I believe that children are our future, and that we should teach them well and let them lead the way. Show them all the beauty they possess in side, all that jazz.

I believe we should strive for honesty and justice and kindness and liberty even though I don't think it's possible to arrive at perfect honesty, justice, kindness, and liberty.

I believe in the lot of the same stuff that religious people believe in if you leave out the supernatural. I think that a lot of the stuff that religous people believe in that they credit to the supernatural is really cultural/human and that's why we atheists can agree with them that we shouldn't kick puppies or drown kittens. Barbecuing them is, of course, another matter.

amkerman wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

amkerman wrote:(for purposes of the question, if it is based on evidence, or if there is evidence to back it up, it is not a belief, but a prediction of the truth.)

Completely false. Belief does not require the absence of evidence. That would be faith.

Stop trying to redefine the terms of the question. It's my question, I get to define the terms.

This made me laugh. You don't get to define terms just because you're the one asking the question.

Teuton wrote:
There is a difference between abstract linguistic types and concrete linguistic tokens
The concrete tokens of the letter A exist in minds or texts but if it exists the letter A as an abstract type exists nowhere

True - language existed after human
evolution so any type [ dialogue or text ]
is therefore an artifical construction of our
brain - it cannot therefore exist anywhere else
without that point of origin and so therefore cannot
be abstract as that implies a non physical origin - even
if language only existed in thought form it would still have
a physical origin even though the thought itself would not be so
There are abstracts however that do exist and even independent
of human existence or interaction : time being the most obvious one

Wow ,that's one very OPEN question .Atheists believes a lot a things.....excepts the existence of gods .
What is the point of this thread ?

surreptitious57 wrote:

Teuton wrote:
There is a difference between abstract linguistic types and concrete linguistic tokens
The concrete tokens of the letter A exist in minds or texts but if it exists the letter A as an abstract type exists nowhere

True - language existed after human
evolution so any type [ dialogue or text ]
is therefore an artifical construction of our
brain - it cannot therefore exist anywhere else
without that point of origin and so therefore cannot
be abstract as that implies a non physical origin - even
if language only existed in thought form it would still have
a physical origin even though the thought itself would not be so
There are abstracts however that do exist and even independent
of human existence or interaction : time being the most obvious one

You two should get a room, or at least take your philosophical mutterings to the forum where it belongs.

I believe Rocky should have won on points against Apollo Creed.

amkerman wrote:Belief:
Confidence in something not susceptible to rigorous proof. Confidence in the truth of something without evidentiary support.

As nothing can be rigorously proved without first adopting a set of unproven axioms, anything in which anybody has reasonable confidence is a belief according to that definition. We might be able to exclude cogito ergo sum but I can't think of anything else.

People that I know, both atheists and theists, typically have reasonable but not incorrigible confidence about things such as
- what their name is
- what they ate for breakfast
- what colour socks they are wearing
None of these things can be rigorously proved, so they are 'beliefs' according to the above definition.

I hope that helps.

andrewk wrote:As nothing can be rigorously proved without first adopting a set of unproven axioms…

…or a set of inference rules. Natural deduction does without axioms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_deduction

amkerman wrote:

Fallible wrote:How can I possibly answer a question about what atheists believe in? How should I know? What do non ghost believers believe in? What do people without belief in Santa believe in? I can't think of anything I believe in without some form of evidence. I have no idea of what types of circumstances warrant belief. That would be subjective, I suspect. There, that's the best I can do.

If you took the time to read the OP you would easily realize the question is person specific. I explicitly state such IN the actual question. The actual sentence that is the question, makes the point blatantly clear. I also, in the question, explicitly state that I am not looking for generalizations.

Your indignation is unwarranted.

I took the trouble to read it twice. If you took the trouble to read my reply, you would easily realise that I answered the question on a personal level also.

Your didactic tone is unwarranted.

HughMcB wrote:I believe Rocky should have won on points against Apollo Creed.

I believe for every drop of rain that falls, a flower grows. I believe that somewhere in the darkest night, a candle glows. I believe for everyone who goes astray, someone will come to show the way. I believe above the storm a smallest prayer will still be heard, I believe that someone in the great somewhere hears every word. Every time I hear a newborn baby cry, or touch a leaf, or see the sky, then I know why I believe.

Do you believe in life after love?

Blip wrote:Warning.

Oops, sorry. I was attempting to channel Goldenmane there in a tongue in cheek sort of way. And I did forget the key word, so it was inneffectual at best.

Teuton wrote:

andrewk wrote:As nothing can be rigorously proved without first adopting a set of unproven axioms…

…or a set of inference rules. Natural deduction does without axioms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_deduction

Thank you Teuton. I had never heard of this before. I am charmed by the idea that somebody was so taken aback by the technicality and length of Russell's and Frege's systems that they invented their own.
An interesting contribution as usual from you.