ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 30th June 2017, 08:44 PM   #1
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Question Is belief itself dangerous for your brain? (A rethink is in order)



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/...88868313497266

Last edited by Locknar; 4th July 2017 at 05:28 AM. Reason: Rule 6; disruptive formatting
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2017, 08:47 PM   #2
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,893
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?
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2017, 08:48 PM   #3
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
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?
There is scientific data that shows that strong belief may be "toxic".


Example:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/...88868313497266

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 30th June 2017 at 08:56 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2017, 09:28 PM   #4
deaman
Philosopher
 
deaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Here Now
Posts: 9,529
Is that your belief?
deaman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2017, 09:49 PM   #5
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by deaman View Post
Is that your belief?
My answer:


Last edited by Locknar; 4th July 2017 at 05:29 AM. Reason: Rule 6; disruptive formatting
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2017, 11:29 PM   #6
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,262
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2017, 12:59 AM   #7
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
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.
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 by ProgrammingGodJordan; 1st July 2017 at 01:08 AM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2017, 01:39 AM   #8
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,262
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
(2) Science by definition, does not include non science.
And pancakes by definition do not include non-pancakes. Not at all related to whether belief is inherently toxic.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
(3) Believing in a flat earth, in no way, invalidates gravitational theory.

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


Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Where is the 'non sequitur'?
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.
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2017, 02:06 AM   #9
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,890
The entire proposition is incoherent.

Give me a moment to ready the popcorn.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2017, 02:32 AM   #10
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,738
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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.
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.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 1st July 2017 at 02:33 AM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2017, 02:53 AM   #11
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,527
The 70's called. They want their font back.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2017, 03:13 AM   #12
bluesjnr
Professional Nemesis for Hire
 
bluesjnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Not where I should be.
Posts: 4,822
Incoherent premise, use of confusing graphics, lists, multiple highlights and bolding.

All the hallmarks...
bluesjnr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2017, 09:13 AM   #13
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
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.
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?



Last edited by Locknar; 4th July 2017 at 05:29 AM. Reason: Rule 6; disruptive formatting
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2017, 09:17 AM   #14
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
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.

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.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2017, 09:32 AM   #15
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,224
PGJ, "toxic" is a value judgement. How do you decide which values to optimize for?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2017, 11:17 AM   #16
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
PGJ, "toxic" is a value judgement. How do you decide which values to optimize for?
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.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2017, 11:23 AM   #17
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,333
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.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2017, 12:18 PM   #18
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by bluesjnr
Incoherent premise, use of confusing graphics, lists, multiple highlights and bolding.

All the hallmarks...
All the hallmarks of this forum's awesome text editing functionality...

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 1st July 2017 at 12:25 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2017, 12:22 PM   #19
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
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.

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 by ProgrammingGodJordan; 1st July 2017 at 12:27 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2017, 12:36 PM   #20
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,333
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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?
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?
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2017, 12:45 PM   #21
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,461
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
The 70's called. They want their font back.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2017, 12:46 PM   #22
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 55,461
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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?
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2017, 12:50 PM   #23
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Originally Posted by 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.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 1st July 2017 at 12:58 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2017, 03:20 PM   #24
Little 10 Toes
Graduate Poster
 
Little 10 Toes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,836
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.
Little 10 Toes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2017, 04:54 PM   #25
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes View Post
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.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 1st July 2017 at 05:10 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2017, 05:10 PM   #26
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,694
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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.
__________________
"I have no clue" - King of the Americas
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2017, 06:37 PM   #27
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,738
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 1st July 2017 at 06:40 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2017, 06:50 PM   #28
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,007
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Give me your thoughts heathens (theists feel free too)]
What's your point? Heathens are most decidedly theists. Even those who anthropomorphize.
Peregrinus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2017, 06:54 PM   #29
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,333
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2017, 06:56 PM   #30
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,738
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
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.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 1st July 2017 at 06:57 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2017, 07:04 PM   #31
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
(A)

Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
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)
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
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.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 1st July 2017 at 07:35 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2017, 07:08 PM   #32
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
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.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon
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:

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
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.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 1st July 2017 at 07:26 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2017, 07:23 PM   #33
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
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)

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan


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)?

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 1st July 2017 at 07:33 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2017, 08:28 PM   #34
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,738
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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*

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Is science not compatible with the unbeliever's prognosis?
Question inapplicable, given that it was formed based on false premises.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 1st July 2017 at 09:21 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2017, 09:07 PM   #35
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
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...


Originally Posted by Aridas
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.





Originally Posted by Aridas
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...

Originally Posted by Aridas
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.



Originally Posted by Aridas
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.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2017, 10:34 PM   #36
Explorer
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,111
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
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.
Explorer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2017, 01:13 AM   #37
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Explorer View Post
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.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 2nd July 2017 at 01:25 AM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2017, 01:27 AM   #38
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,639
What is belief's LD50?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2017, 01:34 AM   #39
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,639
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
You may notice that I referred to two groups:
(1) Heathens.
(2) Theists.

Heathens may include atheists.

Heathens also includes theists.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2017, 02:09 AM   #40
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,333
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
It is likely quite irrelevant:
I love that you're quoting yourself as a refutation.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:48 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.