Belief in evolution

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Many theists say we "believe" in evolution as if it is "the one true atheist thingamabobbo commandment type thingo" you know.

Like they say we "believe in evolution" as if we "just have blind faith that evolution works" and stuff.

I'm thinking many atheists (not all atheists if I had to guess - particularly those under the age of about 3-4 years who have never heard about evolution before ) do not believe in evolution just because it "looks like the truth" or something.

I'm not sure there is any better way to say that I accept it as a valid and most plausible theory for the variations in life (yes, that bold print is for any thests thinking it is the origin of life) because there is much evidence that supports this.

I am curious as to what other peoples' thoughts are on this?

[zebba]

Belief seems like the right word to me. "I believe evolution to be true, as there is overwhealming evidence for it".

I think the issue here is that "belief" get's linked, incorrectly IMO, to faith or religion. Many people refer to belief in darwinian evolution as a "religion", or that it takes "faith" to believe in it.

The only "faith" aspect is the same "faith" it takes to do anything in life - when I approach an intersection, I have "faith" that when I check for oncoming traffic that my senses didn't fail me.

I can't even imagine how they think it comparable to a religion. But then, some people think belief that evolution is true therefore means that we should all be selfish and do anything we want for personal gain. These people cannot be reasoned with, so their claims that we are as fundamentalist as them shouldn't bother us at all...

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

That is exactly what I am trying to get at. The word "belief" as in "belief in evolution" seems to me to be used by theists to claim as if we "believe" that evolution is true without evidence.

That statement made is effectively false in my opinion. At least I don't just believe evolution because it is there. I actually accept it as a scientifically proven fact.

That is also what I am asking in the poll: whether or not you guys think theists are wrong to say we "believe" in evolution.

Also note that I am using evolution here as an example, since it is most widely talked about in this fashion. You know "Evolution" and "Darwinism" and what not.

[zebba]

Well what I'm saying is, from a dictionary perspective, we do. It's a typical theist argument that can't be beaten, along the lines of the classic "proove God doesn't exist".

Basically - we say we don't "believe", and they wave a dictionary under our noses and proove that we infact do, and thus claim victory. If we say we do "believe", they assume that belief means whatever the hell they want it to mean and claim victory.

Of course, claiming victory and actually acheiving it are two very different things.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Theists claim victory even when they say rubbish like "Aha! God exists because it is in the Bible so there!" and what not. That doesn't mean that argument is unbeatable.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

http://dictionary.com/browse/believe

–verb (used without object)
1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something,

: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.

–verb (used with object)
2. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
3. to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
4. to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.
5. to suppose or assume; understand (usually fol. by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town.

—Verb phrase
6. believe in, a. to be persuaded of the truth or existence of: to believe in Zoroastrianism; to believe in ghosts.
b. to have faith in the reliability, honesty, benevolence, etc., of: I can help only if you believe in me.

Important stuff for clarity.

[davo]

as per Venganza.org .. "logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

So I guess then belief in God is logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence?

[Dan Gleibitz]

I think atheists who avoid the word 'believe' are barking up the wrong stick. It is theists who try to paint faith and belief as the same thing. They're not*.

The above definition of belief is a perfectly good one. Let's not redefine it to mean "acceptance without evidence" - ie. faith.

I voted "No". I believe in science, and science currently supports evolution. I also believe that my wife drives a red car. I believe that the Prime Minister of Australia is a man called Kevin. I believe that....

* Edit: Faith is a subset of belief. All faith is belief but belief is not necessarily faith.

[atheist_angel]

I accept 'evolution', because it's the most plausible explanation for the evidence, at the moment.

A Theological belief can be based on legend, or hearsay, (or even untreated\undiagnosed mental disorder) ... depending on the individual holding the theological belief. It's like someone taking 'hearsay' and then just taking it for granted that the hearsay is 'true'. However when said hearsay is seen on a mass scale, it looks more like propaganda.

"I believe in such and such g-d and his invisible flying fairies" ... "I accept so and so as my savior or l-rd."

Somehow I think, religion has hijacked both the words "believe" and "accept". It should be: I take it for granted that fairies are 'real' and such and such is 'true'!