Why belief is non-necessary (written by inventor of "non beliefism")

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

('A')

 

It took billions of years of evolution on planet earth, for a phenomenon called 'non beliefism' to emerge, and I am its inventor.

 

 

('B')

 

'Non beliefism' is a framework that may enhance thought, while underlining that belief is non necessary, for belief opposes science.

 

 

 

('C')

 

Here is one of non beliefism's premise sequences:

 

Belief [/size]may constitute non-science.[/size]

 

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

Thereafter, it is non-scientific to believe.…ie scientific evidence shan’t contain non-scientific-evidence.

 

 

 

★★★★★★★★★★

In simpler words:

It is non-scientific to believe, as the concept of belief allows non-science, whereas science allows not non-science.

 

 

 

 

 

 

('D')

 

Small guideline:

url deleted

 

 

 

 

 

 

(E)

 

Criticism is welcome.

Edited March 8, 2017 by swansont

[Bender]

('"#A#"')

I'm pretty sure the first bacteria didn't have any beliefs.

 

('"#B#"')

You didn't invent it. You might have invented the word, but the concept is not particularly new.

 

('"#C#"')

This should be in philosophy.

[swansont]

Criticism is welcome.

!

Moderator Note

 

Here's some criticism: This isn't physics.

 

 

Links have been removed

 

Rule 2.7

Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned