Moderated Is belief itself dangerous for your brain? (A rethink is in order)

ProgrammingGodJordan

Banned
ProgrammingGodJordan
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
1,718
Location
Jamaica
[IMGw=256]http://i.imgur.com/5Eau0w9.jpg[/IMGw]

Hi heathens, I am here "atheisting" on a daily basis.
Anyway, it appears belief is "toxic" to the brain because:

(1) Belief can include non science, while science cannot.

(2) "..that flat earthers exist, (i.e. beliefs in supposedly flat earth) does not disregard gravitational theory, and that scientists believe, does not suddenly change the behaviours of equations in scientific descriptions."


The second quote comes directly from my shameless plug below:

online book on amazon (free for unlimited users)
Give me your thoughts heathens (theists feel free too)
FOOTNOTE:
Scientific data that shows that strong belief may be toxic:

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1088868313497266
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My first thought is how could you possibly think this belongs in SMMT rather than R&P? Do you have any links to any actual science, perhaps? Like from neurophysiology or neuropsychology or some such?
 
Last edited:
So... No science. You're starting your own cult PGJ?
Both your point 1 and 2 are complete non-sequiturs and even if they weren't, do not say anything about the 'toxicity' of belief.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
So... No science. You're starting your own cult PGJ?
Both your point 1 and 2 are complete non-sequiturs and even if they weren't, do not say anything about the 'toxicity' of belief.
Click to expand...

Let's break down the snippets in the original post:

(1) Belief by definition, can occur especially absent proof, and thus, belief can include non science, and other unreliable paradigms.

(2) Science by definition, does not include non science.

(3) Believing in a flat earth, in no way, invalidates gravitational theory.

(4) Believing in equations, does not alter such equations' behaviours.

Where is the 'non sequitur'?



PS:
Although cults can be simple movements absent religion (see google), it must be noted that non beliefism is not a religion.
SIDENOTE
Noticing your username, what do you garner is life's purpose?
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Let's break down the snippets in the original post:

(1) Belief by definition, can occur especially absent proof, and thus, belief can include non science, and other unreliable paradigms.
Click to expand...

Can, as in potentially. But that isn't your claim. Your claim is that belief itself is toxic, not that certain applications of it can be problematic.

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
(2) Science by definition, does not include non science.
Click to expand...
And pancakes by definition do not include non-pancakes. Not at all related to whether belief is inherently toxic.

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
(3) Believing in a flat earth, in no way, invalidates gravitational theory.

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


ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Where is the 'non sequitur'?
Click to expand...
You know, all those sentences where you claim to support an assertion, but only mention things that do not follow from or lead to your assertion.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Hi heathens, I am here "atheisting" on a daily basis.
Anyway, it appears belief is "toxic" to the brain because:

(1) Belief can include non science, while science cannot.
Click to expand...

This nonsense, again? This is just as thoroughly fallacious and dismissable as the first few times you tried to push it. Belief and science address different, but overlapping things. To either understand or perform science in any meaningful fashion and for one to have any reason to accept results as meaningful, one must hold a set of beliefs to be true. There's literally no way to get around that to get to the position that belief is inherently bad and thus we should only rely on science, which is a belief itself, regardless. An irrational and ignorant belief that would be rejected if you were consistently applying the principles that you've claimed to be pushing, no less.
 
Last edited:
Incoherent premise, use of confusing graphics, lists, multiple highlights and bolding.

All the hallmarks...
 
Porpoise of Life said:
Can, as in potentially. But that isn't your claim. Your claim is that belief itself is toxic, not that certain applications of it can be problematic.


And pancakes by definition do not include non-pancakes. Not at all related to whether belief is inherently toxic.


True, but this has nothing to do with whether or not belief is in itself toxic.



You know, all those sentences where you claim to support an assertion, but only mention things that do not follow from or lead to your assertion.
Click to expand...

Belief is quite the sub-optimal paradigm.

You may have noticed things such as:

(1) Terrorism (products of strong belief)

or

(2) Death of children (Caused by theistic parents that believe that some God will save their children)


The list goes on and on...
Pretty toxic indeed..

One would have to be blind, to not notice belief's toxicity.


Are you so enamoured with belief, that you can't see the above?

[IMGw=384]http://i.imgur.com/P16leIY.jpg[/IMGw]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aridas said:
This nonsense, again? This is just as thoroughly fallacious and dismissable as the first few times you tried to push it. Belief and science address different, but overlapping things. To either understand or perform science in any meaningful fashion and for one to have any reason to accept results as meaningful, one must hold a set of beliefs to be true. There's literally no way to get around that to get to the position that belief is inherently bad and thus we should only rely on science, which is a belief itself, regardless. An irrational and ignorant belief that would be rejected if you were consistently applying the principles that you've claimed to be pushing, no less.
Click to expand...


As Neil Tyson says, one need not believe in science for science to hold true.

Remember, belief is a faulty paradigm that can allow nonsense/non science, where as science is already the most reliable paradigm, that cannot include non science.

FOOTNOTE:

No, you don't need to believe; one can rank events on probabilities, and act from there.
 
theprestige said:
PGJ, "toxic" is a value judgement. How do you decide which values to optimize for?
Click to expand...

There is a non-trivial probability that life's goal state/purpose/meaning occurs on the horizon of optimization. (See "Dissipative Adaptation", by physicist Jeremy England)

Artificial intelligence models are non-trivial optimizers.

Right now, artificial intelligence researchers are in demand. (There is actually a shortage)

If some belief systems are observed to oppose science, then this opposes life's likely goal state, as beliefs can halt the development of artificial intelligence; i.e. cause death or inactivity of human brains that could perhaps contribute to the development of AI in some way.
 
bluesjnr said:
Incoherent premise, use of confusing graphics, lists, multiple highlights and bolding.

All the hallmarks...
Click to expand...

All the hallmarks of this forum's awesome text editing functionality...
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
Belief is an evolutionary trait. It's actually a positive, even if it's not rational or very useful in science or fact-based research.
Click to expand...


I ponder....

Insects/bacteria/non-human animals don't appear to require belief to fulfill complex tasks (some doing tasks better than human, or human-relevant/useful tasks that human can't do at all), while complex human brains fancy believing?
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
I ponder....

Insects/bacteria/non-human animals don't appear to require belief to fulfill complex tasks (some doing tasks better than human, or human-relevant/useful tasks that human can't do at all), while complex human brains fancy believing?
Click to expand...

Yes, it goes without saying that beings without the ability to think also lack the ability to believe. :rolleyes: As for dogs, how would you know if they have belief?
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
As Neil Tyson says, one need not believe in science for science to hold true.

Remember, belief is a faulty paradigm that can allow nonsense/non science, where as science is already the most reliable paradigm, that cannot include non science.

FOOTNOTE:

No, you don't need to believe; one can rank events on probabilities, and act from there.
Click to expand...

And?
 
Argumemnon said:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Insects/bacteria/non-human animals don't appear to require belief to fulfill complex tasks (some doing tasks better than human, or human-relevant/useful tasks that human can't do at all), while complex human brains fancy believing?
Click to expand...
Yes, it goes without saying that beings without the ability to think also lack the ability to believe. :rolleyes: As for dogs, how would you know if they have belief?
Click to expand...

Insects and non-human animals lack the ability to think?
There is scientific data to the contrary of your comment above...

(1) Crow solves 8-step puzzle. source
(2) Bees learn tasks by watching other bees. source


FOOTNOTE:
Your dog aligned comment appears to be ..irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
Good job missing the question.

Addendum: I can't decide if I believe you did that on purpose or if I think that you did it on purpose. Let me know which option is best suited. I'll let you know what my dog thinks and/or believes.
Click to expand...

As far as scientific data (that I have detected thus far) expresses, humans are unlike many other species; humans have the "luxury" of selecting to believe in things; placing trust in sequences especially without evidence...

FOOTNOTE
Humans appear to be the only species that believe in Gods.
Belief appears to be a cognitive process that befalls merely humans; ironically 10^14+ neurons for our body size, has garnered that we can reject logic in other ways that animals with less intelligence per pound physically can't compute.
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Let's break down the snippets in the original post:

(1) Belief by definition, can occur especially absent proof, and thus, belief can include non science, and other unreliable paradigms.

(2) Science by definition, does not include non science.

(3) Believing in a flat earth, in no way, invalidates gravitational theory.

(4) Believing in equations, does not alter such equations' behaviours.

Where is the 'non sequitur'?



PS:
Although cults can be simple movements absent religion (see google), it must be noted that non beliefism is not a religion.
SIDENOTE
Noticing your username, what do you garner is life's purpose?
Click to expand...

Your image is scary.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
As Neil Tyson says, one need not believe in science for science to hold true.
Click to expand...

By definition belief, which is 1) an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists, is intrinsically part of how science works and how we can understand each part of it in a useful way. Additionally, the other main usage of belief, 2) trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something, is fundamentally part of how things work when it comes to why we would value science over non-science in the first place.

Now, faith is unnecessary for science to function well, and you may well be confusing belief and faith, but your mistake doesn't make your "nonbeliefism" any less nonsensical or self-contradicting.

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Remember, belief is a faulty paradigm that can allow nonsense/non science, where as science is already the most reliable paradigm, that cannot include non science.
Click to expand...

Belief is not a paradigm in the first place, though all paradigms do include beliefs. Faith isn't a paradigm either, for that matter. Your argument falls apart utterly and completely from the start because of its false premises, before getting to the rest of the implications of what you're pushing that would fundamentally undermine the actual reasons why science is as valuable and reliable as it is and effectively turn it into a faith-based paradigm.

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
No, you don't need to believe; one can rank events on probabilities, and act from there.
Click to expand...

To be able to rank events based on probabilities requires believing the probabilities to be actually be the case. Acting from there requires beliefs surrounding how one should react if certain things are true. Belief is a fundamental part of how people can make or affect decisions consciously and even potentially can make assessments in a rational manner. Your attempted approach to how to handle the topic is naive and counter-productive.
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Insects and non-human animals lack the ability to think?
There is scientific data to the contrary of your comment above...

(1) Crow solves 8-step puzzle. source
(2) Bees learn tasks by watching other bees. source
Click to expand...

Perhaps if you read my entire post before commenting, it would help. The part you highlighted was a response to the part of your post about bacteria. If you lose track of the conversation this easily this isn't going to be very productive.

Your dog aligned comment appears to be ..irrelevant.
Click to expand...

How can it be irrelevant since it directly addresses your point: you do not know if dogs have beliefs and thus you can't say they operate just fine without beliefs.

Furthermore, it could be that beliefs work particularily for humans. That other animals don't have beliefs don't in any way counter my argument.
 
Peregrinus said:
What's your point? Heathens are most decidedly theists. Even those who anthropomorphize.
Click to expand...

Err... no. Heathen refers to, in short, one who is an unbeliever in your (major) religion. Yes, the usage in this thread has been especially ironic.
 
Last edited:
(A)

Aridas said:
By definition belief, which is 1) an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists, is intrinsically part of how science works and how we can understand each part of it in a useful way. Additionally, the other main usage of belief, 2) trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something, is fundamentally part of how things work when it comes to why we would value science over non-science in the first place.

Now, faith is unnecessary for science to function well, and you may well be confusing belief and faith, but your mistake doesn't make your "nonbeliefism" any less nonsensical or self-contradicting.
Click to expand...

You might have missed (or intentionally omitted) that belief is to accept something as true...(especially without evidence):
9iNqu0E.png




(B)
Aridas said:
Belief is not a paradigm in the first place, though all paradigms do include beliefs. Faith isn't a paradigm either, for that matter. Your argument falls apart utterly and completely from the start because of its false premises, before getting to the rest of the implications of what you're pushing that would fundamentally undermine the actual reasons why science is as valuable and reliable as it is and effectively turn it into a faith-based paradigm.

To be able to rank events based on probabilities requires believing the probabilities to be actually be the case. Acting from there requires beliefs surrounding how one should react if certain things are true. Belief is a fundamental part of how people can make or affect decisions consciously and even potentially can make assessments in a rational manner. Your attempted approach to how to handle the topic is naive and counter-productive.
Click to expand...

Simply, one can do science absent belief.
Belief is a paradigm... (yes, a paradigm is a pattern, and life is patterns)

Belief is a paradigm that opposes science, as it can include non-science.
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
Perhaps if you read my entire post before commenting, it would help. The part you highlighted was a response to the part of your post about bacteria. If you lose track of the conversation this easily this isn't going to be very productive.
Click to expand...
I hadn't lost track; you were in error while expressing that non-human animals etc were not thinking constructs. My response directly addressed that error of yours..

Conversation history (paraphrasing):
(1) Jordan: Non-human animals etc don't appear to require belief to do tasks.
(2) Argumemnon: It goes without saying that beings without the ability to think, can't believe...
(3) Jordan: Why would you express that non-human animals can't think?

Following the conversation history, it appears you mentioned (2), because you garnered non-human animals did not think, and so, did not have the ability to believe in order to do tasks.

Argumemnon said:
How can it be irrelevant since it directly addresses your point: you do not know if dogs have beliefs and thus you can't say they operate just fine without beliefs.

Furthermore, it could be that beliefs work particularily for humans. That other animals don't have beliefs don't in any way counter my argument.
Click to expand...

It is likely quite irrelevant:

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Belief appears to be a cognitive process that befalls merely humans; ironically 10^14+ neurons for our body size, has garnered that we can reject logic in ways that animals with less intelligence per pound physically can't compute.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
Err... no. Heathen refers to, in short, one who is an unbeliever in your (major) religion. Yes, the usage in this thread has been especially ironic.
Click to expand...

Non-beliefism designates that one lacks belief in all things. (and instead observe the scientific method as valid, a method that by definition, is opposed to the concept of belief)

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
9iNqu0E.png
Click to expand...



An unbeliever lacks belief in religions, and particularly observes science as valid.

Could you explain why you garner/interpret, that non-beliefism rejects the unbeliever?

Where is the irony?

Is science not compatible with the unbeliever's prognosis?

FB63Njc.jpg


Why do your thought cycles produce the above error (highlighted in yellow)?
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
You might have missed (or intentionally omitted) that belief is to accept something as true...(especially without evidence):
Click to expand...

Especially isn't even close to exclusively. When dealing with belief in the more philosophical context that you would have to be for the purposes of what you're doing, it's neutral, at base, as has been kept fairly clear in my usage and the points actually made.

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Simply, one can do science absent belief.
Belief is a paradigm... (yes, a paradigm is a pattern, and life is patterns)
Click to expand...

Contrafactual assertion does not constitute evidence. "Belief" fundamentally cannot be a paradigm, though paradigms are sets of specific beliefs, very much including the paradigm that you're trying to push.

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Belief is a paradigm that opposes science, as it can include non-science.
Click to expand...

That is no more true and meaningful than the claim "Red is a shade of red that opposes crimson, as it can include non-crimson." Belief is not a paradigm in the first place and trying to claim it inherently opposes science simply because some beliefs are not scientific is completely fallacious.

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Non-beliefism designates that one lacks belief in all things. (and instead observe the scientific method as valid, a method that by definition, is opposed to the concept of belief)
Click to expand...

Except that the scientific method is not opposed to the concept of belief and your insistence that it is opposed is farcical. It can reasonably be argued to be opposed to some specific beliefs and categories of beliefs, but not belief as a generality.

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
An unbeliever lacks belief in religions, and particularly observes science as valid.
Click to expand...

Well, yet again, you're missing the the not so subtle and extremely important nuance in play and are inserting nonsense. An unbeliever in your (major) religion very certainly can believe in a religion. Muslims, for example, have been called heathens by a number of Christians for a long, long time. Going further than that, there's nothing about being either a heathen or a more generally unbelieving unbeliever that means that the person observes science to be valid. That's an entirely separate variable, after all, and many, many Christians and Muslims (and the followers of most other religions) accept science to be valid.

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Could you explain why you garner/interpret, that non-beliefism rejects the unbeliever?

Where is the irony?
Click to expand...

You were the one calling everyone else here a heathen and, given what you've actually said, are quite clearly the one pushing to adopt a science-praising religion. *shrug*

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Is science not compatible with the unbeliever's prognosis?
Click to expand...

Question inapplicable, given that it was formed based on false premises.

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Why do your thought cycles produce the above error (highlighted in yellow)?
Click to expand...

That you've reflexively identified my thoughts as an error while clearly not actually paying attention to what's said is not valid evidence that an error actually was made. That you are being shown to be employing quite fallacious arguments and false premises serves as pretty strong evidence that the error is in your thought cycles, on the other hand.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
Especially isn't even close to exclusively. When dealing with belief in the more philosophical context that you would have to be for the purposes of what you're doing, it's neutral, at base, as has been kept fairly clear in my usage and the points actually made.
Click to expand...

I didn't mention anywhere that that meant exclusively...


Aridas said:
Contrafactual assertion does not constitute evidence. "Belief" fundamentally cannot be a paradigm, though paradigms are sets of specific beliefs, very much including the paradigm that you're trying to push.
Click to expand...

A paradigm may be a pattern, contrary to your belief:

TGvmpM7.png


Beliefs are patterns, life is patterns as far as science goes.





Aridas said:
Except that the scientific method is not opposed to the concept of belief and your insistence that it is opposed is farcical. It can reasonably be argued to be opposed to some specific beliefs and categories of beliefs, but not belief as a generality.
Click to expand...

You might have missed it, but science cannot include non-science, where as belief can...

Aridas said:
Well, yet again, you're missing the the not so subtle and extremely important nuance in play and are inserting nonsense. An unbeliever in your (major) religion very certainly can believe in a religion. Muslims, for example, have been called heathens by a number of Christians for a long, long time. Going further than that, there's nothing about being either a heathen or a more generally unbelieving unbeliever that means that the person observes science to be valid. That's an entirely separate variable, after all, and many, many Christians and Muslims (and the followers of most other religions) accept science to be valid.

You were the one calling everyone else here a heathen and, given what you've actually said, are quite clearly the one pushing to adopt science as religion. *shrug*
Click to expand...

False.
You may notice that I referred to two groups:
(1) Heathens.
(2) Theists.

Heathens may include atheists.



Aridas said:
Question inapplicable, given that it was formed based on false premises.


That you've reflexively identified my thoughts as an error while clearly not actually paying attention to what's said is not valid evidence that an error actually was made. That you are being shown to be employing quite fallacious arguments and false premises serves as pretty strong evidence that the error is in your thought cycles, on the other hand.
Click to expand...

It is still observable that your thoughts on the matter are errors.
 
Aridas said:
This nonsense, again? This is just as thoroughly fallacious and dismissable as the first few times you tried to push it. Belief and science address different, but overlapping things. To either understand or perform science in any meaningful fashion and for one to have any reason to accept results as meaningful, one must hold a set of beliefs to be true. There's literally no way to get around that to get to the position that belief is inherently bad and thus we should only rely on science, which is a belief itself, regardless. An irrational and ignorant belief that would be rejected if you were consistently applying the principles that you've claimed to be pushing, no less.
Click to expand...

Science is not a "belief", it is a methodological process used to help determine whether not a belief is true.
 
Explorer said:
Science is not a "belief", it is a methodological process used to help determine whether not a belief is true.
Click to expand...

A valid remark.

I ask why beings bother to contact belief.

Belief is not only redundant (science is true regardless of belief), but also, belief inherently opposes science; it concerns especially non-evidence.
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
I hadn't lost track; you were in error while expressing that non-human animals etc were not thinking constructs.
Click to expand...

Pay attention: I was refering to bacteria, which YOU brought up.

Conversation history (paraphrasing):
(1) Jordan: Non-human animals etc don't appear to require belief to do tasks.
(2) Argumemnon: It goes without saying that beings without the ability to think, can't believe...
(3) Jordan: Why would you express that non-human animals can't think?
Click to expand...

It's interesting that you're only paraphrasing yourself, here, and dishonestly so at that.

Following the conversation history, it appears you mentioned (2), because you garnered non-human animals did not think, and so, did not have the ability to believe in order to do tasks.
Click to expand...

It only appears that way because you lost track of the conversation.

It is likely quite irrelevant:
Click to expand...

I love that you're quoting yourself as a refutation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom