Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Like I said I never claimed you had said it, it seems the route of your problems is your poor comprehension of English, read it again and you'll see your claim was untrue.
How did you establish the claim "you seem to think....", if not based on what I had said elsewhere?
I never said that what I had inferred was not based on what you had said, quite the opposite. I just never claimed you had said it.
Don't feel you have to apologise or anything.
What was your expression "you seem to think..." critical of? What was it's goal if not to encompass something I had said?
I stated plainly what it was critical of in the original post you dishonestly misrepresented, but I never claimed you had said it, as you dishonestly claimed. Go back and re-read it, I can't make the single sentence any simpler I'm afraid.
1.) So you still maintain that "you never claimed that I had said it". So what was your statement attempting to negate, if not something I had said?
2.) Why would you say the above, if not to attempt to negate something which you garnered I had said? Why negate something that you garnered I supposedly didn't say? Wouldn't that event have been quite fallacious?
Sheldon said:
You ***seem to think*** all beliefs must be like religious beliefs and therefore unevidenced, ..
"1.) So you still maintain that "you never claimed that I had said it". So what was your statement attempting to negate, if not something I had said?"
I never claimed you said this, read the fucking sentence you have quoted ffs. You have since repeated your false claim, even though it is clearly quoted above and shows unequivocally that I never claimed **you had said it.** You either have a very poor grasp of English or are again lying shamelessly rather than admit you made a mistake.
"2.) Why would you say the above, "
I have answered this multiple times now, read one of them, as this tedious repetition is irksome. Your selection bias is plain enough for many other posters to have highlighted your use of it. What's more you keep lying and insisting I am ignoring beliefs that are false when I stated plainly every single time I accept that beliefs can be both evidenced and unevidenced. i am not the one making the idiotic assertion that humans should expunge all beliefs, as it is clear this is an absurdly stupid idea. They should simply only believe what is properly evidenced.
1.) I said you were supporting belief, not religious belief.
2.) Your citation of the definition of belief above is pointless, as the definition of belief is cited on the website.
3.) So, you are criticizing non-beliefism, without actually reading about what it concerns. Do you recognize how silly your efforts are thereafter?
4.) You are still pretending as if I said all beliefs are absent evidence, for some odd reason. That silly behavior of yours could be avoided, if you simply read the few points encompassed by non-beliefism, in the "what is the non-beliefism paradigm" section.
"I said you were supporting belief, not religious belief."
>>>You claimed I was "being theistic", not for the first time, and said I was "supporting the concept of belief, so now you're just resorting to semantics. I have stated plainly I am an atheist, it's also in my profile, and of course is obvious to any rational same person from my posts on here.
"Your citation the definition of belief above is pointless,"
>>>I disagree since you are misrepresenting what it means. However if you know the definition of belief then you must also know that not all beliefs are held without proper evidence, yet you have implied the opposite, so can you clarify your position? What I read about non-beliefism was illogical, erroneous and mostly incoherent. As I said humans believe claims are true for a variety of reasons, and one of those reason is proper evidence. So the idea we should or even can have no beliefs is irrational.
"So, you are criticizing non-beliefism, without actually reading about that it concerns."
>>>I don't need to wade through the whole thing when your main premise is fallacious, anymore than I need to read an encyclopedia on unicorns to know there is no proper evidence for them..
1.) As I said before, you were supporting belief, not religious belief. (Notably the concept of belief does not stop at evidence aligned things!)
2.) On that note, there is no expression of mine which ignores that belief may concern evidence. (In fact, this is mentioned in the "what is the non-beliefism paradigm" section on the website!)
3.) Thereafter, your behaviour remains demonstrably silly, you proceed to pretend that I express that all beliefs are absent evidence, when I mention clearly on the website that belief may concern evidence!
4.) My advice to you is to simply take a look at the simple, few points on the website and avoid further embarrassment.
"As I said before, you were supporting belief,"
And as I said this is extremely disingenuous, I have done no such thing, and I'm happy for others to judge for themselves if this is an honest representation of my posts.
"you proceed to pretend that I express that all beliefs are absent evidence,"
From your website (note the part in asterisks)
So, non-beliefism is simply a way to underline what is already possible, scientific thinking. (By clearly identifying a popular and not typically scrutinized paradigm, i.e. belief, and ***showing why belief contrasts scientific thinking)***
If you accept some beliefs are based on true claims, how then can you make the blanket claim that beliefs contrast science?
Again here:
"there is no expression of mine which ignores that belief may concern evidence. "
Then from your website we get this I quoted above "showing why belief contrasts scientific thinking)"
--------------------------------------------------
"Thereafter, your behaviour remains demonstrably silly,"
Quit the ad hominem as well. your sententious posturing adds nothing to your arguments, and they need all the help they can get. As for embarrassment I think I am prepared to risk it, though I may tire of your arrogant posturing.
ProgrammingGodJordan "You are still pretending as if I said all beliefs are absent evidence, for some odd reason."
"Beyond atheism, non-beliefism enables a state of mind that rejects not merely religious belief, but the very concept of belief."
Why would anyone want to discard beliefs that are true?
See the bullet points in the "what is the non-beliefism paradigm" section, on the website.
In particular, see the section "why would you discard your beliefs that occur on evidence?".
"The answer is simple; those that fall on evidence are redundant/not required,"
Do you not believe scientific facts are true? If so how can they be redundant?
Again this sounds like absurd semantics to me. Belief is just a word that in common usage conveys something, such as believing that scientific facts are based on the best objective evidence.
So I ask again why would we discard beliefs that are properly evidenced. Just because you think it is a clever idea to jettison the concept of belief, because beliefs can also be held without evidence? As I said a dozen posts ago, this is not a paradigm shifting idea, just incoherent poorly thought out gibberish.
A more sensible approach is to argue that we should care that we believe as many true things as possible, and thus only believe those claims and ideas that are properly evidenced. You're trying to throw the word away as if this will magically stop people believing things they don't have proper evidence for, now that's silly.
1.) The issue is that you are constraining belief to be evidenced based.
2.) However, the concept does not end at evidence based things (as indicated in the definition you cited, as well as cognitive science papers I cited).
3.) The concept generally permits evidence ignorance. Science is not in the business of generally permitting evidence ignorance!
4.) As I pointed out on the website, the ones that fall on evidence are redundant, as evidence persists regardless of belief.
"1.) The issue is that you are constraining belief to be evidenced based."
That's another lie, and anyone can read my posts to see I've been quite specific in stating the opposite is true. Like posting the definition of Belief which you dismissed as irrelevant, and are now lying about what I have said. No wonder others have tired of your mendacity.
"2.) However, the concept does not end at evidence based things (as indicated in the definition you cited,"
Straw man, as I have accepted this from the very start.
"3.) The concept generally permits evidence ignorance."
The word also encompasses well evidenced facts, jettisoning the word (an absurdly impractical idea anyway) won't stop people *believing* things that are not properly evidenced.
3) Science is not in the business of generally permitting evidence ignorance!
I never said not implied it was, so another straw man. Science does insist that things be properly evidenced before we believe they are true. Your website claims such beliefs are redundant though. I shall leave it to others to assess if such a claim adds anything to scientific methods, but I heartily disagree. A better approach as i have been saying is to highlight the need for proper evidence for all beliefs.
1.) Recall that when you had accused me of expressing that all beliefs are non evidenced, you had recently mentioned that my expressions were gibberish.
2.) However, as my website indicates, belief may concern evidence.
3.) Your behavior is typical of belief; you ignore valid, contrasting evidence, and proceed in your old false beliefs even despite the revelation of said contrasting, valid evidence.
"1.) Recall that when you had accused me of expressing that all beliefs are non evidenced,"
I never said this, why must you constantly lie and misrepresent what people have said?
2.) However, as my website indicates, belief may concern evidence.
Straw man as I acknowledged this myself from the start, indeed that why your website is contradicting itself in saying the "concept" of belief is opposed to science.
3.) Your behavior is typical of belief; you ignore valid, contrasting evidence, and proceed in your old false beliefs even despite the revelation of said contrasting, valid evidence.
Complete gibberish, what "false" beliefs are you claiming I have clung to? What valid evidence have I ignored?
Point three is another string of strident unevidenced claims - Hitchens's razor applies.
@Sheldon
Great-goobly-goobs, my man! You must be incredibly bored today. lol
Round-n-round we go!
https://youtu.be/QcRf0y5-_Uw
Hop on board Jordan's fallacy merry go round!
Free word salad with each ride.
1.) On the contrary, if you weren't constraining beliefs to be evidenced based, you would have long recognized that the concept of belief contrasts science.
2.) Your citation of the definition remains irrelevant, as it is already cited on my website.
"1.) On the contrary, if you weren't constraining beliefs to be evidenced based, you would have long recognized that the concept of belief contrasts science."
Well here's my post at the start of the previous page stating plainly that beliefs can be both unevidenced and properly evidenced. So you're lying again, and again I'm happy for others to judge who is being candid here.
Sat, 03/03/2018 - 13:39 (Reply to #57)
I am simply stating the fact that not all beliefs are held without proper evidence.
Why you must tell such blatant lies about what others have posted is not clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"2.) Your citation of the definition remains irrelevant, as it is already cited on my website."
I don't care, it's in the Oxford English dictionary, and since you are still lying about how I have represented that definition EVEN AFTER I POSTED IT, then someone would have to be either very dishonest or extremely stupid to keep insisting the definition has no relevance.
I accept the dictionary definition which shows clearly that beliefs can be both properly evidenced and completely unevidenced, so stop lying. And since they can be properly evidenced then the entire concept of belief cannot by definition contradict science or be irrelevant to it as your pet theory claims.
The fallacy merry-go-round continues.. truly unbelievable.
Straw-man of Sheldon's points of view and wanting others to keep sharing links to your multiple mistakes, take a look for yourself!
Even a lay person with a thin grasp of debating/logical argument would find many of your post as laughable.
You talk a lot about evidence and never offer any of your own, simply hypothesis that rely on hypothesis which are unproven.
Your even trying to push a model that requires supersymmetry which has failed every test it has been involved in, and has no evidence to support it.
But alas, I'm sure you'll continue to spam your way around the internet, like on the numerous of others that you have posted this same drivel.. funnily enough, they haven't been bought on other sites either.
1.) You need not pretend that I said that all beliefs are non evidenced.
2.) However, that some beliefs are well evidenced, does not remove that belief generally permits evidence ignorance.
"1.) You need not pretend that I said that all beliefs are non evidenced."
Do you fucking see the word also in my sentence?
>>>>Sheldon said:
The word also encompasses well evidenced facts,<<<< You even quoted it in your post ffs.
So I didn't say any such thing, stop lying man, you;re embarrassing yourself. I quoted your website verbatim and your posts, that have repeatedly tried to claim the "concept" of belief is anathema to science. How can it be when the word also encompasses belief in well evidenced facts such as scientific facts?
"2.) However, that some beliefs are well evidenced, does not remove that belief generally permits evidence ignorance."
No it doesn't, but again since I have never claimed this, nor even implied it, you are simply thrashing out another straw man, whilst ignoring the salient points. The word encompasses ***PAY ATTENTION*** both objectively evidenced facts and completely unevidenced beliefs. So to claim the word is a redundant concept anathema to science is nonsensical, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
That is truly embarrassing beyond measure!
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Yes, this is quite the embarrassment for Sheldon.
@TBW
Hey, where did you find my old buddy Scarecrow? Tell him to get in touch with me. That bastard owes me money.
"1.) You need not pretend that I said that all beliefs are non evidenced."
Not once have I said this, and again I shall let others point out that you are shameless liar.
"2.) However, that some beliefs are well evidenced, does not remove that belief generally permits evidence ignorance."
Straw man as I have never claimed otherwise. All I have said is that beliefs are an essential component in how we use our cognitive ability to interact with the world, we can no more expunge these than we can stop breathing. All we can do is educate children to think critically and strive believe only ideas and claims that properly evidenced. An ability you clearly lack, given the bilge you have posted here.
Pages