So Lois, instead of responding here, you posted on the same subject on "why belief matters," which surely is a related topic; in fact, I started it as a spin-off from this one. Your response begins with an idiosyncratic definition of belief that I don't think you'll find in standard dictionaries, and only reflects our critique of how our adversaries use the word. And of course, you completely ignore what happened here on this topic.
Who's to say who's definition is "idiosyncratic". What appears in dictionaries has nothing to do with the actual definition of a word, it has to do with how many people use it.
I'm not questioning your right to believe whatever you like, even to the point of believing with a high degree of fervency that you don't believe anything. But you're just reacting to the word, and using it in a way that is far outside of its accepted meaning. Of course, you can define it however you like but giving it an idiosyncratic definition is not at all consistent with your claimed interest in clarity.
in my mind it's you who is giving it an inflexible meaning it does not deserve.
I wasn't going to respond to you any more, which I realize you might not mind at all but I thought I'd at least try to ask you what brings you here to a humanist forum. I thought we were all about reason, among other things of course, but that objectivity and reason were core values. What are your core values, and where do reason and objectivity fit in, if anywhere?
My view of reason is not yours. What brings YOU to a humanistic forum? Your desire to force your ideas on everyone else because you are convinced you are right and no one who diagrees with you can possibly be right?
You might start clarifying this argument, if you have any interest in doing so, by answering my question as to what you think I believe but that I claim I don't. If you think my view of belief is wrong and yours is right, please show where this is the case. What is it about your definition of belief that you think I have wrong? Examples would help.