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 6th July 2017, 08:52 AM   #161
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
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.
No belief required..His intellect simply likely exceeds those of this forum...
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 6th July 2017, 08:53 AM   #162
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,174
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Your words contrast the meaning of my words above.
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.

Quote:
Is English your native tongue?
If it's yours, my second language is better than your first.
__________________
<Roar!>
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 6th July 2017, 08:56 AM   #163
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by fagin View Post
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.
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)?
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 6th July 2017, 08:59 AM   #164
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
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.
There is an enumeration of scientific evidences amidst the "non-sheeple" bound book of mine....
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 6th July 2017, 09:00 AM   #165
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,174
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
There is an enumeration of scientific evidences amidst the "non-sheeple" bound book of mine....
See, that's the pseudo-intellectual word salad I was refering to. Hint: it doesn't make you look smart.
__________________
<Roar!>
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 6th July 2017, 09:04 AM   #166
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,375
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
No belief required..His intellect simply likely exceeds those of this forum...
Do you believe that?
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin 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 6th July 2017, 09:05 AM   #167
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,375
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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)?
Once again, in some semblance of English. please.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin 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 6th July 2017, 09:09 AM   #168
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,375
Or perhaps you are not English speaking, which might explain your usage of the word 'doff'.

http://www.rsa-overseas.com/features/slang.htm

Head down to the 'D's
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin 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 6th July 2017, 09:20 AM   #169
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,997
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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...
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 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 6th July 2017, 06:40 PM   #170
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
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.
Perhaps you need re-read (quite quite slowly) your response above..
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 6th July 2017, 06:45 PM   #171
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
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/

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 6th July 2017, 06:49 PM   #172
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,243
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
No belief required..His intellect simply likely exceeds those of this forum...
Do you believe that his intellect likely exceeds etc.?

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
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 6th July 2017, 06:51 PM   #173
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Do you believe that his intellect likely exceeds etc.?

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
One need not believe/trust in probabilities...
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 6th July 2017, 06:56 PM   #174
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
@theprestige, try to think about the following:


Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 6th July 2017 at 07:20 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 6th July 2017, 07:25 PM   #175
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
See, that's the pseudo-intellectual word salad I was refering to. Hint: it doesn't make you look smart.
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 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 6th July 2017, 11:56 PM   #176
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,997
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Perhaps you need re-read (quite quite slowly) your response above..
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.
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 7th July 2017, 12:23 AM   #177
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,567
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post

(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.
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.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I would gain no new data by willingly failing to update my observation.
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.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
How is it you think I came to invent non beliefism?
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."

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Did you know I was not only once a believer like you, a Christian at that, for several years until 4 years ago?
*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.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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.
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?


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

Last edited by Aridas; 7th July 2017 at 12:49 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 7th July 2017, 12:33 AM   #178
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,567
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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.
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.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 7th July 2017 at 12:40 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 7th July 2017, 05:30 AM   #179
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
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.
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:

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
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 7th July 2017, 05:35 AM   #180
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
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.
You missed a post:

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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/



Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
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.
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.
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 7th July 2017, 05:39 AM   #181
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,375
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.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin 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 7th July 2017, 05:41 AM   #182
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,375
ps. I thought Trump was mankind's strongest tool?
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin 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 7th July 2017, 05:41 AM   #183
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,982
@PGJ. How do you justify the beliefs that YOU hold?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is online now   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 7th July 2017, 05:44 AM   #184
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
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."


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.


Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
*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.
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.
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 7th July 2017, 05:47 AM   #185
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
@PGJ. How do you justify the beliefs that YOU hold?
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.
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 7th July 2017, 05:50 AM   #186
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by fagin View Post
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.
Are you one of those blood transfusion refusers? Are you a theist or a conspiracy theorist?
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 7th July 2017, 06:00 AM   #187
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,091
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
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.
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.
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.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is online now   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 7th July 2017, 06:00 AM   #188
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,997
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.
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 7th July 2017, 06:02 AM   #189
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
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.
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)
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 7th July 2017, 06:03 AM   #190
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
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.
Wrong.
Belief can occur with evidence. (..although belief has low concern of evidence, and thus opposes science)

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 7th July 2017 at 06:05 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 7th July 2017, 06:06 AM   #191
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Why do " skeptics' " responses here indicate difficulty in observation that belief opposes science?

Is dictionary usage such a difficult task?


Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 7th July 2017 at 06:08 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 7th July 2017, 06:08 AM   #192
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,997
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Wrong.
Belief can occur with evidence. (..although belief has low concern of evidence, and thus opposes science)
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.
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 7th July 2017, 06:10 AM   #193
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,375
Originally Posted by fagin View Post
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.
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Are you one of those blood transfusion refusers? Are you a theist or a conspiracy theorist?
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.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Wrong.
Belief can occur with evidence. (..although belief has low concern of evidence, and thus opposes science)
Do you really believe that?
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin 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 7th July 2017, 06:12 AM   #194
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
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.
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)
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 7th July 2017, 06:14 AM   #195
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by fagin View Post
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?
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 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 7th July 2017, 06:15 AM   #196
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,091
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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)
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?
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is online now   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 7th July 2017, 06:16 AM   #197
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,997
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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)
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.
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 7th July 2017, 06:18 AM   #198
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by fagin View Post
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?
Dross' primary meaning is something rubbish.

That my book recalls of health neglection abound belief, is rather than rubbish, not so.
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 7th July 2017, 06:22 AM   #199
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
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?
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.
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 7th July 2017, 06:24 AM   #200
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
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.
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.
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
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 12:21 AM.
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.