Eliminating the ownership of beliefs.
I thought this post might be relevant to this specific forum subsection: Atheist vs. Theist.
Some atheists treat atheism as a belief-system. Some atheists *believe* that no god exists (hard Atheism), others have *no beliefs* about the existence or non-existence of god (agnostic atheism). This presents a problem with the term "atheism" because it has several meanings. For these reasons, and more, I do not use the term. 'Non-believer,' on the other hand, not only covers atheism but all forms of superstitions (and, in fact, all beliefs).
Given that even some proclaimed Atheists, like Brian Flemming, admit to not liking the usage of labels, why not simply use the descriptive term non-believer instead of variable meaning words like atheist, or the limited-to-theology term, non-theist? Non-belief covers not only, non-theism, but non-ufoism, non-superstitious, and many other non-beliefs that surely most atheists have no beliefs in at all. One can own no beliefs about anything while still having thoughts about anything. Provisional knowledge trumps belief in every case, it seems to me.
There simply is no reason to own any beliefs at all. I present a very simple observation at the limits of ignorance and knowledge: If you don't know about something and you submit it to nothing but belief, it will likely prove false; if you know about something, then you don't need to believe it, because you know it. Between ignorance and knowledge you have the uncertainties about the world, and the best way to handle uncertainties involves thinking in terms of probabilities. So what use does belief have?