one need not belief to observe evidence — ProgrammingGodJordan

*believe

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

And what would happen when there is contradictory evidence? When evidence A is contradicted by evidence B?

And this ignores the whole issue of what evidence is.

True. Could be the remnants of a belief system...

On a more fundamental basis(pardon the pun)...

In order to learn that that is called "a tree" one must first believe that that is there(whatever that may be). The OP clearly has learned how to talk about things and clearly has no clue what all that entails.

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. — JustSomeGuy

It is unfortunate that you grovel in and enjoy your own errors, for self-denial of said errors shan't enable you to escape them.

• And recall, that despite your non-evidenced claim (as clearly seen here), it is unavoidable that proof and evidence are synonyms.

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? — Banno

Simply, belief is such that does not prioritize evidence.

• In contrast, one may behave in manner that instead prioritizes evidence.

It is unfortunate that you grovel in, and enjoy your own errors, for self-denial of said errors shan't enable you to escape them. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Almost biblical prose.

There is more than one 'kind' of belief. The OP is arguing against a particular kind of religious belief. One that is held in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Russell spoke about this kind of faith in his book Why I'm Not A Christian.

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. — Noble Dust

1. In stark contrast:
   
   • a. I had been a theist for quite a long while.
   • b. Four years ago, I had become an atheist.
   • c. Recently, I had come to scrutinize the very concept of belief, and not merely religious belief.
2. As far as I have observed, people don't tend to go beyond item (1.b) above, and your words demonstrate that you are one of said people.

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

one may behave in manner that instead prioritizes evidence. — ProgrammingGodJordan

And how, exactly, does prioritising A over B differ from believing A and not believing B?

All you have done here is to replace saying "I believe A" with "I prioritise A". You still believe A in your heart of hearts.

And what would happen when there is contradictory evidence? When evidence A is contradicted by evidence B?

And this ignores the whole issue of what evidence is. — Banno

• This is already covered in the OP, which provides sources that heavily discuss and present research on evidence.
  
• Is reading the sources so arduous?

Dude, one of the main problems is that you sound like a robot.

In stark contrast:
I had been a theist for quite a long while.
Four years ago, I had become an atheist.
Recently, I had come to scrutinize the very concept of belief, and not merely religious belief. — ProgrammingGodJordan

You appear to be a fundamentalist atheist, yes. That's a common outcome for someone who has an emotionally violent divorce from religion.

As far as I have observed, people don't tend to go beyond item (2) above, — ProgrammingGodJordan

Which is (2)? You made this statement on line 2...

your words demonstrate that you are one of said people. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Which people, and why make erroneous assumptions about me? My beliefs (none of which I've stated, and none of which you are aware of) are much more complex than the binary thinking you're using here.

That you may chose to believe, does not suddenly warrant that everybody else believes. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Quite so; but I do not claim to have abolished belief, so there is no hypocrisy in my belief. For you, your belief is apparent from your fervour.

You still believe in your heart of hearts.

What is your goal with this thread?

You still believe A in your heart of hearts. — Banno

That you may chose to believe, does not suddenly warrant that everybody else believes.

What is your goal with this thread? — Noble Dust

Goals:
1. Unravel errors of my own, where applicable. (i.e. learn)
2. Unravel errors in others. (i.e. teach)

Goal 1. is a good goal, and I trust you're learning a lot.

Goal 2. is pretty arrogant, given that you're new to the forum. I had a similar mindset when I joined. I've done a whole lot of learning, and basically 0 teaching. You'll find it's the same for you if you stick around; if you do, please learn to debate, though.

Which is (2)? You made this statement on line 2... — Noble Dust

• I stated (1.b), rather than (2), in my comment 8 minutes ago.
• Your comment is 3 minutes old, at the time this comment is written.

What?

Goal 1. is a good goal, and I trust you're learning a lot.

Goal 2. is pretty arrogant, given that you're new to the forum. I had a similar mindset when I joined. I've done a whole lot of learning, and basically 0 teaching. You'll find it's the same for you if you stick around; if you do, please learn to debate, though. — Noble Dust

1. I am yet to discover any novel information, from others here.

2. Why do you feel it is arrogant for me to teach, but quite alright for me to learn, due to some odd boundary, such as my time spent on this particular forum?

What? — Noble Dust

A review:

1. In stark contrast:
   
   • a. I had been a theist for quite a long while.
   • b. Four years ago, I had become an atheist.
   • c. Recently, I had come to scrutinize the very concept of belief, and not merely religious belief.
2. As far as I have observed, people don't tend to go beyond item (1.b) above, and your words demonstrate that you are one of said people.

2.Why do you feel it is arrogant for me to teach, but quite alright for me to learn, due to some odd boundary, such as my time spent on this particular forum? — ProgrammingGodJordan

I find it arrogant for you to think you can teach, because not only do you not have anything meaningful to teach anyone, but you fail to recognize your own arrogance, your own inability to examine your own pre-existing beliefs, and your own failure to engage in charitable philosophical debate on a philosophy forum.

A review:

What?

Goals:
1. Unravel errors of my own. (i.e. learn) — ProgrammingGodJordan

An admirable aim. Holding false belief is something to avoid. Not all belief is false. Not all belief suffers the same issues as religious belief. Unraveling your errors requires understanding thought and belief. Notably, what they are, how they are expressed, and what makes them true/false.

I find it arrogant for you to think you can teach, because not only do you not have anything meaningful to teach anyone, but you fail to recognize your own arrogance, your own inability to examine your own pre-existing beliefs, and your own failure to engage in charitable philosophical debate on a philosophy forum. — Noble Dust

Such is a typical response; for I have observed that many people don't tend to scrutinize beyond religious belief, as you continue to demonstrate well.

Such is a typical response; for I have observed that many people don't tend to scrutinize beyond scientistic belief, as you continue to demonstrate well.

An admirable aim. Holding false belief is something to avoid. Not all belief is false. Not all belief suffers the same issues as religious belief. Unraveling your errors requires understanding thought and belief. Notably, what they are, how they are expressed, and what makes them true/false. — creativesoul

In contrast, nowhere did I say that all beliefs are false.

• From the very beginning, in the Op, I mentioned that belief may both occur in evidence and non-evidence.
• However, that one may believe for example in science, does not suddenly remove that belief is a model that does not prioritize evidence, but instead permits general ignorance of evidence.

nowhere did I say that all beliefs are false. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Good.

Some belief is true then.

Agree?

Psycoceramics is a glorious thing.

Good.

Some belief is true then.

Agree? — creativesoul

A simplification:

1. Model i - belief:
   
   • Permits belief in science or evidence.
   • Also permits ignorance of evidence, but not only that, it generally permits ignorance of evidence. (i.e. frequent ignorance of evidence)
2. Model ii - non-beliefism:
   
   • Underlines that science prioritizes evidence.
   • Does not permit general ignorance of evidence.