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?

[SallyF]

We may very well belief that the trash will be picked up, only to discover that on some days it's not picked up. Therefore are "belief" was proven to be wrong.

Sure, beliefs are often proven to be wrong. A belief is simply taking something to be the case or regarding it as true. If we subsequently discover that something is not the case, then we now realize that our prior belief was incorrect.

We can put the trash out EXPECTING it to be picked up. But believing that it will be picked up is ridiculous.

Believing that a future event is probable or likely is what it means to "expect" something.

I have no need for beliefs of a theistic nature.

Okay, but do you have beliefs of a moral, ethical, or political nature?

For example, do you believe that rape is wrong?

Do you believe that women should have the right to vote?

Do you believe that Donald Trump should be impeached and removed from office?

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

A Jihadist who "believes" that rape is reasonable part of his right as the spoils of war is not on the same level as a physicist who "believes" in string theory.

[William]

[Chchch...ages]

William: Also, do you want to debate the "debatable content" you mentioned you see in post #66?

Mithrae: No, for the most part it's been discussed at length already.

William: I brought up points I regard as critical analysis, which haven't been discussed at all.

Mithrae: You see 'belief' and 'knowledge' as being distinct, but common usage and hence dictionary definitions have knowledge as a subset of belief; beliefs (assent to propositions) which are justified and true.

William: As I pointed out, the dictionary need be a living document and change as human usage of definitions change.
Your claim that current usage is "justified and true" is clearly debatable.

It also appears that you are using an argumentum ad populum in relation to "justified and true" through the "common usage" clause, but that in itself hardly verifies justification or truth regarding the matter.

Those who design language usage are not verified "speakers of truth".

It behooves seekers of truth to examine language usage and adjust accordingly when fault is found in the form of/ on account of the confusion it creates.

Mithrae: If you tell someone "I believe the earth is round" no-one will be confused by what you mean or think that it's speculation or dogma,whereas saying "I don't believe the earth is round" is a claim which will invite confusion or ridicule 100% of the time you tell people, and require further clarification of your own private use of the term.

William: Whereas if I tell you that I know the Earth is Round, you have reason to suspect me?

Of course, the phrase itself isn't really even common usage as we live in the age of information...There is no need to say it at all, but if the occasion arises, one can simply say that one knows, and if there are doubters among the audience they can speak up and ask for directions to the evidence.

Mithrae: And as Historia has pointed out numerous times, a hard distinction between "faith-based" belief and "knowledge" fails even more fundamentally in the case of evaluative beliefs such as moral, ethical or political views.

William: Evaluative beliefs such as moral, ethical or political views is judgement-based which - by my observations - commonly accompany filters of hypocrisy, so are not really helpful to the debate, which is specific to NOT confusing the issue by conflating knowledge-based knowing with belief-based believing

Mithrae: Of course as further discussion with Zzxyz has helped to clarify, if there's folk who find some sort of comfort in claiming that they have no beliefs, it doesn't really harm anyone so ultimately that's okay.

William: Whether faith-based or non-faith based, if it is kind, all well and good.
Unfortunately 'harm caused' is also in the eye of the beholder, which causes confusion as well.

On that note I would just comment that for whatever reason the conflation of belief and knowledge as common usage happened, it is understandable coming from generations prior to the age of information, but we do a dis-service to future generations if we resist adapting.
On a Related note...

[yt]pl3vxEudif8[/yt]

[Divine Insight]

Okay, but do you have beliefs of a moral, ethical, or political nature?

No. I have no beliefs in any of those areas.

For example, do you believe that rape is wrong?

I do not condone rape, and in a law abiding society I would vote to have laws against rape.

I personally consider rape to be "wrong". Especially when it's technically defined as a non-consensual act. By definition we can that is it has been defined to be wrong and therefore there is no need to "believe'" that is is someone wrong in any other context.

In fact, what would it even mean to "believe" that rape is wrong? Believe what? That it's wrong with respect to nature or the universe? I personally see no rational reason to think that the universe would consider anything to be wrong. To begin with the universe would need to be conscious in order to do so, and there's no evidence that the universe is conscious. And even if it was, it certainly doesn't appear to care about humans in any case.

The only reason the term "belief" makes sense to you in this context can only be because you are allowing that there might exist some higher moral authority of some sort. But now you have not one, but two beliefs.

1. First you must believe that a higher moral authority exists.
2. Then you must believe that this higher moral authority view rape to be wrong.

I see no reason to assume #1 without evidence, much less #2.

So it would be silly for me to say that I believe that rape is wrong. All I can say is that I personally do not condone it, and I personally judge it to be wrong. That's all I can say about that. And neither of those positions require a belief in anything.

Do you believe that women should have the right to vote?

I support women's right to vote. No belief necessary.

I think this just demonstrates how we, as humans, have come to abuse our own words and language.

Why even ask me whether I believe women should have the right to vote? What in the world would belief have to do with it? Just ask me whether I support women's right to vote or not and I'll tell you. And then you will know what my opinion in on the matter. It has nothing to do with belief.

Do you believe that Donald Trump should be impeached and removed from office?

In a free society I would definitely vote for that.

But again this isn't based on a belief. As far as I'm concerned Donald Trump is a disgrace to America, to the world, and to all of humanity for that matter.

I actually agree with Barrack Obama when he said that Donald Trump wasn't fit for the office of the presidency of the United States. Clearly Obama was right. And I don't think Barrack was basing that on a belief. I think he just recognized that Donald Trump was unfit for office. Barrack got it right.

And again, this has nothing to do with belief. In my opinion Donald Trump should have never been allowed anywhere near the White House. Apparently that opinion was a sound opinion to hold. We've seen the truth of that now. And we're watching his incompetence unfold daily right before our very eyes right up to this very moment in time.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 83 by Divine Insight]

Why hesitate to call rape both immoral and against the law? When the secular and the religious law coincide, why not agree the conduct they proscribe is both immoral and unlawful?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 83 by Divine Insight]

Why hesitate to call rape both immoral and against the law?

I don't hesitate. In fact, didn't I basically just say that in my personal opinion rape is immoral? But what does that have to do with belief? That was the question. Since when does a personal subjective opinion equate to a belief?

Other than by possibly using the word "belief" in a very informal vernacular way that is not in true accord with it's formal semantic meaning? Using the word belief in this way would be a dishonest approach considering the obvious theistic purpose of trying to bring knowledge and science down to the level of theistic beliefs in an effort to pretend they are on the same level playing field.

When the secular and the religious law coincide, why not agree the conduct they proscribe is both immoral and unlawful?

Again, what would that have to do with belief? I don't deny that most religious law considers rape to be immoral. But to acknowledge this does not require belief either. Although it may require some form of unsubstantiated belief to claim that all religious views consider rape to be immoral. After all, in some religions the abuse of a woman by a man can indeed be considered to be moral even when secular laws may deem it to be rape. So it's not clear that all religious beliefs will agree with all secular opinions when it comes to deciding what is or isn't considered to be rape.

This prime example would be whether it's possible for a man to rape his own wife. In the secular world, it is possible for even a husband to force himself onto his own non-consenting wife. This can be seen as spousal abuse and there are even secular laws against such spousal abuse. In some religions including some factions of Christianity it's not even considered possible for a man to rape his own wife because according to their "beliefs" they say that the wife has been commanded by God to serve her man's every need and desire.

I'm certainly not going to condone those "beliefs" as representing anything that I considered to be morally okay.

And keep in mind here that my moral opinions are mine. No belief required. I even have the option of changing my view if I so desire.

On the other hand, the religious folk do not claim to have moral opinions. Instead they claim that their moral values are based entirely on their "belief" that some God has decreed absolute moral values that are not even open to human opinions or evaluation.

So theistic morality is indeed based on belief in a God who decrees morality.

Whereas a secularist takes full responsibility for their own subjective views on what they consider to be right or wrong. No belief required to hold secular views on morality.

Again, for theists to try to claim that secular opinions are the same as believing in divine commands is nothing short of a play on the word "belief" in an attempt to try to claim that there is no difference here. But clearly there's a huge difference.

i.e. Holding the personal opinion that rape is wrong, is NOT the same as believing that there exists some higher moral authority who has decreed that rape is absolutely wrong objectively. The latter is a belief, the former is a secular opinion.

[historia]

In fact, what would it even mean to "believe" that rape is wrong?

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

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

You wrote:

I personally consider rape to be "wrong".

To consider something to be wrong is to believe it is wrong.

That's simply what the word 'believe' means.

Just ask me whether I support women's right to vote or not and I'll tell you. And then you will know what my opinion in on the matter. It has nothing to do with belief.

To hold an opinion on a matter is to have a belief concerning that thing.

That's simply what the word 'believe' means.

And again, this has nothing to do with belief. In my opinion Donald Trump should have never been allowed anywhere near the White House.

Again, to hold an opinion on a matter is to have a belief concerning that thing.

That's simply what the word 'believe' means.

The only reason the term "belief" makes sense to you in this context can only be because you are allowing that there might exist some higher moral authority of some sort.

This is simply incorrect. Nothing in the definition of the word 'belief' requires "some higher moral authority of some sort." This is one of a number of straw man arguments in this thread.

Okay, but do you have beliefs of a moral, ethical, or political nature?

No. I have no beliefs in any of those areas.

Your answers to my questions above belie this claim, as in each one you are merely substituting various synonyms for belief in place of the word itself. This is like insisting you aren't an alcoholic, you're just a person suffering from an addiction to the consumption of alcohol. That's a distinction without a difference.

[historia]

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

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

Other than by possibly using the word "belief" in a very informal vernacular way that is not in true accord with it's formal semantic meaning?

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.

[historia]

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.

[SallyF]

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.

Nowhere near the same thing.

Belief is FAR too broad a term.

I suggest religionists like to keep it that way.

In an attempt to keep the evidence-free make-believe of virgin-born god-men and choirs of angels and such in the same field as gravity and such.

Languages evolve.

Change begins with a few.

Neologisms become standard vocabulary.

But one can guarantee change will be opposed by religionists.

I do not have beliefs.

[Divine Insight]

In fact, what would it even mean to "believe" that rape is wrong?

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

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

Are you truly paying attention to this definition in detail? I think not.

You seem to be ignoring the part where it says, considered to be true.

You wrote:

I personally consider rape to be "wrong".

To consider something to be wrong is to believe it is wrong.

That's simply what the word 'believe' means.

No, that's not the definition of belief that you have given. Considering something to be wrong is not the same as claiming that is it some sort of ontological truth.

That's the difference right there. Having an opinion alone is not a claim that something is true. All you are saying is that you personally consider rape to be wrong. You aren't claiming that rape is objectively wrong in some larger context.

So no, having an opinion does not equate to having a belief, according to the very definition that you have just posted. You have failed to take into consideration that a belief is to hold that something is true beyond just your opinion.

As far as I'm concerned rape can only be wrong in the mind of people who chose to hold that opinion. There is no absolute or objective right or wrong. Therefore there is no need to have a belief in order to have an opinion.

Just ask me whether I support women's right to vote or not and I'll tell you. And then you will know what my opinion in on the matter. It has nothing to do with belief.

To hold an opinion on a matter is to have a belief concerning that thing.

That's simply what the word 'believe' means.

Wrong. 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. You need to consider it to be true, not just your opinion.

You're trying to equate just any opinion to a belief. That's not that belief means. If it did then it would be a redundant word. You are basically trying to claim that there is no difference between an opinion and a belief. Do you really want to maintain that position?

And again, this has nothing to do with belief. In my opinion Donald Trump should have never been allowed anywhere near the White House.

Again, to hold an opinion on a matter is to have a belief concerning that thing.

That's simply what the word 'believe' means.

Again, you are tossing out the very definition of belief that you have posted and demanding that any opinion automatically equals a belief. That's nonsense. That's not what the definition you posted is saying.

The only reason the term "belief" makes sense to you in this context can only be because you are allowing that there might exist some higher moral authority of some sort.

This is simply incorrect. Nothing in the definition of the word 'belief' requires "some higher moral authority of some sort." This is one of a number of straw man arguments in this thread.

You're the one creating a strawman argument here. The definition you gave for belief requires that you "consider your belief to be true", that's what makes it a belief, rather than a mere subjective opinion.

A theist believes that there is some higher moral agent or objective morality that demands that rape is absolutely wrong in some ontological sense. That, my friend, is a belief.

A secularists is simply saying that in their opinion they consider rape to be wrong and refuse to condone it. That requires no belief at all on their part. A secularist takes full responsibility and ownership of their opinions.

This is the difference.

A theist, on the other hand, tries to claim that rape is absolutely wrong because they believe that there exists either a higher agent who decrees it to be wrong, or that it is somehow objectively wrong and would continue to be wrong regardless of their opinion.

Are you going to try to tell me that there is no difference between these two positions?

A secularist is simply saying that they personally consider rape to be wrong and do not condone it. No belief required.

A theists is demanding that rape is absolutely wrong because they believe this to be true.

A secularist requires no belief. The theist's views are entirely based upon belief.

Okay, but do you have beliefs of a moral, ethical, or political nature?

No. I have no beliefs in any of those areas.

Your answers to my questions above belie this claim, as in each one you are merely substituting various synonyms for belief in place of the word itself. This is like insisting you aren't an alcoholic, you're just a person suffering from an addiction to the consumption of alcohol. That's a distinction without a difference.

No, your analogy here with an alcoholic is wrong. I don't need to believe that rape is wrong in order to hold the opinion that I personally consider rape to be wrong.

By the way, I think this whole discussion is kind of absurd since the very term rape is define as unlawful activity conducted without consent.

Rape - unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person's will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception

I mean we're talking about a term that is defined as being wrong by humans.

This is like asking if murder is wrong. Of course it is, by definition of the term. Murder is a "wrongful" killing. By definition.

However, it's still true that a secularist can agree with this definition purely from a subjective point of view. In other words, they can agree with this definition without the need to believe that rape is wrong beyond human subjective opinion.

But a theist would go much further proclaiming rape to be absolutely wrong regardless of what humans might think. And that requires a belief in a higher moral agent.

Therefore when it comes to morality theists hold beliefs while secularists do not.