I have no objections to any form of expression which is appropriate for the occasion, even if it is used to weaken or strengthen the posit. The use of the words "belief" and "believe" is appropriate on many occasions and I see no reason NOT to use them, when appropriate.
Me too.
But the meanings of some words have changed with me, mainly from my new understanding of past history. Words like Pagan use to be bad, now it is good. “Land of Milk and Honey" use to be good land, now I understand that it refers to not so good land.
The “Ten Commandments" I now understand are very Egyptian in every aspect, so if they came for “God", then god was Egyptian. Point being, you can go back in time with certain words or method of thoughts.
With these posts, I now see the word “Belief" differently, weak and lacking in knowledge.
I can see where this is important when the argument calls for a precise description of the person's "state of mind" . But when the term is incidental to the topic, It is good to have a simple word which still conveys a general state of mind.
If we drop "belief" from the general vocabulary, what do we do with a word like "conviction" which normally is based on a strong belief, but in court is used only when found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt."
What do we do with the word "doubt"? "we doubted his veracity", and is reasonable doubt the antonym of reasonable belief?
IMO, they all belong to the same family of "mindset" without absolute cerainty. But IMO, when a word or statement is incidental to the thrust of the argument, I see no problem in the succinctness of a generality.
As Occam is fond of saying: "succinctness, clarity's core".