Depends on whether a belief is arbitrary or well-founded. What constitutes a well-founded belief is best defined in science, and in relation to empirical propositions. When it comes to ethics, aesthetics or religion, it is not at all self-evident what constitutes evidence and hence what could best be counted as a justification for well-founded beliefs.

I quite agree with the idea that people hold onto beliefs in spite of evidence. I think it is well demonstrated. I agree that people can accept beliefs without sufficient evidence and also retain beliefs longer than would be the case had they sought out diagnostic information, and that people have a tendency to not question proto-beliefs. — Moliere

• Good, because that is what the OP talks about; science is such that prioritizes evidence, whereas belief does not.
  
• As for your latter query, one can behave in a manner that prioritizes evidence (contrary to the concept of belief).

Assuming a sincere speaker...

Statements are statements of thought and belief. Positive assertions are statements of belief. "Science prioritizes evidence" is a positive assertion; it is a statement of belief about what science does. If science prioritizes evidence, then the belief statement is true.

The OP wants the reader to accept the dubious presupposition that it is humanly possibly to hold no belief.

Sure... from the moment of conception through the first mental correlation drawn... during that time period - and that time period alone - it makes perfect sense to say that humans do not hold and/or have belief.

Consider this...

The OP has a worldview. A new one - in fact. All world-views consist entirely of thought and belief about the world and/or ourselves. The OP cannot admit that s/he believes what s/he says. The OP cannot admit of having a worldview.

Why continue with such nonsense? — creativesoul

a. Your argument above originates from a trivial error.

b. That science prioritizes evidence, obtains regardless of anyone's belief, contrary to your response.

• Your claim: " 'Science prioritizes evidence' is a positive assertion; it is a statement of belief about what science does."
• As (b) underlines, your claim is false, because science does not require peoples' belief, such that science is a model wherein evidence is prioritized.

c. Why would you want to contact a model that fails to prioritize evidence (i.e. belief), instead of another that prioritizes evidence?

Depends on whether a belief is arbitrary or well-founded. What constitutes a well-founded belief is best defined in science, and in relation to empirical propositions. When it comes to ethics, aesthetics or religion, it is not at all self-evident what constitutes evidence and hence what could best be counted as a justification for well-founded beliefs. — Janus

1.This was already covered in the Op; I already underlined that belief may occur both on evidence, and non-evidence.

• However, it is notable, that belief does not prioritize evidence, whereas science does.
• These are demonstrably opposing models; one seeks to thrive on evidence, while the other permits typical ignorance of evidence.

2. Religious beliefs are scientifically unfounded.

There is no evidence as to what consitutes real evidence without begging the question.

What might be believed to be the best kind of evidence in science may not be believed to be the best kind of evidence when it comes to religion, the arts or ethics.

Apparently you are unable to see the enclosed circle within which your beliefs are moving.

your words are ironically invalid, for "proof" and "evidence" are quite literally synonymous — ProgrammingGodJordan

No. They aren't. The fact that you think they are should discredit anything else you have to say on this subject.

All you have done throughout this entire discussion (with everyone here) is:
- Make a claim
- Provide a link to a single webpage/article/scientific study
- Conclude that your provided source is proof that your claim is indisputable fact

Not only is that not how logic argument works, that's not even how science works. You of all people, with your scarily dogmatic devotion to science, should understand that nothing in science is proven. Nothing. There is no such thing as scientific proof. Proof is for logic and mathematics. Those are closed, self-contained systems of propositions. Science is empirical.

This Psychology Today article explains it perfectly:

"Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final.

Further, proofs are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven). There is nothing in between. A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven. These are the same as unproven.

In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories. Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. They are always somewhere in between. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others. It is a matter of more or less, not either/or. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives.

The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist."

If A then A
A
therefore...

There is no evidence as to what consitutes real evidence without begging the question.

What might be believed to be the best kind of evidence in science may not be believed to be the best kind of evidence when it comes to religion, the arts or ethics.

Apparently you are unable to see the enclosed circle within which your beliefs are moving. — Janus

Religious faith is not-scientifically founded, and this is not up to me.

This Psychology Today article explains it perfectly:

"Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final.

Further, proofs are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven). There is nothing in between. A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven. These are the same as unproven.

In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories. Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. They are always somewhere in between. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others. It is a matter of more or less, not either/or. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives.

The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist." — JustSomeGuy

• I don't detect the relevance of your quote above to the OP.
• Nowhere in the OP (or throughout our discussion) did I advocate scientific proof as you describe above.

@ProgrammingGodJordan

What is most unsettling here is not your belief that we ought abolish belief, but that you have had this belief so intensely for years, to the extent of setting up your own domain, without recognising the irony.

The OP has either no clue about thought and belief or is an insincere speaker. Neither warrants any further attention...

The OP has either no clue about thought and belief or is an insincere speaker. Neither warrants any further attention... — creativesoul

That you fail to acknowledge evidence, does not suddenly warrant that evidence is invalid.

Do you believe what you write?

I don't detect the relevance of your quote above to the OP.
Nowhere in the OP (or throughout our discussion) did I advocate scientific proof as you describe above. — ProgrammingGodJordan

I'll break it down for you:

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

Your very first sentence claims "science is true". Clearly this is a nonsense phrase in itself, but I'll allow that it's expressing a sentiment which differs from the literal interpretation.
Other ways to rephrase while keeping the same meaning:
"science finds truth"
"science is composed of facts"
Truth and facts rely on proof. In order for something to be a truth or a fact, it must be proven.
So, yes, you did "advocate scientific proof".

You are clearly very deep into this ridiculous ideology of yours, so I don't expect anyone here to be able to change your mind right now. I only hope the things people are saying to you here can plant the seed that eventually blossoms into you waking up and realizing how horribly misled you are.

What is most unsettling here is not your belief that we ought abolish belief, but that you have had this belief so intensely for years, to the extent of setting up your own domain, without recognising that irony. — Banno

1. Your response above is typical, it's a common type of response that I encountered when I initially began to discuss "non-beliefism" in 2016.
2. Such a typical response of yours, does not alter the reality, that:
   
   
   • We can avoid failure to prioritize evidence. (i.e. belief)
   • Instead, we can focus on alternative methods that prioritize evidence.

No. They aren't. The fact that you think they are should discredit anything else you have to say on this subject.

All you have done throughout this entire discussion (with everyone here) is:
- Make a claim
- Provide a link to a single webpage/article/scientific study
- Conclude that your provided source is proof that your claim is indisputable fact

Not only is that not how logic argument works, that's not even how science works. You of all people, with your scarily dogmatic devotion to science, should understand that nothing in science is proven. Nothing. There is no such thing as scientific proof. Proof is for logic and mathematics. Those are closed, self-contained systems of propositions. Science is empirical. — JustSomeGuy

1. I didn't merely provide one paper (although the paper I linked to contains multiple references).
   
   
   • I also provided a link to "non-beliefism", which consists of other sources, that are not authored by myself.
2. As I underlined in an earlier reply, proof and evidence are synonymous, and that is the case regardless of your feelings.
   
3. Your behaviour is a symptom of belief; even when you were presented with clear evidence that contrasts your preconceived notion, you proceeded to grovel in your mistakes absent willingness to update those erroneous beliefs.
   
4. Please recall that dictionaries present "proof" and "evidence" as synonyms, contrary to your initial claim.
   
   
   • Reference A - Your initial claim: "Proof and evidence are not synonymous". (Source)
   • Reference B - Contrasting data showing that in fact, those things are synonyms:

Do you believe what you write? — creativesoul

My writing persists, regardless of belief.

Do you believe what you write?
— creativesoul

My writing persists, regardless of belief. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Do you believe what you write?

Do you believe what you write? — creativesoul

I'd already approached that type of query, amidst this thread.

Your very first sentence claims "science is true". Clearly this is a nonsense phrase in itself, but I'll allow that it's expressing a sentiment which differs from the literal interpretation.
Other ways to rephrase while keeping the same meaning:
"science finds truth"
"science is composed of facts"
Truth and facts rely on proof. In order for something to be a truth or a fact, it must be proven.
So, yes, you did "advocate scientific proof".

You are clearly very deep into this ridiculous ideology of yours, so I don't expect anyone here to be able to change your mind right now. I only hope the things people are saying to you here can plant the seed that eventually blossoms into you waking up and realizing how horribly misled you are. — JustSomeGuy

In stark contrast:

1. True definition:"in accordance with fact or reality."

2. So, Neil deGrasse Tyson is demonstrably correct, science is true; science aims to describe reality.

3. The quote's source is below:

Do you believe what you write?
— creativesoul

My writing persists, regardless of belief. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Do you believe what you write?
— creativesoul

I'd already approached that type of query, amidst this thread. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Do you believe what you write?

Do you believe what you write? — creativesoul

I'd already approached that type of query, earlier.

Either you cannot or you will not answer a simple 'yes or no' question. Neither is acceptable. When you enter into a public philosophy forum and say things with such certainty, you voluntarily obligate yourself to directly answer relevant questions.

Do you believe what you write?

What is the criterion which - when met - counts as being a case of belief?

Either you cannot or you will not answer a simple 'yes or no' question. Neither is acceptable. When you enter into a public philosophy forum and say things with such certainty, you voluntarily obligate yourself to directly answer relevant questions.

Do you believe what you write? — creativesoul

I'd already approached that type of query, earlier.

What is the criterion which - when met - counts as being a case of belief? — creativesoul

That was covered throughout this thread. Do read and discover.

Your response above is typical, it's a common type of response that I encountered when I initially began to discuss "non-beliefism" in 2016. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Well that's hardly a surprise. What is surprising is that you cannot see the irony of your predicament.

We can avoid failure to prioritize evidence. (i.e. belief) — ProgrammingGodJordan

Did you mean that "one can avoid failure by prioritising evidence", or that one can avoid failure in order to prioritize evidence?

If the latter, I've no idea what you could mean, so I will presume you meant the former. One must be selective, accepting some evidence, but not all.

Do you agree?

even when you were presented with clear evidence that contrasts your preconceived notion, you proceeded to grovel in your mistakes absent willingness to update those erroneous beliefs. — ProgrammingGodJordan

I quite enjoy irony.

Though this was my suspicion from the beginning, trying to reason with you is a waste of time. You are nothing more than a delusional cult leader trying to recruit members. Thankfully, it seems you've been quite unsuccessful thus far (only 10 members in your "non-beliefism" Facebook group). Maybe try going door to door with pamphlets?

Contrary to what other members have expressed, I don't see any positive result of your attempt to evangelize aside from being a practice dummy with which we can hone our arguing skills.
Either way I'm done here. Goodbye.

What is your goal with this thread?

Nice to see my own thought and belief be verified. The OP cannot admit of believing what s/he writes.

We've arrived at either an insincere speaker or an insane one. Insanity isn't supported by the evidence. Insincerity remains.

Well that's hardly a surprise. What is surprising is that you cannot see the irony of your predicament. — Banno

1. It's really not extremely complicated; one need not belief to observe evidence; i..e. evidence persists regardless of belief.

2. As an example, Christians don't tend to express faith or belief in oxygen/air, because oxygen/air is demonstrably present.

• They do however exercise faith in biblical "facts", which is a necessary thing, given the lack of evidence for biblical "facts".
• Note that I am not saying faith is necessary above, but instead that faith is demonstrably required for events lacking evidence.

In between insanity and insincerity is self-deceptive fundamentalism, which I think is where our OP is situated. It's the inability to question one's own assumptions (let alone beliefs...). There's an element of denial, but I think the denial doesn't quite reach a conscious level.