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

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Do you hold anything to be TRUE/ABSOLUTE [believe]?

Holding something to be true or believing it is not the same thing as holding something to be true or believing it with absolute certainty.

Frequent belief definition: To accept as TRUE.
At best, one regards events as LIKELY/SCIENTIFICALLY TRUE, rather than TRUE.

.
.
.
.
.

---

It's like reading pretentious robo-shakespeare.

Even the most basic AI chatbot would Kirk itself rather than butcher Elizabethan grammar like that.

AI chat-bots display not any sentience.

[Cyberman]

Many, many apologies - thy verbiage doth confound mine irony meter and, i'truth, distinguish thyself as that against which thou protesteth. For 'tis plain that thou hast taken me for one so impoverished of wit, that one lowers oneself actually to give a shit.

[Alex K]

You search requisite writing which is truly extruding back to back with fanciful verisimilitude? Here you go

http://ansible.uk/misc/eyeargon.html

[chimp3]

If you were to program an AI /Robotic entity to speak would you program it to lavishly use the word "albeit" ?  Unless you were trying to create a substitute for the Wax Museum version of Charles Dickens!

[Cyberman]

Albeit a piss-poor one. OP, please note the more correct usage of that conjunction.

[henryp]

Seems the recruiting pitch isn't going so well, albeit, although, also, it should be added, on top of which, subsequently, an offer of some type of free logo'd cult hats might get things back on track?

[Cyberman]

Alas, alack, alpaca, alcapone and aljolson, with divers alarums and exclamations.

[Ravenshire]

Right! Binary vs. Non-binary!

Incorrect.

We at best, regard as LIKELY/scientifically true, rather than absolute/true.
Belief is to accept as TRUE/ABSOLUTE.

Thusly, belief exists not.
So, there but exists solely non-belief. (rather than belief and non-belief)

Sounds like a load of cherry picking definitions and playing semantics games to me.

Do you believe you and your fellow cult members are getting it right?

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Incorrect.

We at best, regard as LIKELY/scientifically true, rather than absolute/true.
Belief is to accept as TRUE/ABSOLUTE.

Thusly, belief exists not.
So, there but exists solely non-belief. (rather than belief and non-belief)

Sounds like a load of cherry picking definitions and playing semantics games to me.

Do you believe you and your fellow cult members are getting it right?

(1)

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

I had but utilized very initial google bound, definition sequences.

By extension, descriptions abound 38 separate definition websites were utilized.

Intersecting properties are thereafter compounded.

.
.
.
.
.

(2)

Separately, belief may constitute non-science.
Logic/science in contrast, shan't encode non-science.

Thereafter, it is illogical to believe.

[LadyForCamus]

('A') A CULT WITH NO BELIEF WHATSOEVER


This new cult is NOT a religion, as it encourages the removal of all beliefs.

Belief is completely irrelevant and likely error prone.

.
.
.
.
.

('B') WE NEVER DO ABSOLUTE ACTIONS

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 TOTAL/ABSOLUTE actions.

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



EG: bird+flying=optimal action probability mapping.
Wright brothers used this probability mapping, absent belief.


.
.
.
.
.



('C') WE DON'T REALLY BELIEVE IN ANYTHING

This means we DON'T BELIEVE when doing science (or any other task), because to BELIEVE is to accept as TRUE/ABSOLUTE.  

In science (and life in general) we rather regard optimal actions as LIKELY or SCIENTIFICALLY TRUE, rather than TRUE/ABSOLUTE.





.
.
.
.
.

('D') WE MAKE LARGER MISTAKES WHEN WE 'ATTACH'

However, when we don't embrace probabilities, and cling to belief, we tend to disregard the probabilistic process, AND THE RESULT IS THAT we don't choose the more viable PROBABILITIES from the sequences, due to erroneously ATTACHING to/regarding sequences as TRUE/ABSOLUTE, (ie BELIEVING in them.)

There are partial PROBABILITIES (from distinct time slices of the WHOLE), but of course, some PROBABILITIES are worse than others. 

BELIEF causes that persons likely cling to non-viable probabilities, due to ATTACHMENT. (ie  accept as absolute).

Furthermore, belief may be built on non-science. Of course, logic/science cannot compound on non-science. 


.
.
.
.
.

('E') WE SEE EXAMPLES, AND SCIENCE WHERE BELIEF IS NEGLECTFUL/ERROR PRONE.

So, we see that belief is redundant, and also quite error prone.

EG(0): Whether one believes in gravity or not is irrelevant.
EG(1): Theist ignore data on grounds of belief.
EG(2): Terrorism flourishes on the grounds of belief.
EG(3): Newton said God did it and therefore I can't. An atheist later solved the same issue.
EG(4): Theist tend to be inferior in intellect: http://psr.sagepub.com/content/early/201...6.abstract









Have you 'UNLOCKED'?
Probably not. 

'UNLOCK'D' INVITATION:
https://discord.gg/2SQBhPn

'UNLOCK'D' FORUMS:
http://unlock.forumotion.me/

AHHH!  MY EYES!!!