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

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


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 4th July 2017, 07:59 PM   #121
ProgrammingGodJordan
Graduate Poster
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,014
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Highlighting the faults in the logic that you're employing is hardly silly or irrelevant. Logical principles need to be generally true to be valid to employ as an argument, not specially pleaded to be relevant for one case and not others. Doing things like you are is something of a hallmark of the nastier aspects of religion... and quite frankly, I have no intention of inserting religious thinking into my atheism.



Of course it doesn't. Nor was there any attempt to argue that it did. Rather, it was highlighting how you are attempting to grossly and fallaciously misuse that rather trivial fact to try to support a harmful, ignorant, and internally contradictory "understanding."



There are effectively uncountable kinds of liquids that will kill you if you drink them and frequently even if you are near them, and that very possibly includes the overwhelming majority of kinds of liquids. Does that make it any more reasonable or valid to say that liquids are not compatible with the human body? Or, shockingly, could you admit that maybe, just maybe, a more nuanced approach is needed to validly address the issue than to proclaim all liquid to be in opposition to the human body and should thus be removed from the human body?



More specifically, certain kinds of beliefs do oppose science by definition. Trying to overgeneralize that fact into a rejection of all belief, however, is to ignore the nature of what belief actually is and what functions it serves, on top of committing multiple logical fallacies.



And I didn't claim that the weakness necessarily laid with him, though I very strongly suspect that Tyson and I would very quickly agree in a discussion on the topic, when it comes the points that I was actually making. After all, this is very basic stuff that we're talking about and it would surprise me quite a bit if he actually disagreed with a counter to that statement that said "Reality is what's true regardless of what one believes about it. Science is simply the most reliable tool that we have to determine what reality actually is, by far." To draw on a couple of Tyson's quotes myself to further reinforce that, though, given that he's the subject in question, "The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you." and "Knowing how to think empowers you far beyond those who know only what to think."

Back to your understanding of the matters at hand, though... that does seem to be a place of great weakness. Hence one of the reasons why I pointedly differentiated between belief and faith at the beginning of discussion and why I've been highlighting how the logic that you've been employing is little more than special pleading and overgeneralization.



Hmm? In response to a questioner who was vaguely waffling about different people believing different things, he responded with the claim that science doesn't require one to believe in it for to be true. That is quite true, given that truth is not mutable or dependent upon outside subjective validation to actually be the case. It's also a reference to the fact that the scientific method is all about focusing on the beliefs regarding the best methods to gather and evaluate information rather than on the desired end beliefs. It's about the how, in other words, more than the what. To repeat the quote from earlier for emphasis, "Knowing how to think empowers you far beyond those who know only what to think." That's certainly not a rejection of all kinds of belief, there. A rejection of beliefs based on fallacious logic, perhaps, but not all belief by a long shot.
I shall respond to the least nonsensical portion of your response; the final paragraph above, with a simple question.

If Neil expresses that science is true whether or not one believes in science, why would one bother to believe at all?
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
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 4th July 2017, 08:02 PM   #122
ProgrammingGodJordan
Graduate Poster
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,014
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
So you keep saying. And as it has been repeatedly pointed out to you on several threads now, the use of 'especially' does not imply the exclusivity you think it does. Belief can mean to accept as true without evidence (faith) and it can also mean to accept as true with evidence (as in a scientific belief). You are having an inexplicably difficult time grasping the latter.



A human beyond the age of childhood can normally grasp the concept of scientific or rational belief. Faith may not withstand the rigors of the scientific method, but you persistently employ the wrong term (belief).

Just look at what you wrote above: because belief may be unfounded on science, you assert it opposes science. No, Baba Louis. It may sometimes oppose science, which is not a particularly profound observation. It's really not that complicated.



Notably, a system (that lacks high concern for evidence, i.e. belief), fundamentally opposes a system that has no such lacking. (i.e. scientific methodology)
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 4th July 2017 at 08:47 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 4th July 2017, 10:54 PM   #123
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,509
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post



Notably, a system (that lacks high concern for evidence, i.e. belief), fundamentally opposes a system that has no such lacking. (i.e. scientific methodology)
*MostlyDead rubs temples with fingertips*

Belief does not 'lack high concern for evidence'. All three definitions from Merriam-Webster:

Quote:
Definition of belief

1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

2: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed an individual's religious or political beliefs; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group

3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence: belief in the validity of scientific statements
Take a gander at that third usage and it's example in particular. This is really not that complicated. You are very, very wrong in your use of this simple word, and given that you 'invented' nonbeliefism, it's stunning that you don't understand it's meaning.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief
MostlyDead 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 4th July 2017, 11:16 PM   #124
ProgrammingGodJordan
Graduate Poster
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,014
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
*MostlyDead rubs temples with fingertips*

Belief does not 'lack high concern for evidence'. All three definitions from Merriam-Webster:

Take a gander at that third usage and it's example in particular. This is really not that complicated. You are very, very wrong in your use of this simple word, and given that you 'invented' nonbeliefism, it's stunning that you don't understand it's meaning.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief



https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/belief
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/belief
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di...english/belief


FOOTNOTE A

For many dictionaries, including Merriam Webster you cited above, the primary definitions establish belief to be especially absent evidence..

Albeit, these same dictionaries, have secondary definitions, that instead of oppose the primary definition, substantiate them.

So, the type of belief that concerns evidence, exist in the aforesaid secondary definitions. (But this does not eliminate the reality that beliefs especially concern non-evidence, as seen in primary definition)



FOOTNOTE B

Thereafter, belief is still a paradigm that still has not any high concern for evidence (this does not mean it doesn't ever concern evidence), while the scientific methodology does.



Did you forget how to use a dictionary? Oops...
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 5th July 2017 at 12:17 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 4th July 2017, 11:45 PM   #125
Elagabalus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,422
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post



https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/belief
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/belief
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di...english/belief


FOOTNOTE A

For many dictionaries, including Merriam Webster you cited above, the primary definitions establish belief to be especially absent evidence..

Albeit, these same dictionaries, have secondary definitions, that instead of oppose the primary definition, substantiate them.

So, the type of belief that concern evidence, exist in the aforesaid secondary definitions. (But this does not eliminate the reality that beliefs especially concern non-evidence, as seen in primary definition)



FOOTNOTE B

Thereafter, belief is still a paradigm that still has not any high concern for evidence (this does not mean it doesn't ever concern evidence), while the scientific methodology does.



Did you forget how to use a dictionary? Oops...

I know U R, but am I?!! Neneer neneer neener. Hey, look over there!!!
Elagabalus 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 4th July 2017, 11:52 PM   #126
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,509
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post


FOOTNOTE A

For many dictionaries, including Merriam Webster you cited above, the primary definitions establish belief to be especially absent evidence...
And of course you could easily show where, in Merriam-Webster, the primary definitions establish belief to be especially absent evidence, as you claim? I already posted the primary, secondary, and tertiary definitions which flatly contradict your claim. Please cite specifically.

ETA: BTW, three of the four definitions you linked do not have the primary definitions establishing belief to be especially absent evidence, per your claim. What was that you were saying about knowing how to use a dictionary?

Last edited by MostlyDead; 5th July 2017 at 12:04 AM.
MostlyDead 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 5th July 2017, 12:09 AM   #127
ProgrammingGodJordan
Graduate Poster
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,014
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
And of course you could easily show where, in Merriam-Webster, the primary definitions establish belief to be especially absent evidence, as you claim? I already posted the primary, secondary, and tertiary definitions which flatly contradict your claim. Please cite specifically.

(1) I made no such claim.

(2) Using the very Merriam Webster dictionary you cited, it is observable that one of the definitions (the primary one, and one of the secondary ones too) concerns especially non evidence. (Merriam Webster (1) and (2) God beliefs, etc)

(3) No sensible, standard dictionary is without at least one definition, that shows the "especially absent evidence" phenomenon. (I am disappointed you failed to detect this)

Primary or not, at least one definition will express that belief deals primarily with non evidence. This should tell you that the definition that concerns evidence, substantiates its neighboring definitions that concern largely non evidence, rather than oppose them.

The outcome is as a being of common intellect would observe; for belief is literally defined to especially be absent evidence, but may include evidence.



Originally Posted by MostlyDead
ETA: BTW, three of the four definitions you linked do not have the primary definitions establishing belief to be especially absent evidence, per your claim. What was that you were saying about knowing how to use a dictionary?
Your statement, once more, is invalid.

You may notice some definitions with God, or feelings. Those definitions concern especially non evidence.

So, did you forget how to use the dictionary?
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 5th July 2017 at 12:14 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 5th July 2017, 12:12 AM   #128
Elagabalus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,422
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
(1) I made no such claim.

(2) Using the very Merriam Webster dictionary you cited, it is observable that one of the definitions (the primary one, and one of the secondary ones too) concerns especially non evidence. (Merriam Webster (1) and (2) God beliefs, etc)

(3) No sensible, standard dictionary is without at least one definition, that shows the "especially absent evidence" phenomenon. (I am disappointed you failed to detect this)

Primary or not, at least one definition will express that belief deals primarily with non evidence. This should tell you that the definition that concerns evidence, substantiates its neighboring definitions that concern largely non evidence, rather than oppose them.

The outcome is as a being of common intellect would observe; for belief is literally defined to especially be absent evidence, but may include evidence.
Back pedaling ... eh?
Elagabalus 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 5th July 2017, 12:36 AM   #129
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,509
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
(1) I made no such claim.
...Jesus, Mary and Joseph...From your post #126:

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
For many dictionaries, including Merriam Webster you cited above, the primary definitions establish belief to be especially absent evidence..
This is a direct claim that Merriam-Webster's primary definition establishes belief to be especially absent evidence. For you to lie so blatantly is getting tedious. MD out.
MostlyDead 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 5th July 2017, 12:45 AM   #130
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,408
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I shall respond to the least nonsensical portion of your response; the final paragraph above, with a simple question.
In short, you're still unable to make a valid counterargument to what's actually being said. If it's nonsensical, you should be able to explain why. Just mindlessly repeating your fallacious and disputed claim is not, in fact, explaining why. You've shown no error in the logic disputing you. You've shown no error in the facts presented. All you've done is try to hand wave it away with wishful thinking and repeatedly asserted your claim. This is behavior normally employed by the "woos" who have come to these boards, and that you're being seen as roughly on par with a guy who was demanding that atheists should use a different calendar because AD and BC are totally Christian things really should give you reason for pause and a bit of self-reflection.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
If Neil expresses that science is true whether or not one believes in science, why would one bother to believe at all?
Was what was already said too complicated? Does something need to be grossly oversimplified for you so you can try to twist it to say what you want it to? I'd be tempted to tell you to go ahead and throw out the baby with the bathwater and see how that works for you, but you literally couldn't even do that in this case.

So, instead, I'll ask you in response, why do you believe that the fact that some beliefs are non-scientific constitutes reason to reject all belief? Why do you keep trying to claim that that isn't a belief?
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 5th July 2017 at 12:48 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 5th July 2017, 12:56 AM   #131
ProgrammingGodJordan
Graduate Poster
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,014
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
...Jesus, Mary and Joseph...From your post #126:



This is a direct claim that Merriam-Webster's primary definition establishes belief to be especially absent evidence. For you to lie so blatantly is getting tedious. MD out.
Do you not notice the references to God and religion in the first and second definitions on Merriam?

Or do you think there is a standard dictionary that has not one meaning that encompasses no high concern for evidence with regards to the word belief?
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 5th July 2017 at 01:04 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 5th July 2017, 01:02 AM   #132
ProgrammingGodJordan
Graduate Poster
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,014
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
In short, you're still unable to make a valid counterargument to what's actually being said. If it's nonsensical, you should be able to explain why. Just mindlessly repeating your fallacious and disputed claim is not, in fact, explaining why. You've shown no error in the logic disputing you. You've shown no error in the facts presented. All you've done is try to hand wave it away with wishful thinking and repeatedly asserted your claim. This is behavior normally employed by the "woos" who have come to these boards, and that you're being seen as roughly on par with a guy who was demanding that atheists should use a different calendar because AD and BC are totally Christian things really should give you reason for pause and a bit of self-reflection.



Was what was already said too complicated? Does something need to be grossly oversimplified for you so you can try to twist it to say what you want it to? I'd be tempted to tell you to go ahead and throw out the baby with the bathwater and see how that works for you, but you literally couldn't even do that in this case.

So, instead, I'll ask you in response, why do you believe that the fact that some beliefs are non-scientific constitutes reason to reject all belief? Why do you keep trying to claim that that isn't a belief?
Rather than being unable/unequipped to approach the nonsensical strings you had prior expressed, I had not the energies to do so.

To answer your ending query:

Simply, belief is a paradigm that lacks high concern for evidence (this doesn't mean it concerns not evidence at all) whereas the scientific methodology has no such lacking.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
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 5th July 2017, 01:07 AM   #133
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,408
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Rather than being unable to approach the nonsensical strings you had prior expressed, I had not the energies to do so.
Because you don't have a valid counter to them and you're too invested in your "understanding" to admit that? That is what would be suggested by your behavior and backed up by having written that book of yours. You've invested too much in it and simply don't want to believe that you've been basing your case on fallacy and non-science.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
To answer your ending query:

Simply, belief is a paradigm that lacks high concern for evidence (this doesn't mean it concerns not evidence at all) whereas the scientific methodology has no such lacking.
So, 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?
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 5th July 2017 at 01:11 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 5th July 2017, 06:08 AM   #134
Chanakya
Punditry Unlimited
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 168
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
(...)If someone walks up to you and tells you "PGJ, I don't believe you're 100% sane. Do you agree with my non-belief?", what would you tell them (apart from the put-downs...?
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I would direct them to my book.
And what answer would your book provide to the question that you’d been asked? Do you agree with XYZ's non-belief in your sanity?
Chanakya 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 5th July 2017, 06:31 AM   #135
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,140
Nonbeliefism seems to bear a strong resemblance to nonthinkingism.
__________________
Chicken is a vegetable-James May, vegetarian
A target doesn't need to be preselected-Jabba
ferd burfle 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 5th July 2017, 07:01 AM   #136
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 63,945
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I shall respond to the least nonsensical portion of your response; the final paragraph above, with a simple question.
If you think that was nonsensical, then your problem is with the english language.
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon 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 5th July 2017, 08:31 AM   #137
Myriad
Hyperthetical
Moderator
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 12,854
PGJ, Tyson says science is true whether you believe it or not.

When he says this, should I believe it? Why or why not?
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...

Last edited by Myriad; 5th July 2017 at 08:33 AM.
Myriad 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 5th July 2017, 09:41 AM   #138
ProgrammingGodJordan
Graduate Poster
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,014
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
And what answer would your book provide to the question that you’d been asked? Do you agree with XYZ's non-belief in your sanity?
You'll probably need to buy the book to find out
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
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 5th July 2017, 09:46 AM   #139
ProgrammingGodJordan
Graduate Poster
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,014
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
PGJ, Tyson says science is true whether you believe it or not.

When he says this, should I believe it? Why or why not?
No, it would be quite silly to, and be counter to the very thing he advises against.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
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 5th July 2017, 09:53 AM   #140
ProgrammingGodJordan
Graduate Poster
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,014
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Because you don't have a valid counter to them and you're too invested in your "understanding" to admit that? That is what would be suggested by your behavior and backed up by having written that book of yours. You've invested too much in it and simply don't want to believe that you've been basing your case on fallacy and non-science.

(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.

I would gain no new data by willingly failing to update my observation.

How is it you think I came to invent non beliefism?

Did you know I was not only once a believer like you, a Christian at that, for several years until 4 years ago?

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.


(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.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 5th July 2017 at 10:09 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 5th July 2017, 09:53 AM   #141
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,707
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
No, it would be quite silly to, and be counter to the very thing he advises against.
Got it. You don't believe Neil De Grasse Tyson.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
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 5th July 2017, 09:59 AM   #142
ProgrammingGodJordan
Graduate Poster
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,014
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post


Got it. You don't believe Neil De Grasse Tyson.
Not at all.

No need to believe in a sequence, for which there exists scientific evidence.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
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 5th July 2017, 10:16 AM   #143
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,787
So, where is your scientific evidence that belief is 'dangerous for the brain' or 'toxic' as you've claimed?

It appears that you expect us to just take it on faith, ironically.
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 5th July 2017, 10:49 AM   #144
ProgrammingGodJordan
Graduate Poster
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,014
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
So, where is your scientific evidence that belief is 'dangerous for the brain' or 'toxic' as you've claimed?

It appears that you expect us to just take it on faith, ironically.
You must be blind to:

(1) Theistic parents avoiding doctors, leading to child death.
(2) Terroism (some born in strong belief systems)
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 5th July 2017 at 10:56 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 5th July 2017, 10:55 AM   #145
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
 
Spindrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 18,172
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
You must be blind to:

(1) Theistic parents avoiding doctors, leading to child death.
(2) Terroism
Sorry, I just don't believe you.
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.
Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon
Spindrift 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 5th July 2017, 10:57 AM   #146
ProgrammingGodJordan
Graduate Poster
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,014
Originally Posted by Spindrift View Post
Sorry, I just don't believe you.
Good.
No need to believe in sequences, for which there exists scientific evidence.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 5th July 2017 at 10:58 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 5th July 2017, 11:00 AM   #147
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,787
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
You must be blind to:

(1) Theistic parents avoiding doctors, leading to child death.
(2) Terroism (some born in strong belief systems)
Belief is broader than theism, and most theists don't avoid doctors.
You claimed that all belief is literally "dangerous for your brain".
And then you provide anecdotes about very specific beliefs producing negative outcomes.
This was not your claim.
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 5th July 2017, 11:02 AM   #148
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
 
Spindrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 18,172
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Good.
No need to believe in sequences, for which there exists scientific evidence.
Too bad this thread isn't one of those sequences.
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.
Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon
Spindrift 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 5th July 2017, 01:18 PM   #149
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,388
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
You must be blind to:

(1) Theistic parents avoiding doctors, leading to child death.
(2) Terroism (some born in strong belief systems)
Give the statistics for that belief of yours.
__________________
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 5th July 2017, 04:12 PM   #150
ProgrammingGodJordan
Graduate Poster
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,014
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
Belief is broader than theism, and most theists don't avoid doctors.
You claimed that all belief is literally "dangerous for your brain".
And then you provide anecdotes about very specific beliefs producing negative outcomes.
This was not your claim.
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.
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
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 5th July 2017, 05:09 PM   #151
ProgrammingGodJordan
Graduate Poster
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,014
Originally Posted by Spindrift View Post
Too bad this thread isn't one of those sequences.
Are you not aware the there are cases where religious parents neglect childrens' health, on the boundary of belief?

Did you forget your life on the planet? Oops..
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 5th July 2017 at 05:11 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 5th July 2017, 09:15 PM   #152
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,527
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
For those that appear to be enamoured with belief, take a listen to Neil deGrasse Tyson.
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.
theprestige 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 5th July 2017, 09:35 PM   #153
desmirelle
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 241
Point of Observation: For someone who doesn't "believe" in anything, PGJ sure puts a lot of faith in the reading he does in scientific journals/textbooks.
desmirelle 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 5th July 2017, 11:43 PM   #154
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
 
Nay_Sayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 3,175
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
Point of Observation: For someone who doesn't "believe" in anything, PGJ sure puts a lot of faith in the reading he does in scientific journals/textbooks.
He believes many things. He's invented this shtick to sloppily puppet bad arguments in some really obsessive quest to give atheists a bad name.

Maybe he got tired of the theist poes.

Shrug.
__________________
I AM THE DREADED PAPIER-MÂCHÉ CENSOR!
------------------------------------------------
I am 100% confident all psychics and mediums are frauds.
----------------------------------------------
Proud woo denier
Nay_Sayer 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 5th July 2017, 11:48 PM   #155
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,787
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.
You were the one wo claimed to have scientific evidence. And you are the one who only provided several assertions and anecdotes.

So don't tell me anecdotes may be unreliable, because they're your anecdotes.
And you still haven't provided any scientific evidence.
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, 08:45 AM   #156
ProgrammingGodJordan
Graduate Poster
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,014
Wink

Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
You were the one wo claimed to have scientific evidence. And you are the one who only provided several assertions and anecdotes.

So don't tell me anecdotes may be unreliable, because they're your anecdotes.
And you still haven't provided any scientific evidence.
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 am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
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, 08:46 AM   #157
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 63,945
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...
In other words, you have nothing.
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon 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 6th July 2017, 08:46 AM   #158
ProgrammingGodJordan
Graduate Poster
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,014
Originally Posted by Nay_Sayer View Post
He believes many things. He's invented this shtick to sloppily puppet bad arguments in some really obsessive quest to give atheists a bad name.

Maybe he got tired of the theist poes.

Shrug.
Does Neil deGrasse also give atheists a bad name? (With his expressions of belief irrelevance..)

Or are you yet to think beyond the scope of the common brain?
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
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, 08:50 AM   #159
ProgrammingGodJordan
Graduate Poster
 
ProgrammingGodJordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,014
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
In other words, you have nothing.
Your words contrast the meaning of my words above.

Is English your native tongue?
__________________
I am the creator/founder of "non beliefism": http://nonbeliefism.com

Relevant Neil deGrasse Tyson Quote:
"Science is true whether or not one believes in it". (source)
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, 08:50 AM   #160
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,145
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Google it; for it is not hidden that beliefs means by which health is hindered.
Once again, in some semblance of English, please.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Once more exercise care; that you fail to quickly uncover this publicly available evidence, does not suddenly render such data inexistent...
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.
__________________
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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

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 05:56 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.