Logic and science itself doesn't contain belief but logical and scientific people can believe in things based on logical and scientific evidence.

(January 11, 2017 at 1:54 pm)ProgrammingGodJordan Wrote: @Asmodee

Asmodee Wrote:What I was saying is quite simple.  I CAN regard any event as true, total or absolute.  I just might not be right.

The point is, humans shan't regard any event as true/absolute.
As far as science goes, we may only regard events as probable.
One may perhaps regard events as true, if one maintains omniscience. [Otherwise, one shall probably argue from omniscience]

PS: Perhaps you shall avoid usage of words such as 'quite' that construe absoluteness.

First, if you mean humans as a whole, you are correct.  You can't get the entire human race to even agree that the Earth is spherical.  There will always be stupid people.  But individual people can and do regard various events as true or absolute.  It happens here every day when some theist makes some claim of the absolute.

Second, yes, scientific method does not allow for absolutes, only probabilities.

Third, here you are definitely talking about an individual and you are definitely wrong.  One does not have the need to follow any rules or "be" any particular thing to regard an event as true.  Many maintain the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus to be true.  None of them have or claim omniscience.  Your point is soundly disproved.

Finally, the word "quite" does not "construe absoluteness" in that sentence, and it was properly used.  The word "quite" is not one generally associated with absoluteness, but rather with degree.  "Quite simple", for instance, would be more simple than "fairly simple".  In fact, removing the word "quite" removes the statement of degree, which actually moves further toward absoluteness.  "What I was saying is simple" is an absolute with no degree implied.  It is a statement intended to be regarded as "true".  It IS simple.  By adding the word "quite" I added a degree of simplicity, actually making it less absolute.  I can argue pointless semantics all day long, man.

I recently discovered an error in non-beliefism premise ii.

The premise has now been repaired.

This error was that I solely expressed that beliefs were illogical.

However, beliefs may be both logical and illogical.

(Based on this thesaurus data: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/logic)
Logic can be a philosophy, and a philosophy can be a belief.
Premise-2 is now updated, such that the above error is purged.
.
.
.

Previous Premise ii.




Updated Premise ii:



If you guys spot any other errors, let me know.

It's going to be impossible to discuss errors without bringing up parentage.

(January 12, 2017 at 6:52 pm)Stimbo Wrote: It's going to be impossible to discuss errors without bringing up parentage.

Detected errors have been resolved.
Separately, I had a Christian upbringing, although such is perhaps irrelevant.

I also maintain that you had non answers prior, as you had mentioned that you "didn't care" to see prior responses at some point, 
and so your answers were non-answers, that is, they didn't reflect prior data.

Because the "prior data" wasn't mine and you didn't bother to ask if it reflected my opinion. You simply assumed.

Why not pretend that I came into the conversation cold, with no knowledge of what had come before? Or better yet, go and fuck yourself and the cult you rode in on for your condescending dishonesty.

@Alasdair Ham

(January 12, 2017 at 9:12 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Logic and science itself doesn't contain belief but logical and scientific people can believe in things based on logical and scientific evidence.

Logic is illogical. 
(ie logic may contain non-logic/non-science)


Why?
(1) belief is a synonym for logic. http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/logic?s=t
(2) belief may contain non-science/nonsense, whence belief may be both logical and illogical.


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

@Stimbo

---

(January 12, 2017 at 9:44 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Because the "prior data" wasn't mine and you didn't bother to ask if it reflected my opinion. You simply assumed.

Why not pretend that I came into the conversation cold, with no knowledge of what had come before? Or better yet, go and fuck yourself and the cult you rode in on for your condescending dishonesty.

What dishonesty?

Add object permanence to the list.

(January 12, 2017 at 11:29 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Add object permanence to the list.

Could you elabourate?

The only question left is Poe or no.

If no, this is one of the strangest individuals I've ever come across. He has managed to convince himself that a word should mean what he thinks it should mean, even though I've never met anyone else ever who uses that definition. Not one person. So as far as I'm concerned, he's talking to an audience of himself. He could easily test this by going and asking 100 people whether they consider belief to be concerned with certainty or confidence. I would wager almost all, if not all, would say confidence. Or he could just look online at the usage of the word, by people in varying academic positions. I'd bet he'd struggle to find a handful of people who use his definition.

Words such as "belief" are not precisely well-defined, so you can fiddle with language to alter the meaning in several directions. That is fine, as long as everyone in a particular discussion agrees on what the word means. But when one person insists they are making a point by using a definition that hasn't been agreed, it's just a simple equivocation fallacy. All this should be very clear to someone who appears to value logic so highly. We have another word which fits his definition much better: know. Again, it's a word with some leeway, but it's clearly more appropriate for this rambling of his.

What's up with this guy? His huge inflexibility and weird posting style makes me think (assuming he's not a Poe) this is some extreme case of OCD. He can think only in black and white terms. You have certainty, or you have nothing. Things don't work that way. We don't have certainty, no. But we don't need it to function. So stating it over and over is redundant.