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?

[Tcg]

Theories, observations and evidence are also part of Christian apologists' toolkit too, as Diagoras has noted,

Is that what Diagoras noted? Let's double-check:

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.

<bolding mine>

Clearly, Diagoras stated something very different.

so perhaps next we'll see critics insisting that they don't use any of those things either

The only relevant issue is whether or not we have seen it. Unless this takes place, no argument can be supported by this guess about possible future events.


Tcg

[Bust Nak]

Meh, it's just semantics. Define "beliefs" for me then I'll tell you if I have beliefs or not.

[Mithrae]

Theories, observations and evidence are also part of Christian apologists' toolkit too, as Diagoras has noted,

Is that what Diagoras noted? Let's double-check:

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.

<bolding mine>

Clearly, Diagoras stated something very different.

Apologists do in fact use observations, evidence and theories as part of their toolkit; you're not trying to deny that, are you? Diagoras claims that the definitions of those words are "stretched" or "blurred" to apologists' advantage, which suggests that they are in fact used: If they were not used at all, it would instead have been appropriate to say that their definitions are completely ignored or totally changed, rather than merely stretched or blurred. Of course it's pretty much irrelevant to my point whether or not that's what Diagoras actually meant, I just figured it was appropriate to give acknowledgement for introducing those comparisons into the thread. Perhaps it would have been better if I'd said that's what Diagoras' post hinted or implied instead of "noted."

so perhaps next we'll see critics insisting that they don't use any of those things either

The only relevant issue is whether or not we have seen it. Unless this takes place, no argument can be supported by this guess about possible future events.

Do you have any thoughts about the apparent silliness of this guilt-by-association approach to terms like "belief"? Obviously critics aren't going to start saying that they don't use observation and evidence (maybe I should have included a sarcasm tag or some kind of emoticon there!), but that's pretty much what these very few folk are doing by claiming that they don't have beliefs.

[Divine Insight]

Apologists do in fact use observations, evidence and theories as part of their toolkit; you're not trying to deny that, are you?

I will totally deny this. It's a farce to claim that there observations, evidence and theories hold any water. If they were any good the scientific, historic, philosophical and mathematical communities would have no choice but to agree with those observations, evidence and theories.

The fact that theological theories are not accepted by these other far more reputable disciplines reveals the fallacy of these theological claims.

Just because theologians claim to use all these methods doesn't mean that they do so in an honest way.

Diagoras claims that the definitions of those words are "stretched" or "blurred" to apologists' advantage, which suggests that they are in fact used.

So? Anyone can use words. Using them properly and truthfully is a whole other story. Theists seem to have great difficulty with the latter.

[Mithrae]

Apologists do in fact use observations, evidence and theories as part of their toolkit; you're not trying to deny that, are you?

I will totally deny this. It's a farce to claim that there observations, evidence and theories hold any water. If they were any good the scientific, historic, philosophical and mathematical communities would have no choice but to agree with those observations, evidence and theories.

You do understand that there's a difference between 'evidence' and undeniable 'proof,' don't you? You seem to be doing exactly the same thing as Diagoras noted some Christian apologists do, fudging the meaning of words to suit your biases.

[Divine Insight]

Common usage (and hence dictionaries) define belief in such a way that everyone holds beliefs - everyone accepts some things to be true

You're going back to simple-minded semantics again.

All for what? To try to put theistic beliefs on the same level with scientific knowledge?

Surely you're joking?

[Divine Insight]

You do understand that there's a difference between 'evidence' and undeniable 'proof,' don't you? You seem to be doing exactly the same thing as Diagoras noted some Christian apologists do, fudging the meaning of words to suit your biases.

So it's going to be your argument that beliefs based on ancient fables should be put on the same footing as scientific evidence?

Good luck with that argument.

Theists have actually lost these arguments a very long time ago. They just refuse to admit defeat.

[Mithrae]

Common usage (and hence dictionaries) define belief in such a way that everyone holds beliefs - everyone accepts some things to be true

You're going back to simple-minded semantics again.

All for what? To try to put theistic beliefs on the same level with scientific knowledge?

A more accurate way to putting it would be that while most people - Christians and critics alike - have no issues with the common usage and dictionary definition of the word, you are using "simple-minded semantics" and fallacious guilt-by-association thinking to imagine that if the broad term 'belief' covers both blind faith and acceptance of facts that somehow puts religion on par with science And are therefore trying to redefine the word to suit your own thinking.

But since it really doesn't matter either way, while we're re-writing the dictionary here's a good one for the one or two folk who don't like the word 'belief':
ACCONDANCE - A Distinctive Neologism

I do not "believe" in evolution ...

I conditionally accept theories concerning evolution.

I propose a neologism, a portmanteau of "accept" and "conditional".

Quite simply"

ACCONDANCE

When it comes to scientific considerations, I have accondances.

I accond to theories of evolution.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 28 by Mithrae]

Why would you think that theists would even bother with these types of arguments if they weren't trying to elevate the merit of their faith-based religions to be equivalent with the sciences?

The argument tries to create an equivalency.

Theists - "We believe in stories of ghosts and goblins, scientists believe in observable collected evidence in the real world. Therefore scientists have beliefs just like theists do."

All this amounts to is an extremely poor argument of semantics that any truly intelligent person should be able to see through like a crystal clear pane glass window.

What's the point in making such an argument if not to try to elevate the beliefs of theists to the standard of scientific knowledge?

Trying to reduce the argument to semantics in the hope that no one will notice the extreme fallacy of the argument is,... well,... ridiculous.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 29 by Divine Insight]

You're trying to re-write the dictionary, playing a semantic game in which 'belief' is supposed to now mean something other than what it always has. That's where we're at now. How we got there isn't all that relevant as far as I can tell, but if we want to do a little he-said she-said speculation, it's certainly true that some folk say the kinds of things that you're highlighting (eg. "You have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow!").

But while we're at it we may as well go back to the step before that, in which critics attack the unproven nature of belief in God or miracles or the like: Things which have not been disproven and arguably for which there is some positive evidence (fairly strong evidence in the case of miracles), but nevertheless are regularly ridiculed and mocked as being on par with belief in Santa, the Tooth Fairy, ghosts and goblins. But the simple fact is that in practice everyone accepts as true things which are not absolutely proven.

For the average bloke in the street the strength of evidence that the earth is round might rate as an 8 or 9 out of 10 and the strength of evidence that Alexander conquered Persia perhaps a 6 or 7, but these are things that he believes and quite rightly is not ridiculed for doing so. So if the strength of evidence for miracles rated only a 4 or 5 out of 10, and for God only a 2 or 3, would it suddenly become appropriate to mock those as being gullible, irrational and whatever other invective is hurled at religious folk by more-intellectual-than-thou critics? Where exactly is the cut-off point for when acceptance of a conclusion based on less than certain evidence goes from being reasonable to being worthy of ridicule? And how is that not an arbitrary or highly subjective decision?

To the extent that some apologists point out (correctly) that "everyone has beliefs," in the more reasonable form I think it's a way of saying that everyone accepts things on inconclusive evidence and the real or perceived difference in the case of religious beliefs is merely one of scale rather than kind: Not necessarily that unfalsified aspects of religious belief are on the same level as widely-accepted facts and common knowledge, but rather that the sort of over-the-top ridicule of the former we so often see is essentially an arbitrary and highly subjective kind of arrogance.

Of course we also see more absurd extremes in both directions. On the one hand we see some Christians actually insisting that their religious beliefs are as or more certain than widely-acknowledged facts rather than accepting the reality of great uncertainty in what they believe; and on the other hand, some critics declaring that there is "not a single SHRED of evidence" supporting religious claims rather than accepting the fallacious aspects to their mockery of religion. That's just part of human nature, sadly, so it's not surprising that there are dogmatists among both Christians and critics, some insisting that there's no possibility of their core religious claims being wrong and others declaring just as absurdly that there is no possibility of them being right.

Perhaps it is not merely coincidence that some of the folk who are most insistent on there being zero evidence for religious claims also seem to be those who want to redefine the word belief. As Divine Insight earlier suggested, semantic games like these are usually more a matter of sophistry than sound reasoning.