new "Cult of 'Non-Beliefism' " aka (the state of being "unlocked")

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

What stipulation of mine appears to be supposedly believed?
What data of mine, do I hold as TRUE/ABSOLUTE, absent SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE?

NOTE: Highly frequent belief definition: To accept as true, especially absent evidence.

Below are statements made by you which are statements of belief:

I have not any belief. Such is for idiots/theists.

You believe that you have no beliefs and you believe that beliefs are for idiots and theists. You have no scientific foundation for either of those beliefs. You fail at your own cult. Congratulations!

On another note... Please lose your thesaurus. Long words improperly used do not make you look intelligent. Quite the opposite actually.

(1.a)

Incorrect.

Perhaps it is pertinent that you observe:

http://psr.sagepub.com/content/early/201...6.abstract

.
.
.


(1.b)

NOTE: Highly frequent belief definition: To accept as TRUE, especially absent evidence.

There are many slices of time/space.
At any given point, we can only act in a distinct slice of time.
So inherently, we never make any TRUE/TOTAL/ABSOLUTE actions - we don't occupy all slices of time. 

[Thusly, we don't believe.]

Herein, any action we take is inherently from a sequence of OPTIMAL PROBABILITIES (where reality naturally contains many optimal ACTION-PROBABILITY mappings), rather than COMPLETE ACTIONS.

(1.c)

I have not any beliefs.

Recall:

Belief may constitute non-science.

Logic/science in contrast, shan’t encode non-science.

Thereafter, it is illogical to believe.

.
.
.

(2)

Perhaps it is pertinent that you demonstrate that of my supposedly erroneous word usage.


.
.
.

(3)

The initial post is layman bound, and separate from my default language cycle: [Sample: http://www.academia.edu/25733790/Causal_...hypothesis]


Thusly, the aforesaid layman sequence has been observed to be rather absorbable. 


.
.
.

(4)

Have you not any thought cycles, beyond nonsense?