What is the non-believers story?

Think about what been said in this thread.
People trying to come to some agreement on the meanings of words and how these words relate to their interest of thought. Words related in subject or context to “belief" seems to be the topic.

A statement that no intelligent person relies on belief, and that every intelligent person avoids that word, is dogmatic and demonstrably untrue.
Example this statement can go any direction, depending on which end of the scale of thought you are at. Used in subject of this thread for some people the statement is very true and for others it is false. Example, if your friend was Neurological Doctor and not a lawyer, then his thoughts could be looked upon as rational. Same for the people’s thoughts on “gravity", we know its effect, but we do not know the inner workings of what makes it work. Once gravity is all figured out then all logical thinking about gravity will be rational. All thinking of ill rational thought will be placed in the “belief" basket. When one hears the word “belief" one can assume there is missing “knowledge" or untested knowledge or knowledge that is unaccepted by the masses or people of authority on the subject.
So much depends on how you define the word "belief". It can mean a closely held opinion that can't be changed no matter what kind of evidence is provided to the contrary, or it can be a temporary acceptance of an idea until further information is presented.
I would call that an approach or response to belief. Let's open another topic and argue about that, too.
Now in the case of a loved one who is suffering from an incurable disease, I might be persuaded to try a new treatment that has not been scientifically proven to work on the off chance that it might improve my loved one's condition and there is no objective evidence that it does not work or does harm. That is not belief. It is more like hope.
No, it's more than mere hope. Drugs don't make it into clinical trials until they've demonstrated a likelihood of success. For the researchers, mere hope is not enough to start doing double-blind trials on patients who are sick. For the patient or his family, awareness of that likelihood of success makes the assessment a belief, i.e., an acceptance of a proposition as having a significant or high likelihood of being true.
Belief is a garbage-can word. It can mean anything anyone wants it to mean.
Yeah, like high, low, hot, cold, liberal, conservative. Let's throw those out of our vocabulary, too. I'm sorry to be so blunt but this is ridiculous. You're reacting, and you're not going to see this clearly until you stop doing that.
So much depends on how you define the word "belief". It can mean a closely held opinion that can't be changed no matter what kind of evidence is provided to the contrary, or it can be a temporary acceptance of an idea until further information is presented.
I would call that an approach or response to belief. Let's open another topic and argue about that, too.
Now in the case of a loved one who is suffering from an incurable disease, I might be persuaded to try a new treatment that has not been scientifically proven to work on the off chance that it might improve my loved one's condition and there is no objective evidence that it does not work or does harm. That is not belief. It is more like hope.
No, it's more than mere hope. Drugs don't make it into clinical trials until they've demonstrated a likelihood of success. For the researchers, mere hope is not enough to start doing double-blind trials on patients who are sick. For the patient or his family, awareness of that likelihood of success makes the assessment a belief, i.e., an acceptance of a proposition as having a significant or high likelihood of being true.
Belief is a garbage-can word. It can mean anything anyone wants it to mean.
Yeah, like high, low, hot, cold, liberal, conservative. Let's throw those out of our vocabulary, too. I'm sorry to be so blunt but this is ridiculous. You're reacting, and you're not going to see this clearly until you stop doing that. You are also reacting and you are not going to see this clearly until you stop doing that. You are using the oldest trick in the book--claiming that your opponent is reacting through emotion while you are thinking everything through with intellectual dispassion. You are just as likely to react emotionally as anyone. And I am just as likely to think things through with intellectual dispassion. Accusing your opponent of emotional reaction does not make it so. It is simply a device to put down your opponent in order to make your own argument look good. It doesn't work with people who have been around the block a few times.
Consider the specific examples in the posts from another topic, which I referenced a week or two ago, in which virtually every leading humanist and non-theist uses the dreaded B-word seamlessly, clearly and to excellent effect. Are they all stupid too?. If you can't find the quotations, I'll tell you where you can. A statement that no intelligent person relies on belief, and that every intelligent person avoids that word, is dogmatic and demonstrably untrue. You're obviously reacting, it's obvious from how you're writing. Believe me or don't, but you will be well-advised to employ caution in making categorical statements about so many highly intelligent and accomplished people.
The fact that other people who are supposedly highly intelligent and accomplished are sloppy in their use of language is part of the problem. I'll have more to say on this topic but I have to be somewhere else in 10 minutes, so talk to you later. TFS

What is going on here, this incessant argument that borders on word-policing, has nothing to do with clarity. I could easily go through the posts of everyone here, including my own, and pick out words that are ambiguous. Take the very words that define this forum: “Religion and Secularism.” They are both highly ambiguous, yet curiously, we see no objection, no big argument about it.
And this is why: This ridiculous argument over certain words, which we see repeated over and over in non-theistic groups, incessantly. has to do with the fact that some people associate certain words with religion, and more specifically with theism. Those are the only words that draw this fire, and Lois, whether you like me saying it or not, you’re doing it. I’m not and most of the other people who post here aren’t doing it either. There are some people who react to anything they associate with and identify as being part of the dreaded R-thing, religion.
Seth McFarlane did three or four episodes in one of his TV shows about a future in which atheists had taken over the world. But instead of achieving John Lennon’s utopia, the whole world was at war because the atheists couldn’t agree what to call themselves. You don’t think you’re reacting? Like hell you’re not. And that all this is or ever has been about.

Shouldn’t the first step be to teach people to think for themselves, then they can create their own stories from the vast amount of genuine material out there from the Big Bang to Evolution. Critical thinking skills are essential, without them people have no way to separate myths from the real thing.
Some good sources to build a basic understanding in science include shows like NOVA and radio programs like CBC’s Quirks and Quarks. We should all be encouraging much more support for the sciences in school starting at as early a level as possible.

Shouldn't the first step be to teach people to think for themselves, then they can create their own stories from the vast amount of genuine material out there from the Big Bang to Evolution. Critical thinking skills are essential, without them people have no way to separate myths from the real thing. Some good sources to build a basic understanding in science include shows like NOVA and radio programs like CBC's Quirks and Quarks. We should all be encouraging much more support for the sciences in school starting at as early a level as possible.
There are many essential steps. Critical thinking is one of them. Neil de Grasse Tyson's re-make of the Cosmos series is due to start, within the month I think.
There are many essential steps. Critical thinking is one of them. Neil de Grasse Tyson's re-make of the Cosmos series is due to start, within the month I think.
Popularizing science is a real art, Carl Sagan could do it without dumbing the science down too much or seeming like he was talking down to the audience. I hope Tyson can pull it off.

PLaClair, why this obsession with" reacting"? It’s something we all do - including you! in just about every post; it’s inevitable, on any forum. Someone writes a post, then someone reacts to the post with another post, then someone else reacts to the reaction… So why do you react to “reacting” as if it’s some terrible, verboten, blasphemous thing that intelligent people never do?
Seems to me that this thread is all about clarity of language ; Lois, Fuzzy and I would like to see clarity and precision in language whereas you seem to think ambiguity and misunderstanding are perfectly OK.
And why the obsession with “going through everyone’s posts” and picking out ambiguous words? That, coupled with your proposal to follow me around for a day looking for instances of “belief”, strikes me as seriously obsessive-compulsive behaviour.
And I don’t agree that choosing between alternative unproven cancer treatments has anything to do with “belief” either. Either one treatment looks better than the others based on scientific evidence, or you flip a coin: “belief” doesn’t enter into the equation at all.
Again, stuff to do, places to go; see you later, perhaps.
TFS.

PLaClair, why this obsession with" reacting"? It's something we all do - including you! in just about every post; it's inevitable, on any forum. Someone writes a post, then someone reacts to the post with another post, then someone else reacts to the reaction...... So why do you react to "reacting" as if it's some terrible, verboten, blasphemous thing that intelligent people never do? Seems to me that this thread is all about clarity of language ; Lois, Fuzzy and I would like to see clarity and precision in language whereas you seem to think ambiguity and misunderstanding are perfectly OK. And why the obsession with "going through everyone's posts" and picking out ambiguous words? That, coupled with your proposal to follow me around for a day looking for instances of "belief", strikes me as seriously obsessive-compulsive behaviour. And I don't agree that choosing between alternative unproven cancer treatments has anything to do with "belief" either. Either one treatment looks better than the others based on scientific evidence, or you flip a coin: "belief" doesn't enter into the equation at all. Again, stuff to do, places to go; see you later, perhaps. TFS.
Well, there's another word we'll have to ban from our vocabulary: react, reaction, reacting. It's too ambiguous. It could mean a response of any kind, or it could mean an emotional reaction, which was the sense in which I intended it. I think most people understood that. A reaction usually connotes a quick response without much thought behind it, such as with a reflex. It's a bitch having to condense complex thoughts into the symbols we call words but I have yet to see anything better. Of course, you won't understand meaning if you're intent on setting up straw men by interpreting things in a way that they plainly are not meant. So when I say that I could follow you around and observe your behavior, or I could go through everyone's posts, that doesn't mean that I intend to do it, much less that I have an obsession with it. I don't think you're doing yourself any favors here with remarks like those. Follow your own light. No, not the one in your bathroom. As for clarity, I have not observed the word "believe" or "belief" to be misunderstood. If I do, I'll respond appropriately. But I won't react. Of course that depends . . .

IMO; the idea that we can create our story from a physical science viewpoint alone, as we seem to be trying to do, isn’t going to do the job. The chief points of any of today’s religions is not science but social organization. How we treat not just our own progeny and those in our immediate community, but also the general social standards we judge ourselves and others in wider world-wide society by. Christianity base of influence comes from its ability to do this. “Help the poor” etc. even if many of the Christians and their Churches don’t live up to this standard and do no more than wanting to do individual handouts. So what “story” do we have or can we create, to establish ourselves in this area? What is the message we want to promote in areas outside of the physical sciences?

Well, there's another word we'll have to ban from our vocabulary: react, reaction, reacting. It's too ambiguous. It could mean a response of any kind, or it could mean an emotional reaction, which was the sense in which I intended it. I think most people understood that. A reaction usually connotes a quick response without much thought behind it, such as with a reflex. It's a bitch having to condense complex thoughts into the symbols we call words but I have yet to see anything better. Of course, you won't understand meaning if you're intent on setting up straw men by interpreting things in a way that they plainly are not meant. So when I say that I could follow you around and observe your behavior, or I could go through everyone's posts, that doesn't mean that I intend to do it, much less that I have an obsession with it. I don't think you're doing yourself any favors here with remarks like those..
Don't be ridiculous. And stop reacting emotionally. Nowhere have I suggested banning ambiguous words. But, apparently, it's perfectly OK for you to use a word in a special sense ("react" = "react emotionally"), but you whinge and complain when I do the same thing ("belief" = "uncorroborated opinion"). And in any case, I'm using the word "react" in exactly the same sense you are - a quick response without much thought. I think you're being thoroughly emotional about it all. I'm not the one setting up straw men. If you don't intend to follow me around or go through my posts searching for ambiguous words, why did you even mention it? You wrote it, but you "plainly" didn't mean it?? C'mon.... Backpedalling now doesn't help your cause at all. It still shows a bit of an obsessive-compulsive mindset, I would say. This discussion has been fascinating, but it's rapidly becoming tedious, so this will be my last post on the subject - unless, of course, you write something that seems to be even more ridiculous than usual. So, here it is. I define a "belief" as an opinion, which may be more or less strongly held, and may or may not be shared with others, for which little or no unambiguous corroborating evidence exists. I mean at least the kind of evidence that would be acceptable in a magistrate's court, if not in a scientific laboratory. And the strength and tenacity with which such a "belief" is held tends to be inversely proportional to the amount and quality of evidence that supports it. (This, incidentally, is pretty much how I defined it in my first post to this thread, so there's absolutely no excuse for misunderstanding me.) And, the reason I try to restrict my use of the words "belief"(n) and "believe"(v) is because, on the basis of a great deal of prior experience - some of it on this very forum - I judge that there exists a high probability, amounting almost to a certainty, that someone, somewhere, is going to misunderstand, misconstrue (often deliberately), misquote or otherwise screw my meaning up. Yes, you can call that reacting if you want, but there's nothing emotional about it; it's more like cool, mathematical calculation. When I said I suspect many things, but don't believe any of them, according to my own definition I was being perfectly clear, but you immediately "reacted" - and have continued to "react" ever since (yes, emotionally, even though you claim otherwise) - to try to prove to me that you know my mind better than I know it myself - which is presumptuous at the very least. You could follow me around for a day - hell, for a week, if you want - but you'd be wasting your time, and, more importantly, mine. I'm not going to change my definition to suit you - or to suit the dictionary, for that matter. You could point out to me situations where you think I'm "believing", over and over until your face turns purple, but I'm sure I could counter every single instance with a rational explanation. Dictionaries are, by their very nature, descriptive rather than prescriptive. They describe how words are used, not what makes sense. Words change in common usage even when the new meaning makes no sense. "I could care less," is an example, when what is meant is "I couldn't care less". Many people use the word "cohort" when they mean "colleague"; a "cohort" was originally the basic tactical unit of the Roman army and has been used subsequently to mean a definable group (usually of humans or other organisms), but because of confusion with a similar-sounding word has changed from a collective to a singular noun. It's common usage, but technically incorrect. So you can't rely too much on a dictionary for exact meanings. Why is "proving" yourself right - about my state of mind - so goshdarned important to you? If that's not an "emotional" response, then the word "emotional" has no meaning. TFS
So much depends on how you define the word "belief". It can mean a closely held opinion that can't be changed no matter what kind of evidence is provided to the contrary, or it can be a temporary acceptance of an idea until further information is presented.
I would call that an approach or response to belief. Let's open another topic and argue about that, too.
Now in the case of a loved one who is suffering from an incurable disease, I might be persuaded to try a new treatment that has not been scientifically proven to work on the off chance that it might improve my loved one's condition and there is no objective evidence that it does not work or does harm. That is not belief. It is more like hope.
No, it's more than mere hope. Drugs don't make it into clinical trials until they've demonstrated a likelihood of success. For the researchers, mere hope is not enough to start doing double-blind trials on patients who are sick. For the patient or his family, awareness of that likelihood of success makes the assessment a belief, i.e., an acceptance of a proposition as having a significant or high likelihood of being true.
Belief is a garbage-can word. It can mean anything anyone wants it to mean.
Yeah, like high, low, hot, cold, liberal, conservative. Let's throw those out of our vocabulary, too. I'm sorry to be so blunt but this is ridiculous. But scientists DO experiment on drugs before they reach clinical trials and that takes hope. If they didn't have hope and didn't experiment we would have no new drugs. If it suits you to throw out high, low, hot, cold, liberal and conservative, you should do so. It is easier for me to define those words than it is to define belief. You apparently have a similar hard time of it. So so throw them out! Placlair: "You're reacting, and you're not going to see this clearly until you stop doing that." As are you. Lois

This discussion, and the language policing that goes along with it, became tedious decades ago. The simple fact is that you guys are the ones arguing for narrow definitions of words that in fact are not defined narrowly in common usage. There’s no consistency in it, and it has nothing to do with clarity. The organizing principle is that if you associate a word with religion, you don’t want to use it, and you don’t like when anyone else does either. You can ignore that obvious reality but I promise you, most people see it.

Omnilingual (1957) by H. Beam Piper

http://www.feedbooks.com/book/308/omnilingual

Ultima Thule (1961) by Mack Reynolds
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30334/30334-h/30334-h.html
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Science_Fiction_(Bookshelf)
Atheists are too busy promoting their ideology to make science interesting and fun. :lol:
psik

But scientists DO experiment on drugs before they reach clinical trials and that takes hope. . . . Lois
Yes but not on humans. By the time they get to humans, they have some data to suggest that the drug is promising.
from Theflyingsorcerer, There’s an online site that claims to describe how to recognise a pseudoscientist; one major characteristic, apparently, is that pseudoscientists start with the desired conclusion and work backwards to the evidence. This gave me a chuckle, I can tell you; isn’t that precisely what a great many people who call themselves skeptics do? “Alien spacecraft/lake monsters/ghosts don’t exist, therefore what you say you witnessed didn’t happen….."
Are you agreeing with Ham's argument about the function and method of science?
Think about what been said in this thread. People trying to come to some agreement on the meanings of words and how these words relate to their interest of thought. Words related in subject or context to “belief" seems to be the topic.
A statement that no intelligent person relies on belief, and that every intelligent person avoids that word, is dogmatic and demonstrably untrue.
Example this statement can go any direction, depending on which end of the scale of thought you are at. Used in subject of this thread for some people the statement is very true and for others it is false. Example, if your friend was Neurological Doctor and not a lawyer, then his thoughts could be looked upon as rational. Same for the people’s thoughts on “gravity", we know its effect, but we do not know the inner workings of what makes it work. Once gravity is all figured out then all logical thinking about gravity will be rational. All thinking of ill rational thought will be placed in the “belief" basket. When one hears the word “belief" one can assume there is missing “knowledge" or untested knowledge or knowledge that is unaccepted by the masses or people of authority on the subject.
IMO that is a very narrow interpretation of the word "believe" and "belief" Believing is a verb of a brain function, we believe we are real based on overwhelming evidence. But are we? It grants a shared confidence of probability and is completely neutral in application. Similar to the term "trust", which is also neutral in concept or stigma. Belief is
Definition of belief (n) , Bing Dictionary be·lief 1.acceptance of truth of something: acceptance by the mind that something is true or real, often underpinned by an emotional or spiritual sense of certainty 2.trust: confidence that somebody or something is good or will be effective 3.something that somebody believes in: a statement, principle, or doctrine that a person or group accepts as true Synonyms: confidence · trust · certainty · credence · acceptance
What is the semantic problem if used in proper context? If that is misunderstood the fault lies not with the user. To automatically attach any other weight or meaning to perfectly good verbs or nouns is understandable but not logically permitted. We have these words in order to communicate, not to quibble about subtle implications or hidden agendas, unless that is the subject of the conversation. Is it?

Excellent post, Write4U. Each of us has our own purposes in the discussion. Lois and TFS seem to think that they’re arguing for clarity, though they’ve both admitted that they’re put off by the association of the word “belief” with theism (which they call religion); and they don’t identify examples where people have used that word here without being clear. My purpose has been to get them to see that they’re reacting emotionally without thinking it through. While many people will see that as my being a pain in the ass, our movements have been and continue to be weighed down by these semantic turf wars. This makes no sense and is counterproductive to our collective aims.

This discussion, and the language policing that goes along with it, became tedious decades ago. The simple fact is that you guys are the ones arguing for narrow definitions of words that in fact are not defined narrowly in common usage. There's no consistency in it, and it has nothing to do with clarity. The organizing principle is that if you associate a word with religion, you don't want to use it, and you don't like when anyone else does either. You can ignore that obvious reality but I promise you, most people see it.
Since you think you have a consistent, inambiguous definition of belief, what is your definiion? Lois