WHAT IS THE NON BELIEFISM PARADIGM?

Beyond atheism, non-beliefism enables a state of mind that rejects not merely religious belief, but the very concept of belief.







WHY REJECT THE VERY CONCEPT OF BELIEF?

As non-beliefism underlines science's great importance, non-beliefism rejects anything that disregards science.

Belief is one of many unavoidable candidates/concepts for that which opposes science, for belief by definition/research (See research/standard definition), permits large ignorance of evidence.

That one may believe in science, does not suddenly remove that belief overall, facilitates that beings largely ignore evidence; where scientists may believe in non-nonsense, most others believe such that evidence is ignored (as you will see on the research page), and even still, for some cases, scientists (such as Witten on the scientific topic of consciousness, or Newton on the topic of absolute time) are subject to particularly that flavour of belief when evidence is especially ignored.







BREAK THE LIMITERS THAT BELIEF MAY LIKELY INSTALL UPON YOUR MIND

As the evidence above (See research/standard definition) shows, belief is not for the scientifically thinking human mind, of billions and billions of neurons.

After discarding the concept of belief, one shall probably remove limitations on intellect.







SUMMARY

  • Belief is a model, that permits both science, and non-science.

  • However, crucially, belief typically facilitates that people especially ignore evidence.

  • A model that generally permits the large ignorance of evidence contrasts science.

  • Instead, we may employ scientific thinking, that largely prioritizes evidence, rather than a model (i.e. belief) that facilitates largely, the ignorance of evidence.

It is pertinent that you don’t forget to ask yourself: “Am I attempting to confirm some prior *feeling* on bias, especially without evidence? Am I distorting scientific data merely for my personal comfort, or am I objectively adjusting to scientific data?”

Recall: One need not be genius nor omniscient to do scientific thinking, as belief typically enables large evidence ignorance, in contrast to scientific theory or scientific hypotheses, for which genius is not required, and crucially, for which evidence is defined to be prioritized. (See scientific testability)

Conclusively, one may rank his/her presentations as incomplete expressions (susceptible to future analysis/correction), where one shall aim to hold those expressions to be likely true, especially given evidence, rather than believe, i.e. typically accept them as merely true especially absent evidence.

The conclusion above, underlines that although one may err while considering evidence; if one ranks his/her expressions as incomplete, and probably susceptible to future analysis/correction (i.e. likely true instead of merely true), one may be better prepared/equipped to update prior expressions, in light of new evidence/continued evidence analysis.

GOING BEYOND DISCARDING THE CONCEPT OF BELIEF?

non-beliefism.appspot.com/part iii

facebook.com/nonbeliefism