★★ We are all atheists/atheistic to ALL Gods (says simple science)

[Faith No More]

That is quaint.

Do you find any errors in the facing sequence?

Non-beliefism/basis[ii]:

Belief may constitute non-science.

Logic/science in contrast, shan’t encode non-science.

…ie scientific evidence shan’t contain non-scientific-evidence.

Thereafter, it is illogical to believe.

I find many errors, yes, not the least of which is the fact that your conclusion is a complete non-sequitur.

But the empirical evidence demonstrates that pointing out your errors and discussing this with you will be an extremely futile use of my energy, so enjoy your idiocy.  I'm not going down this rabbit hole with you.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

@Asmodee

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.


.
.
.
.

@Ben Davis

Cherry-pick much?

You're entire premise is dependent on the attribute 'truth' being defined in it's most narrow context. You ignore the attribute 'acceptance' and the broader definitions of 'true' which are more appropriate in the context of belief. As has been stated many times, your requirement for certainty/absolutism is not necessary for a definition of belief and is about as far from a valid rebuttal of the existence of belief as you can get. You've conducted a poor analysis by failing to include all attributes of the entity and you have failed to recognise how to improve it in spite of advice from peer review.

As an aside, I assume you regularly describe/ascribe entities and attributes in your role as programming god. You should apply the same rigour to your philosophical considerations.

As I mentioned before:
(1) We shan't believe/ie we shan't regard any event as true.
(2) Belief is illogical, whether the definition construes truth, or not.

From website: "Thusly, belief is illogical abound the absolute and non-absolute description paradigm[/color]"

So, non-beliefism had long encoded that belief need not be described to contain truth/certainty; whence belief is illogical regardless.

.
.
.
.


@Faith No More 

I find many errors, yes, not the least of which is the fact that your conclusion is a complete non-sequitur.

But the empirical evidence demonstrates that pointing out your errors and discussing this with you will be an extremely futile use of my energy, so enjoy your idiocy.  I'm not going down this rabbit hole with you.

Let us break it down:

(1) Belief has the probability of containing non-science/nonsense. 
(ie belief MAY contain non-science)


(2) Logic/science does not have the probability of containing non-science.
(ie logic/science MAY NOT contain non-science)

(3) ie.... scientific-evidence does not have the probability of containing non-scientific-evidence.
(ie scientific evidence MAY NOT contain non-scientific evidence)

(4) So belief is illogical.
(ie belief MAY contain non-science, where as logic/science can't contain non-science, so belief is clearly illogical)

[Cyberman]

Humans are an illogical species. To expect logical behaviour from an illogical species is itself illogical.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Humans are an illogical species. To expect logical behaviour from an illogical species is itself illogical.

Nonsense; for, as is long mentioned, it is possible for one to detach oneself from the concept of belief.
That is, one need not attempt to regard any event as true (we can't, as far as science goes anyway); one need not compose expressions on non-scientific evidence.

[Cyberman]

Individuals can be logical. The species as a whole tends not to be so.

Are you done being arrogant yet?

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Individuals can be logical. The species as a whole tends not to be so.

Are you done being arrogant yet?

Here is a prior response of mine:

As I mentioned before:

(1) We shan't believe/ie we shan't regard any event as true.
(2) Belief is illogical, whether the definition construes truth, or not.

From website: "Thusly, belief is illogical abound the absolute and non-absolute description paradigm"

Thereafter, non-beliefism had long encoded that belief need not be described to contain truth/certainty; whence belief is illogical regardless.

[Cyberman]

I don't care about your prior responses to other people. You're talking to me now. Are you capable of holding a polite conversation without resorting to cookie-cutter deepity non-answers?

[Jesster]

PGJ, do you work in used car advertising? I feel like I've seen your work before.

[Cyberman]

If he did, it can't have been for long. The idea of advertising is actually to sell the product.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

If he did, it can't have been for long. The idea of advertising is actually to sell the product.

Oh, and what errors do you suspect in my advertisement strategy?
How shall I purge such suspected errors?


.
.
.

---

I don't care about your prior responses to other people. You're talking to me now. Are you capable of holding a polite conversation without resorting to cookie-cutter deepity non-answers?

Ironically, I tend to analyse prior responses, such that I may respond politely absent deepities /non-answers.