Do atheists not have beliefs?

[historia]

You don't know what I already believe (I don't have beliefs BTW)

This is an assertion that has been made by a few atheists on this forum.

Is it coherent for atheists to claim they don't have beliefs?

[wiploc]

You don't know what I already believe (I don't have beliefs BTW)

This is an assertion that has been made by a few atheists on this forum.

Is it coherent for atheists to claim they don't have beliefs?

It seems crazy to me. As has been pointed out, it is self-refuting; to believe that you don't have beliefs is to have a belief.

[SallyF]

This New Atheist chooses to only use the term "belief" in relation make-believe.

Because

It's a mistake to say, for example, "I believe in evolution" - rather than use an extended phrase to explain one's conditional acceptance of an evidence-based theory.

Christians - I find - just LOVE to have the lazy word "belief" used in all manner of contexts.

It enables them to put their angels and virgins and resurrections on the same level as quantum physics and neurosurgery, for example.

One "believes" that the possibly fictional Jesus character visited the planet he created and flooded, by inserting himself in the uterus of a human virgin, for example.

THAT is where I, personally, leave the word "belief". Right there in the world of tales that are NEVER shown to be anything other than fantasy. THEY, for me, are "beliefs": if one is in an evidence-free state of the mind that says they are real.

Based on experience and evidence, however, I accept the proposition that memes are a VERY effective way of arguing against Christianity especially those form Christian websites !

I certainly don't say that I "believe" they are.

Beliefs are what you have when you have a warn fuzzy feeling in your brain but not necessarily evidence to back up the warm fuzzy feeling.

THAT'S when to use the term "belief"

In my opinion

And the declaration by the Roman Catholic version of Christianity.

[SallyF]

Belief

(be and lyian, to hold dear).

That state of the mind by which it assents to propositions, not by reason of their intrinsic evidence, but because of authority.
http://catholicencyclopedia.newadvent.c ... 02408b.htm

"State of the mind"

"Not evidence"

"Authority"

Which is PRECISELY why this New Atheist leaves the word "belief" to the world of make-believe.

I most certainly do NOT have evidence-free, authority-driven "states of the mind".

I do NOT have or hold beliefs as defined by our Christian friends.

None of which comes close to demonstrating that Jesus was sired by the Holy Ghost on a human virgin and he's about to burst through the clouds at any moment to exterminate Hindu children.

But it's a regular diversion that attempts to take the spotlight off squirming Christian belief systems.

[SallyF]

How to make the distinction is worthy of careful consideration.

Perhaps even prayerful consideration .

[Menotu]

You don't know what I already believe (I don't have beliefs BTW)

This is an assertion that has been made by a few atheists on this forum.

Is it coherent for atheists to claim they don't have beliefs?

I can't speak for everyone, but I find it hard to believe anyone has not one single belief in anything.
But I suppose weirder things are possible......?

[Zzyzx]

.
I prefer to THINK rather than 'believe'. I decide what to accept as truthful and accurate by using reasoning based on verifiable evidence rather than 'believing' dogma. I follow my own path rather than allowing others to make my decisions.

I will NOT make important decisions based on taking anyone's unsubstantiated word for anything. If what is said cannot be independently verified, I look for more reliable sources of information.

I do not accept claims that god promoters have any special knowledge of supernatural entities or events. Why should I take their word (or their unverifiable tall tales)?

[Diagoras]

Christians - I find - just LOVE to have the lazy word "belief" used in all manner of contexts.

It enables them to put their angels and virgins and resurrections on the same level as quantum physics and neurosurgery, for example.

Indeed. Along with theory, science, proof, observation and evidence, theres quite a collection of words which have had their definitions stretched or blurred to suit the apologist.

[Divine Insight]

Is it coherent for atheists to claim they don't have beliefs?

Yes it's perfectly coherent, especially within the context of the concept of theistic beliefs.

I have no need to place "belief" in anything. Moreover, when I do accept that something might be true I'm not claiming to believe that is is true but rather I'm simply assigning to it a high probability of being true.

I also trust my own experience and suggest that it would absurd to say that my experiences are mere "beliefs".

Where theists make a grave mistake is to belief that things are true for which there is absolutely no evidence. I have no need for beliefs of a theistic nature.

It seems crazy to me. As has been pointed out, it is self-refuting; to believe that you don't have beliefs is to have a belief.

I say baloney. I don't simply believe that I have no beliefs. I know this to be a fact.

In short, this would be like you claiming that mathematicians merely "believe" that there cannot be a rational solution to the square root of 2. They don't merely believe it. They know that it's true because it has been proven to be true beyond refutation.

If you're going to start claiming that everything we know is a "belief" then of course it would be true that anyone who claims to know anything has beliefs.

But that would be a bastardization of the very meaning of the term "belief" especially as it applies to theists.

The reason that theists are so anxious to demand that everyone relies on "beliefs" is to try to put their theistic beliefs on the same playing field with knowledge.

But that's clearly nothing more than an attempt to try to claim that anyone who knows anything has "beliefs".

All for what? To justify belief in theologies that do NOT represent any verifiable knowledge?

I would suggest that when theists go down this argumentative path they have already confessed that they know that their beliefs have no merit, and are simply trying to force (via very poorly defined semantics) the idea that all knowledge is based on beliefs.

It's just a way to try to justify theistic beliefs. I don't buy it for a second.

Knowledge is not the same as belief. As much as theists would like to pretend that it is.

[Divine Insight]

You don't know what I already believe (I don't have beliefs BTW)

This is an assertion that has been made by a few atheists on this forum.

Is it coherent for atheists to claim they don't have beliefs?

We should define our terms. From Google:

belief - an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

If we accept this definition, then every thinking person has beliefs.

The problem with accepting definitions without consideration is that they get you into the world of trouble.

You now need to ask whether all so-called "beliefs" have the same merit. And if you ask that question you'll quickly discover that they don't.

Also, scientists (and atheists) do not need to simply accept that a statement is true. Instead they can demand evidence to back it up.

So now that they have refused to accept things are true simply because someone says they are true, can we still say that they have "beliefs".

I think not.

Using simple dictionary definitions of words without thinking through all the possible consequences will get you into deep trouble. This is why semantic arguments are a waste of everyone's time.

Once a person starts arguing semantics it's a clear sign that they are out to avoid the real issues.

Moreover, the claim that we can just turn to dictionaries to answer all our philosophical questions assumes that the publishers of dictionaries already have all the answers.

We know that's not the case. So turning to dictionary definitions to settle philosophical arguments is a true cop-out.

[Mithrae]

Using simple dictionary definitions of words without thinking through all the possible consequences will get you into deep trouble. This is why semantic arguments are a waste of everyone's time.

Once a person starts arguing semantics it's a clear sign that they are out to avoid the real issues.

Common usage (and hence dictionaries) define belief in such a way that everyone holds beliefs - everyone accepts some things to be true - but a few rather special individuals have decided that they want to be even more special, and so engage in a pointless game of claiming that they don't have 'beliefs' according to their own private definition of the word. But somehow you think it's everyone else, the people who just use the term as commonly used/defined and didn't instigate this little sideshow who are the ones 'arguing semantics'

The funny thing is that the whole reason for this game seems so silly:
"they believe everyone is on the same level as them"
"It enables them to put their angels and virgins and resurrections on the same level as quantum physics and neurosurgery"
"You now need to ask whether all so-called "beliefs" have the same merit"

It's a bit like taking an aversion to the fact that ISIS are humans, so we start insisting that we are not 'humans' because we don't want to be perceived as "being on the same level" or "having the same merit" as ISIS.

Theories, observations and evidence are also part of Christian apologists' toolkit too, as Diagoras has noted, so perhaps next we'll see critics insisting that they don't use any of those things either