" Bill, I don't have the training in philosphy that you do, but however precisely one attempts to assign meaning to a word or concept, one will rarely, if ever, find universal agreement about that definition or concept. It seems to me that your position is also based on 'belief'."

Janie...your post deserves a thoughtful, carefully worded reply. I'm not sure I can do it justice without boring you...

I have had that basic point made before by Little Hawk, Amos...etc...that I simply 'believe' something different. You ARE, of course, correct that we do not find "universal agreement about that definition or concept", but that is not quite the point.

(I just sat here, eating my lunch, and tried for 10 minutes to decide which of 4-5 different directions to go and what to begin with....)

...well...take the word 'belief' to start. What does it even mean to say "I believe"? In one sense, it indicates a different mental state than "I know". In another usage, it can simply indicate "this is my best guess, and I'm going to operate 'as if' it is the case until I get better information". There are a number of ways to explain common uses of that..and other..slippery words.
What *I* mean usually, is that 'believe' indicates a condition in which one specifically does NOT know. In the issues we often debate here, some folks are saying "I believe IN" something....this may be Jesus, telepathy, astrology, reincarnation, ghosts.....etc..etc..
   Naturally, some folks immediately reply "Nonsense!" to a lot of these 'beliefs'...meaning, I presume, that they do NOT 'believe' in the claimed phenomenon.
The problem is, each side often means more: claiming that their view IS 'true' or 'valid' or 'obvious'. You have seen this; "I KNOW my Jesus" or "That is obvious rubbish...no rational person would believe that if they really thought about it!"

What I often try to do in my interminable way...*grin*.. is to show where the USE of a word is either ambiguous, careless, equivocating, or sometimes just plain meaningless in certain contexts. You said that my "position is also based on belief", but some concepts have nothing to do with 'belief'...we don't 'believe' that 2+2=4; this is a definition. If one claims otherwise, we ask them what they MEAN. Are they referring to a different number base system? Is it a trick? (2 pints of some liquids mixed with 2 of some other liquids are not = to 4 pints, as their molecular structure allows them to intermix in less space) I have trick where I say "half of twelve is seven" and when someone says "that's impossible" I show them this XII ....XII.....cute, huh? I am 'equivocating' on the concept of 'half'.

In the same way, people use terms when they really do not realize what they are claiming, or state badly exactly what it is they wish to claim. This is understandable and natural, as not everyone gets it pounded into them in a class setting (like I did)what those subtle points are! But the result is, that most folks get the notion that IF it is just the case that 'beliefs' are just personal & subjective, then THEIR belief is just as good (valid, true, etc) as anyone else's....and then comes the 'feeling' that "just as good" means "probably true"......and "probably true" can easily mean 'worth fighting about', with all the implications that follow. See why I am concerned about how folks 'think' and how they communicate and defend their thinking?

What my "position" is, is that certain concepts are not subject to personal and 'subjective' definitions....that in order to debate and explore and discuss some topics, we MUST adopt the precise language and definitions that Mathematicians, Logicians and Philosophers have worked out over the centuries. Otherwise, we talk past each other and argue 'till we're blue in the face, each thinking the other is close-minded, ignorant, biased or just plain dumb!

I just read a discussion about whether my 'vocation', woodturning, is an 'art' or a 'craft'...I have read similar debates about whether some "form" is 'beautiful', and whether some behavior is 'fair' or 'nice'......yeah, it's not hard to explain how awkward it is in those cases to show that folks are 'equivocating' and using definitions differently, but ask about "heaven' or 'spirit' or 'mind' or 'God' or 'reincarnation', and folks often not only use the words differently, but often have no real idea what the concept might refer to! We get questions like: "Will we meet our pets in Heaven?" with little thought about what "heaven" might be, and what aspects of ourselves or our pets would be DOING this meeting. We assume that because there is a linguistic construct there is some corresponding reality. Plato did something similar and based his entire philosophy on it....he suggested that every thing that IS merely 'imitates' some 'eternal form'.....and this general notion has permeated Western thought for a couple thousand years.... the IDEA that some 'realm' can exist beyond the clunky one we inhabit is ingrained in us and much of our language....it just "ain't necessarily so".

Can I summarize all that? *sigh*....not easily...wasn't even half done...*wry grin*....but here's a try:
...It is a very different thing from saying "I do not accept your belief" to saying "your belief is wrong"....I cannot **DISPROVE** anyone's metaphysical beliefs, but that does not mean they are correct UNLESS I can disprove them.
--->> What I use to comment on various claims, beliefs, ideas and definitions is not, in itself, a belief<<---...It is a system of analysis agreed on by experts to objectively examine claims, not to make claims. Sometimes this analysis indicates that the claim and/or its defense is weak.....then one has to examine whether the claim or its defense can be improved in any way....and what it means if it can't!
   

We humans are very complex creatures...most organisms can't even consider these questions. We have spent a couple of hundred thousand years living in fear & superstition and only in the last 3000 years or so have we been able to even phrase the questions so we could LOOK for answers....is there any doubt that the superstitions that filled our early development should influence our attempts at answers?
   In my opinion, we must do as Descartes did, and 'doubt' all presumed answers...then see if reason can restore any of them.
It ain't easy....it's easier to just pick something comfortable and wrap it around us, and I agree that everyone does some of this in order to function, but some issues are just too important to take on faith or authority.......and everyone has to decide how hard they are willing to work to sort out the trickier parts.

I don't work half as hard as I ought to at it....I wish I could do better at explain it all...