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?

[Divine Insight]

Since when does a personal subjective opinion equate to a belief?

Opinions have always been considered beliefs. See the definition from Merriam Webster above.

Nope. That very definition requires that for an opinion to become a belief it must be considered to be true. You have failed to recognize this important distinction between a belief and an opinion.

Consider what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has to say in its article on belief:

Contemporary Anglophone philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief� to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true.

That's pretty much the same thing as the dictionary. This is its "formal" meaning.

Exactly! In fact, it's saying exactly the same thing:

"whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true."

You're only reading the parts of these definition that you want to see while ignoring what they are actually saying.

When I say that I have an opinion I'm saying just that. I'm not claiming that my opinion is the case of reality and regard it as being true.

But this is not what theists do. When theists claim to have an opinion on morality they take it to the extreme and claim that is is indeed the case and they regard it as true. That's belief.

That's the difference.

I don't need to claim that it's absolutely true that rape is wrong (other than the fact that humans have semantically defined the term rape to mean that very thing). But I can still recognize that this is a human subjective opinion even though it is an opinion widely held. That doesn't require any belief at all.

Opinions do not equal beliefs unless a person is convinced that their opinions represent some higher absolute truth. And this is what differentiates the opinions of secularists with the beliefs of theists.

By the definitions you have posted opinions do not equate to beliefs unless a person holds them to be true beyond the context of their own opinions.

So ironically you have actually verified my points by posting these definitions.

Thank you.

[Divine Insight]

Which serves to demonstrate that "belief" is FAR too broad a term.

By their very nature, nouns and verbs often have broad meanings.

This is why languages like English have adjectives and adverbs to limit and qualify those meanings.

We can use lots of adjectives to describe different types of beliefs. It's pretty simple, really.

But what would be the purpose of this argument then in a theological debate forum?

If we can just play around with adjectives to describe different kinds of beliefs then we must ultimately conclude that the type of beliefs we assign to secularists are not the same type of beliefs that theists rely upon for their theistic beliefs.

How does this end up being a meaningful apologetic argument for Christianity?

Let's face it, the very reason that Christian theists want to make this argument in the first place is to try to claim that everyone has beliefs and therefore Christian theists are on the same level playing field with secularists and scientists.

Surely anyone who's paying attention knows that this isn't true.

Secular opinions, and scientific knowledge is nowhere the same thing a theistic beliefs.

Theists believe that things are true that cannot be shown to be true.

Neither secularists, nor scientists need to do that.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 91 by Divine Insight]

You appear to be making a vehement case that when something is held to be true (such as we do for gravity and the like), that is when it is a belief.

By their very nature, nouns and verbs often have broad meanings.

This is why languages like English have adjectives and adverbs to limit and qualify those meanings.

We can use lots of adjectives to describe different types of beliefs. It's pretty simple, really.

But what would be the purpose of this argument then in a theological debate forum?

If we can just play around with adjectives to describe different kinds of beliefs then we must ultimately conclude that the type of beliefs we assign to secularists are not the same type of beliefs that theists rely upon for their theistic beliefs.

How does this end up being a meaningful apologetic argument for Christianity?

The people I've seen raising this semantic argument are SallyF, StuartJ, Zzxyz, you... it seems to be an apologetic against Christianity, not for it.

William is an exception to that pattern, granted, but there are considerably more non-religious folk who seem to disagree with you than there are religious folk agreeing. For most of us, there's simply no good reason to support this attempt at messing around with accepted/common usage. Try telling people that you don't believe the earth is round and you'll get a pretty good idea how outlandish this would-be new meaning for the word is.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 91 by Divine Insight]

You appear to be making a vehement case that when something is held to be true (such as we do for gravity and the like), that is when it is a belief.

Don't look at me. I'm going by the definitions that historia posted.

Again, the definition of 'belief', from Merriam Webster:

• 2: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion

Here it claims that a belief is something that is considered to be true or held as an opinion.

But then you say things like the following:

Try telling people that you don't believe the earth is round and you'll get a pretty good idea how outlandish this would-be new meaning for the word is.

I don't need to claim to believe it in terms of being an opinion that I consider to be true.

It's not my opinion that the earth is round. The evidence speaks for itself.

Therefore I don't need to hold a "belief" that the earth is round when I simply know that this is indeed the case.

Think about what the theists are trying to do here. They are trying to equate knowledge with mere belief.

Are YOU going to try to argue that there is no difference between the following two statements:

1. I believe the earth is round.

2. I believe that Jesus was the son of Yahweh and that Yahweh is God.

Until you can show where these two statements represent the same idea of "belief" then the theological argument that secularists and scientists need to hold "beliefs" in the same way that theists do is utter nonsense.

This argument that there is no difference between secular and scientific acceptance of knowledge and beliefs held by theists is clearly nonsense.

Where's the evidence that Yahweh is God? Or that any God even exists at all?

If that evidence cannot be produced then trying to compare that with the obvious knowledge and evidence that the earth is round is nothing short of ludicrous.

When are theists willing to stop playing semantic word games and face the truth?

That's what I'd like to know.

By the way, why do thesis seven feel a need to stoop this low?

Have they given up on trying to defend their indefensible theology already?

How long are they going to waste everyone's time with these kind of petty nonsensical arguments?

And why do they even bother in the first place? Apparently they can't make a decent argument for their theological beliefs, so all they have left is to try to claim that secularists and scientists do exactly the same thing they do.

Which is clearly false.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 91 by Divine Insight]

You appear to be making a vehement case that when something is held to be true (such as we do for gravity and the like), that is when it is a belief.

Don't look at me. I'm going by the definitions that historia posted.

Again, the definition of 'belief', from Merriam Webster:

• 2: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion

Here it claims that a belief is something that is considered to be true or held as an opinion.

Then you do not accept that definition? Or do you claim that you consider nothing true and have no opinions?

This argument that there is no difference between secular and scientific acceptance of knowledge and beliefs held by theists is clearly nonsense.

It's nonsense of your own creation; no-one has said that. As you've just quoted, the word 'belief' can apply to both accepted truths or mere opinions. Similarly the word 'ideology' can apply to both violent jihadism or secular humanism - supposing that if that is the case then there must be "no difference" between the two is obviously nonsensical.

When are theists willing to stop playing semantic word games and face the truth?

That's what I'd like to know.

By the way, why do thesis seven feel a need to stoop this low?

Have they given up on trying to defend their indefensible theology already?

How long are they going to waste everyone's time with these kind of petty nonsensical arguments?

The only semantic word games or the like that I've seen in this thread are from those claiming that 'belief' must mean something other than its definition of "something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion."

Or allow me to correct that, because your repeated obviously false insistence that it is only theists who are disagreeing with you could also be described as "semantic word games" and "petty nonsensical arguments."

[Divine Insight]

Or allow me to correct that, because your repeated obviously false insistence that it is only theists who are disagreeing with you could also be described as "semantic word games" and "petty nonsensical arguments" (at best).

This is a theological debate site. And this particular forum is "Christianity and Apologetics".

Why would any non-theist bother to support a theological argument that tries to put theological beliefs on the same footing with scientific knowledge and truth by making silly semantic arguments that science is based on beliefs just like theology?

Why in the world would you support such obvious nonsense?

Are you going to claim that there is no difference between the truth of scientific knowledge , versus faith-based theological beliefs?

If not, then why are you arguing with me over meaningless semantics?

[historia]

Are you truly paying attention to this definition in detail?

Yes, of course.

In order for it to be a belief you must also believe that it has some truth beyond your mere opinion. Look back at the very definition you posted.

Let's do that. Again, from Merriam Webster, a "belief" is:

• 2: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion

Notice there is an "or" here, not an "and." Each of the three things mentioned here is a belief: Something that is accepted is a belief. Something that is considered to be true is a belief. Something held as an opinion is a belief. That's how the word "or" works.

Notice, too, how you mistakenly switch it to an "and" in your reply:

Exactly! In fact, it's saying exactly the same thing:

"whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true."

You're only reading the parts of these definition that you want to see while ignoring what they are actually saying.

When I say that I have an opinion I'm saying just that. I'm not claiming that my opinion is the case of reality and regard it as being true.

Moreover, to "consider" or "regard" something as true is not to assert it is in some absolute sense true.

"Consider" here just means to "suppose," which according to Webster means:

• 1. b (1) : to hold as an opinion : BELIEVE
  1. b (2) : to think probable or in keeping with the facts

So, yes, an opinion is a belief, by definition. To claim any of these definitions requires that a belief be "beyond your mere opinion" is a fundamental misreading of the text.

So ironically you have actually verified my points by posting these definitions.

Obviously not.

[SallyF]

This is PRECISELY the right use of the word "believe".





So is this ….





This is suitable example of the rejection of the word "believe".

I have NEVER heard a Christian say that they agree with the evidence-based conclusions of …

Well, pretty much MOST things to do with Christianity.

Christians use the word "believe" for mud-men and god-men and magic, biblical foreskins and such.

Which is PRECISELY where the word "believe" belongs.

This New Atheist does not have beliefs.

[Divine Insight]

This entire debate topic only illustrates precisely how extremely desperate theists have become to use the following tactics:

1. Avoid having to discuss their actual theology because they know it's indefensible.

AND

2. Trying to play on semantic word games to make equivalences of concepts that don't exist.

Everyone has pretty much already admitted that there is a huge difference between what is meant when using the word "believe" to indicate an understanding of confirmed knowledge, versus using the word "believe" to mean accepting unconfirmed rumors of fables that have never been shown to be true.

We can argue the semantic of the human-defined words until the cows come home.

That's not going to change the fact that there is a world of difference between the understanding of confirmed truths about the world in which we live versus believing in fairy tales.

What in the world do the theists think they could gain by having such meaningless arguments like this?

Clearly they are at the end of their rope. They can't make a compelling case for their unwarranted beliefs in ancient fables that have actually been demonstrated to be clearly false. So what do they do? They try to avoid talking about those clearly false fables and instead try to make ridiculous semantic arguments based on the totally fraudulent idea that having an understanding of scientific truths is precisely on the same level of credibility with believing in ancient fables.

Surely they can't be serious with this?

I think it speaks volumes that they even feel a need to go down a road like this.

If the fables they believe in had any credibility at all they wouldn't need to resort to these types of semantic word games.

The mere fact that they feel a need to stoop to this level says it all.

So go ahead and argue semantics. It's not going to change the fact that there is no comparison or equivalency between confirmed scientific truths versus a believe in ancient boogieman gods.

I mean, seriously. Exactly who do they think is going to fall for such a silly game of semantic word-play?

If they want to claim that the human-invented word "believe" can be used in both of these cases fine. But what good would that do?

It's clearly not being used to mean the same thing in both cases. And it most certainly doesn't equate believe in the boogieman with an understanding of the truth of scientific understanding of nature.

In fact, it's these kinds of clearly lame apologetics that theists waste everyone's time with that causes me to have absolutely no respect for theists at all. We aren't permitted to say what we actually think of them on grounds that to tell the truth would be considered to be uncivil.

But I can say, that they have lost any and all respect from me. Their tactics are clearly desperate and it only shows that even they are fully aware that they cannot make a compelling case for their "beliefs".

If we are going to call scientific knowledge a "belief" the least we can do is recognize it as being a highly credible belief backed up by indisputable evidence.

So yeah, for those who want to play silly semantic word games let's agree to the following:

Scientific beliefs - Acceptance of verified and confirmed truths about nature.

Theistic beliefs - Acceptance of ancient fables that have already been shown to be false.

So what have we gained by semantically labeling both of these things as "beliefs".

Absolutely nothing. They clearly aren't the same concept and labeling with a single ill-defined word isn't going to change that.

So go ahead and avoid the actual theology and play semantic games.

All that does is show that the theology has desperately run out of compelling arguments for its own claims.

That's not an impressive or compelling argument for any theology.

[Mithrae]

Or allow me to correct that, because your repeated obviously false insistence that it is only theists who are disagreeing with you could also be described as "semantic word games" and "petty nonsensical arguments" (at best).

This is a theological debate site. And this particular forum is "Christianity and Apologetics".

Why would any non-theist bother to support a theological argument that tries to put theological beliefs on the same footing with scientific knowledge and truth by making silly semantic arguments that science is based on beliefs just like theology?

Why in the world would you support such obvious nonsense?

As I've already said, I don't support your obvious nonsense. What you are doing (again and again and again, in every lengthy post with no new argument or content and very little change in wording) is exactly comparable to claiming that you have no 'ideology' or no 'opinions' or no 'worldview' - playing little semantic games trying to avoid the common usage and definitions of those words - and accusing everyone (religious and non-religious alike) who critiques your claim of trying to put secular humanism or the like "on the same footing" with violent jihadism simply because they're both ideologies.

No-one here has done anything even remotely along the lines of what you're complaining about. You're running scared from a boogeyman of your own creation - putting quite a remarkable effort into trying to change the English language based on a non-existent problem.

I mean, seriously. Exactly who do they think is going to fall for such a silly game of semantic word-play?

If they want to claim that the human-invented word "believe" can be used in both of these cases fine. But what good would that do?

Indeed, who do you think is going to fall for your semantic word-play, your attempts to change common usage of the word 'belief'? What good do you think that will do? Some folk already claim (based for example on personal spiritual experience, the testimony of other observers, questionable but superficially appealing logic, miraculous but non-repeatable events, and dubious interpretation of verifiable facts) that they 'know' God exists. If you, Sally and so on were eventually successful (perhaps decades or generations from now) in getting 'belief' as widely used to mean something like naive acceptance or gullibility, then the only thing you'd accomplish would be getting a lot more folk to say that they 'know' or 'conclude' that God exists.