Which definition? The first one? That says especially, not necessarily. So if you are accepting something to be true off of science thinking, it still is a belief by that definition. — SonJnana

See the response above.

On the contrary, belief is defined such that people tend to generally ignore evidence, which contrasts nonbeliefism. — ProgrammingGodJordan

This is nonsensical; whether people tend to generally ignore evidence or not is not based on how belief is defined.

People have different ideas of what constitutes evidence. Can you provide evidence that people generally ignore evidence or is that a belief that ignores evidence? :s

Is this pointless thread really so amusing? :-O

As I mentioned before, belief is a model that mostly permits the ignorance evidence.

It's quite trivial to see that science does not work this way, science does not mostly permit the ignorannce of evidence. — ProgrammingGodJordan

As I've mentioned many times it doesn't necessarily mean it's based off of nonscientific thinking. Especially is not the same thing as necessarily. Those are two different words. Therefore if you are accepting a claim, it is still a belief by definition. So if you accept something based off of scientific thinking that is still by definition a belief.

People have different ideas of what constitutes evidence. Can you provide evidence that people generally ignore evidence or is that a belief that ignores evidence? :s — Janus

The thing is, even if he shows that people generally ignore evidence it doesn't matter. A belief is still a belief regardless of whether it is one based of scientific or nonscientific thinking.

I'm curious about the limits of psychoceramics.

Is what is happening here so very different from, for example, certain discussions with @Metaphysician Undercover?

(Edit: that came out wrong. I have respect for Meta because of his capacity to engage in discussion. That is entirely absent here. So is that the difference between a crackpot and a philosopher?)

This is nonsensical; whether people tend to generally ignore evidence or not is not based on how belief is defined.

People have different ideas of what constitutes evidence. Can you provide evidence that people generally ignore evidence or is that a belief that ignores evidence? — Janus

On the contrary:

• https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/belief
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25741291/

As I've mentioned many times it doesn't necessarily mean it's based off of nonscientific thinking. Especially is not the same thing as necessarily. Those are two different words. Therefore if you are accepting a claim, it is still a belief by definition. So if you accept something based off of scientific thinking that is still by definition a belief. — SonJnana

1. "Non-beliefism" does not underline that belief necessarily constitutes non evidence.
2. The OP had long underlined that belief may occur in both science and non science. (So it is silly for you to claim that I say that belief necessarily occurs on non evidence)
   
   • However, belief is a model that mostly permits ignorance of evidence, and we can avoid that model altogether, by generally not ignoring evidence.

The Oxford Dictionary lists three definitions. None mention evidence, the first says "especially without proof" which would seem to indicate a notion that the term belief is more applicable to opinions held where proof is lacking. Proof is not evidence; if you believe it is then you are ignoring evidence.

LOL, psychoceramics! MU can be somewhat stubborn in his refusal to see sense sometimes; but I think this little demigod has reached an altogether different level. >:O

The Oxford Dictionary lists three definitions. None mention evidence, the first says "especially without proof" which would seem to indicate a notion that the term belief is more applicable to opinions held where proof is lacking. Proof is not evidence; if you believe it is then you are ignoring evidence. — Janus

On the contrary:

I agree; but what exactly makes it so?

The thing is, even if he shows that people generally ignore evidence it doesn't matter. A belief is still a belief regardless of whether it is one based of scientific or nonscientific thinking. — SonJnana

And beliefs are avoidable altogether.

Again, the evidence before us indicates that ProgrammingGodJordan has a fanatical belief in "non beliefism".

The irony is that he cannot see this. — Banno

And beliefs are avoidable altogether. — ProgrammingGodJordan

So you believe... X-)

However, belief is a model that mostly permits ignorance of evidence, and we can avoid that model altogether, by generally not ignoring evidence. — ProgrammingGodJordan

I understand what you're saying. I'm just saying using the word nonbeliefism is misleading because the term makes it sound like you don't accept anything to be true. Yet you still are accepting claims (and still holding beliefs), it's just that the beliefs that are held are based off of scientific thinking. If you insist on calling it nonbeliefism that's fine, just be aware that most people will probably realize it's just a subset of beliefs that is based off of scientific thinking and won't use the term nonbeliefism.

So you believe...X-) — Banno

That you constrain your mind to belief, does not necessitate that everybody else constrains their minds to belief.

In some special cases evidence may constitute proof; but it certainly does not follow that all evidence is proof.

So you can say that such-and-such is true, and yet that you do not believe it.

Indeed, I am not capable of such a feat.

Do you mean to ask why he persists? If so, I can only speculate... is it ego, desire for attention, self-delusion, stupidity? Hard to say, and I suspect your guess is as good as mine.

Ah, I think it clear he thrives on the attention. Who doesn't?

That's the food of trolls. My question is more about the difference between the crackpot and the serious eccentric.

I understand what you're saying. I'm just saying using the word nonbeliefism is misleading because the term makes it sound like you don't accept anything to be true. Yet you still are accepting claims (and still holding beliefs), it's just that the beliefs that are held are based off of scientific thinking. If you insist on calling it nonbeliefism that's fine, just be aware that most people will probably realize it's just a subset of beliefs that is based off of scientific thinking and won't use the term nonbeliefism. — SonJnana

• That some beliefs may occur in science, does not suddenly remove the reality that belief mostly permits ignorance of evidence.
• Non-beliefism underlines, that "one may rank his/her presentations as incomplete expressions (susceptible to future analysis/correction), where one shall aim to hold those expressions to be likely true, especially given evidence, rather than believe, i.e. typically accept them as merely true especially absent evidence".
  

That's why I'm saying...just stop responding...

That some beliefs may occur in science — ProgrammingGodJordan

Woah buddy!

True, that seems probably the most likely explanation! But do we have proof, or even evidence for that belief?

That's why I'm saying...just stop responding.. — Noble Dust

Woah buddy! — Noble Dust

Ahh, resolutions...

just stop responding... — Noble Dust

...if you want the discussion to stop.

How to tell one from the other...

• Crackpot bad.
• Eccentric good.

Non-beliefism underlines, that "one may rank his/her presentations as incomplete expressions (susceptible to future analysis/correction), where one shall aim to hold those expressions to be likely true, especially given evidence, rather than believe, i.e. typically accept them as merely true especially absent evidence". — ProgrammingGodJordan

But all that means is that now you are saying that instead of accepting claims, we should only look at things as if more likely or less likely to be true. But if you are gonna say that x is more likely, you are accepting the claim that x is more likely and therefore by definition still holding beliefs. There is no way to get around it unless you don't accept any claims. And that's actually impractical.

In some special cases evidence may constitute proof; but it certainly does not follow that all evidence is proof. — Janus

1. I don't detect the relevance of your comment above.
2. Your response doesn't remove the reality that belief generally permits ignorance of evidence; and the definition is not constrained to belief that is generally absent mathematical proof, but instead the definition generally permits that proof or evidence is ignored.