Please refer yourself to someone who cares. I'm done.

Sapientia is exhibiting signs of what belief generally promotes; Sapientia is adhering to old mistakes while ignoring contrasting/valid data.

One day Sapientia may come to find that scientific evidence doesn't depend on whether he or she chooses to believe in said evidence.

...and belief by definition opposes scientific thinking, which generally promotes that evidence is considered. — uncool

Do you see that this is the whole problem, right here? I don't strictly adhere to that definition. I find a broader meaning more conducive. It's as simple as that.

Do you see that this is the whole problem, right here? I don't strictly adhere to that definition. I find a broader meaning more conducive. It's as simple as that. — Sapientia

The broadest meaning of belief, permits both consideration of evidence, but also, general ignorance of evidence. (And belief is not a contronym, so the general ignorance of evidence definition coincides with the alternate definitions; which may occur on evidence, however barely)

It looks like you finally caught on.

What I've been underlining, is: That belief may occur on evidence, does not remove that belief generally permits that evidence is ignored.

Not only are definitions in line with the above, but also, experimental data shows that belief mostly permits ignorance of evidence.

The broadest meaning of belief, permits both consideration of evidence, but also, general ignorance of evidence.

It looks like you finally caught on. — uncool

That has been my position from the start, so that last little dig says more about you than me.

That has been my position from the start, so that last little dig says more about you than me. — Sapientia

People have been arguing that they don't contact the portion of belief that doesn't deal with evidence.

However, people fail to see that belief doesn't generally exist as that small portion they chose to follow, the broad concept includes generally ignoring evidence.

So although you may generally chose to believe based on evidence, belief is a concept that promotes consideration beyond merely evidenced based sequences, that is, it also includes largely non-evidenced sequences.

This means: That you may believe in science, does not remove that belief typically promotes that evidence is ignored; i.e. that you personally believe in science, does not change that most people believe in non-evidence.

Sapientia is exhibiting signs of what belief generally promotes; Sapientia is adhering to old mistakes while ignoring contrasting/valid data.

One day Sapientia may come to find that scientific evidence doesn't depend on whether he or she choses to believe in said evidence. — uncool

Wow. You're quick to make assumptions about me. But I'm not going to waste my time correcting them, so I'll leave you to it. Have fun.

Wow. You're quick to make assumptions about me. But I'm not going to waste my time correcting them, so I'll leave you to it. Have fun. — Sapientia

You're going to have to repair your own mistakes.

For starters, I don't "choose" to believe. That in itself is controversial and open to debate. Belief isn't a matter of choice, in my view.

Anyway, see ya. You're not cool enough for the likes of me.

Belief isn't a matter of choice, in my view. — Sapientia

Data shows that the only pre-requirement for scientific progress, is that people follow evidence.

This means that regardless of belief, evidence must be constantly considered.

And, finally, if you ignore non-evidenced beliefs, you can ignore evidenced beliefs also, because scientific evidence persists regardless of beliefs, i.e. evidence based beliefs are redundant. This way one can abandon beliefs altogether.

Cheers.

Anyway, see ya. You're not cool enough for the likes of me. — Sapientia

That's why my username is what it is; I predicted that what I underline, may be contrary to popular expression; i.e. contrary to what is generally "cool".

Man, this thread is hilarious and sad. I just gave up earlier in the page wen some guy basically just substituted "being keen on evidence" for "beliefs" , as if he weren't simply using a different word to mean the same damn thing. This phobia of the word "belief" is annoyingly common among who I assume are atheists.

Man, this thread is hilarious and sad. I just gave up earlier in the page wen some guy basically just substituted "being keen on evidence" for "beliefs" , as if he weren't simply using a different word to mean the same damn thing. This phobia of the word "belief" is annoyingly common among who I assume are atheists. — MindForged

It looks like you think scientific evidence depends on belief.

If that were the case the earth could viably be flat, seeing that there are people that believe that the earth is supposedly flat.

Whether or not you'd care to admit, this matter is not about "phobias", but instead evidence clearly shows that belief generally permits that people ignore evidence, and being keen on evidence or generally considering evidence is not the same thing as, and is rather opposite to generally ignoring evidence.

The quotes are intended to show that the properties of 'god' and 'gods' have changed over time, not with intellectual progress, but with culture. Meaning that people do not 'rationally' arrive at 'god', they just copy what everyone else is doing and saying. — Pseudonym

It's true that people are born into cultures and sets of ideas, etc,. but that doesn't mean they don't think rationally about the beliefs they've been given.

I think your position is uncharitable and you think too little of people - even if someone isn't particularly smart, that doesn't mean they haven't thought about things to whatever degree they're capable. To take a non-religious example, in my experience many philosophically untutored people I've spoken to about politics have come up with something like a social contract theory by themselves, they may not be able to articulate it crisply, but they have the general idea.