• ProgrammingGodJordan
    159
    1. As Neil deGrasse Tyson says, science is true whether or not one believes in it!
    2. Pertinently, that one may believe in science, does not suddenly remove that belief is a concept that permits that one may typically ignore evidence, as observed in the analysis below:

      • Belief (by definition and research) is a model, such that one may believe in both science, and non-science.
      • However, crucially, belief typically facilitates that people especially ignore evidence.
      • A model that generally permits the large ignorance of evidence contrasts science.
      • Instead, we may employ scientific thinking, that largely prioritizes evidence, rather than a model (i.e. belief) that facilitates largely, the ignorance of evidence.
    3. Unfortunately, I had been a theist up until my 21'st birthday. Fortunately, at age 22 (I am now 27), I finally identified as an atheist. After 4 years of being an atheist, one day I thought about belief, and I recognized that not only was theistic faith invalid, but also, the very concept of belief!

      • As a precaution for preventing myself from absorbing nonsense, I had come to invent something called "non beliefism".
      • Beyond atheism, "non beliefism" enables a state of mind that rejects not merely religious belief, but the very concept of belief.
  • Noble Dust
    3.8k


    Do you believe that the person who uses the Noble Dust account is typing this response to you?
  • ProgrammingGodJordan
    159


    1. Your account persists, whether or not anyone believes it does.

    2. As an example, that flat earthers exist (belief that the earth is supposedly flat) does not suddenly disregard gravitational theory.
    • This is an indication that beliefs don't have any bearing on whether science is true or not; science obtains regardless of belief.
  • Noble Dust
    3.8k


    How do you know the person who normally uses this account is using it? How do you know I didn't dictate this response to my roommate?
  • ProgrammingGodJordan
    159


    One need not belief to observe probabilities.
  • ProgrammingGodJordan
    159


    It is probable that somebody/something is utilizing your account to compose messages. I need not belief to observe said probability.
  • Noble Dust
    3.8k


    It's not probable, it's definite. The issue is who is using the account, and do you know that it's the person who normally uses it. You don't, but it would be a reasonable, justified belief to make the assumption that the person normally using this account is, in fact, currently using it.
  • ProgrammingGodJordan
    159


    1. Recall what I said before, that it is probable that somebody/something is utilizing your account to compose messages.

    2. Notably, I don't need to believe in the probability above, to observe it as valid.
  • Noble Dust
    3.8k


    1. Recall what I just said above...
  • Bitter Crank
    8.8k
    I believe the unit belonging to the handle, "ProgrammingGodJordan" may be having delusions of grandeur, just from the handle alone. Beliefism is for the birds.
  • ProgrammingGodJordan
    159


    1. Yes, what you said above does not alter the reality that I can observe some probability, without believing in such a probability.

    2. It may be somewhat odd to grasp, since you had probably been used to the concept of belief for quite some time.

    3. In perhaps a short while, you may come to recognize that instead of belief, one may instead employ scientific thinking.
  • Sam26
    1.6k
    What about the belief that belief should be abolished, should that belief be abolished too? Thus, this thread should be abolished.
  • Noble Dust
    3.8k


    That means it's for you!
  • ProgrammingGodJordan
    159


    • The OP does not support "beliefism".
    • The OP supports "non-beliefism" instead.
  • Noble Dust
    3.8k
    3. In perhaps a short while, you may come to recognize that instead of belief, one may instead employ scientific thinking.ProgrammingGodJordan

    LOL
  • ProgrammingGodJordan
    159


    1. Your words: "What about the belief that belief should be abolished, should that belief be abolished too? Thus, this thread should be abolished."

    2. My response: If you actually read any of the sources related to the OP, you would have probably encountered:

    • Belief, by definition and research, is such that generally permits ignorance of evidence.
    • Something that generally permits ignorance of evidence, contrasts science.
    • So, whether or not I exist, belief remains a concept today, that generally permits ignorance of evidence!
  • Noble Dust
    3.8k


    If you're going to bring an argument to the table, you ned to engage in a detailed defense, instead of just rehashing talking points. Show us why you [believe] your arguments to be valid.
  • ProgrammingGodJordan
    159


    1.Your words: "If you're going to bring an argument to the table, you ned to engage in a detailed defense, instead of just rehashing talking points. Show us why you [believe] your arguments to be valid."

    2. My response:

    • That's ironic, for you have constantly rehashed or implied that belief is unavoidable.
    • Why do you garner that belief is unavoidable?
  • Noble Dust
    3.8k
    2. My response: That's ironic, for you have constantly rehashed or implied that belief is crucial.ProgrammingGodJordan

    No, I gave my argument in steps of increasing detail, as responses to your responses.

    3. Why do you garner that belief is crucial?ProgrammingGodJordan

    Belief underlies all forms of thought. There have been a lot of threads about belief recently:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2637/is-it-possible-to-lack-belief/p1

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2423/is-belief-a-predicate-for-salvation#Item_91

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2528/what-is-faith/p1
  • Banno
    8.9k
    Instead, we may employ scientific thinking, that largely prioritizes evidence,ProgrammingGodJordan

    SO we ought believe the evidence?

    Hu?
  • ProgrammingGodJordan
    159


    1. I don't detect any novel information from those threads.
    • I've been discussing "non-beliefism" online since 2016, so I've seen many similar responses.

    2. Again, why do you garner that belief is unavoidable?
  • Noble Dust
    3.8k
    1. I don't detect any novel information from those threads.
    I've been discussing "non-beliefism" online since 2016, so I've seen many similar responses.
    ProgrammingGodJordan

    You read all 3 in 8 minutes? Nice.
  • Banno
    8.9k
    I've been discussing "non-beliefism" online since 2016, so I've seen many similar responses.ProgrammingGodJordan

    Your belief in non-beliefism is noted.

    Of course, you would not believe your belief to be self-contradictory...
  • ProgrammingGodJordan
    159


    1. Your words: "So we ought believe the evidence?"
    2. My response: The evidence persists regardless of belief.
  • T Clark
    4.2k
    Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!ProgrammingGodJordan

    Later in your post you say "not only was theistic faith invalid, but also, the very concept of belief!" Which is a fine thing to say, although I disagree with it strongly. But saying your goal is to abolish belief is silly. You might as well say we should abolish thought. Humans are story-telling creatures. It's a much a part of us as opposable thumbs. First, before they are anything else, theories and models are stories. Beliefs are stories. Science is a story.

    As Neil deGrasse Tyson says, science is true whether or not one believes in it!ProgrammingGodJordan

    Science isn't true. What does that even mean? Statements are true or false. It's reasonable to say that science is a useful method or methods for gaining knowledge about the world. It's not the only useful method. Beside that, truth, as defined by scientists, is a scientific concept. It's a circular argument.

    All that being said, NDT is part right - whatever science is, it is whether or not people believe it is what it is.

    Belief (by definition and research) is a model, that permits both science, and non-science.
    However, crucially, belief typically facilitates that people especially ignore evidence.
    A model that generally permits the large ignorance of evidence contrasts science.
    Instead, we may employ scientific thinking, that largely prioritizes evidence, rather than a model (i.e. belief) that facilitates largely, the ignorance of evidence.
    ProgrammingGodJordan

    This is an incredibly naïve description of how science works. The models come first, then the evidence. All theories are models. Einstein was a theoretical physicist. He didn't do experiments. He made models. Other guys came along later and gathered evidence. Our current, best scientific understanding of the nature of physical reality is called the "Standard Model." The Higgs Boson and gravity waves were predicted decades ago by theoretical physicists based on theories/models. They weren't confirmed until the last few years using extremely expensive, complicated equipment designed and operated specifically to confirm or deny those models.
  • Noble Dust
    3.8k
    2. Again, why do you garner that belief is unavoidable?ProgrammingGodJordan

    Again, it underlies all forms of thought; it underlies "scientific thinking" (whatever that is), [belief] in evidence, rational arguments. There's no rational argument to make because belief underlies rationality; apprehending the role belief plays in experience and thinking requires reflection and intuition. If you can't see it, you just can't, which you probably can't.
  • ProgrammingGodJordan
    159


    1.Your words: "Your belief in non-beliefism is noted.
    Of course, you would not believe your belief to be self-contradictory..."

    2. My response:
    • Your response is typical.
    • Whether or not anybody believes in non-beliefism, it remains valid that belief generally occurs such that people ignore evidence.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet