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 10th July 2017, 10:09 AM   #241
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,997
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
A silly query.

Non beliefism encodes that one lacks belief in all things.

Why would I disregard one's non belief (in any a sequence) there after?
I don't believe your non-beliefism, which makes me more non-beliefist than you. Checkmate.
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 10th July 2017, 10:38 AM   #242
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 271
We Have A Winner!

Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
I don't believe your non-beliefism, which makes me more non-beliefist than you. Checkmate.
Porpoise wins. Game over. End of thread.


(We should be so lucky.)
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 10th July 2017, 11:43 AM   #243
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,569
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I tire of your silly anecdotes.
I tire of you making false accusations and then running away when they're challenged.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Simply, if one is to do science, one shall do so with high concern for evidence,
Of course.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
and so, one shall avoid belief (which is not in the regime of high evidence concern)
And yet, to actually do science, accepting (believing) things at least provisionally is necessary. To employ the information that science provides, accepting (believing) things is necessary. For that matter, using a common language requires accepting (believing) things.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
As with theistic writing, your response above is straddled with contradiction.
Contradiction that you've failed to identify, much less defend.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
The typical dictionary can quickly be used to purge you confusion, amidst the scenario above.

Thusly, your response is but inconsequential...
Nope. The dictionary doesn't even remotely answer the question being asked. Your "evidence concern" line of argument is utterly fallacious, after all. Perhaps you could demonstrate other examples where you think the logic you're employing works, though?
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 10th July 2017 at 11:50 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 10th July 2017, 10:54 PM   #244
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
I don't believe your non-beliefism, which makes me more non-beliefist than you. Checkmate.
Yes, it would be silly that I advise that one believes in non-beliefism, did you miss the original post?

Here are a few things to observe:

(1) I lack belief in myself. (Not surprisingly, as I lack belief in all things)
(2) I lack belief in non beliefism. (Not surprisingly, as I lack belief in all things)

Thusly, I advise not that one believe in any a sequence... not surprisingly.
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 10th July 2017, 10:57 PM   #245
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post

Nope. The dictionary doesn't even remotely answer the question being asked. Your "evidence concern" line of argument is utterly fallacious, after all. Perhaps you could demonstrate other examples where you think the logic you're employing works, though?
Look in the dictionaries once more, for the word belief. (Perhaps a thousand times more, if the need arises)

Last edited by zooterkin; 14th July 2017 at 12:02 PM. Reason: Removed intrusive advert
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 11th July 2017, 05:08 PM   #246
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 271
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Yes, it would be silly that I advise that one believes in non-beliefism,<snipped drivel>

Here are a few things to observe:

(1) I lack belief in myself. (Not surprisingly, as I lack belief in all things)
(2) I lack belief in non beliefism. (Not surprisingly, as I lack belief in all things)
1. Lacking belief in one's self shows a lack of self-esteem. Keeping working on your writing skills and perhaps you'll be able to put out something that makes sense.

2. We're back to reading and writing in English. What this sentence says is that you do not belief in this hogwash you're spouting. Now, while I actually believe this to be true - that you don't believe what you're saying (half the time what you're writing doesn't make sense, anyway), you want us to believe that you do not believe in anything, not even yourself. Sad, so sad.

I don't think it's belief you lack. More like writing skills and English comprehension. The motif with all the pix and oversize printing does fall into your low self-esteem bit, you overcompensate for attention.

But, as I posted above, Porpoise won. Therefore, you (and non-beliefism) lose.

But non-beliefism doesn't exist.....because no one, not even you, believes in it! You say so yourself. So, please, stop self-editing your dictionary, actually LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF BELIEF (hint: it's been posted here) and find someone to explain it to you in small words in whatever your native language is (I'm hoping it's not English).
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 11th July 2017, 07:55 PM   #247
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
MostlyDead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,784
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
...But, as I posted above, Porpoise won. Therefore, you (and non-beliefism) lose...
Hang on. PGJ dealt me three silly memes in his responses. Playing PGJ five-card, three silly memes beats one logical conclusion. I won.

In a previous thread, poster Slowvehicle made a game where you had to drink when PGJ wrote 'betwixt', IIRC. There is a wiggly red line under the word 'thusly' that shows when you quote him. For fun, I looked up 'thusly'. Usage note from dictionary.com:

Quote:
Some speakers and writers regard thusly as a pointless synonym for thus, and they avoid it or use it only for humorous effect.

Contemporary Examples

The next time I spoke to him on the phone, he greeted me with thusly : “Hello, you prick.”
I'll be drinking upon further use of 'thusly'. Inebriation anticipated.
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 11th July 2017, 07:59 PM   #248
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 271
I'm sorry, MostlyDead, but Porpoise wins by not believing in non-beliefism. On the bright side, you must take a drink every time 'non-beliefism' is used so that your inebriation is guaranteed!!!!! No anticipation necessary.
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 11th July 2017, 08:06 PM   #249
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
MostlyDead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,784
Bottoms up!

Also, I believe that I don't believe that you cannot believe in non-beliefism.

Thusly.
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 11th July 2017, 09:00 PM   #250
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
1. Lacking belief in one's self shows a lack of self-esteem. Keeping working on your writing skills and perhaps you'll be able to put out something that makes sense.

2. We're back to reading and writing in English. What this sentence says is that you do not belief in this hogwash you're spouting. Now, while I actually believe this to be true - that you don't believe what you're saying (half the time what you're writing doesn't make sense, anyway), you want us to believe that you do not believe in anything, not even yourself. Sad, so sad.

I don't think it's belief you lack. More like writing skills and English comprehension. The motif with all the pix and oversize printing does fall into your low self-esteem bit, you overcompensate for attention.

But, as I posted above, Porpoise won. Therefore, you (and non-beliefism) lose.

But non-beliefism doesn't exist.....because no one, not even you, believes in it! You say so yourself. So, please, stop self-editing your dictionary, actually LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF BELIEF (hint: it's been posted here) and find someone to explain it to you in small words in whatever your native language is (I'm hoping it's not English).
Simply, one need not believe in empirically observed sequences; and thusly, as I am empirically observable, I need not believe in myself.


One who disregards nonbeliefism, denies science, for nonbeliefism encourages science.



FOOTNOTE:
I needn't 'self edit' belief's definition, for standard definitions may be referenced:

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 11th July 2017 at 09:08 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 11th July 2017, 09:02 PM   #251
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
MostlyDead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,784
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Simply, one need not believe in empirically observed sequences; and thusly, as I am empirically observable, I need not believe in myself.


One who disregards nonbeliefism, denies science, for nonbeliefism encourages science.
Drink!

Last edited by MostlyDead; 11th July 2017 at 09:04 PM. Reason: seeing multiple keyboards
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 11th July 2017, 09:04 PM   #252
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
I'm sorry, MostlyDead, but Porpoise wins by not believing in non-beliefism. On the bright side, you must take a drink every time 'non-beliefism' is used so that your inebriation is guaranteed!!!!! No anticipation necessary.
One need not believe in empirically observed sequences...

Come,, is it but not yet time to doff your silly belief bound framework?
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 12th July 2017, 01:07 AM   #253
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,569
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Look in the dictionaries once more, for the word belief. (Perhaps a thousand times more, if the need arises)
A fallacious claim remains a fallacious claim, whether it's looked at once or a thousand times. The first line in your self-quote is simply false assertion. The most damning fault there is that belief is not a system, no matter how many times you repeat it.

As for the second part? That's just a bunch of silly nonsense. Good for you, you can cherry pick. You can try to hand wave away that words frequently have multiple entirely distinct meanings. You can try to claim separation where there is none, rather than looking at where separation actually is. That doesn't mean that any of your attempts to claim things have any merit at all.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
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 12th July 2017, 01:36 AM   #254
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,997
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
One need not believe in empirically observed sequences...

Come,, is it but not yet time to doff your silly belief bound framework?
I do doff my hat at your consistent mangling of the English language.

The jewel in the crown of these malapropisms is giving disbelief the suffix -ism, that usually denotes a belief system or doctrine. The very thing you say shouldn't exist.
Believing in not believing things (except for science, which can be believed without constant testing in day to day situations for some reason that is never given) does sound a little paradoxical.
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 12th July 2017, 04:44 AM   #255
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,091
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
One who disregards nonbeliefism, denies science, for nonbeliefism encourages science.
Fallacious argumentation. The first assertion does not follow from the second. Non-beliefism is not the only belief system that encourages science.

We also have the religious believers that made significant contributions to science, like the Jesuit monk Georges Lemaître who first proposed the theory of the expanding universe. You can hardly claim that he denied science.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh 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 12th July 2017, 11:14 AM   #256
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,104
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I needn't 'self edit' belief's definition, for standard definitions may be referenced:
http://i.imgur.com/9iNqu0E.png

Did those big red arrows and the red box appear in the definition when you found it, or did you put them there?

And have you looked up the definition of the word "especially" yet?
__________________
"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 12th July 2017, 11:23 AM   #257
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 271
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
One need not believe in empirically observed sequences...

Come,, is it but not yet time to doff your silly belief bound framework?
(Sigh) More proof that reading comprehension isn't part of your skill set. The post to which you referred was addressed to Mostly Dead.

NON-Beliefism (addressed to MostlyDead - drink!)

But since you brought it up......one does need to believe in the empirically observed sequences - you believe, if nothing else, that the person(s) who proved them were doing things correctly. Again, you've contradicted yourself. Simply using a phrase instead of the word "believe" does not mean you do not believe.

Empirically, you have failed on any level to present a logical, rational argument against believing. All you've done is repeat, (essentially) "I'm right because I want to be." Which isn't true. Just because you wish it doesn't make it true.
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 12th July 2017, 12:06 PM   #258
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,110
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Simply, one need not believe in empirically observed sequences; and thusly, as I am empirically observable, I need not believe in myself.


One who disregards nonbeliefism, denies science, for nonbeliefism encourages science.



FOOTNOTE:
I needn't 'self edit' belief's definition, for standard definitions may be referenced:
http://i.imgur.com/9iNqu0E.png
The question isn't if you're observable, it's if your fantasies of relevance have any validity.

They don't
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong 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 13th July 2017, 01:29 AM   #259
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,997
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Fallacious argumentation. The first assertion does not follow from the second. Non-beliefism is not the only belief system that encourages science.

We also have the religious believers that made significant contributions to science, like the Jesuit monk Georges Lemaître who first proposed the theory of the expanding universe. You can hardly claim that he denied science.
Yes, quite strange that a poster who prides himself on his use of logic does not see that this is a fallacy.
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 13th July 2017, 01:33 AM   #260
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,104
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Fallacious argumentation. The first assertion does not follow from the second. Non-beliefism is not the only belief system that encourages science.

We also have the religious believers that made significant contributions to science, like the Jesuit monk Georges Lemaître who first proposed the theory of the expanding universe. You can hardly claim that he denied science.

I seem to remember some chappie called Newton, as well.
__________________
"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 13th July 2017, 03:59 AM   #261
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
A fallacious claim remains a fallacious claim, whether it's looked at once or a thousand times. The first line in your self-quote is simply false assertion. The most damning fault there is that belief is not a system, no matter how many times you repeat it.

As for the second part? That's just a bunch of silly nonsense. Good for you, you can cherry pick. You can try to hand wave away that words frequently have multiple entirely distinct meanings. You can try to claim separation where there is none, rather than looking at where separation actually is. That doesn't mean that any of your attempts to claim things have any merit at all.


Ironically, rather than 'hand waving away' that words have multiple meanings, the prior image had underlined that fact.

It is silly to garner that multiple meanings of a word (within a particular dictionary) oppose each other; for opposite meanings are discovered amidst sequences, called....antonyms.
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 13th July 2017, 04:02 AM   #262
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
One need not believe in empirically observed sequences...

Come,, is it but not yet time to doff your silly belief bound framework?
Fallacious argumentation. The first assertion does not follow from the second. Non-beliefism is not the only belief system that encourages science.

We also have the religious believers that made significant contributions to science, like the Jesuit monk Georges Lemaître who first proposed the theory of the expanding universe. You can hardly claim that he denied science.



(1) That nonbeliefism encourages science, does not warrant that non-beliefism alone encourages science.

(2) That theists are scientists, does not suddenly render them non-scientists. However, theistic mannerisms have been observed to disregard scientific progress.

(3) That Newton was religious, does not suddenly render belief to possess a different definition, it had long been shown that belief while having the possibility of concerning evidence, does not primarily concern evidence.

Eg: Newton failed to compute some regime of Calculus, when he believed that such a region was merely God calculable. Such a problem was later solved by an atheist called Laplace.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 13th July 2017 at 05:08 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 13th July 2017, 04:08 AM   #263
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
(Sigh) More proof that reading comprehension isn't part of your skill set. The post to which you referred was addressed to Mostly Dead.

NON-Beliefism (addressed to MostlyDead - drink!)

But since you brought it up......one does need to believe in the empirically observed sequences - you believe, if nothing else, that the person(s) who proved them were doing things correctly. Again, you've contradicted yourself. Simply using a phrase instead of the word "believe" does not mean you do not believe.

Empirically, you have failed on any level to present a logical, rational argument against believing. All you've done is repeat, (essentially) "I'm right because I want to be." Which isn't true. Just because you wish it doesn't make it true.
One who fails to recognize that belief does not have high concern for scientific evidence, is one who fails to comprehend that scientific methodology has high concern for evidence.

Regardless of your failure, belief (while having the probability of concerning evidence) does not, by definition, have high 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 13th July 2017, 04:16 AM   #264
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
Yes, quite strange that a poster who prides himself on his use of logic does not see that this is a fallacy.
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
I seem to remember some chappie called Newton, as well.

Such mentality is one of belief's flaws.

Rather than contact evidence, beings tend to adopt the nonsensical whims of others, absent critical thinking, as indicated in quotes betwixt 'Mojo' and 'Porpoise of Life' above.

Albeit, my quote below applies:

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
(1) That nonbeliefism encourages science, does not warrant that non-beliefism alone encourages science.

(2) That theists are scientists, does not suddenly render them non-scientists. However, theistic mannerisms have been observed to disregard scientific progress.

(3)

That Newton was religious, does not suddenly render belief to possess a different definition, it had long been shown that belief while having the possibility of concerning evidence, does not primarily concern evidence.


Eg: Newton failed to compute some regime of Calculus, when he believed that such a region was merely God calculable. Such a problem was later solved by an atheist called Laplace.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 13th July 2017 at 05:09 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 13th July 2017, 04:29 AM   #265
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Did those big red arrows and the red box appear in the definition when you found it, or did you put them there?

And have you looked up the definition of the word "especially" yet?

Does belief especially concern evidence?

No.

That scientific methodology highly concerns scientific evidence, while belief does not, should have clearly underlined for you, that these sequences oppose.



Do explain, why you falsely express, that a system that barely concerns evidence (i.e. belief), does not undermine/oppose a system that highly concerns scientific evidence. (i.e. science)

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 13th July 2017 at 04:33 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 13th July 2017, 04:35 AM   #266
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,985
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
One who fails to recognize that belief does not have high concern for scientific evidence, is one who fails to comprehend that scientific methodology has high concern for evidence.

Regardless of your failure, belief (while having the probability of concerning evidence) does not, by definition, have high evidence concern.
I don't believe you. You have no evidence. Therefore you are wrong.

Isn't that how non beliefism works?
__________________
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 13th July 2017, 04:48 AM   #267
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
I don't believe you. You have no evidence. Therefore you are wrong.

Isn't that how non beliefism works?
The very definition of belief expresses that it is especially absent evidence.

That it is especially absent evidence, yields that it has no high concern for evidence.

FOOTNOTE:
Non-beliefism entails that one lacks belief in all things, including non-beliefism or science, not surprisingly.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 13th July 2017 at 04:52 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 13th July 2017, 04:53 AM   #268
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,997
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Such mentality is one of belief's flaws.

Rather than contact evidence, beings tend to adopt the nonsensical whims of others, absent critical thinking, as indicated in quotes betwixt 'Mojo' and 'Porpoise of Life' above.

Albeit, my quote below applies:
Nope, you simply committed a logical error when you claimed:
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post

One who disregards nonbeliefism, denies science, for nonbeliefism encourages science.
That A promotes B, does not mean that a rejection of A is a rejection of B. Multiple other things can also lead to B, and A can be false for other reasons than its promotion of B.
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 13th July 2017, 05:02 AM   #269
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
Nope, you simply committed a logical error when you claimed:


That A promotes B, does not mean that a rejection of A is a rejection of B. Multiple other things can also lead to B, and A can be false for other reasons than its promotion of B.
(1) Non-beliefism: Belief, barely concerning science, opposes scientific methodology, which highly concerns science.

(2) Believers: "(1) is invalid".


NOTE:
The believers' tag represents not merely theists amidst this thread, but by extension, every poster (with the exception of myself) who proceed to falsely express that belief does not oppose science.


Thusly, I made not any logical error nor claim, and thereafter, your expressions are invalid.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 13th July 2017 at 05:04 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 13th July 2017, 05:03 AM   #270
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,985
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
The very definition of belief expresses that it is especially absent evidence.

That it is especially absent evidence, yields that it has no high concern for evidence.

FOOTNOTE:
Non-beliefism entails that one lacks belief in all things, including non-beliefism or science, not surprisingly.
I don't believe you.
__________________
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 13th July 2017, 05:07 AM   #271
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
I don't believe you.
Your non-belief is optimal, as far as science prescribes.
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 13th July 2017, 05:10 AM   #272
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,985
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Your non-belief is optimal, as far as science prescribes.
Great. So since I don't believe you the null hypothesis is that you are wrong.
__________________
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 13th July 2017, 05:25 AM   #273
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,378
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
(1) Non-beliefism: Belief, barely concerning science, opposes scientific methodology, which highly concerns science.

(2) Believers: "(1) is invalid".


NOTE:
The believers' tag represents not merely theists amidst this thread, but by extension, every poster (with the exception of myself) who proceed to falsely express that belief does not oppose science.


Thusly, I made not any logical error nor claim, and thereafter, your expressions are invalid.
Carry on talking like that, and you are going to have a hard time when you finally make it to high school.
__________________
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 13th July 2017, 06:38 AM   #274
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
MostlyDead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,784
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
(1) Non-beliefism: Belief, barely concerning science, opposes scientific methodology, which highly concerns science.

(2) Believers: "(1) is invalid".


NOTE:
The believers' tag represents not merely theists amidst this thread, but by extension, every poster (with the exception of myself) who proceed to falsely express that belief does not oppose science.


Thusly, I made not any logical error nor claim, and thereafter, your expressions are invalid.
Drink!
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 13th July 2017, 06:50 AM   #275
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,985
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Drink!
Shurely we can't keep dronking thish mush?
__________________
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 13th July 2017, 07:20 AM   #276
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,997
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Thusly, I made not any logical error nor claim, and thereafter, your expressions are invalid.
Yes, yes you did.
You claimed that rejecting your 'non-beliefism' automatically rejects science, because 'non-beliefism' is in favor of science.

That is a fallacy.

(Just as much as "Hitler liked omelettes, so rejecting Hitler opposes omelettes" would be fallacious. But I know how you deal with analogies and other figurative language, so just ignore my little illustration)
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 13th July 2017, 07:28 AM   #277
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 41,010
Do you believe that belief is dangerous? If so, all you have to do is stop believing that.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins 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 13th July 2017, 07:31 AM   #278
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Great. So since I don't believe you the null hypothesis is that you are wrong.
Come... is it but not yet the hour whence you shall disregard belief's false necessitation?
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 13th July 2017, 07:36 AM   #279
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
Yes, yes you did.
You claimed that rejecting your 'non-beliefism' automatically rejects science, because 'non-beliefism' is in favor of science.

That is a fallacy.

(Just as much as "Hitler liked omelettes, so rejecting Hitler opposes omelettes" would be fallacious. But I know how you deal with analogies and other figurative language, so just ignore my little illustration)
Sequence: That belief by definition opposes science, is not fallacious.

However, that you reject the above sequence is silly; that you emphasize a construct that opposes science , designates not surprisingly, that you oppose science.


Thusly I had not erred, whence you had blundered.
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 13th July 2017, 07:50 AM   #280
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,997
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Sequence: That belief by definition opposes science, is not fallacious.
True, that is just incorrect. But that wasn't what you wrote. You wrote:
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
One who disregards nonbeliefism, denies science, for nonbeliefism encourages science.
Which is an example of denying the antecedent.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post

However, that you reject the above sequence is silly; that you emphasize a construct that opposes science , designates not surprisingly, that you oppose science.
Ah, informal fallacies too? Expanding the repertoire? This is a strawman, because nothing I have written suggests that I hold belief to be greater than science.
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Thusly I had not erred, whence you had blundered.
Verily, good sir, t'was thou who hadst blundered, not I. Thine archaisms cannot occlude such!
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
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 10:08 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.