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]

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.

You can't know something without believing it.

Could you disbelieve that the earth is round even though you know it to be true? No, that would be nuts.

So what I assume is going on is that you are using some non-standard meaning of the word "believe" in order to make some obscure point that might become clear if we spent enough time coaxing you towards lucidity.

Perhaps some people who seem to be on your side of the issue mean "just believe" when they say "believe." Thus, they might say, "I don't believe evolution is true, I know it," when what they mean is, "I don't just believe that evolution is true, I know it."

That explanation doesn't seem to work for your claim that you have no beliefs, but it does seem to explain the many illiterate advertisements using slogans like, "It's not a car, it's a Volkswagen."

Can you be saying that you have absolute proof of the truth or falsity of every claim you encounter? That doesn't seem plausible.

Can you be saying that you have no opinions about any claim until that claim is proven? I doubt it.

But that's what you seem to be saying. Let's have three categories:

• A: Things you don't know, don't have any opinions about. (Example: Does Bill Gates have an odd number of coins in his pocket right now?)
  
  B: Things you don't know for sure, but that you nonetheless have warranted beliefs about. (Example: My house will be where I left it this morning; nobody will have moved it or bulldozed it.)
  
  C: Things I know. (Example: 3 is bigger than 2.)

Your claim seems to be that nothing falls into category B. That makes no sense. Nobody could live like that.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 31 by wiploc]

So is it your intent to try to argue that there is NO DIFFERENCE between faith-based theistic beliefs, and evidence-grounded scientific knowledge?

Unless you are prepared to make that argument, then any appeal to semantics over trivial definitions of a word, are nothing short of absurd.

You can win the semantic argument because semantics is meaningless.

But you cannot win the crux of the argument.

Theistic "beliefs" are nowhere near in the same category with scientific knowledge.

Why you would want to loan support to such a dishonest theistic argument like that is beyond me.

In fact, this argument was over back in post #17 when Diagoras posted the following:

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.

Anyone who is going to take the position that the is NO DIFFERENCE between the faith-based beliefs of theists and the evidence-based knowledge of scientists is doing nothing more than trying to play absurd semantic games.

And for what purpose?

To try to raise faith-based theistic beliefs up to the level of confidence of scientific knowledge?

Give me a break.

Surely you're not going to fall for that one?

[Divine Insight]

A: Things you don't know, don't have any opinions about. (Example: Does Bill Gates have an odd number of coins in his pocket right now?)

I have no beliefs about that. However I would take an educated guess that Bill Gates doesn't even bother carrying change around in his pocket. I don't. I don't like having change in my pockets. I keep change in the ashtray of my car in case I might need it for a parking meter. Other than that, I have no use for change.

B: Things you don't know for sure, but that you nonetheless have warranted beliefs about. (Example: My house will be where I left it this morning; nobody will have moved it or bulldozed it.)

That's not a belief. That's a hope. Anytime I leave my home I HOPE that it's still there in the condition I left it when I return. I have absolutely no "belief" that that will be the case. Why should I?

C: Things I know. (Example: 3 is bigger than 2.)

Not only do I know that this is true, but I also know both 3 and 2 are man-made concepts defined by the formalism of mathematics. It's that formal definition that insures that 3 is a greater quantity than 2. By formal definition.

Your claim seems to be that nothing falls into category B. That makes no sense. Nobody could live like that.

Nonsense. I have no need to "believe" in anything. I don't even need to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. I can certainly hope that it does, and even expect that it will based on everything we know about our solar system.

However, do I need to "believe" that it will rise tomorrow? No absolutely not. For all I know something could happen between now and tomorrow that will end the solar system.

Just because people claim to believe something doesn't mean that it's going to happen. Beliefs are totally unnecessary and irrelevant.

Hopes are another thing entirely. We all have hopes. We don't all have beliefs. Some of us realize that life is full of surprises and what we once believed to be true may change at any time. This is even true of the laws of physics.

Do I believe that the laws of physics will be the same tomorrow as they are today? No, I don't believe that. But I do hope that they will remain constant, and I also expect that they most likely will based on how consistent they have been historically.

But do I believe that they remain constant? No, I neither need to believe this, nor would it do any good to believe it. The laws of physics are going to do whatever they are going to do regardless of what I might believe.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 31 by wiploc]

So is it your intent to try to argue that there is NO DIFFERENCE between faith-based theistic beliefs, and evidence-grounded scientific knowledge?

I never said anything like that. I never thought anything like that. I repudiate your misrepresentation.

Unless you are prepared to make that argument, then any appeal to semantics over trivial definitions of a word, are nothing short of absurd.

You're the one who made the absurd claim.

You can win the semantic argument because semantics is meaningless.

You can look it up in the dictionary.

But you cannot win the crux of the argument.

I don't know what the argument is.

Theistic "beliefs" are nowhere near in the same category with scientific knowledge.

Sure, certainly. Agreed.

Perhaps, in this context, when you say "belief" you mean something like "unsupported religious beliefs"? Is that what's going on?

Why you would want to loan support to such a dishonest theistic argument like that is beyond me.

My support is for clarity rather than incoherence.

In fact, this argument was over back in post #17 when Diagoras posted the following:

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.

Um, okay.

And you think you can unblur theistic vagueness by using words in non-standard and unexplained ways yourself?

Anyone who is going to take the position that the is NO DIFFERENCE between the faith-based beliefs of theists and the evidence-based knowledge of scientists is doing nothing more than trying to play absurd semantic games.

I wouldn't make such a claim. Anyone who would suggest that I made such a claim is doing nothing more than trying to play absurd semantic games.

And for what purpose?

Back atcha.

To try to raise faith-based theistic beliefs up to the level of confidence of scientific knowledge?

Give me a break.

Surely you're not going to fall for that one?

I am not for raising faith-based beliefs to the level of scientific knowledge. I am on the other team.

And your claim -- if I now understand it -- is not that you have no beliefs, but rather that you don't try to pass your beliefs off as knowledge. Do I have that right?

[Divine Insight]

And your claim -- if I now understand it -- is not that you have no beliefs, but rather that you don't try to pass your beliefs off as knowledge. Do I have that right?

Why do I need to have beliefs of any kind?

What's wrong with just having hopes and expectations?

Also what about knowledge? Is knowledge a belief?

Can you show me a dictionary that defines knowledge as belief?

Here's two definition from Google for knowledge:

1. Knowledge - facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

2. Knowledge - awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.

I don't see the word "belief" occurring in either of those two definitions.

[Goose]

You can't know something without believing it.

I think I understand what you mean from a definitional sense, if we define having knowledge of something as something like having a true justified belief.

Consider, however, the student who takes an evolutionary biology exam. Let's suppose he studied evolution very well and has intimate knowledge of evolutionary theory and so on. He scores 98% on the exam.

The student, however, is a creationist and happens to believe evolution is bunk.

Can we say that student knows something without believing it in this case?

[SallyF]

Here we are playing with preferred meanings of words again.

Instead of arguing for or against Jesus as the "Saviour of All Mankind".

Please refer to the evidence-free Christian quasi-definition above.

This is PRECISELY why I don't use the word "believe" in relation to what I accept as demonstrated fact, or reasoned theory.

"I believe in miracles"

Does NOT mean the same as:

"I believe in neurosurgery."

The English language obviously needs another word.

[SallyF]

Many of us LOVE to rummage for word meanings that tell us what we want to hear.

So here we go

I'll BOLD the bits I like

believe
/bliv/
Learn to pronounce
verb
verb: believe; 3rd person present: believes; past tense: believed; past participle: believed; gerund or present participle: believing
1.
accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.
"the superintendent believed Lancaster's story"
have religious faith.
"there are those on the fringes of the Church who do not really believe"
feel sure that (someone) is capable of doing something.
"I wouldn't have believed it of Lavinia"what an extraordinary woman!"
2.
hold (something) as an opinion; think.
"I believe we've already met"
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1AW ... bs=believe


believe
If you believe something, you think its true. If you are easily duped then you might believe your little sister when she says a thief broke into the house and ate all your candy.

Believe comes from old German words meaning to have trust. Belief doesnt require proof, just acceptance. If youre on a jury and the prosecution and defense present two different versions of what happened, you have to decide which side you believe. To believe can also mean having confidence. If you believe in me, it doesnt mean that you think Im real (unless Im a ghost). It means you think I can do what I set out to do.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/believe


Please allow me to reiterate that I DON'T HAVE BELIEFS

We shall have to think of another, simple word - rather than a complex explanatory phrase - to relace the use of "belief" when it comes to the acceptance of evidence-based propositions.

And leave the word "belief" for the exclusive use of those who believe in gods and ghosts and angels and such.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 36 by Goose]

Hmm.... what the student is writing is effectively that he knows there is a theory out there. He is asked to display his understanding of evolution, he does not need to believe it to be able to write about it. If he knew it was true he would, one presumes also believe it. If you know someone is lying to you, can you believe the lie? So there is a difference between having knowledge about something and knowing that thing to be true (or false).

If one knows something to be true (such as that a flame will burn you) knowing and "believing" effectively become synonyms.

[William]

[Replying to post 39 ]

JehovahsWitness: If one knows something to be true (such as that a flame will burn you) knowing and "believing" effectively become synonyms and most people of sound mind can't do one without the other.


William: Sound-minded logic and truth learned through experience informs my intellect that - having been burned by a flame I know that a flame will burn me.
I do not have to believe it or not anymore, because experience has shown it to being the case.
So therefore - sound of mind - I know. I do not believe.