Well, that was fun.

Just for an example, I would quite happily say that there is a chair in front of me.

I would also say that I believe there is a chair in front of me.

I might even be so bold as to say that I am certain that there is a chair in front of me.

Intelectual courage, or just plain recklessness?

Woah buddy!

Just for an example, I would quite happily say that there is a chair in front of me.

I would also say that I believe there is a chair in front of me.

I might even be so bold as to say that I am certain that there is a chair in front of me.

Intelectual courage, or just plain recklessness? — Banno

I don't detect the significance of your comment above, wrt the OP.

You're a bot.

Hold my beer...

*holds beer*

I'm holding only my popcorn.

reckless. chill lol

Anyway until he answers my question and clarifies his position, we can’t become nonbeliefists since we don’t fully understand it.

I'm a non-beliefist, but only in regards to non-beliefism.

The OP has a false definition of belief, because he refuses to accept that the words evidence and proof are not interchangeable. Instead, all while questioning the relevance of absolutely anything and flooding the forums with dictionaries, they constantly deny the dictionary definition of the word synonym, leading to an unrelevat discussion of its meaning.

It didn't hurt me none. Give it a try.

Answer the question:

If you see a chair in front of you and I asked you "Is there a chair in front of you?" what would you say? — SonJnana

Also answer the question: do you accept the difference between the terms proof and evidence?

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". — ProgrammingGodJordan

I have only just been prompted to this thread and as I attempted to read it in order to ascertain what the concern may be, unfortunately I stumbled upon this and I am afraid that this is complete nonsense. Is that link to a page you have created?

There is an opportunity to correctly discuss fallibilism or even when beliefs can qualify as knowledge, but you need to exhibit a degree of coherency in your position. Plato famously remarked "justified true belief" so perhaps you can focal an argument toward the Gettier problem. Otherwise, the last several pages of nonsense only qualifies the thread' closure.

Otherwise, the last several pages of nonsense only qualifies the thread' closure. — TimeLine

An expression of disagreement in such a state of considering the aforementioned to be blasphemy that no verbs are to be inserted in this sentence.

I don't detect the significance of your comment above, wrt the OP.

I don't detect any novel information in your response.

Just give my beer back.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/disagreement

The OP has a false definition of belief, because he refuses to accept that the words evidence and proof are not interchangeable. Instead, all while questioning the relevance of absolutely anything and flooding the forums with dictionaries, they constantly deny the dictionary definition of the word synonym, leading to an unrelevat discussion of its meaning. — BlueBanana

Whether or not you agree, and regardless of your feelings, belief is both defined to be able to occur on evidence, or on non-evidence.

*burp* what?

Bastard.

Answer the question(s)

The OP won’t answer my question :(

I'll make a drugstore run (we call it a bodega run around these parts); I can't keep watching the entertainment otherwise.

I have only just been prompted to this thread and as I attempted to read it in order to ascertain what the concern may be, unfortunately I stumbled upon this and I am afraid that this is complete nonsense. Is that link to a page you have created?

There is an opportunity to correctly discuss fallibilism or even when beliefs can qualify as knowledge, but you need to exhibit a degree of coherency in your position. Plato famously remarked "justified true belief" so perhaps you can focal an argument toward the Gettier problem. Otherwise, the last several pages of nonsense only qualifies the thread' closure. — TimeLine

• Weak responses of your type above, have already been approached on prior pages.
  
• Anyway, a review is below.

1. Fallibism, like some other theses, does heavily scrutinize belief.
2. However, fallibism permits the concept of belief under particular constraints, contrary to non-beliefism.
3. Here are three degrees of fallibism:
   
   • a) No beliefs can be conclusively justified.
   • b) Knowledge does not require certainty.
   • c) Almost no basic (that is, non-inferred) beliefs are certain or conclusively justified.
4. From item (c) it is observable that fallibism permits the concept of belief, although under particular constraints, similar to scientism.

The very same dictionary definitions you've posted contradict the ones you're using.

Answer the question.

The very same dictionary definitions you've posted contradict the ones you're using. — BlueBanana

How supposedly so?