to expand...

Simply, that science (of high concern for evidence) is a system that faces constant updating, does not suddenly render it to be a belief (that by definition has little concern for scientific evidence)
 
Porpoise of Life said:
Do you have evidence for your assertions about the beliefs of other posters?

Because if you are making assumptions about other people's beliefs without evidence... that is called a belief, my good man. Best stop assuming before your brain rots. I read in your OP that that happens.
Click to expand...

Wrong.
Belief can occur with evidence. (..although belief has low concern of evidence, and thus opposes science)
 
Last edited:
Why do " skeptics' " responses here indicate difficulty in observation that belief opposes science?

Is dictionary usage such a difficult task?

kHuXEPE.jpg
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Wrong.
Belief can occur with evidence. (..although belief has low concern of evidence, and thus opposes science)
Click to expand...

I did not say that belief always occurs without evidence, I saisd that you have no evidence, so your assumptions are neccesarily based on belief.

Stop contradicting yourself.
 
fagin said:
If that's an example, the rest of your 'book' must be turgid dross.

You shouldn't really quote your own lack of understanding to refute other peoples' arguments.

But do carry on. Rinse and repeat.
Click to expand...

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Are you one of those blood transfusion refusers? Are you a theist or a conspiracy theorist?
Click to expand...

Regular blood donor, atheist, and no.

You are free to believe me or not.

However I have absolutely no idea what that has to do with my original statement, which was really aimed at just how badly you communicate.

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Wrong.
Belief can occur with evidence. (..although belief has low concern of evidence, and thus opposes science)
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that?
 
Porpoise of Life said:
I did not say that belief always occurs without evidence, I saisd that you have no evidence, so your assumptions are neccesarily based on belief.

Stop contradicting yourself.
Click to expand...

Why would you express such nonsense? (Note I approach your response here not you)

That beings here reject non-beliefism (as shown in their negating responses) is clear evidence that they express that they believe in things like science. (although science holds true regardless of belief)
 
fagin said:
Regular blood donor, atheist, and no.

You are free to believe me or not.

However I have absolutely no idea what that has to do with my original statement, which was really aimed at just how badly you communicate.



Do you really believe that?
Click to expand...

You need contact a dictionary.

No standard dictionary is without some flavour of belief, with at least one definition that designates low evidence concern...
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Simply, that science (of high concern for evidence) is a system that faces constant updating, does not suddenly render it to be a belief (that by definition has little concern for scientific evidence)
Click to expand...
Holding an axiom for true is not a belief because there is plenty of evidence for it? The initial resistance against quantum physics was precisely because it broke the axiom that everything was repeatable. Now we know that this axiom can be broken, but it is still not a belief to assume it is self-evidently true?
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Why would you express such nonsense? (Note I approach your response here not you)

That beings here reject non-beliefism (as shown in their negating responses) is clear evidence that they express that they believe in things like science. (although science holds true regardless of belief)
Click to expand...

No, rejecting your little made up and poorly formulated belief system does not mean anything other than a rejection of what you have written. You can not infer people's 'true motives' from that.

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.
 
fagin said:
Regular blood donor, atheist, and no.

You are free to believe me or not.

However I have absolutely no idea what that has to do with my original statement, which was really aimed at just how badly you communicate.



Do you really believe that?
Click to expand...

Dross' primary meaning is something rubbish.

That my book recalls of health neglection abound belief, is rather than rubbish, not so.
 
steenkh said:
Holding an axiom for true is not a belief because there is plenty of evidence for it? The initial resistance against quantum physics was precisely because it broke the axiom that everything was repeatable. Now we know that this axiom can be broken, but it is still not a belief to assume it is self-evidently true?
Click to expand...

Observing standard definitions, that science has models that require re-constitution, does not suddenly render science to be a belief.
Science is not perfect, but it is mankind's best tool, and it is not compatible with belief, that lacks high concern for scientific evidence.
And thus, belief fundamentally opposes science.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
No, rejecting your little made up and poorly formulated belief system does not mean anything other than a rejection of what you have written. You can not infer people's 'true motives' from that.

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...

Non-beliefism simply recalls that belief opposes science.
Non-beliefism did not manufacture the above factum; that belief opposes science persists whether or not non-beliefism exists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom