Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

How should we think about weird things?
User avatar
_exit
Poster
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2018 4:04 pm

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by _exit » Sun Mar 25, 2018 12:45 am

Austin Harper wrote:
_exit wrote:
Austin Harper wrote:It's going to be impossible for us to talk about belief if you won't tell us what you mean by that word. As was pointed out, it can be used in multiple ways. Which way are you using it in this thread?
So, belief is not a contronym; the meaning which talks about evidence based beliefs, does not oppose the other meaning about especially ignoring evidence!

Notice also that science does not contain any meaning regarding especially ignoring evidence.
Well, you put in a picture telling us two definitions of the word that we've already established are definitions (and which has two blank lines and a bunch of dead space for no reason) instead of telling us which definition you are using in your claim that belief should be abolished. So are you claiming that nobody should hold any beliefs of any kind? Not only should people not believe in God but they shouldn't believe that the sky is still blue if they close their eyes?
In toddler like terms, I am simply referring to the entire concept known as belief. This means I had long referred to not merely one meaning, but all the meanings. I apologize if I seem condescending!

You ought to consider the picture quite carefully, thereafter.

Signature: I am interested in completing a novel learning model I call the "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network".

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18945
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Mar 25, 2018 12:48 am

Ha, ha..........no, not being condescending, but rather laughably fuzzy and befuddled. You need to exercise a bit more control over your own thinking. Choices are hard. "All of the above" makes no distinctions which is where the hard choices are.

Try it.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5514
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by Austin Harper » Sun Mar 25, 2018 1:08 am

I read your picture. It doesn't answer my question: Are you claiming that nobody should hold any beliefs of any kind? Not only should people not believe in God but they shouldn't believe that the sky is still blue if they close their eyes?
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5133
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by ElectricMonk » Sun Mar 25, 2018 3:54 am

It seems to me that you took the effort to become an atheist too far and overshot all the way around the horseshoe.

User avatar
_exit
Poster
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2018 4:04 pm

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by _exit » Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:23 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Ha, ha..........no, not being condescending, but rather laughably fuzzy and befuddled. You need to exercise a bit more control over your own thinking. Choices are hard. "All of the above" makes no distinctions which is where the hard choices are.

Try it.
Austin Harper wrote:I read your picture. It doesn't answer my question: Are you claiming that nobody should hold any beliefs of any kind? Not only should people not believe in God but they shouldn't believe that the sky is still blue if they close their eyes?

Looking at the whole concept of belief, one may see that:

1.) Belief may permit evidenced based stuff
and
2.) Crucially, belief has large wiggle room that generally facilitates evidence ignorance.

2.b) So, I'm not saying one can't believe in evidence, I simply underline that belief doesn't stop at merely allowing evidence based stuff, instead, it goes further by additionally and mostly permitting non-evidence.

Science/scientific thinking is not in the business of mostly permitting non-evidence based stuff.

We can avoid the concept of belief, because: (a) Non-evidenced stuff (i.e. pseudoscience, etc) are irrelevant, and we can abandon those. and (b) evidence based stuff don't require belief anyway, i.e. science is true regardless of belief, so those beliefs are redundant!

Signature: I am interested in completing a novel learning model I call the "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network".

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34846
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by Gord » Sun Mar 25, 2018 10:26 am

Welp, I'm baffled.

You seem to be saying one should never believe because belief ignores evidence, but one should believe in some things if there's evidence. Those seem to be contradictory statements. Are you saying you must believe in all evidence, or do you have some unexplained system for believing in some evidence but not in other evidence?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5133
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by ElectricMonk » Sun Mar 25, 2018 10:30 am

So how about using the term"assumption" instead?

I can't see a problem with belief as long as it isn't exempt from fact-checking

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5514
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by Austin Harper » Sun Mar 25, 2018 3:02 pm

_exit wrote:Looking at the whole concept of belief, one may see that:

1.) Belief may permit evidenced based stuff
and
2.) Crucially, belief has large wiggle room that generally facilitates evidence ignorance.

2.b) So, I'm not saying one can't believe in evidence, I simply underline that belief doesn't stop at merely allowing evidence based stuff, instead, it goes further by additionally and mostly permitting non-evidence.

Science/scientific thinking is not in the business of mostly permitting non-evidence based stuff.

We can avoid the concept of belief, because: (a) Non-evidenced stuff (i.e. pseudoscience, etc) are irrelevant, and we can abandon those. and (b) evidence based stuff don't require belief anyway, i.e. science is true regardless of belief, so those beliefs are redundant!
Cool, so never believe in anything except when it's ok to believe things. Got it.
You mean belief in every sense except the senses that you don't mean. Got it.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
_exit
Poster
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2018 4:04 pm

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by _exit » Sun Mar 25, 2018 6:00 pm

Austin Harper wrote:
_exit wrote:Looking at the whole concept of belief, one may see that:

1.) Belief may permit evidenced based stuff
and
2.) Crucially, belief has large wiggle room that generally facilitates evidence ignorance.

2.b) So, I'm not saying one can't believe in evidence, I simply underline that belief doesn't stop at merely allowing evidence based stuff, instead, it goes further by additionally and mostly permitting non-evidence.

Science/scientific thinking is not in the business of mostly permitting non-evidence based stuff.

We can avoid the concept of belief, because: (a) Non-evidenced stuff (i.e. pseudoscience, etc) are irrelevant, and we can abandon those. and (b) evidence based stuff don't require belief anyway, i.e. science is true regardless of belief, so those beliefs are redundant!
Cool, so never believe in anything except when it's ok to believe things. Got it.
You mean belief in every sense except the senses that you don't mean. Got it.
No, please re-read. (Crucially, nonbeliefism concerns lack of belief overall, no exceptions!)

Think of nonbeliefism as a filter not only for religious belief, but as a filter additionally on all types of belief.

Signature: I am interested in completing a novel learning model I call the "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network".

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18945
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Mar 25, 2018 6:14 pm

Ahem: "nonbeliefism" is NOT a word or concept of any use beyond your own imagination. BUY A FRICKIN DICTIONARY. .. and use it. Put some control on your thinking and presentation. Making up your own words, applying your own definition to other words used differently by everyone else is what builds a bubble of nonsense around yourself. Stay in that bubble a few years and you are immune to common parlance and the sense that comes from it.

You are very hung up on "words." This thread its "belief." Belief in things WITH evidence that can be confirmed by other people is not the same as belief in things without evidence that are held by faith or custom. Your naivete is the same as equating black with white because they are both colors. Or turning left instead of right because they are both directions.

Its just............. silly.

DEFINE your terms using any reputable third party source...and learn...from what you can determine by your own observation and reflection. Stop dodging direct questions...its how faulty ideas are made better.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5514
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by Austin Harper » Sun Mar 25, 2018 6:26 pm

So we shouldn't believe the sky is blue?
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
_exit
Poster
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2018 4:04 pm

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by _exit » Sun Mar 25, 2018 6:57 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Ahem: "nonbeliefism" is NOT a word or concept of any use beyond your own imagination. BUY A FRICKIN DICTIONARY. .. and use it. Put some control on your thinking and presentation. Making up your own words, applying your own definition to other words used differently by everyone else is what builds a bubble of nonsense around yourself. Stay in that bubble a few years and you are immune to common parlance and the sense that comes from it.
Where did I supposedly apply my own definition to other words used differently by everyone else?
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: You are very hung up on "words." This thread its "belief." Belief in things WITH evidence that can be confirmed by other people is not the same as belief in things without evidence that are held by faith or custom. Your naivete is the same as equating black with white because they are both colors. Or turning left instead of right because they are both directions.
You are homing in on the portion of belief that may concern evidence, while ignoring the remainder of the concept.

The concept doesn't stop at evidenced based things, it goes on to largely facilitate ignorance of evidence. (As definition and research shows, as underlined in OP!)

As I said before, I am not ignoring evidenced based beliefs, but instead, I underlined that while belief may permit evidence, it generally facilitates ignorance of evidence the remainder of the time, which you continue to ignore.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Its just............. silly.

DEFINE your terms using any reputable third party source...and learn...from what you can determine by your own observation and reflection. Stop dodging direct questions...its how faulty ideas are made better.
1.) I had long included the definition on the website in the OP (along with cognitive science papers).

2.) I had further cited the same definition earlier.

Source: https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic. ... 40#p638405

3.) Why bother to accuse me of failing to provide the definition, when it had been long done in the OP, what do you gain by lying?

Signature: I am interested in completing a novel learning model I call the "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network".

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18945
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Mar 25, 2018 6:59 pm

As I said before, I am not ignoring evidenced based beliefs, but instead, I underlined that while belief may permit evidence, it generally facilitates ignorance of evidence the remainder of the time, which you continue to ignore.
How did we make it to the moon then?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
_exit
Poster
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2018 4:04 pm

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by _exit » Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:00 pm

Austin Harper wrote:So we shouldn't believe the sky is blue?
Does your believing the sky is blue, suddenly render the sky blue?

Signature: I am interested in completing a novel learning model I call the "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network".

User avatar
_exit
Poster
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2018 4:04 pm

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by _exit » Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:04 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
As I said before, I am not ignoring evidenced based beliefs, but instead, I underlined that while belief may permit evidence, it generally facilitates ignorance of evidence the remainder of the time, which you continue to ignore.
How did we make it to the moon then?
Science.

Science is true regardless of belief.

Signature: I am interested in completing a novel learning model I call the "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network".

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18945
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:15 pm

So.................................... belief in science is true and gets us to the Moon, while the majority of people believe the Earth is Flat. If you want progress, "belief" drops out of consideration.......and we go with Science as the determining factor.

Why are you hung up on what doesn't matter?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
_exit
Poster
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2018 4:04 pm

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by _exit » Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:49 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:So.................................... belief in science is true and gets us to the Moon, while the majority of people believe the Earth is Flat. If you want progress, "belief" drops out of consideration.......and we go with Science as the determining factor.

Why are you hung up on what doesn't matter?
Science is true whether or not one believes in science.

Furthermore, as the concept of belief generally facilitates ignorance of evidence, it contrasts scientific thinking.

Something that generally facilitates evidence ignorance, is not something that "doesn't matter"!

Signature: I am interested in completing a novel learning model I call the "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network".

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5133
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by ElectricMonk » Sun Mar 25, 2018 8:00 pm

Scientific data on its own doesn't mean anything. It needs context and a narrative for interpretation - and that can be true or false even when based on the same data.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18945
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Mar 25, 2018 8:03 pm

_exit wrote:Science is true whether or not one believes in science.
Science is not true. Science is a PROCESS to understand the universe as best we can. It constantly changes what is thought to be the answers to all the questions and explorers the frontiers where we have no answers allowing the formation of questions never before asked. Surely you can separate a snappy marketing slogan from reality?

_exit wrote: Furthermore, as the concept of belief generally facilitates ignorance of evidence, it contrasts scientific thinking.
You define belief as including science, now that it contrasts with science. Buy that dictionary....be consistent. I know what you "should" think..... but not what you do think...as you post gibberish on both sides of the question.

_exit wrote:Something that generally facilitates evidence ignorance, is not something that "doesn't matter"!
Context. It doesn't matter if you want to consider what advances the accumulated knowledge of mankind.

What you postulate is that there is belief in ignorance of evidence (religion) and belief in evidence driven experience (science) but they are both the same as they rely on "belief." It has been pointed out to you that belief doesn't matter as per your postulate because belief in science while belief is still different than belief in religion....which is objectively true as we have made it to the moon. Belief, and your self emotive "non-beliefism" don't mean a thing. Its WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN, or don't believe in, that matters.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5514
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by Austin Harper » Sun Mar 25, 2018 8:13 pm

_exit wrote:
Austin Harper wrote:So we shouldn't believe the sky is blue?
Does your believing the sky is blue, suddenly render the sky blue?
Of course not. How is that relevant?
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18945
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Mar 25, 2018 8:19 pm

Austin Harper wrote:
_exit wrote:
Austin Harper wrote:So we shouldn't believe the sky is blue?
Does your believing the sky is blue, suddenly render the sky blue?
Of course not. How is that relevant?
Best example of gibberish. Failure to engage. Playing games.

Exit, you really should up your game. ...... or stay in your bubble.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
_exit
Poster
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2018 4:04 pm

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by _exit » Sun Mar 25, 2018 10:11 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
_exit wrote:Science is true whether or not one believes in science.
Science is not true. Science is a PROCESS to understand the universe as best we can. It constantly changes what is thought to be the answers to all the questions and explorers the frontiers where we have no answers allowing the formation of questions never before asked. Surely you can separate a snappy marketing slogan from reality?
Neil Degrasse Tyson is sensible, when he underlines that science is true whether or not anybody believes in science.

a.) That science is a process does not suddenly warrant that science is not true.

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

b.) Science seeks to describe reality.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
_exit wrote: Furthermore, as the concept of belief generally facilitates ignorance of evidence, it contrasts scientific thinking.
You define belief as including science, now that it contrasts with science. Buy that dictionary....be consistent. I know what you "should" think..... but not what you do think...as you post gibberish on both sides of the question.
You've failed to pay attention.

The concept of belief includes both science based stuff, and non-evidenced stuff.

When I said the concept of belief opposed science, while some beliefs may permit science, I simply underlined what is already defined. Or are you expressing that non-evidenced stuff is scientific?'

Or perhaps you are conflating the entire concept, with a portion of the concept?
   
Image

Here's a simple equation sequence:

(a) BeliefConcept = Generally NonEvidencedBeliefs (science incompatible) + EvidencedBeliefs (science compatible). (As per definition/research)

(b) ScienticThinking = Generally EvidencedBasedStuff (science compatible).

Do you now see that it is possible for the concept of belief to generally be science incompatible, while permitting some science compatible stuff?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
_exit wrote:Something that generally facilitates evidence ignorance, is not something that "doesn't matter"!
Context. It doesn't matter if you want to consider what advances the accumulated knowledge of mankind.

What you postulate is that there is belief in ignorance of evidence (religion) and belief in evidence driven experience (science) but they are both the same as they rely on "belief." It has been pointed out to you that belief doesn't matter as per your postulate because belief in science while belief is still different than belief in religion....which is objectively true as we have made it to the moon. Belief, and your self emotive "non-beliefism" don't mean a thing. Its WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN, or don't believe in, that matters.
a.) Firstly, (in the OP) I had long underlined that there exists evidence based beliefs, and also non-evidence based beliefs. (So pointing out that these are different, is redundant.)

b.) You are still homing in on the portion of belief that permits evidence.

c.) You still proceed to ignore that belief as a whole/concept, does not simply stop at those beliefs that include evidence.

The concept also consists largely of beliefs that disregard evidence. (Such is the case as per definition/research, not my postulation!)
Last edited by _exit on Mon Mar 26, 2018 4:47 am, edited 8 times in total.

Signature: I am interested in completing a novel learning model I call the "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network".

User avatar
_exit
Poster
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2018 4:04 pm

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by _exit » Sun Mar 25, 2018 10:14 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:Scientific data on its own doesn't mean anything. It needs context and a narrative for interpretation - and that can be true or false even when based on the same data.
1.) What do you feel is the significance of your comment above, wrt the OP?

2.) Yes, scientific thinking certainly does enable us to handle scientific data, however, scientific thinking is disparate from the concept of belief.

3.) While scientific thinking generally facilitates keenness of evidence, the concept of belief generally facilitates ignorance of evidence. Scientific thinking/science is not in the business of generally ignoring evidence!

Signature: I am interested in completing a novel learning model I call the "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network".

User avatar
_exit
Poster
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2018 4:04 pm

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by _exit » Sun Mar 25, 2018 10:21 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Austin Harper wrote:
_exit wrote:
Austin Harper wrote:So we shouldn't believe the sky is blue?
Does your believing the sky is blue, suddenly render the sky blue?
Of course not. How is that relevant?
Best example of gibberish. Failure to engage. Playing games.

Exit, you really should up your game. ...... or stay in your bubble.
That you fail to demonstrate basic reading comprehension, when it comes to processing dictionaries, does not suddenly warrant that dictionaries are "gibberish"!

Signature: I am interested in completing a novel learning model I call the "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network".

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18945
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Mar 25, 2018 10:44 pm

_exit wrote: Neil Degrasse Tyson is sensible, when he underlines that science is true whether or not anybody believes in science.


Ha, ha............ok.............one at a time: I'd say: "The truth is the truth whether you believe it or not." Religion has given up the struggle in favor of lazy faith while science struggles to find the truth. do you note the irony of making a belief statement about science?

You are confusing rather ignorantly the entire process of science. Name a "truth" of science every scientist is not encouraged to disbelieve if they have a better idea? Was not the truth of science that apparent velocity applied regardless of the observers speed until Einstein came along to show that truth was not accurate?

What you are doing is trying to make a religion out of science: turn it into a belief system when it is just the opposite. You will say you aren't, and think you aren't but then babble what Tyson said just to get popular on the speaking circuit. Red meat to the believers. Your bent twig still revealing how odious belief thinking established by religion is hard to get rid of. the catechism is gone, but the process remains.

Science is a process.....not a set of beliefs. Hey.....lets see what the dictionary says?

Science: 1. Study of the physical and natural world using theoretical models and data from experiments or observation ./// Hmmmm....nothing about "the truth" there.

2. A particular branch of scientific knowledge /// wow. that is a particularly stupid definition violating the general rule not to use the word itself to define its self. ((Don't criticize my spelling==>I'm special too.))

3. Ability to produce solutions in some problem domain /// Nothing about the truth there

4. Research into questions posed by scientific theories and hypotheses /// Nothing about the truth there.....

See how the dictionary can help with basic issues?

Tyson: he is Plutoizing good thinking. Let's google that statement and see if with publicity he has explained his statement since you are such an adherent to its mumbling? ///////////////// (science is true whether or not anybody believes in science)===>https://www.salon.com/2014/03/11/neil_d ... eve_in_it/
Tyson reminded viewers that science is true "whether or not you believe in it."

“Once science has been established, once a scientific truth emerges from a consensus of experiments and observations, it is the way of the world," Tyson told Colbert. "What I’m saying is, when different experiments give you the same result, it is no longer subject to your opinion. That’s the good thing about science: It’s true whether or not you believe in it. That’s why it works.”
Well....he did further clarify but missed a chance to remove the religion/belief element in his saying. Found lots of comments from others clarifying what Tyson "must have meant", mostly making a distinction between the knowing of the religious and the knowing of science.

Well.....its like Einstein saying God does not roll the dice regarding the Universe. You know: add a bit of salt.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
_exit
Poster
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2018 4:04 pm

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by _exit » Sun Mar 25, 2018 10:57 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
_exit wrote: Neil Degrasse Tyson is sensible, when he underlines that science is true whether or not anybody believes in science.


Ha, ha............ok.............one at a time: I'd say: "The truth is the truth whether you believe it or not." Religion has given up the struggle in favor of lazy faith while science struggles to find the truth. do you note the irony of making a belief statement about science?

You are confusing rather ignorantly the entire process of science. Name a "truth" of science every scientist is not encouraged to disbelieve if they have a better idea? Was not the truth of science that apparent velocity applied regardless of the observers speed until Einstein came along to show that truth was not accurate?

What you are doing is trying to make a religion out of science: turn it into a belief system when it is just the opposite. You will say you aren't, and think you aren't but then babble what Tyson said just to get popular on the speaking circuit. Red meat to the believers. Your bent twig still revealing how odious belief thinking established by religion is hard to get rid of. the catechism is gone, but the process remains.

Science is a process.....not a set of beliefs. Hey.....lets see what the dictionary says?

Science: 1. Study of the physical and natural world using theoretical models and data from experiments or observation ./// Hmmmm....nothing about "the truth" there.

2. A particular branch of scientific knowledge /// wow. that is a particularly stupid definition violating the general rule not to use the word itself to define its self. ((Don't criticize my spelling==>I'm special too.))

3. Ability to produce solutions in some problem domain /// Nothing about the truth there

4. Research into questions posed by scientific theories and hypotheses /// Nothing about the truth there.....

See how the dictionary can help with basic issues?

Tyson: he is Plutoizing good thinking. Let's google that statement and see if with publicity he has explained his statement since you are such an adherent to its mumbling? ///////////////// (science is true whether or not anybody believes in science)===>https://www.salon.com/2014/03/11/neil_d ... eve_in_it/
Tyson reminded viewers that science is true "whether or not you believe in it."

“Once science has been established, once a scientific truth emerges from a consensus of experiments and observations, it is the way of the world," Tyson told Colbert. "What I’m saying is, when different experiments give you the same result, it is no longer subject to your opinion. That’s the good thing about science: It’s true whether or not you believe in it. That’s why it works.”
Well....he did further clarify but missed a chance to remove the religion/belief element in his saying. Found lots of comments from others clarifying what Tyson "must have meant", mostly making a distinction between the knowing of the religious and the knowing of science.

Well.....its like Einstein saying God does not roll the dice regarding the Universe. You know: add a bit of salt.
1.) You do recognize that nonbeliefism seeks to purge belief, not "turn science into a belief system" as you sillily claimed I had done?

2.) Yes, Neil sensibly underlines that science is true, regardless of belief.

3.) Yes, nonbeliefism had long underlined the descriptions of science you presented above.

Signature: I am interested in completing a novel learning model I call the "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network".

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18945
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Mar 26, 2018 4:00 am

_exit wrote:1.) You do recognize that nonbeliefism seeks to purge belief, not "turn science into a belief system" as you sillily claimed I had done?
Nonbeliefism is a word/concept that you have made up. Its a middle step on the journey to insanity. As the word/concept is not defined anywhere, and your use of it has been all over the map, you owe it to yourself to define what it IS, not what it is not by using short coherent sentences. REREADING THE FIRST PAGE: With my attention directed, yes, I can see you do make religious belief in opposition to scientific inquiry. Your vocabulary and argument re "nonbeliefism" is very offputting and creates confusion rather than clarity, although, with more care, I should have seen it myself. Sorry about that.
_exit wrote: 2.) Yes, Neil sensibly underlines that science is true, regardless of belief.
Neil is talking as Einstein did and Trump does: not to be taken literally. /// I read about 12 other websites talking about what they thought Neil was reasonably trying to say (as NONE of them agreed with the statement outright). One interesting comment was such a statement re science is no different than saying that "Christ is the only way to heaven, whether you believe it or not." SCIENCE IS A PROCESS. Testing and confirmation. How would you test the proposition that Science is true, whether you believe it or not?
_exit wrote: 3.) Yes, nonbeliefism had long underlined the descriptions of science you presented above.
Define "long." I thought you made it up within the last 5 years....probably even more recently? You really should not try to take credit for long established ideas just because you slap a made up label on it. THAT is the basis for me calling your presentation ignorant. Ignorant: lacking knowledge of a specific field. and that is all I mean. The cure: read up on what has already been written. its what the Renaissance, Age of Enlightenment, the Scientific Revolution, Lock, Descarte....etc unless you do want to start with the greeks, was all about. STOP MAKING UP YOUR OWN LABELS. Learn the labels everyone else uses.

And by the way...congrats on not complaining about me name calling you. Too many would do that, and you chose not to. That is keeping your eye on the ball. A good start to cure what ails you.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5133
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by ElectricMonk » Mon Mar 26, 2018 4:13 am

As bobbo said, science is a process. We've had countless examples where scientists got bad data from imperfect instruments and based their conclusions on that: fixed stars are a famous example.
In these cases it's garbage in- garbage out even though the scientific process was flawless.

More importantly, scientific truth is transient: it only holds until better data and better theories come along.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18945
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Mar 26, 2018 4:30 am

Thanks EM. In fact, one of the websites I read stated that "what Neil meant" was that the scientific PROCESS was the only way to truth especially as contrasted with the non evidence driven religions of faith. I'm a bit embarassed to admit, its still nice to have your ego stroked now and then and see your own opinions reflected in what you read..... ha, ha.....much like Exit's OP point out? The boy has a fighting chance.......if he will only regroup.

"scientific truth is transient" //// A truth whether you believe it or not. Very well stated....very important if not all important.
Last edited by bobbo_the_Pragmatist on Mon Mar 26, 2018 4:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
_exit
Poster
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2018 4:04 pm

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by _exit » Mon Mar 26, 2018 4:31 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
_exit wrote:1.) You do recognize that nonbeliefism seeks to purge belief, not "turn science into a belief system" as you sillily claimed I had done?
Nonbeliefism is a word/concept that you have made up. Its a middle step on the journey to insanity. As the word/concept is not defined anywhere, and your use of it has been all over the map, you owe it to yourself to define what it IS, not what it is not by using short coherent sentences. REREADING THE FIRST PAGE: With my attention directed, yes, I can see you do make religious belief in opposition to scientific inquiry. Your vocabulary and argument re "nonbeliefism" is very offputting and creates confusion rather than clarity, although, with more care, I should have seen it myself. Sorry about that.
Non-beliefism is clearly defined on the website. As you'll see, rather than "being all over the map" as you claim, what I expressed throughout this forum, has been consistent with the OP and website's content. (You also need to get into the habit of evidencing your claims; since you claim inconsistency, you ought to provide evidence of such supposed error!)
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
_exit wrote: 2.) Yes, Neil sensibly underlines that science is true, regardless of belief.
Neil is talking as Einstein did and Trump does: not to be taken literally. /// I read about 12 other websites talking about what they thought Neil was reasonably trying to say (as NONE of them agreed with the statement outright). One interesting comment was such a statement re science is no different than saying that "Christ is the only way to heaven, whether you believe it or not." SCIENCE IS A PROCESS. Testing and confirmation. How would you test the proposition that Science is true, whether you believe it or not?
a.) I didn't say science was perfect. I said that science is true, i.e. science seeks to accurately describe the cosmos. (i.e. science is in accordance with reality)

Google definition of true: "in accordance with fact or reality."

b.) As such, what Neil expresses, is quite literally applicable; science obtains regardless of peoples' beliefs.

For example, that flat earthers believe in a supposedly flat earth, does not suddenly render gravitational theory false, and equations don't suddenly empirically apply because scientists supply belief.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
_exit wrote: 3.) Yes, nonbeliefism had long underlined the descriptions of science you presented above.
Define "long." I thought you made it up within the last 5 years....probably even more recently? You really should not try to take credit for long established ideas just because you slap a made up label on it. THAT is the basis for me calling your presentation ignorant. Ignorant: lacking knowledge of a specific field. and that is all I mean. The cure: read up on what has already been written. its what the Renaissance, Age of Enlightenment, the Scientific Revolution, Lock, Descarte....etc unless you do want to start with the greeks, was all about. STOP MAKING UP YOUR OWN LABELS. Learn the labels everyone else uses.

And by the way...congrats on not complaining about me name calling you. Too many would do that, and you chose not to. That is keeping your eye on the ball. A good start to cure what ails you.
As far as I've detected, no other paradigm forbids the concept of belief, as underlined in nonbeliefism.
As an atheist, I have been studying a variety of paradigms (and before then as a theist), for several years.
Last edited by _exit on Mon Mar 26, 2018 4:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Signature: I am interested in completing a novel learning model I call the "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network".

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18945
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Mar 26, 2018 4:34 am

Two ships passing in the night, shrouded in fog. Happy journeys..............
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
_exit
Poster
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2018 4:04 pm

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by _exit » Mon Mar 26, 2018 4:34 am

ElectricMonk wrote:As bobbo said, science is a process. We've had countless examples where scientists got bad data from imperfect instruments and based their conclusions on that: fixed stars are a famous example.
In these cases it's garbage in- garbage out even though the scientific process was flawless.

More importantly, scientific truth is transient: it only holds until better data and better theories come along.
1.) Yes, and believing in nonsense constitutes a process as well.

1.b.) This is why I find no value in bobbo's remark/highlighting of said word.

2.) The reality is that while the concept of belief generally facilitates evidence ignorance, scientific thinking does not!

Signature: I am interested in completing a novel learning model I call the "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network".

User avatar
_exit
Poster
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2018 4:04 pm

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by _exit » Mon Mar 26, 2018 4:38 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Thanks EM. In fact, one of the websites I read stated that "what Neil meant" was that the scientific PROCESS was the only way to truth especially as contrasted with the non evidence driven religions of faith. I'm a bit embarassed to admit, its still nice to have your ego stroked now and then and see your own opinions reflected in what you read..... ha, ha.....much like Exit's OP point out? The boy has a fighting chance.......if he will only regroup.

"scientific truth is transient" //// A truth whether you believe it or not. Very well stated....very important if not all important.
Yes, nonbeliefism had long underlined that science is a model, that permits that humans make mistakes.

You really ought to actually take a look at the content, before claiming or implying the absence of data, that ironically exists on my site!
Last edited by _exit on Mon Mar 26, 2018 4:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Signature: I am interested in completing a novel learning model I call the "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network".

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5133
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by ElectricMonk » Mon Mar 26, 2018 4:47 am

It is entirely possible that we can come up with something better than the Scientific Method. There are plenty of issues it is badly equipped to handle.
So even science is only true for a given value of"true".

User avatar
_exit
Poster
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2018 4:04 pm

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by _exit » Mon Mar 26, 2018 4:49 am

ElectricMonk wrote:It is entirely possible that we can come up with something better than the Scientific Method. There are plenty of issues it is badly equipped to handle.
So even science is only true for a given value of"true".
What is the significance of your remark above?

Did I say that only Science can possibly be true?

Do we have any better model than science currently?

Why do you constantly make irrelevant remarks?

Signature: I am interested in completing a novel learning model I call the "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network".

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18945
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Mar 26, 2018 5:17 am

ElectricMonk wrote:It is entirely possible that we can come up with something better than the Scientific Method. There are plenty of issues it is badly equipped to handle.
So even science is only true for a given value of"true".
Wut??? Like what? The scientific method is the only way to proof of anything. Even, those issues it is badly equipped to handle......I assume you mean questions of morality but even there, it is only science that gives us actual answers. Most of morality can be tracked and better understood by looking at other animal species and so forth. The brain has areas that "work with" morality issues. Dna is involved. evolution too.

Its all: whatever is true ... is established by science. Science may only be ill equipped to handle: what doesn't exist or is just not true. Even the large area of human social and personal constructs is being scientifically analyzed.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5514
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by Austin Harper » Mon Mar 26, 2018 4:17 pm

What color is the sky?
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
_exit
Poster
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2018 4:04 pm

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by _exit » Mon Mar 26, 2018 5:19 pm

Austin Harper wrote:What color is the sky?
Whatever colour science prescribes.

Signature: I am interested in completing a novel learning model I call the "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network".

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5514
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by Austin Harper » Mon Mar 26, 2018 5:22 pm

Science doesn't prescribe a color for the sky.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18945
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Mar 26, 2018 6:50 pm

....in addition, there is no "the sky" but each planet has its own different sky with different colors for all the reasons we immediately remember.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?