@ProgrammingGodJordan: You are still a believer, your fanatical belief in non-beliefism belying your claims otherwise.

Rather than complicating all of this, we can just encourage rational thinking and not believing things without good reason.

Belief is accepting a claim. When you say that belief generally permits ignorance of evidence, all you're saying is that people tend to accept claims while ignoring evidence. Rather than redefining the word belief, we can just be specific and say scientific beliefs or beliefs that are based on scientific thinking are the only types of beliefs people should have. Your term nonbelief is exactly the same thing. — SonJnana

Alternatively, the concept of belief could be discarded altogether, because it is a model that generally permits evidence ignorance.

• It's not "complicated" to see the above.

I think that's the idea. The guy's supposedly written some fancy A.I software and now he's answering all the questions as if he was a computer program. He's obviously getting his kicks out of imagining we're all slowly beginning to wonder if we're really talking to a human or not.

I suggest we don't humour him. — Pseudonym

I spoke in this manner long before I began to program...

I don't really understand. Are you against the word "belief" because of the baggage it carries? I don't see how your nonscientism is any different than individuals deciding to hold only beliefs based on science. It's essentially the same thing. What difference would there be if I were to be a non-beliefist vs. someone who only believes with only scientific thinking. — SonJnana

1. How does "non-scientism" relate to the OP?
2. That people may believe in science, does not remove that belief generally permits the ignorance of evidence. (As long mentioned in the OP.)
3. Here is a graphical description comparing belief and "non-beliefism":

Dictionary definitions (and research) had long been provided in the OP.
And contrary to your claim, apart from the sources provided in the OP, definitions (and research) were underlined several times throughout the duration of this debate.
Advice: You need to actually observe the OP and the 14 pages you claimed to have read, before "confidently" posting invalid responses. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Belief (by definition and research) is a model, that permits both science, and non-science. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Knowledge is a model too. When we find that our knowledge was wrong, did we really possess knowledge or was it only a belief?

Many psychologists view belief as an unscientific term that deserves to be phased out. Contradictory and ambiguous definitions may be to blame for this attitude. However, knowledge is even less well defined. For example, a skeptic would claim that we can never know we know anything. If this is the case, then knowledge is merely a well-supported belief that we falsely ascribe the comforting notion of certainty to.

Is that really the problem here? I think all kinds of conversations are productive without terms being defined. In my view it's the social dynamic that's fouled up here. PGJ is being silly.

Defining terms has its limits too, does it not? Because we define terms with still other terms and so on and so on. On some level people just have to (1) speak the same language and (2) actually like or respect one another enough to work through ambiguity.

Or so I see it. — dog

Words require consistent definitions that are agreed upon by those within the social dynamic. This is why the social dynamic is fouled up, because the terms haven't been clearly defined.

Defining terms can be done by showing other words, or showing you the thing the words refer to. Words refer to things, which might, or might not be other words.

Knowledge is a model too. When we find that our knowledge was wrong, did we really possess knowledge or was it only a belief?

Many psychologists view belief as an unscientific term that deserves to be phased out. Contradictory and ambiguous definitions may be to blame for this attitude. However, knowledge is even less well defined. For example, a skeptic would claim that we can never know we know anything. If this is the case, then knowledge is merely a well-supported belief that we falsely ascribe the comforting notion of certainty to. — Harry Hindu

1. As non-beliefism had long underlined, one need not omniscience to avoid belief, and by extension, avoiding belief does not necessitate that one is correct on every matter.
   
2. Non-beliefism underlines, that "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".
   
3. In this way, in discussion and learning, instead of constantly arguing on pre-conceived notions despite evidence, one may discover it easier to admit oneself as wrong, (for example on public discussion boards, parliament, etc) especially when new evidence arises.
   
4. In simpler words, non-beliefism better prepares/equips a mind to update prior expressions, in light of new evidence/continued evidence analysis.

As non-beliefism had long underlined, one need not omniscience to avoid belief, and by extension, avoiding belief does not necessitate that one is correct on every matter. — ProgrammingGodJordan

If you don't have omniscience, then what do you have if not beliefs, or models of the way things are, (which according to your own definition of belief as a model means that you have beliefs if you have models, right?)? To say that you have non-beliefs is similar to saying that you have omniscience, or true knowledge. But I already showed you the problem of saying that you have knowledge.

Non-beliefism underlines, that "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".

In this way, in discussion and learning, instead of constantly arguing on pre-conceived notions despite evidence, one may discover it easier to admit oneself as wrong, (for example on public discussion boards, parliament, etc) especially when new evidence arises.
In simpler words, non-beliefism better prepares/equips a mind to update prior expressions, in light of new evidence/continued evidence analysis. — ProgrammingGodJordan

You're taking skepticism and open-mindedness and renaming it "non-beliefism".

If you don't have omniscience, then what do you have if not beliefs, or models of the way things are, (which according to your own definition of belief as a model means that you have beliefs if you have models, right?)? To say that you have non-beliefs is similar to saying that you have omniscience, or true knowledge. But I already showed you the problem of saying that you have knowledge. — Harry Hindu

Modeling the world does not necessitate belief.

• The simple difference between non-beliefism and belief, is that belief is a model that generally permits ignorance of evidence, whereas non-beliefism does not permit the general ignorance of evidence.
• A model that permits the general ignorance of evidence (i.e.
  belief) contrasts science, which heavily prioritizes evidence.

You're taking skepticism and open-mindedness and renaming it "non-beliefism". — Harry Hindu

1. It is odd that people tend to bring up skepticism when I describe "non beliefism", because as an atheist, one would probably imagine that I had long encountered skepticism.
   
2. Anyway, skepticism does not underline belief's generally science opposing nature, contrary to "non beliefism".

Again, the evidence before us indicates that @ProgrammingGodJordan has a fanatical belief in "non beliefism".

The irony is that he cannot see this.

Alternatively, the concept of belief could be discarded altogether, because it is a model that generally permits evidence ignorance.

It's not "complicated" to see the above. — ProgrammingGodJordan

This doesn't make sense. In your nonbeliefism you are still believing things by definition (accepting a claim). A belief doesn't require nonscientific thinking. You are accepting claims based off scientific thinking which is still by definition believing. That's the same thing as telling people not to hold beliefs that prioritize nonscientific thinking. It's accepting claims that are based off scientific thinking which is essentially believing only in things that are based off of scientific thinking. We don't need this nonbeliefism term at all.

This doesn't make sense. In your nonbeliefism you are still believing things by definition (accepting a claim). A belief doesn't require nonscientific thinking. You are accepting claims based off scientific thinking which is still by definition believing. That's the same thing as telling people not to hold beliefs that prioritize nonscientific thinking. It's accepting claims that are based off scientific thinking which is essentially believing only in things that are based off of scientific thinking. We don't need this nonbeliefism term at all. — SonJnana

1. Data shows that most of the time, belief permits ignorance of evidence.
2. Why would I select a model that most of the time, does not permit that evidence is prioritized, (i.e. belief) instead of one that generally permits priortitization of evidence (i.e. "non-beliefism")?
   
   • Alternatively, why would you select a model that most of the time, does not permit that evidence is prioritized, (i.e. belief) instead of one that generally permits priortitization of evidence (i.e. "non-beliefism")?

@ProgrammingGodJordan, You like to cite this article.

What do you make of this:

Beliefs provide the basis for interacting with the world and are intimately involved in co-ordinating many other cognitive processes. Beliefs are also central to many social processes and provide the basis for identity, social cohesion, and social conflict.

What do you make of this:

"Beliefs provide the basis for interacting with the world and are intimately involved in co-ordinating many other cognitive processes. Beliefs are also central to many social processes and provide the basis for identity, social cohesion, and social conflict". — Banno

1. I don't detect the relevance of your response above, because it is long stated on the very same research page, that belief is generally adopted by people (and thus prevalent in the lifes of said beings)
   
2. Notably, that some phenomena largely affects society, does not warrant that such a phenomena is required for beings to exist.
   

Indeed, you rather missed the point that belief is not optional.

Indeed, you rather missed the point that belief is not optional. — Banno

Once more I don't detect the relevance of your comment;

• The OP, as well as the entire reason why I created non-beliefism, was particularly because belief is demonstrated to be sub optimal.

So you, yourself, and despite your own protestations, believe.

So you, yourself, and despite your own protestations, believe. — Banno

How so?

Did you create nonbeliefism?

Did you create nonbeliefism? — Banno

I don't detect the relevance of that query.

So humour me. Did you create nonbeliefism?

So humour me. Did you create nonbeliefism? — Banno

I don't detect the relevance of that query, especially given my earlier response.

Data shows that most of the time, belief permits ignorance of evidence.
Why would I select a model that most of the time, does not permit that evidence is prioritized, (i.e. belief) instead of one that generally permits priortitization of evidence (i.e. "non-beliefism")?

Alternatively, why would you select a model that most of the time, does not permit that evidence is prioritized, (i.e. belief) instead of one that generally permits priortitization of evidence (i.e. "non-beliefism")? — ProgrammingGodJordan

It's not that I disagree with your idea of nonbeliefism, it's that I just don't see the reason for throwing out a term like that. Nonbeliefism sounds like you aren't believing things. But that's not true because you are still accepting claims so you are still believing by definition. People can believe things for a bunch of different reasons. Why don't you call it science beliefism or something which implies that it is a type of belief that is only based off scientific thinking. Sort of like a subset of type of belief or something.

It's not that I disagree with your idea of nonbeliefism, it's that I just don't see the reason for throwing out a term like that. Nonbeliefism sounds like you aren't believing things. But that's not true because you are still accepting claims so you are still believing by definition. People can believe things for a bunch of different reasons. Why don't you call. Science beliefism or something which implies that it is a type of belief that is only based off scientific thinking. Sort of like a subset of type of belief or something. — SonJnana

On the contrary, belief is defined such that people tend to generally ignore evidence, which contrasts nonbeliefism.

So, you didn't create nonbeliefism?

So, you didn't create nonbeliefism? — Banno

Irrelevant query.

So you did create nonbeliefism?

On the contrary, belief is defined such that people tend to generally ignore evidence, which contrasts nonbeliefism. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Which definition? The first one? That says especially, not necessarily. So if you are accepting something to be true off of science thinking, it still is a belief by that definition.

Why don't you call. Science beliefism or something which implies that it is a type of belief that is only based off scientific thinking. Sort of like a subset of type of belief or something. — SonJnana

• As I mentioned before, belief is a model that mostly permits the ignorance evidence.
  
  • It's quite trivial to see that science does not work this way, science does not mostly permit the ignorannce of evidence.