Those are both beliefs. Where they differ is in the logic or evidence used to arrive at that belief (maybe that is what you were getting at with heuristics).
I assume Derleth and hotflungwok mean to say something like “lack of belief in something that has no logic or evidence to support it is not the same as believing in something that has no logic or evidence to support it” but it would be nice to get their confirmation.
If confirmed, then we can debate whether the phrase “that has no logic or evidence to support it” can be ripped out of that quote without changing it’s meaning.
How do you know the Spirit is acting in people. Didn’t you learn this from some human?
Your belief like all humans is strictly a human thing, either passed on from some one else, or a desire we have in our own minds. Our beliefs are what we desire to be true, and some use them for good and some for harming those who differ from their beliefs. There are as many definitions of God as there are religions and even people in a certain religion do not believe all the same things.
Beliefs help some people whither it is in a God like Abrahamic religions, or Hindu etc…
Muslims believe the word of Mohammad, some believe the writings of other people. It is a matter of what works for one. Like some medications. what helps one can harm another,
Very few beliefs really influence me. I believe mars is the fourth planet in the solar system but I’d be hard pressed to name a time when it mattered to me.
Well, that’s kind of the point. Religious beliefs greatly influence the believer. Behavior is dictated, choices made, etc. You can see the effect of religious belief on a person’s life. Except for the notable absence of religious behavior, you can’t see the influence of atheism on my life in the same way. It has as much effect as my lack of belief in vampires.
You may accept certain theories or facts based on “evidence” which convinces you of their validity, but you still “believe” in them based on that acceptance. Belief does not necessarily infer acceptance based on blind faith.
I never said or implied that “god” WAS one of your beliefs. I merely pointed out that you do hold beliefs of one sort or another. You BELIEVE that when you jump, you will come back down. If anything else happened, it would blow your mind. It is not just an “opinion” you hold, it is something you accept so totally that you never question it and would have to reexamine your entire world-view should it suddenly be disproven beyond all reasonable doubt.
I differ with you that a lack of belief/acceptance in one thing or idea doesn’t involve a counter belief in something else. Example: you don’t believe in god. But you argue that you, instead, believe in nothing/have no belief whatsover. BS.
You may believe instead in evolution (because you’ve concluded the evidence proves it) and/or that all life was an accident and/or that when we die we simply rot and cease to exist as anything other than biomass, but you DO, I argue, “believe” in something.
Perhaps it is all semantics and we are at cross purposes here, but in my definition, a “belief” is a deeply help assumption about reality, regardless of whether it is well-informed or backed up by evidence or based on blind faith. We may pass judgement on the beliefs of others based upon our own beliefs and resultant beliefs/opinions re’ the intelligence of said others or the validity of their beliefs, but to deny that the deeply help assumptions of others ARE beliefs merely proves my point.
If you make no distinction between believing something based on evidence and believing something very much NOT based on evidence then what, in your estimation, is the value of evidence?
Hogwash. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it thusly:
Please note there’s nothing in there which restricts the term to something held to be true without evidence or despite massive evidence to the contrary. Your whole lousy argument consists of arbitrarily re-defining the word “belief” to suit yourself.
“God does not exist” is just as much a statement of belief as “God exists.” And a lack of belief is not the same thing as disbelief, though I have neither the time nor the patience to argue with you about that one.
I can’t believe you actually think you’ve made some kind of important point here.
I’m nont InvisibleObserver but there’s nothing wrong with poking into conversations into which one does not belong so I shall do so.
InvisibleObserver didn’t say he makes no distinction between those two kinds of belief. Rather, he just said that they are two kinds of belief. It is perfectly compatible with that to say they are two different kinds of belief. So he could answer that the value of evidence is that it gives you evidence-based belief, which is great when you’re trying to think your way through matters to which evidence is relevant.
Possibly, but the former has more evidence in its favour, namely the contradictions in the claims of God proponents. If the claim is that Godzilla walks the Earth, evidence against this claim can be the lack of seismic activity that would be a logical sign of his footsteps. Among the many claims on behalf of God is that he is just and merciful. The continuing existence of evil and tragedy is reasonable evidence that tends to disprove (or at least require major modification to) the claim.
For that matter, “Zeus exists”/“Zeus does not exist” is identical. “Godzilla exists”/“Godzilla does not exist”, also. “Entity X exists/Entity X does not exist,” as well. Is God to be treated differently? What claims made by God proponents are supported by independent evidence? What claims are challenged/disproved by independent evidence? What happens if the latter outnumbers the former? At what point does a distinction between the beliefs exist where one is clearly more reasonable than the other, or does it ever matter?
I’d love it if all religious people recognized this distinction. It’s when they don’t (and try to get creationism taught in science class, for example) that we have a problem.
Well, sure. There are all sorts of beliefs. Some are important, others aren’t. Some are well supported by evidence, others aren’t. Some are rational, others aren’t. Some are so well supported they are almost certain (vampires don’t exist) others are little more than guesses (there is another intelligent species in the universe.)
Again, I’m baffled that there’s any controversy here. I’m almost embarrassed saying things so self-evident. Next I’ll be pointing out that we use words to speak and numbers to count.
There’s two types of things “belief” can refer to:
What you said - a decision to hold a certain thing as true whether there is no evidence or contrary evidence or what other consider to be poor evidence. A real absence of belief is not the same as belief in this sense, although the choice to hold that something is nonexistant despite proof, is belief in this sense (athesim vs agnosticism in the popular sense).
One’s working mental model of the world. No one can truly know anything to be true beyond perhaps their direct unadulterated sensory input. But our brains come up with a model of our reality based on these inputs whether we choose to or not. Sensible people are technically agnostic about everything, but still act on their expectations of their best idea of how things are, and this requires some degree of assumption, or belief, even if that “belief” is tenatative and unproven. In this sense of belief, one’s absence of a belief can be considered a belief.
Definition of belief
It’s ridiculous that this is still being debated.
Belief merely means a conviction held for any reason – whether blind faith or hard evidence. Several posters have posted dictionary definitions that say as much, as well as give excellent examples of the word being used in non-religious contexts.
To the people still arguing that the word belief implies faith: please, give it up
Definition of atheism
Atheism is the lack of a particular belief, the lack of a belief in a god. Some atheists go as far as saying they’re certain there is no god, and for these it is true that they are holding a particular belief.
But I would say the majority of atheists hold a similar position to mine: I don’t claim to know there is no god but I see no sound evidence for his existence. The claim has no stronger weight for me, than if I were to just invent a hypothetical entity right now.
Vampires and wooden stakes
A few people have touched on a argument that I’ve had put to me a few times – “If you merely ‘lack belief’ about the existence of vampires, you’d probably carry a wooden stake with you; just in case. The fact that you don’t means you’re sure they don’t exist”.
(this argument is used by both ‘strong’ atheists and theists to assert that the position of ‘weak’ atheism is flawed).
One response is that there are an infinite number of hypothetical entities that could exist. For example, a wooden stake might be useful against vampires. But it may make me a target for wood-hating-telepathic-giant-spiders. When you consider the set of “all entities that there’s no evidence for”, no particular behaviour falls out as being useful.
No, a lack of belief would mean neither belief nor disbelief. I don’t believe in extraterrestrial intelligence, but I don’t disbelieve in it either. I do, however, disbelieve in extraterrestrial visitations (ETVs) . I don’t merely lack belief in ETV’s, I believe they aren’t happening and have never happened because the odds against it are astronomical.
In any case, relatively few atheists reject believe in God merely because they “lack belief.” Most atheists are materialists, and they reject the idea of God (and for that matter, anything supernatural) because they believe that everything ultimately has a material cause, because “nothing exists except atoms and the void.” That’s why I find all this pettifogging about “lack of belief” so exasperating. Such atheists kick metaphysics out the front door and sneak it back in through the kitchen.
There was no distinction made about the *existence *of belief. There can plenty of other attributes of beliefs to distinguish them. Truth, validity, complexity, impact, for example.
If I point out that a hamster and an elephant are both mammals, am I saying that there are no important differences between them? Would you not think it silly to insist that a hamster is somehow not a mammal because it is so very different from an elephant?
Well, I guess I’m exceptional because I’m an atheist who ‘merely’ lacks belief and I would not consider myself a materialist (materialism makes an assertion about reality that I do not see it is necessary to make).
Furthermore most atheists I’ve met have similar views. So I disagree with your premise.
Okay, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. But when someone always seems to be arguing from materialistic premises, it’s rather hard to take them seriously when they insist they’re not materialists. What would you think of someone who always seems to be arguing in favor of Christianity but insists that he’s not a Christian?
