You are unreal. It's not that believe on "non-evidence" it's that only a fool immediately changes everything they believe at the first inkling of doubt. It was reasonable to be skeptical about new developments in physics overturning centuries of beliefs about the world that Newtonian physics gave us. It was precisely new evidence and new models which motivated *believing* that the newer theories were correct (or at least covered more cases correctly) that the old models. — MindForged
So you continue to ignore evidence.
The evidence simply states that belief does not largely facilitate that evidence is considered.
How in Bill Gates' name does something that mostly permits evidence ignorance (i.e. belief) become compatible with something that generally facilitates that evidence is generally considered (i.e. Science)? — uncool
I don't know how many times I can literally just substitute your phrase "keen on evidence" to show its being used exactly the same as belief is until you get it. — MindForged
I will now be "keen on evidence". Oh what's that, you have some evidence which contradicts what evidence I am currently "keen on"? Well that can't be correct, I will ignore your evidence and only pay attention to the evidence which supports the evidence I am "keen on".. — MindForged
Yeah your statement above doesn't remove that unless evidence is prioritized, no amount of belief or passion delivers results. — uncool
Belief is not passion and if you cannot even understand the role of evidence in motivating believing or disbelieving some proposition, you are beyond my help. No one has said to prioritize blind belief and the fact that you think evidence is somehow immune to bias is stunning.
I'm done, I didn't think this thread could be as bad as I had assumed. — MindForged
Whether or not you admit it, Scientific thinking does not work that way. — uncool
Do you believe that or is it simply false? — MindForged
How am I ignoring evidence? Beliefs *don't* mostly permit ignorance, that's a vapid assertion — MindForged
No, that is another reason why you think the abolition of belief not supported by evidence is a good idea. — BlueBanana
Although I agree that the one and the other are not the same, the whole thing is still ridiculous. It's utterly ridiculous, at face value, to call for the abolition of belief. A — Sapientia
So you agree that belief is used as taken as true regardless of evidence.
Since belief IS USED that way, that is exactly why it needs to be abolished, since we have a better more precise lexicon for taken as true BECAUSE of the evidence — charleton
Personally I have rejected the use of 'belief' from my everyday speaking. If I think a thing is true then I either hold that as knowledge, or I just find myself to be more careful in the way I express such things as aspirations.
So, my personal abolition of belief has had nothing but positive effects on my thinking and communicating ideas. I take much less for granted and am more likely to examine what I think is the case.
Believing is lazy.
Sapere Aude baby.
Believe nothing. — charleton
Exactly.
The OP may look like a crackpot at first glance, or several glances, but when one actually slows down and looks at evidence, one may see that the OP is not saying anything outlandish, but straightforward instead. — uncool
The OP may look like a crackpot at first glance, or several glances, but when one actually slows down and looks at evidence, one may see that the OP is not saying anything outlandish, but straightforward instead. — uncool
Perhaps there is the probability that atheists will find abolishing beliefs easier to grasp, while theists will find it harder to do so. — uncool
Indeed.
I not sure what the OP's critics think they are achieving here. So, commonly on such forums people seem only to keen to nit pick and attack for the sake of it without thinking it through. — charleton
.... I've clocked up about eight years and over ten thousand posts.... I've been in your position before, and I now think that I was naive. — Sapientia
You want me to rigidly adhere to this one particular meaning of "belief" — Sapientia
Is that all???
Urummph!!
I've been doing this for at least 18 years. I passed ten thousand posts years ago. I was probably studying philosophy when you were in nappies. — charleton
See the comments I already made above. — charleton
On the contrary, if anyone is coming across as picky, I'd say that it's you. You want me to rigidly adhere to this one particular meaning of "belief" and even go so far as to refrain from any further use of the word? — Sapientia
Childish??? LOL
When you stop using pathetic strawmen I might be more inclined to repeat myself. Until then I'll just leave it up to you to pay attention and address the points I actually made and not the ones you want me to have made. — charleton
Together with the old forum, I've clocked up about eight years and over ten thousand posts. I've been in your position before, but I now think that I was naive. — Sapientia
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.