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?

[AgnosticBoy]

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?

If you are looking for a philosophy or system that advocates for no beliefs or opinion then we have that with the 'agnostic' position. In response to atheists and theists seeming so certain and dogmatic, Huxley invented the agnostic position. He realized that both atheists and theists tend to put IDEOLOGY before logic and evidence so agnosticism rightly reverses that process.

While it is possible for an atheist to withhold accepting beliefs on God's existence, but they still tend to cling to other ideologies like materialism, scientism, etc. These would inevitably have some impact on deciding on a belief or even non-belief. So even if the atheist holds no belief on God but many may be choose this because of the ideology of materialism. Not having evidence of a material God leads to their nonbelief. But to truly have no beliefs towards God's existence would take showing that even your non-belief is not influenced by unsupported ideologies, like materialism. Again, this is why I advocate for the agnostic position because it is anti-ideology (simply a practice of applying logic and evidence) and that's a good objective reason for non-belief in God.

[Divine Insight]

Indeed, who do you think is going to fall for your semantic word-play, your attempts to change common usage of the word 'belief'?

Please explain to me how you think that common usage of English words is going to support Christian apologetics.

And if you think that's irrelevant, then please explain why this debate is taking place in Christianity and Apologetics?

If we were talking about mere semantics of human invented words, I would agree with you that the English language is grossly ineffective at conveying the details of important concepts. You won't get any argument from me on that point.

But how is that supposed to help Christian Apologetics?

I have no beliefs, in terms of what religious people mean when they use that word. What I have is an understanding of what is known to be true. And the things that I cannot know to be true I don't pretend to know. Therefore I have no no beliefs.

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'

Absolute hogwash.

Just because you insist on forcing inept English semantics onto me doesn't mean that I need to accept your labeling of my position on anything.

I don't need to have "beliefs" to have an ideology. All I need to have is credible information to work with. No belief necessary.

I don't need to have "beliefs" to have opinions. Especially when I'm totally agreeing that my opinions are indeed my own subjective views. What would I need to believe about that? My opinions are my opinions, they don't require beliefs.

I don't need to have "beliefs" to have a worldview, especially when my worldview is totally agnostic. I don't claim to know the true nature of reality. Do you? If not, then you don't need to have "beliefs" to have a worldview either.

All you are doing is trying to ram inept semantics down the throats of others.

For what purpose? Why in the world would you be so passionate about forcing semantics down the throats of others.

If someone tells me they believe something I'll accept their word for it. And if someone tells me that they don't need to have beliefs to accept verified knowledge I'll accept their word for it.

On this site it's against the rules to tell a Christian that they aren't a Christian.

I suggest the same should be true for anything else a person claims. If I tell you I have no beliefs, who are you to demand otherwise?

I don't need to have beliefs and I reject your insistence that I do just because the English Language is grossly inept.

Words are just symbols and sounds we make in our lame attempt to try to convey ideas and concept. In this case the word "belief" is extremely inefficient at doing so.

You can choose to live your life under the fascist dictation of semantics, or you can rise above it and refuse to be categorized by ineptly defined words.

That choice is yours. But please don't try to shove your choices down my throat. That's not going to fly.

Religious beliefs have nothing at all to do with an understanding of scientific knowledge and the truth of nature.

If the English language is incapable of making that distinction then so be it. But that's a fault with language, not a fault with the actual concepts under consideration.

So in this sense I agree with you. The English language words are often grossly inept when it comes to being able to distinguish between important ideas and concepts.

So if that's your point, which it appears to be, then I do indeed agree with you.

English semantics of individual words, is indeed extremely inept.

But how does that help Christianity and Apologetics?

If you can't answer this question, then any further arguing about how inept English semantics is in this thread is a moot point.

[Divine Insight]

If you are looking for a philosophy or system that advocates for no beliefs or opinion then we have that with the 'agnostic' position.

I agree. However, if we're arguing semantics, then all agnostics are necessarily also atheists.

Atheist - (a - theist) a person who does not embrace a theology (i.e. a belief in a God).

An agnostic is then necessarily an atheist, by semantic definition.

This is just another example of useless semantics.

You are correct though that some atheists can also hold other views. Such as materialism. To hold that materialism is true would not be the same as being agnostic on that particular topic.

Therefore while all agnostics are atheists, not all atheists are agnostic.

~~~~~

By the way, it's even possible to have a religious agnostic. This would simply be a person who openly confesses that they cannot, and do not, know whether a God exists, but they chose to believe that one exists on pure faith.

Believing on pure faith is not claiming to know that it's true. So a religious person who confesses to believing on faith, is actually an agnostic. It's not until they claim to be certain their God exists that they move from being an agnostic to a theist.

[AgnosticBoy]

If someone tells me they believe something I'll accept their word for it. And if someone tells me that they don't need to have beliefs to accept verified knowledge I'll accept their word for it.

On this site it's against the rules to tell a Christian that they aren't a Christian.

I suggest the same should be true for anything else a person claims. If I tell you I have no beliefs, who are you to demand otherwise?

I don't see this as a good rule. If there is evidence that someone doesn't hold a position that they say they are, that person should be called out on it. False claim is a false claim even if it is about yourself.

We should be able to at least say that a view is not Christian even if the person claims to be Christian. The same goes for atheist side.

[Mithrae]

Indeed, who do you think is going to fall for your semantic word-play, your attempts to change common usage of the word 'belief'?

Please explain to me how you think that common usage of English words is going to support Christian apologetics.

And if you think that's irrelevant, then please explain why this debate is taking place in Christianity and Apologetics?

This is the forum in which Sally declared that she "doesn't have beliefs"; the forum in which, a while back, StuartJ started a new thread to declare that "The English language needs a new word; the word 'belief' should be left to the world of gods and angels and talking animals"; the forum in which you are devoting many pages worth of text to vehemently insisting that you also "have no beliefs." Obviously Stuart [strike]belie[/strike] felt that this stance was an important apologetic to be made against Christianity; apparently Sally also, and 'til now I would have assumed the same of you: If you don't understand the relevance of your comments to this forum, why on earth are you spending so much time on them?

I've already said a few times why I think this attempt to change the language is being promoted by some folk, which is pretty well encapsulated in that quote from Stuart: There seem to be a handful of atheists/critics who [strike]bel[/strike] imagine that if they could successfully equate 'belief' with naive gullibility in common parlance, it would seriously undermine the Christian religion in which a Greek word translated as belief is quite prominent. And in fairness that may be partially true, though as I've pointed out I suspect a more prevalent consequence of such an effort would be religious folk simply using words like 'know' and 'conclude' in place of belief, which would be a bit of a backfire. But even if the effort to redefine belief were indeed successful in terms of changing common usage and successful in undermining perceptions of Christianity (and/or other religions), it would be a success of pure propaganda and sophistry: It's got nothing to do with logical argument or empirical facts whatsoever.

If we were talking about mere semantics of human invented words, I would agree with you that the English language is grossly ineffective at conveying the details of important concepts. You won't get any argument from me on that point.

And you think that making up your own private definitions for words will be a more effective way of conveying those details? Despite all your overblown rhetoric and violent imagery that this is a "fascist dictation of semantics" in which I am supposedly trying to "shove choices down [your] throat," the reality is that no-one is even remotely denying your right to use words however you please. You can claim that things "that are accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion" (Merriam-Webster) are not beliefs as long and loudly and as boldly blue as you please, and I doubt anyone will raise a finger to stop you. We're just going to point out, taking this complaint against current usage at face value, that A) it seems like a rather counter-productive effort trying to remedy perceived 'ineffective' communication by muddying the waters even further and B) conventional English already has much simpler tools available for clarifying or honing in on the precise nuance, when required, of broad terms. For example:

Wiploc, post #34: "And you think you can unblur theistic vagueness by using words in non-standard and unexplained ways yourself?"

You didn't answer that question.

Historia, post #88: "This is why languages like English have adjectives and adverbs to limit and qualify those meanings."

Your response to this was to ask how it was a meaningful apologetic for Christianity... as if the only reason for anyone to heed the language's conventions and refrain from just making up their own definitions at will is whether or not it is relevant to the viability of the Christian religion!

[AgnosticBoy]

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?

Many atheists will tell you that they have no beliefs because of the definition of atheism. But then I find that a lot of atheists are also liberal Democrats and that party tends to have views that are against Christianity (e.g. same-sex marriage, abortions, pre-martial sex, transgender rights, etc.) So while the atheist may be right about what "atheism" means, but the problem is that no one is just an atheist. There are other philosophies or ideologies (liberalism, politics) that relate to the biblical God.

In conclusion, an atheist who also claims to be a liberal and Democrat can not claim to have "no beliefs" that relate to God. Now if you're an atheist and you shun ALL unproven ideologies like an agnostic would, then I can see you maintaining "no beliefs". This type of atheist may not come out and say that God doesn't exist, but they would certainly be against him if he did exist. Some may take that further and not want such a God to exist.

[Clownboat]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?

I don't need to have "beliefs" to have an ideology. All I need to have is credible information to work with. No belief necessary.

No one so far has been able to show that this is not true. It has been deomonstrated here that to hold any position that has been brought up so far (rape, shape of the earth), no belief is necessary. It has not been shown that Sally or Divine Insight have beliefs in any of these matters.
When it comes to the religious, they can't have confidence that Jesus walked on water like someone can be confident about the shape of the earth or evolution. Therefore to consider both as beliefs is to confirm that the word belief is lacking like Sally seems to be arguing.

That a man walked on water happened, truly takes a belief.
Such is not the case for evolution, rape or the shape of the earth or anything else so far brought up.

All anyone has to do is show that Sally or Divine Insight actually have beliefs. Until then, the OP which is, 'do atheists not have beliefs' is true for at least two atheists here. Can anyone show that Sally or Divine Insight have beliefs? Eleven pages in and this has not been shown, so therefore it must remain true (that they don't have beliefs) until shown otherwise.

Anyone can believe that Sally has beliefs, but can they offer credible information to suggest such a thing?
Beliefs don't need to be credible. Positions that Sally or Divine Insight have must be it seems. How can beliefs (Muhammed flew to heaven on a winged horse or Solomon could talk to ants) and credible information (evolution or the shape of the earth) be interchangable?

The word 'belief' seems to miss the mark in making this distinction.
That is what the information I'm reading here suggests to me anyway.

[Clownboat]

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?

Many atheists will tell you that they have no beliefs because of the definition of atheism. But then I find that a lot of atheists are also liberal Democrats and that party tends to have views that are against Christianity (e.g. same-sex marriage, abortions, pre-martial sex, transgender rights, etc.) So while the atheist may be right about what "atheism" means, but the problem is that no one is just an atheist. There are other philosophies or ideologies (liberalism, politics) that relate to the biblical God.

In conclusion, an atheist who also claims to be a liberal and Democrat can not claim to have "no beliefs" that relate to God. Now if you're an atheist and you shun ALL unproven ideologies like an agnostic would, then I can see you maintaining "no beliefs". This type of atheist may not come out and say that God doesn't exist, but they would certainly be against him if he did exist. Some may take that further and not want such a God to exist.

Can anyone display for us that Sally or Divine Insight have any beliefs?
"Do atheists not have beliefs?"

If no one can, I'm inclined to take them at their word and furthermore agree that the word 'believe' is not descriptive enough.

If I'm being honest with myself, I also don't 'believe' that the earth is an oblate spheroid.

I was one such person that use to believe that Jesus walked on water (and rose and all that)?
My beliefs in such things are not similar when compared to my position on the shape of the earth. Even if someone wants to claim I believe the earth is spherical.
The word 'believe' is incapable of displaying this discrepancy.

[Zzyzx]

.

Many atheists will tell you that they have no beliefs because of the definition of atheism.

Is there some quarrel with definition of Atheism as 'without belief in gods'?

But then I find that a lot of atheists are also liberal Democrats and that party tends to have views that

Some are, some aren't. So what?

are against Christianity (e.g. same-sex marriage, abortions, pre-martial sex, transgender rights, etc.)

My what a large brush – and a persecution suggestion.

Being opposed to discrimination is not quite the same as being against Christianity -- which often seems to favor discrimination, exclusionism, and delusion of superiority.

So while the atheist may be right about what "atheism" means, but the problem is that no one is just an atheist.

Exactly. Being without belief tells NOTHING about the person.

There are other philosophies or ideologies (liberalism, politics) that relate to the biblical God.

So what?

In conclusion, an atheist who also claims to be a liberal and Democrat can not claim to have "no beliefs" that relate to God. Now if you're an atheist and you shun ALL unproven ideologies like an agnostic would, then I can see you maintaining "no beliefs".

Who authorizes you to dictate what Atheists may or may not do?

This type of atheist may not come out and say that God doesn't exist, but they would certainly be against him if he did exist.

How do you know what others would or would not do? Omniscient?

Some may take that further and not want such a God to exist.

It might be nice if there were a wise 'god' – totally unlike the jealous, vindictive, angry, genocidal one proposed by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 109 by Zzyzx]

I suppose my main point is that many atheists are not consistently rational. They hold beliefs. Only an agnostic can truly say they hold no beliefs nor ideologies. Only agnostics are consistently rational by admitting that we don't accept anything as true unless it is supported by logic and verifiable evidence.