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


  1. Crucially, non-beliefism does not underline that we have to access all the evidence possible, to avoid belief.

    1. Both non-beliefism and belief are ways of modelling the world.
    2. However, non-beliefism does not generally permit evidence ignorance, but evidence prioritization instead, while belief generally permits ignorance of evidence (See cognitive research for how belief occurs in society, relative to standard definition).

  2. Easily, we can see that there is a successful model that enables humans to prioritize evidence, without looking at all possible evidence. (Science is that model, Science is something that permits this everyday; Scientific hypothesis and Scientific theory both concern evidence prioritization contrary to the concept of belief.)

    1. So, non-beliefism is simply a way to underline what is already possible, scientific thinking. (By clearly identifying a popular and not typically scrutinized paradigm, i.e. belief, and showing why belief contrasts scientific thinking)
    2. As we can't observe all evidence at once, both non-beliefism and belief permit that mistakes may be made while considering evidence; with the large difference that non-beliefism promotes that mistakes are repaired because of evidence prioritization, while belief generally facilitates that mistakes proceed unadjusted, especially when belief tends to facilitate that people twist evidence to suit their old beliefs (i.e. ignorance/distortion of evidence), thus promoting that old mistakes go on unrepaired.

  3. Considering that beliefs typically occur on non-evidence, but may also occur on evidence, why would you discard your beliefs that occur on evidence?

    1. The answer is simple; those that fall on evidence are redundant/not required, because as Neil deGrasse Tyson correctly identifies, scientific-evidence persists, regardless of anybody's belief!
      • In fact, for example, equations don't suddenly work in practice because scientists choose to believe in them; if that were the case, whether or not equations actually followed evidence, scientists could simply supply belief towards whatever notation they came up with, without the need to concern evidence!
        • Instead, regardless of how much belief or passion we may want to pour into our work, being keen on evidence is thus far the best method mankind has engineered, and evidence prioritization is what has demonstrably enabled us to make progress, and what shall reasonably enable continued progress!
    2. Conclusively, non-beliefism, emphasizes that one may rank his/her presentations as incomplete or temporary expressions (susceptible to future analysis/correction), where one shall aim to hold those expressions especially given evidence, rather than believe, i.e. typically accept them as true especially absent evidence.

      • Both incomplete expressions (via non-beliefism) and beliefs are updatable, however belief generally facilitates that mistakes go on unrepaired, by general evidence ignorance, while non-beliefism emphasizes that the individual prioritizes evidence (Rather than especially ignore as seen generally in belief.)
      • Thus, the very concept of belief is observably generally science opposing, and by extension, altogether irrelevant!


Here's an easy way to picture non-beliefism, in a single bolded sentence:

    Unlike belief where one accepts stuff, non-beliefism encourages that one pictures each bit of data as a sequence of low paying albeit important jobs; one doesn't accept each job, although as one works towards one's goal, one works with each low paying job, although one doesn't accept anyone of them.

One "simply" ranks each data sequence with probabilities wrt scientific evidence, without needing to accept each probability.

One works with probabilities, with the willingness to acknowledge that such probabilities may change with further evidence analysis.

Science is all about working with data while withholding acceptance of results as final. We are at least aware that Science, while being mankind's best tool, is an incomplete description of the cosmos, and a search for truth!

    See Wikipedia/Science and Certainty


  1. Michael H. Connors, Peter W. Halligan, "A cognitive account of belief", 2015
  2. Tzofit Ofengenden, “Memory formation and belief”, 2014.
  3. Jordan M. Bennett, "Non-beliefism", 2016


non-beliefism.appspot.com/part iii