Actually I'm familiar with variants or rather precursors of non-beliefism. I do understand the emotional charge or allure of presuppositionless thought, etc. But I think it's an impossible dream. It reminds me of the smoke that haunts the demolition of one's childhood notion of God. Instead of the deity, there's a nice system of words, some final ism, that gets everything right and ends the need to improvise in angst.

Of course living in angst is a silly goal. The angst will find us. We don't need to hunt for it. In my view we get in certain 'evangelical' or hyper-confident moods where we have the missing piece of the puzzle. I call it 'word drunk.' I've been there. It's not a matter of wrong or right but (in my view) of seeing the social situation in one way or another. Actual science is great because it transcends mood. My cell phone works independently of my fluctuating sense of being awesome or mediocre. But singing the praises of science on a philosophy forum is not science. This isn't a medium for science. It is, however, a great place to assert and defend and criticism fundamental (quasi-religious) worldviews.

Check your old 'mentions' in the New Years Resolutions thread. You were playing with prose style and I chimed in.

1. Some empirically observable thing is Gravitational theory.
2. There exists people that believe that the earth is supposedly flat. (Such a belief does not agree with gravitational theory)
3. It is observable above that gravitational theory obtains regardless of flat-earth belief.
4. Likewise, gravitational theory obtains regardless of the belief of any human.

Are you really using flat-earthers as fodder for your argument that belief should be abolished? Try for some higher-hanging fruit; the stuff everyone in this thread has been offering.

Ah! I do remember. I'm sure I wasn't ignoring what you said; I get apathetic sometimes with responding to mentions.

I feel you. And my comment was just a throwaway meant to keep the prose style conversation going. I liked its concreteness.

it is probable that somebody/something is utilizing your account to compose messages.

2. Notably, I don't need to believe in the probability above, to observe it as valid. — ProgrammingGodJordan

My username is JustSomeGuy, so it is probable that I am an adult male. But it's very possible that I could be an adolescent girl. As you read this comment, do you believe you are reading the comment of an adult male or of an adolescent girl?
It is also entirely possible that I am, in fact, an artificial intelligence. Do you believe that you are reading a comment written by a person, or that you are reading a comment written by an artificial intelligence?

Literally everything you "know" is based on belief, save for one single thing: that you exist.

Speaking disparagingly about the concept of belief shows serious ignorance. You are as blinded by your bias as the most fundamentalist young-Earth creationist.

I liked its concreteness. — dog

Ah yes, that was the whole joke, as I recall. :D

My username is JustSomeGuy, so it is probable that I am an adult male. But it's very possible that I could be an adolescent girl. As you read this comment, do you believe you are reading the comment of an adult male or of an adolescent girl?
It is also entirely possible that I am, in fact, an artificial intelligence. Do you believe that you are reading a comment written by a person, or that you are reading a comment written by an artificial intelligence?

Literally everything you "know" is based on belief, save for one single thing: that you exist.

Speaking disparagingly about the concept of belief shows serious ignorance. You are as blinded by your bias as the most fundamentalist young-Earth creationist. — JustSomeGuy

1. As you are quite accustomed to belief, I see that it may be difficult to detach yourself from it.

2. It is probable that you are male, and so on.

3. Pertinently, I need not any belief to observe probabilities as valid.

belief typically facilitates that people especially ignore evidence. — ProgrammingGodJordan

This is false. Belief involves a lack of sufficient evidence for knowledge. A lack of proof. And believe it or not (no pun intended)--even in science--proof is an extremely rare thing.

Are you really using flat-earthers as fodder for your argument that belief should be abolished? Try for some higher-hanging fruit; the stuff everyone in this thread has been offering. — Noble Dust

1. What "high hanging fruit" has been offered by the others?
2. Yes, that flat earthers exist, does not invalidate gravitational theory. Likewise, it is demonstrable that gravitational theory persists regardless of belief.

1. What "high hanging fruit" has been offered by the others? — ProgrammingGodJordan

Scroll back through the thread.

1. As you are quite accustomed to belief, I see that it may be difficult to detach yourself from it — ProgrammingGodJordan

Difficult, indeed. For all of us. In fact I may even venture to say it's impossible.

You never actually answered my question, though. Do you believe you are speaking to an adult male? Do you believe you are speaking to a human?

Ah, we poor inferiors accustomed to belief. But that's the point, right? You rule. We drool. Yet we aren't believers enough to fall for this approach. I've seen this kind of thing on other forums. It's often someone who just knows that he is somehow a prophet on another level. His arrogance is so staggering that others can't help but be sucked in by the thread. It's like bad reality TV. You just can't change the channel.

The condescension and self-assurance is such an outlier, such a relative novelty, that it's stimulating in some perverse way. Is this dude for real? This dude is for real. I know that some part of me is like that too. Which is scary. But such is life.

1. As you are quite accustomed to belief, I see that it may be difficult to detach yourself from it. — ProgrammingGodJordan

2. It may be somewhat odd to grasp, since you had probably been used to the concept of belief for quite some time.

3. In perhaps a short while, you may come to recognize that instead of belief, one may instead employ scientific thinking. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Purely out of curiosity, moderators, what exactly connotes "evangelism"? I have no interest in anyone being warned or banned; the more bullshit evangelism the merrier, per my view (hence my entertainment of this thread). But I've always been interested in this issue with regards to the guidelines, and this thread seems like a prime example of secular evangelism. Maybe I'm wrong?

This is false. Belief involves a lack of sufficient evidence for knowledge. A lack of proof. And believe it or not (no pun intended)--even in science--proof is an extremely rare thing. — JustSomeGuy

Difficult, indeed. For all of us. In fact I may even venture to say it's impossible.

You never actually answered my question, though. Do you believe you are speaking to an adult male? Do you believe you are speaking to a human? — JustSomeGuy

1. On the contrary, see scientific research, showing that belief generally permits ignorance of evidence.
2. Notably, there is a difference between scientific proof, and proof.
3. So, it is indeed valid that belief generally occurs absent evidence/proof.

Ah, we poor inferiors accustomed to belief. But that's the point, right? Yet we aren't believers enough to fall for this approach. I've seen this kind of thing on other forums. It's often someone who just knows that he is somehow a prophet on another level. His arrogance is so staggering that others can't help but be sucked in by the thread. It's like bad reality TV. You just can't change the channel. — dog

• As I had underlined in the OP, I hadn't scrutinized belief for quite a long while, so like you I had been accustomed to it.
  
• However, with a bit of focus, one may come to trivially observe that belief is a concept that contrasts science.

1. On the contrary, see scientific research, showing that belief generally permits ignorance of evidence.

3. So, it is indeed valid that belief generally occurs absent evidence/proof. — ProgrammingGodJordan

I'm sorry, did you really just say "On the contrary" before restating what I said?

You claimed belief involved ignoring evidence. I corrected you by saying that belief involved a lack of sufficient evidence or proof, and your next comment is claiming my own sentiment (which was in opposition to yours) as your own?

And I see you're going to make me ask a third time: (I'll narrow it down even more to just one simple question) do you believe you are speaking to a human right now?

one may come to trivially observe that belief is a concept that contrasts science. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Right. Trivially. As I believe I said earlier, I find it hard to distinguish your opening post from the demand that we think critically, non-dogmatically, etc. But this is an old goal in philosophy. Doubting everything is also a well explored idea. I also mentioned an exposure on my part to 'isms' along the lines of nonbeliefism as I understand it, including to post-Christian philosophers who extended their critique of belief to secular replacements of Christianity (humanism, for instance). I consider myself to have walked this road to the end --in a theoretical sense. But the gap between theory and lifestyle is often what our theoretical moods ignore. We forget ordinary language, ordinary thinking, and so on. We get caught up in seductive generalities that are miles from the way we live. Doubt in theory, belief in practice. Finally, the 'dictionary math' misses what is actually being said. This conversation isn't really a math proof, even if you want to treat it like one. (As I see it.)

I think you underestimate the people you're talking with. This isn't our first rodeo.

Purely out of curiosity, moderators, what exactly connotes "evangelism"? I have no interest in anyone being warned or banned; the more bullshit evangelism the merrier, per my view (hence my entertainment of this thread). But I've always been interested in this issue with regards to the guidelines, and this thread seems like a prime example of secular evangelism. Maybe I'm wrong? — Noble Dust

You're right, but there have been so many responses that probably none of the mods would delete the discussion now. I've only just seen it.

The condescension and self-assurance is such an outlier, such a relative novelty, that it's stimulating in some perverse way. Is this dude for real? This dude is for real. I know that some part of me is like that too. Which is scary. But such is life. — dog

On point again, I must say. I feel responsible for the proliferation of this thread; I just couldn't look away.

No issues on my end; again, I find it entertaining. But if you mods find it irksome, as I just mentioned to dog, I'm probably partly responsible for that, so sorry for that if it's annoying. I do think dog is right that a thread like this becomes a sort of magnet.

What's interesting is that it allows us inferior believing types (superior more sophisticatedly arrogant types who like online friendliness) to get to know one another. It's like strangers on a sidewalk witnessing some social irregularity and looking around to see if others are also surprised, amused, etc. Of course my interest is largely the social dynamic itself (the way we project ourselves publicly), so this is like research. And I can push 'buttons' with words and see what happens. Do (folk-) science, I guess, on scientism nonbeliefism.

They're a lot of fun sometimes, and they do attract some interesting responses. And it's good to see basic mistakes exposed, for the benefit of onlookers.

Agreed; fair enough.

Indeed. Like riding the subway when someone decides to take a piss at one end of the car, like what happened tonight on my commute home.

I'm sorry, did you really just say "On the contrary" before restating what I said?

You claimed belief involved ignoring evidence. I corrected you by saying that belief involved a lack of sufficient evidence or proof, and your next comment is claiming my own sentiment (which was in opposition to yours) as your own?

And I see you're going to make me ask a third time: (I'll narrow it down even more to just one simple question) do you believe you are speaking to a human right now? — JustSomeGuy

1. Your prior response was invalid, as it attempted to confluence scientific proof, and proof.

2. In my stating the synonyms: proof, evidence, I simply re-iterated my original discussion as underlined in the OP wrt to the supposedly new 'proof' term you introduced (it wasn't new, because the proof that is referred to is synonymous with the word evidence).

• Pertinently, my stating the synonyms: proof, evidence demonstrates that you were falsely attempting to confluence the synonyms: proof, evidence (which the OP referred to) with scientific proof (which was not what the OP was referring to).

3. One need not belief to observe probabilities. It's probable that some Ai, or some human is creating messages, through your account. That probability does not warrant or require belief.

Damn. I was on those subways once (visited NYC last summer). I was lucky. I mostly remember heartrendingly beautiful NYC girls. I should say women. But 20-somethings look like girls to an old dog.

NYC seems to attract beautiful females like flies, yes.

I think you are confusing the idea of practical belief with religious faith in scenarios pertaining to prediction and control. You've jumped the shark from a practically reasonable statement, to what a community would interpret to be a conceptual error.

In statistical decision theory, belief is the assignment of probabilities to possible outcomes, and in every instance it is impossible to assign definite probabilities without a priori assumptions. Science consists of the collection and evaluation of evidence in response to the beliefs states of the science community, which vary extensively for reasons pertaining to scientists having different knowledge, unconscious biases and so forth.

As a programmer, have you ever studied data-science? Tell me how I should decide upon what is 'the definitive' algorithm for winning a Kaggle competition, and how do i decide what it is, in such a way as to avoid any assumptions and hence belief?