Richard Dawkins says maybe it is better if AGI replaces humans!
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.
"2.) Are you theistic by chance? Theists tend to find the concept above hard to absorb."
If you click on someone's name you'll see their profile. Though It's hard to imagine you're being serious with your question. Your "non-beliefism" has all the hallmarks of religious mumbo jumbo is what I said, does that sound like something a theist would say?
"1.) I too was once a believer, and I too had a hard time seeing that belief could be abolished."
Yes I can see you struggle with rational thinking, but you don't need mumbo jumbo inventions to jettison beliefs that have no objective evidence to support them. Merely the ability to subject all your beliefs ideas and claims to some open minded critical thinking.
Have you ever heard of Occam's razor? I think it might help you trim a little of the superfluous verbiage, as it appears wholly unnecessary for atheism?
Claims are only hard to absorb when they are irrelevant and unsubstantiated.
1.) Oh, so you're of the opinion that science requires belief? In other words you feel for science to apply, belief is required?
2.) In reality, we know that unless one follows evidence, progress is not made. (No amount of belief or passion guarantees results, absent evidence.)
Another way to express the above, is that belief is irrelevant, and this is demonstrably valid as far as science goes.
3.) Intriguing note: As Neil Degrasse Tyson correctly identifies, science is true whether or not one chooses to believe in it!
Edit: Removed typo, off -> of*
"Claims are only hard to absorb when they are irrelevant and unsubstantiated.
1.) Oh, so you're off the opinion that science requires belief? In other words you feel for science to apply, belief is required?"
That's not remotely what Blindwatchmaker said now is it.
I see no relevance in in the rest of your post, as you have completely misunderstood and misrepresented what BW said.
It is refreshing that I am not the only one that notices these issues with PGJ.
For someone who claims to be an intellectual, the fallaciousness of almost every post he makes is staggering.
Straw-Man, Design, Appeal to authority, Circular reasoning, and so on.
He barely deserves or warrants replying to.
>>>His posts are strident, and dismissive, and when anyone disagrees border on arrogance, his ideas are as you say in places demonstrably fallacious. You don't have to be a scientists in order to recognise how far removed from scientific some of his posts are. I also dislike pseudo-intellectuals who deliver sententious lectures to strangers on the internet, talking down to people is not the way to communicate ones ideas.
>>>Non-beliefism sounds absurd to me. Check this out...
"while being entirely atheistic, we can probably come to know “God” in a scientific context too, while being atheists as well. This is because we can lack belief in or be atheistic to scientific things (i.e. such as a scientifically redefined God), as science is true regardless of belief."
>>>I'm sorry but that meaningless twaddle. It's using words and redefining them in an ad hoc fashion as if this presents some impressive esoteric idea.
The state of possessing no beliefs or the absence of beliefs; because evidence doesn't care about beliefs."
>>>I'm not even sure it is possible for a human to hold no beliefs at all, but even if it were this is not atheism, which is just the absence of one single belief.
I think PGJ believes in his non-beliefism.
ProgrammingGodJordan's posts fail the Turing test.
1.) I had posted a url regarding beliefs' irrelevance.
2.) The Blindwatchmaker claimed such was "unsubstantiated".
3.) Thus, my earlier response is appropriate.
Fri, 03/02/2018 - 17:45
"Claims are only hard to absorb when they are irrelevant and unsubstantiated."
Fri, 03/02/2018 - 17:58
" Oh, so you're of the opinion that science requires belief? In other words you feel for science to apply, belief is required?"
>>As everyone can see your claim is not remotely what TheBlindWatchmaker said.
As I said, you lied and misrepresented what TheBlindWatchmaker said. Thus your response was dishonest, and so is irrelevant. Your latest post has gone off on another tangent which has no relevance. I'm not sure why you feel the urge to keep bullet pointing everything either, as it's pretty condescending.
1.) No such fallacy of mine was made. You ought to present evidence of said instances supposedly committed by myself.
2.) Why bother to blather on absent evidence? I advise that you get into the habbit of presenting evidence for your expressions, simple URLs shall suffice. (As an example, a large portion of my posts tend to contain sources/URLS).
1.) Are you theistic by chance? (Theists tend to find it difficult to absorb the concept of ""non-beliefism")
2.) No, nonbelieifism does not require belief. (The hint is in the name)
@ProgrammingGodJordan your posts reek of belief.
1.) Unfortunately, theists tend to find non-beliefism abstruse to absorb. Thus, if you are theistic, your confusion is anticipated.
2.) Alternatively, you have reasonably simply adopted the concept of belief for quite a long while, and your frame of mind has not yet learned to escape that boundary.
@ProgrammingGodJordan you are confusing your belief with fact.
ProgrammingGodJordan "No, nonbelieifism does not require belief."
So you don't believe your own idea of "non-beliefism"?
1.) I've updated your quote of me above, to include the first portion of the sentence you haphazardly chose to exclude.
2.) Many concepts have come to be redefined as evidence arose. Asthma was once mythically defined. (Another example is when astrology was separated from astronomy in the scientific revolution.)
3.) Likewise, the new God-concept is an experimental redefinition.
4.) As expressed on the non-beliefism website, the experimental God redefinition is beyond the scope of non-beliefism.
So do you believe all that crap?
1) My exclusion was expedient not haphazard
2) Straw man fallacy as I never argued against this.
3) I don't care, as I already said you're redefining words in an ad hoc haphazard fashion, that's why your posts are largely incomprehensible disjointed gibberish.
4) I have no idea what that even means, it's gibberish. I don't believe any god exists as I am an atheist. Your concept of non-beliefism is incoherent nonsense, and I don't accept the premise that anyone can hold no beliefs about the reality they experience. You seem to think all beliefs must be like religious beliefs and therefore unevidenced, this is demonstrably not true.
Do you believe the earth goes around the sun or not?
"1.) No such fallacy of mine was made. You ought to present evidence of said instances supposedly committed by myself.
2.) Why bother to blather on absent evidence? I advise that you get into the habbit of presenting evidence for your expressions, simple URLs shall suffice. (As an example, a large portion of my posts tend to contain sources/URLS)."
- You have committed many fallacies, But perhaps you lack the knowledge to understand them.
You have on numerous occasions tried to refute an argument that I have not even made (others too), misrepresenting my comments, including on this very page as well as others! This is the very definition of a straw man fallacy.
When you stated before that only those with masters and phd could understand/comprehend your ramblings, that is what is known as appealing to authority.
You made a claim regarding your 'hypothesis' whilst leaving out major details that would affect your conclusions, this is 'begging the question' fallacy.
You cherry pick evidence to support your claims, whilst ignoring evidence against it, that is a 'confirmation bias' fallacy.
You attack people character, intellect and so fourth without addressing their claims against your drivel, this is an 'ad hominem' fallacy.
And we could easily go on, but you are unworthy of the time.
1.) Can you cite where I supposedly said that "only" masters and PhD people understand the things in question?
2.) Furthermore, that some educated persons may understand some complex thing such as QM, is that "an appeal to authority" or simply the facts?
Is your expression above fallacious?
1.) Where have I supposedly ignored evidence? (Especially when you tend to blather on absent evidence)
2.) Note that I don't subscribe to evidence ignorance, as per my invention "non beliefism".
1.) Where had I supposedly failed to address some claim, and instead attack some being's character?
2.) How hard is it to provide evidence for your claims? (Like a quote or a URL to some reply)
There's a hint in that label.
I'm not after hints, are you even capable of giving a candid answer?
You sound so much like a theist it's scary, semantics and rhetoric. Do you believe your claims about what you call non-beliefism are true, yes or no?
1.) Ironically, you are the being arguing for the concept of belief, while I underline the opposite, that the concept of belief is irrelevant. If anybody is being theistic, it is you, the being supporting belief.
2.) The answers are already provided on the website, in the "what is the non-beliefism paradigm" section.
I am not arguing for belief or supporting religious belief, you're just making up lies again now. I am simply stating the fact that not all beliefs are held without proper evidence. I have no interest in wading through the tripe on that website, it's gibberish. People hold beliefs for a variety of reasons, and though these are often not properly evidenced, that is not always the case.
1. an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
Note the second part of the sentence in the dictionary definition showing that beliefs are not always held without evidence. I hold beliefs, and these are based on the best objective evidence. I am an atheist as one belief I don't hold is that any deity or deities exist.
If you actually read the few points in the "what is the non-beliefism paradigm" section on the website, you would have quickly come to see that I said no such thing.
I never claimed you said it.
On the contrary, here's a remainder:
To which I responded: