There exists not any reason, why one shall select a model that is observed to likely contain failing|haphazard predictions, (i.e. belief ...) instead of one that is observed to likely contain empirical, testable sequences (i.e. science).

Non-beliefism /initial-premise

We physically/mentally shan't believe (whence we shan't accept anything as absolute), as there is uncertainty in any event; that is, we are not omniscient of any event.

Rather than believe/accept as absolute, we may regard events as probable. (ie: Science accounts not for absoluteness; Science prescribes not, whether absoluteness may persist.)

Albeit, clinging to the concept of belief (supposed acceptance of absoluteness) may generate unnecessary errors. (source)

Note:

International belief definition was utilized: (source)

Non-beliefism /subsequent, distinct-premise

Belief may constitute non-science.

Science in contrast, shan’t encode non-science.

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

Thereafter, it is non-scientific to believe.

/ NOTE I

Simply, it is non-scientific to believe, as the concept of belief allows non-science, whilst science allows not non-science.

Thereafter, if one compares the probability of science containing non-science, to the probability of an existence that yields merely beliefs on the grounds of science (i.e. beliefs that refer to science), one may trivially observe that belief is but non-scientific.

Therein, one need not contact a paradigm, observed to likely express non-science (i.e. belief), whence science persists.

Thusly, belief is non-scientific abound the feignedly absolute and non-absolute description paradigm. (i.e. that of the varying degrees of belief are profoundly error prone|redundant. (source))

/ NOTE II

It is of note, that one shall perhaps be wary of logic; for logic is illogical.

source: https://medium.com/@uni.omniscient.x/logic-is-illogical-c2738616e42#.f68hr7r20

/ NOTE III

One shall be circumspect of that of the use of phrases/words that feign absoluteness/completeness; for such perhaps requires omniscience.

Herein, nonbeliefism resolves such that the aforesaid sequences are purged.

/ NOTE IV

Regardless of the instance, that I had cognized of the paradigm, as described via non-beliefism, prior beings had engendered similar description:

Robert A. Wilson (1932-2007?): "Don't believe anything. Regard things on a scale of probabilities. The things that seem most absurd, put under 'Low Probability', and the things that seem most plausible, you put under 'High Probability'. Never believe anything. Once you believe anything, you stop thinking about it."

Neil deGrasse Tyson (2013): "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it" (source)

Jim Walker (1997-2015?): "History reveals that the consequences of beliefs have created mental barriers to understanding and has caused ignorance, misery, violence and war. Do humans need beliefs at all?" (source)

facebook.com/nonbeliefism