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

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.
  

You're missing my point.

What is your point?

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?

One need not belief to observe probabilities.

What?

:-O

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

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.

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.

1. Recall what I just said above...

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.

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.

What about the belief that belief should be abolished, should that belief be abolished too? Thus, this thread should be abolished.

That means it's for you!

• The OP does not support "beliefism".
• The OP supports "non-beliefism" instead.

3. In perhaps a short while, you may come to recognize that instead of belief, one may instead employ scientific thinking. — ProgrammingGodJordan

LOL

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!

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.

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?

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

Instead, we may employ scientific thinking, that largely prioritizes evidence, — ProgrammingGodJordan

SO we ought believe the evidence?

Hu?

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?

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.

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...

1. Your words: "So we ought believe the evidence?"
2. My response: The evidence persists regardless of belief.

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.

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.

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.