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

Yeah your statement above doesn't remove that unless evidence is prioritized, no amount of belief or passion delivers results.

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

How am I ignoring evidence? Beliefs *don't* mostly permit ignorance, that's a vapid assertion. The whole point of evidence is that it motivates *believing* some proposition to be true or false. Evidence is *for* something, it is not an end in itself. If you can't understand that then this is a waste of time.

The obvious response is to ask "Do you believe what you're asserting?" If your answer is "no", then you're simply saying that what you're asserting is false and we can all get on with our day.

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

You tried to propose the following quote, to supposedly attempt to equate non-belief/keeness on evidence, with belief:

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

And that was shown to contrast what I had initially mentioned, for we ought to seek data whether or not that data contrasts old mistakes.

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.

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

Nowhere did I state that belief was passion. (What I said was regardless of any amount of passion or belief, unless evidence is prioritized, no progress is made)

Yeah, and you constantly ignore evidence that belief generally facilitates that people ignore evidence.

Whether or not you admit it, Scientific thinking does not work that way.

Whether or not you admit it, Scientific thinking does not work that way. — uncool

Do you believe that or is it simply false? Seriously, read the research linked. It's about bad belief formation, not that the concept of belief is somehow flawed.

Do you believe that or is it simply false? — MindForged

Evidence (regardless of anybody's opinion or feelings) shows that science generally facilitates that evidence is considered.

How am I ignoring evidence? Beliefs *don't* mostly permit ignorance, that's a vapid assertion — MindForged

Refer to the sources, and see that belief generally permits ignorance of evidence.

Disclaimer: I haven't read this entire discussion, and I have no intention of doing so, but I made a comment about it elsewhere that received a reply, and as a result I have decided to address that reply here.

I don't want to get drawn into a debate about it, and if you expect any further replies from me on this, then you might be disappointed. But, I'll give you a rundown of what I think in this here reply.

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. And, in light of the argument put forward, it is a little less ridiculous, and ridiculous for different reasons. Rather than being outright stupid, as it appears on the face of it, it instead carries the consequence of being a tacit indictment of over-intellectualisation and the folly entailed by it. But then, that is to be expected, as this is a philosophy forum after all, and a philosophy forum attracts bad philosophy like nectar attracts bees.

Thought and belief are not the same, and thinking about something is not the same as thinking that something (is the case). However, thinking that something (is the case), as it is commonly understood, has implications which makes the claim self-defeating by contradiction. This contradiction consists of an explicit denial of belief and an implicit affirmation of that same belief. That's how it is going to look, and that's how it is going to be interpreted, and the schmuck putting forward this silly position would have to expend undue effort into clarifying the semantics of it all, as I would hazard a guess has already happened over the many preceding pages of this discussion. (And don't bother quoting from a dictionary in an attempt to prove your point, because the words on the page of a dictionary won't trump my own collective experience of how the term is actually used and understood in common parlance, by real people, out there in the real world. In fact, I posit that the very reason that there is any controversy with regards to the claims under discussion in the first place is because of how the claims are typically understood, which is in turn based on how the terms in those claims are typically used and understood).

So, in light of the above analysis, my assessment is that adopting such a position would result in a lose-lose situation: a situation which could - and should - be easily avoided by not adopting such a silly position in the first place, and instead conforming with ordinary language use and the status quo commonsense thinking on the topic. My advice would be not to mistake (A) a failure to realise why the situation is as it is, for (B) a profound and novel insight which, for some reason, the rest of us have simply been missing; and, also, don't labour to construct a semantics when a use of language more closely in accordance with the ordinary understanding of the relevant terminology involved will suffice, and will be more likely to avoid failure in communication.

(Anyway, based on even a cursary glance of his profile, the original poster seems to be a troll or a crackpot, and has rightly been banned. As to which it is, I'm leaning towards the former, in which case: well-played).

Since you are talking bollocks we'll just have to leave it there.

No, that is another reason why you think the abolition of belief not supported by evidence is a good idea. — BlueBanana

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.



Since you are talking bollocks we'll just have to leave it there.

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

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.

Personally I have rejected the use of 'belief' from my everyday speaking. — charleton

>:O

I do not regard typing to idiots like you as "everyday speaking" obviously.

Okay, Mr. Flamey. I am sorry if my laughter has provoked such a reaction from you, but that is my genuine reaction to anyone going to such lengths. I think that that kind of thing exemplifies where philosophical thinking goes awry. (That's what I think, and, by implication, what I believe, as should go without saying).

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

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.

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

Perhaps there is the probability that atheists will find abolishing beliefs easier to grasp, while theists will find it harder to do so.

Some on these forums have argued for religious data as "evidence", so it may be extremely difficult for those people to grasp. The result is that what is straightforward for atheists to grasp, may seem like crack-pottery to the theist, especially when they are invested in belief systems that are tough to abandon.

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

No, it is outlandish, because that it is used in one particular way does not mean that it isn't or can't be used in other more acceptable ways. It's not worth going out of your way to consciously alter your vocabulary all because of a trivial semantic point based on a single definition strictly adhered to as if that were all that mattered.

Try it before you knock it.
What's the point of all this philosophy if you don't put any of it into action.

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

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.

Perhaps there is the probability that atheists will find abolishing beliefs easier to grasp, while theists will find it harder to do so. — uncool

On the face of it I have found this to be true in many instances. "Belief" and "Faith" are like sacred words which atheists tamper with at their peril.
"Faith", like belief, is also ubiquitous and vague, and theists like to accuse non-theists of having faith when it is more like ordinary "trust" - the sort of thing you tend to have with a doctor, who deserves it.

I'm speaking from a position of experience and consideration of such matters. 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.

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

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? I'll pass, as I believe that that's asking too much, impractical, unnecessary, and lacking good reason. I think that in the right contexts, the two terms can practically be used interchangeably, and any charitable reader would simply accept that without fuss and not quibble over semantics.

.... 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

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.

You want me to rigidly adhere to this one particular meaning of "belief" — Sapientia

It's shame you have not yet learned to pay more attention in all those posts you have been writing.
See the comments I already made above.

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

It wasn't meant as a boast. You're the one that raised the issue. I was responding to it and providing some context. Been there, done that, this is my considered position, and I stand by it.

See the comments I already made above. — charleton

Seen 'em. Can you be a little more specific and a little less childish?

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.

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

It's not rocket science. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Belief allows us to mostly ignore evidence, (so it promotes that we only barely consider evidence sometimes, while promoting that we mostly ignore evidence)

On the contrary, scientific thinking promotes that we mostly consider evidence.

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

Your objection is invalid because you quoted me out of context. So where is the alleged straw man you refer to? You left out the question mark. That's why I put it there: I was seeking confirmation on whether that was what you were suggesting, as you seemed to be.

Again, you need to be more specific. I'm not even sure what you're referring to.

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

I had been debating for slightly longer than that, although that didn't matter when new evidence arose. (i.e. sometimes evidence or new data doesn't care about how long or how we do things before)

You ought to know that I had been a theist, and then I had been an atheist subsequently for several years while not really paying attention to the concept of belief before finally scrutinizing the concept of belief.

And note that I don't underline that all belief concerns non-evidence, but instead that the concept of belief generally permits evidence ignorance. ("Generally permits evidence ignorance", does not mean "merely permit evidence ignorance".) Regardless, we can avoid belief, by generally considering evidence, and belief by definition opposes scientific thinking, which generally promotes that evidence is considered.

Please refer to the remark I made above.