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:
You've still completely failed to show that it is scientifically observable that the very concept of belief opposes scientific methodology. Your presented argument is simply you repeating baseless assertion that wasn't accepted before because it was baseless and the logic employed fails even basic inspection. Given the logic you're pushing, you are still effectively arguing that liquid in general is in opposition to human bodies because most liquids are not helpful to the survival of a human body. Indeed, that you are special pleading is pretty much unavoidable because the logic you're trying to claim is obviously the case doesn't ever work.
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.
You've got no relevant response, then? You've addressed nothing that I said there.
You are still one who believes, (i.e. a believer).
I do accept numerous things provisionally. Going by the normal definition, that does count as "belief." You've quite shown that you still count as a believer under the normal usage of the word, too.
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.
And you seem happily ignorant about the actual ways that science becomes worthless if one is unable to accept anything, even provisionally.
The remainder of your responses are highly nonsensical, and so I shan't bother to grant them attention beyond this sentence's scope.
Of course. You're unable to even answer simple questions about the assertions that you've made, therefore, you try to dismiss them as nonsense.
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?
Also, I'm still waiting for you to point out where I said the things that you claimed that I said or retract your claim. Your failure to either show the evidence or retract your claims does little more than show off how dishonest you're being.
Observing standard definitions, that science has models that require re-constitution, does not suddenly render science to be a belief.
Of course it doesn't. No one was arguing that in the first place. Beat that straw man!
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.
Your assertion that it is not compatible rests on blatant fallacy.
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.
More correctly, the claim that belief opposes science fails whether or not non-beliefism exists.
I really wish he had used the word 'faith' and not 'belief'. There are rational beliefs and irrational beliefs. Faith is by its very definition an irrational belief.
He's rejected differentiating between the two, repeatedly. The really sad thing is that he treats his irrational philosophy like a religious person treats their faith, without any real attempt to locate or address the fallacies.
