Do you believe in God?

[Famine]

You just put it this way.

Yep. Lack of belief. Imagine.

We've been here before.
No beliefs is a completely false concept.
If there is no belief in anything, there is no nothing, Science included.
Information and rationalisation?
Both are limited empowerments.
Not to mention they both require belief.
In a dynamic enviroment, it's totally absurd.
Belief is a foundational, essential for life.
Everyone employs it, including you.

And again you make the assertion that again shows that you cannot accept that people can live without belief.

So when you said it's "not difficult at all" for you to accept it, you weren't telling the truth.

 

[LeMansAid]

That would not make them Christians.

A reasoning possibly as rigid as some religious nutters' reasonings. "Christian" as far as I know is the name given to a follower of Christ. The Bible is another separate component. Just because you view all of these components as inextricably linked, doesn't make it so. All the PS4 drivel that I wrote was borne out of you not being able to de-link God and religion in your mind.

I should have left it alone really, but I'll just add one more thing: All of the logical stuff that you wrote about in reference to hardware, firmware and software may well be valid, but there's one huge caveat. We are talking about people that are often, if not always, illogical. So logical rules don't apply, and for them, God may be no less real than PS4. They might truly believe that Fifa is the "one true game". In attempting to make these people less dangerous, we need to (for the purpose of the exercise), think the way that they think.

The video that you originally presented as an explanation of "why athiests bother" explains an attempt to destroy the one thing that religions cling to most... their God. I just can't see how that would be more effective than an attempt to say, erode the links to the cultural and nationalistic elements that have permeated religions. I think it's very much a case of: think like your enemy to know how to defeat them. It's all about aims and methods, and trying to destroy the concept of God is fine, just don't go thinking that it will have any positive effect on the people that are the reason for the supposed aims.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Yep. Lack of belief. Imagine.And again you make the assertion that again shows that you cannot accept that people can live without belief.

There is no escape from belief.
You have to "believe" you are living without belief, just to entertain it as a personal operating system.

So when you said it's "not difficult at all" for you to accept it, you weren't telling the truth.

No, thats not the same thing.
You are confusing two different issues.
I can accept you are under the impression, you can live void of belief.
Obviously, you are declaring as such.
That has no bearing on whether that philosophy, has any basis in reality.
Since that philosphy, under any amount of reasonable scrutiny is completely untenable, then as far as acceptance as a viable alternative, the answer is no on that count.

 

[Famine]

There is no escape from belief.

You have yet to demonstrate this.

The shock of it!

You have to "believe" you are living without belief, just to entertain it as a personal operating system.

Nope. I'd recognise it as a belief.

I have no evidence that I believe in anything, so I must default to having no belief in belief.

No, thats not the same thing.
You are confusing two different issues.
I can accept you are under the impression, you can live void of belief.

Which isn't what I said at any point - you are, once again, inventing your own argument in order to have one. Let's revisit the precise exchange again:

Obviously, everyone has their beliefs and basis for them.

It seems that accepting this isn't the case is really difficult for you...

I didn't say "It seems that accepting people are under the impression this isn't the case is really difficult for you". I said "It seems that accepting this isn't the case is really difficult for you..."

Your response was:

"No, its not difficult at all."

Since we've now determined that you do not accept that people can have no beliefs, your statement that it's not difficult for you to accept it was a lie - you cannot accept that people have no beliefs and will repeatedly make unsupportable statements that they do, pretending that belief systems underpin logic, rationality and science with your bizarre habit of redefining language to suit your world view.

 

[Ingram]

Thats a false assumption.
GOD and GOD's creation are two different entities.

Not really. If God is perfect, then surely everything he creates must also be perfect? If it isn't, then he can't be perfect.

 

[Dotini]

Once there was a large community, really almost a nation, of flourishing, upstanding Christians in southern France called the Cathars. They were exterminated in the Albigensian Crusade by the Inquisition of the central Christian church in Rome because, in addition to other heresies such as female priesthood, they preached an eternal struggle between good and evil - dualism - i.e., that the material world was created by a corrupt, evil God which was in conflict with the spiritual world created by the good God. This is somewhat similar to Zoroastrianism, an antecedent of Judaism and Christianity.

Not sure that this is apropos of anything particular in this thread. But I thought some might be amused by this fragment of religious history.

It might be asked if anyone believes in good, or in evil. Or if the two are absolutes in conflict, or if the two are part of a continuum.

 

[Imari]

It might be asked if anyone believes in good, or in evil. Or if the two are absolutes in conflict, or if the two are part of a continuum.

Interesting.

Objectively, no, I don't think there's any such thing as good and evil. There's just stuff that happens.

In real life though they're very useful concepts to have in that they inform how we interact with other people.

 

[Dotini]

Interesting.

Objectively, no, I don't think there's any such thing as good and evil. There's just stuff that happens.

In real life though they're very useful concepts to have in that they inform how we interact with other people.

Would you agree that, in adult people, there is always some good and some bad?

 

[Imari]

Would you agree that, in adult people, there is always some good and some bad?

I don't think there's anything in people at all. People are just people.

I think that communities train people to feel certain ways about their actions, and that training is informed by what is generally good for the community. But that's probably about as close as I'd get to there being something inside people. And because it's training it's not immutable, you can be trained to feel good or bad about just about anything.

I think that all people are capable of doing what we would describe as good or evil actions. But since anyone is technically capable of doing anything, that's not exactly a revolutionary statement.

 

[Danoff]

We've been here before.
No beliefs is a completely false concept.
If there is no belief in anything, there is no nothing, Science included.
Information and rationalisation?
Both are limited empowerments.
Not to mention they both require belief.
In a dynamic enviroment, it's totally absurd.
Belief is a foundational, essential for life.
Everyone employs it, including you.

Give us an example.

 

[Scaff]

A reasoning possibly as rigid as some religious nutters' reasonings. "Christian" as far as I know is the name given to a follower of Christ. The Bible is another separate component. Just because you view all of these components as inextricably linked, doesn't make it so. All the PS4 drivel that I wrote was borne out of you not being able to de-link God and religion in your mind.

The bible is the only reference source for Christianity, its not a separate component at all. Without it the religion doesn't exist.

I should have left it alone really, but I'll just add one more thing: All of the logical stuff that you wrote about in reference to hardware, firmware and software may well be valid, but there's one huge caveat. We are talking about people that are often, if not always, illogical. So logical rules don't apply, and for them, God may be no less real than PS4. They might truly believe that Fifa is the "one true game". In attempting to make these people less dangerous, we need to (for the purpose of the exercise), think the way that they think.

So your analogy doesn't hold water but that's OK because its actually my fault?

The video that you originally presented as an explanation of "why athiests bother" explains an attempt to destroy the one thing that religions cling to most... their God. I just can't see how that would be more effective than an attempt to say, erode the links to the cultural and nationalistic elements that have permeated religions. I think it's very much a case of: think like your enemy to know how to defeat them. It's all about aims and methods, and trying to destroy the concept of God is fine, just don't go thinking that it will have any positive effect on the people that are the reason for the supposed aims.

What?

 

[sn00pie]

Wouldn't it be great if we had a system where assumptions could be killed by truth?

 

[MatskiMonk]

Wouldn't it be great if we had a system where assumptions could be killed by truth?

That's called knowledge, unfortunately it's really not possible for humans to know everything about the Universe, so we have to make assumptions to get on with our daily lives, and hope that our collective knowledge allows us progress as a species, based on assumptions.

 

[Rich S]

You just put it this way:


We've been here before.
No beliefs is a completely false concept.

I think most everyone believes many things about everything they've ever known, but its certainly possible to NOT believe in something too, lol.

 

[Mark T]

If I was given God's perfection and power, I believe that I could create a better universe than he created.

In fact, just give me his power, without the perfection and I could still create a better universe. I believe that in my current human form I'm more perfect than God.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

You have yet to demonstrate this.

You already demonstrated it, by admitting your belief is formed from information and rationalization.
Which btw your argument here is woefully short of both.

The shock of it!Nope. I'd recognise it as a belief..

Obviously you would not, since you are apparently incapable of distinquishing what is belief.

I have no evidence that I believe in anything, so I must default to having no belief in belief. Which isn't what I said at any point - you are, once again, inventing your own argument in order to have one.

Failure to recognize or admit to belief, does not constitute the reality of no belief.
Since practically everything you have done and continue to do is evidence of belief,
there is no rational reason to not recognize it as such.

Let's revisit the precise exchange again:
I didn't say "It seems that accepting people are under the impression this isn't the case is really difficult for you". I said "It seems that accepting this isn't the case is really difficult for you...".

Apparently not as difficult as it is for you to accept you operate from belief just like everyone else does.

Your response was: Since we've now determined that you do not accept that people can have no beliefs, your statement that it's not difficult for you to accept it was a lie -

I cannot accept the false statement, that "the sun didn't come up today", since I know otherwise, but if you think it didn't, then yea, I can accept that.

you cannot accept that people have no beliefs and will repeatedly make unsupportable statements that they do, pretending that belief systems underpin logic, rationality and science with your bizarre habit of redefining language to suit your world view

You are attempting to sell a totally false concept without even a legitimate wrapper on it.
Everything from this moment back is the only thing absent of belief since its already established.
The only connection to belief it has, is whether you choose to believe any of it or not.
Everything from this moment forward is of belief, since it is yet to be established.
Or actually, "an unknown".
Anything you or anyone else has ever done in any preparatory aspect, is of belief.
Thats a bonifide, self evident fact.
Set your alarm clock? Get up to go to work? Get something to eat? decide to to travel here or there?
Get a loan? Make a purchase? Buy tickets to something in the future? Plan on buying GT6?
All from belief, belief, and belief.
Often these acts are conditionally reinforced with odds on repeatable outcomes.
Nevertheless, they are all done from belief, since there is absolutely no gaurantee of future fulfillment.
GT5 was a good example of that.

Your a Science man, so let me ask you, why has Science continued to do research, experimentation, and calculations?
Only one reason:
They believe there are more discoveries to be made.

Take it to the bank, there is no escape from belief.

 

[Dotini]

We need a thread called "The King's English", devoted to definitions and meanings of words. Obviously, there are shades of meanings depending upon the context in which the words are used.

 

[Famine]

I cannot accept the false statement, that "the sun didn't come up today", since I know otherwise, but if you think it didn't, then yea, I can accept that.

Hold fire there, sparky.

You lied in responding to a statement, pretending it was a different statement so that you could give the opposite answer. The statement was that you cannot accept that people operate without belief. You said that you could easily accept it, by pretending what I'd said was that people think they operate without belief, then demonstrated that you cannot accept that people operate without belief.

So I state again - you cannot accept that people operate without belief. What follows is a stark demonstration of that:

You are attempting to sell a totally false concept without even a legitimate wrapper on it.
Everything from this moment back is the only thing absent of belief since its already established.
The only connection to belief it has, is whether you choose to believe any of it or not.
Everything from this moment forward is of belief, since it is yet to be established.
Or actually, "an unknown".
Anything you or anyone else has ever done in any preparatory aspect, is of belief.
Thats a bonifide, self evident fact.
Set your alarm clock? Get up to go to work? Get something to eat? decide to to travel here or there?
Get a loan? Make a purchase? Buy tickets to something in the future? Plan on buying GT6?
All from belief, belief, and belief.
Often these acts are conditionally reinforced with odds on repeatable outcomes.
Nevertheless, they are all done from belief, since there is absolutely no gaurantee of future fulfillment.
GT5 was a good example of that.

Your a Science man, so let me ask you, why has Science continued to do research, experimentation, and calculations?
Only one reason:
They believe there are more discoveries to be made.

Take it to the bank, there is no escape from belief.

Your world revolves around belief so much that you believe your standard operating procedure - of believing your alarm clock will go off or believing that the Sun will rise in the morning - is the de facto SOP of everyone on the planet. Talk about egocentric!

You cannot give any examples of people requiring belief to operate because your world-view is so warped by the fact you have to believe in everything that you think everything is an example of it. You simply cannot accept that people operate without belief.

Which brings us right back to my statement that it's very difficult for you to accept it and your lie that you find it quite easy.

 

[Imari]

Thats a bonifide, self evident fact.

If you think something is self-evident, yet you can't explain why, it's probably not as self-evident as you think it is.

 

[Exorcet]

Set your alarm clock? Get up to go to work? Get something to eat? decide to to travel here or there?
Get a loan? Make a purchase? Buy tickets to something in the future? Plan on buying GT6?
All from belief, belief, and belief.

Actually no. In fact the last one can't even be a belief in the first place.

I set my alarm clock because doing so gives me the desired effect not because I'm going to randomly assume it will wake me up the next morning. This is similar to the whole argument about needing belief if you think the Sun will rise tomorrow. No belief is needed, we have facts that establish it as a given. If you want to go deeper you don't know if the alarm clock will work the next morning, but observation should give you a good idea of what probability to expect. Should observation reveal that your clock is very unreliable you don't go and blindly believe it will work the next day, you do something to improve your odds of waking up on time.

Failure to recognize or admit to belief, does not constitute the reality of no belief.

So please back up your claims, because you stating that people believe does not mean that they do.

 

[Danoff]

Set your alarm clock?

I do this because my limited understanding of the universe suggests that it is highly probable that it will benefit me in the morning. It's possible that the sun could go nova overnight, or that right now deadly radiation from a stellar supernova near by is on its way to cook the earth and will hit overnight while I am sleeping - thus eliminating the necessity of setting the alarm clock. There are lots of reasons to think the alarm clock will not be needed, an infinite number in fact. However the probability that I will need it based on my, again limited, understanding of the universe and reality and the way it has behaved at all times prior to this one suggest that I am playing the odds well by setting the alarm clock.

Get up to go to work? Get something to eat? decide to to travel here or there?
Get a loan? Make a purchase? Buy tickets to something in the future? Plan on buying GT6?

See above. None of these are belief. They are all based on experience that I know might not work out this time - but that I can conclude based on all previous experience will very likely work out.

Your a Science man, so let me ask you, why has Science continued to do research, experimentation, and calculations?
Only one reason:
They believe there are more discoveries to be made.

Take it to the bank, there is no escape from belief.

Because scientists can conclude based on past experience that it is very likely that there are more discoveries to be made.

You are using the colloquial definition of "believe". As in "I believe I'll have a sandwich". You are not using the technical definition of "believe" as in "I believe in God". I explained that thoroughly earlier.

 

[Ingram]

Often these acts are conditionally reinforced with odds on repeatable outcomes.

A theist alluding to the scientific method to try and win an argument. My irony sense is tingling.

 

[Touring Mars]

A theist alluding to the scientific method to try and win an argument. My irony sense is tingling.

Quite. It's like those creationist videos that try to tell us that evolution (and science in general) is a "religion" that is based on "faith" and "belief" as if these are all dirty words

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Hold fire there, sparky.

You lied in responding to a statement, pretending it was a different statement so that you could give the opposite answer. The statement was that you cannot accept that people operate without belief. You said that you could easily accept it, by pretending what I'd said was that people think they operate without belief, then demonstrated that you cannot accept that people operate without belief.

I've already explained that several times.
The only person that factually operates from no belief, is either dead, or soon will be.
They would be incapable of taking any action, of anykind, for any reason.
Otherwise, again, you are operating from belief just like everyone else.
As said, if you think you are not, then thats your decision.
And furthermore I have not lied about anything.
If that is your decision, such as it is, then I accept it.
There is a lie being perpetrated here, but its not on my side.

So I state again - you cannot accept that people operate without belief. What follows is a stark demonstration of that:Your world revolves around belief so much that you believe your standard operating procedure - of believing your alarm clock will go off or believing that the Sun will rise in the morning - is the de facto SOP of everyone on the planet. Talk about egocentric!.

It's not my world, its "the reality of the world', of which your a part of.

You cannot give any examples of people requiring belief to operate because your world-view is so warped by the fact you have to believe in everything that you think everything is an example of it. You simply cannot accept that people operate without belief.

I've given quite a few already.
See above.

Which brings us right back to my statement that it's very difficult for you to accept it and your lie that you find it quite easy.

See above.

Actually no. In fact the last one can't even be a belief in the first place.

I set my alarm clock because doing so gives me the desired effect not because I'm going to randomly assume it will wake me up the next morning. This is similar to the whole argument about needing belief if you think the Sun will rise tomorrow. No belief is needed, we have facts that establish it as a given. If you want to go deeper you don't know if the alarm clock will work the next morning, but observation should give you a good idea of what probability to expect. Should observation reveal that your clock is very unreliable you don't go and blindly believe it will work the next day, you do something to improve your odds of waking up on time.


So please back up your claims, because you stating that people believe does not mean that they do.

Congratulations.
You just described the implementation of "belief".
In this case, rationalization of the favorability of odds on conditioning forms "belief".
BTW GOD forbid, you could die in your sleep tonight.

I do this because my limited understanding of the universe suggests that it is highly probable that it will benefit me in the morning. It's possible that the sun could go nova overnight, or that right now deadly radiation from a stellar supernova near by is on its way to cook the earth and will hit overnight while I am sleeping - thus eliminating the necessity of setting the alarm clock. There are lots of reasons to think the alarm clock will not be needed, an infinite number in fact. However the probability that I will need it based on my, again limited, understanding of the universe and reality and the way it has behaved at all times prior to this one suggest that I am playing the odds well by setting the alarm clock.

Same here.

See above. None of these are belief. They are all based on experience that I know might not work out this time - but that I can conclude based on all previous experience will very likely work out.

To the contrary, they are classic "belief".
Also formed from rationalization of the favorability of odds on conditioning.

Because scientists can conclude based on past experience that it is very likely that there are more discoveries to be made.

More of the same.

You are using the colloquial definition of "believe". As in "I believe I'll have a sandwich". You are not using the technical definition of "believe" as in "I believe in God". I explained that thoroughly earlier.

Take your pick, they are both "belief".
Only the complexity and significance varies.

 

[Famine]

I've already explained that several times.

Stated, not explained. There is no explanation, just an unsupported claim.

only person that factually operates from no belief, is either dead, or soon will be.

[Citation needed]

They would be incapable of taking any action, of anykind, for any reason.

[Citation needed]

Otherwise, again, you are operating from belief just like everyone else.

[Citation needed]

And furthermore I have not lied about anything.

This response was inaccurate. Not only was it inaccurate, it was deliberately inaccurate through you pretending the words written meant something else:

Obviously, everyone has their beliefs and basis for them.

It seems that accepting this isn't the case is really difficult for you...

No, its not difficult at all.

What's the term for a statement that is deliberately and knowingly inaccurate? Ah, "a lie".

I'll state again - it's really difficult for you to accept that people operate without belief. The correct answer from you is whether you will accept that or not. The lie is that you will accept that when you mean you won't accept that - which is what you did.

It's not my world, its "the reality of the world', of which your a part of.

As stated before, because it's so fundamental to you to have to believe, you will never accept that people can operate without belief. You will never accept that a thought process can occur without a leap of faith - and every example you give of a thought process is, in your mind, an example of belief.

This is your world-view and you are prevented from seeing other world-views because it's your whole-hearted belief.

Congratulations.
You just described the implementation of "belief".
In this case, rationalization of the favorability of odds on conditioning forms "belief".

Nope. Being self-assured of an outcome regardless of odds forms belief.

BTW GOD forbid, you could die in your sleep tonight.

That'd make believing his alarm clock will wake him up quite a stupid belief then.

 

[Imari]

Congratulations.
You just described the implementation of "belief".
In this case, rationalization of the favorability of odds on conditioning forms "belief".

No it bloody well doesn't.

Reread Danoff's explanation of the colloquial and technical versions of belief:

I think this is an attempt to get around the colloquial use of "belief" and a technical use of "belief". What most people say when they use the word "belief" or "believe" is "suspect" or "expect".

"I believe I'll go outside" = "I expect to be outside in a few minutes, if all goes according to plan."
"I believe you're right" = "I suspect you're right"
"I believe the bridge will hold" = "I expect the bridge to withstand the load since the load is less than the value used in finite element analysis of the structure, and the material used has been tested to withstand more tension, compression, or sheer strain or torque than will be borne by any individual member under that, larger, tested load".

None of those are the technical definition of "believe". To "believe" something is to consider it true or factual.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/do-you-believe-in-god.111312/page-428#post-8993265

Note that belief in future events is almost always equivalent to thinking that they'll happen. We suspect, based on prior knowledge, but we don't KNOW. We can't KNOW. Believe in this context is a colloquial synonym for "think".

Belief in God, and this is the sort of belief we're talking about, is not the same. Someone who believes in God KNOWS he exists. "Think" is NOT a synonym. You don't think God exists, you KNOW.

That's the difference. I can go through my entire life not KNOWING anything. I have a lot of pretty good ideas about how stuff works, but I'm well aware they could all be completely wrong. I THINK stuff will happen like this, but I don't KNOW in the same way that you KNOW God exists.


Two words. One spelling. Get it right.

 

[Danoff]

To the contrary, they are classic "belief".
Also formed from rationalization of the favorability of odds on conditioning.

....

Take your pick, they are both "belief".
Only the complexity and significance varies.

If your "belief" in God is based on your interpretation of the odds that the Christian mythology is correct, then you are not a believer. If you are not convinced that God is truth, but instead suspect or think that it is probable that God is truth, then you do not have faith, and you should not call yourself religious. You are an agnostic - not entirely convinced.

 

[PsuPepperoni]

I keep an open mind, but I don't see how anyone can choose one religion over the other. Yahweh, Allah, Shiva, Santa Clause, and some kid's imaginary friend all have the same amount of supporting evidence.

John 20:29
Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

That's just irresponsible. Jesus should have thought about the future of mass-media and internet before he said that.

I just try to be good person, and if there turns out to be a god, hopefully he's omniscient and understands my view.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Stated, not explained. There is no explanation, just an unsupported claim

No its been explained, but obviously to no avail.

BTW, "citation needed" is a claim, not an explanation.

This response was inaccurate. Not only was it inaccurate, it was deliberately inaccurate through you pretending the words written meant something else.

That is absolutely false.
First off, you claim you have no beliefs, so you don't qualify for acceptance under the statement as made.
Second you are incorrectly assuming, that acceptance is the same as agreement.
Its not.
They are two distinctly different terms.

I'll state again - it's really difficult for you to accept that people operate without belief. The correct answer from you is whether you will accept that or not. The lie is that you will accept that when you mean you won't accept that - which is what you did.
As stated before, because it's so fundamental to you to have to believe, you will never accept that people can operate without belief. You will never accept that a thought process can occur without a leap of faith - and every example you give of a thought process is, in your mind, an example of belief.

Belief, is fundamental to everyone, and is an obvious fact of life.
A thought process can occur, but actions are exercised from belief.
An action is the proof of belief.

Being self-assured of an outcome regardless of odds forms belief.

"Ring a ding ding", you finally admitted a truth in reality.

Self assurance for an action, is an exercise in belief.

That'd make believing his alarm clock will wake him up quite a stupid belief then.

Not necessarily.
Although, without some reasonable indicater to influence his belief, it would be going against the odds on favorability.
The critical point is, he has no gaurantee of any kind on either outcome, since again, there is none on future outcome or fulfillment.
Its all belief either way.

What's the term for a statement that is deliberately and knowingly inaccurate? Ah, "a lie".

Quite.

No it bloody well doesn't.
Reread Danoff's explanation of the colloquial and technical versions of belief:
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/do-you-believe-in-god.111312/page-428#post-8993265
Note that belief in future events is almost always equivalent to thinking that they'll happen. We suspect, based on prior knowledge, but we don't KNOW. We can't KNOW. Believe in this context is a colloquial synonym for "think".
Belief in God, and this is the sort of belief we're talking about, is not the same. Someone who believes in God KNOWS he exists. "Think" is NOT a synonym. You don't think God exists, you KNOW.
That's the difference. I can go through my entire life not KNOWING anything. I have a lot of pretty good ideas about how stuff works, but I'm well aware they could all be completely wrong. I THINK stuff will happen like this, but I don't KNOW in the same way that you KNOW God exists.
Two words. One spelling. Get it right.

See above.
Once you take action to cross the bridge, you went from thinking, to "bloody well believing".

 

[Famine]

No its been explained, but obviously to no avail.

Stating something and then restating it more vigorously is no explanation. It's the equivalent of stamping your feet and yelling "IT JUST IS, OKAY?!"

BTW, "citation needed" is a claim, not an explanation.

It's not either of those things.

That is absolutely false.
First off, you claim you have no beliefs, so you don't qualify for acceptance under the statement as made.
Second you are incorrectly assuming, that acceptance is the same as agreement.
Its not.
They are two distinctly different terms.

Belief, is fundamental to everyone, and is an obvious fact of life.
A thought process can occur, but actions are exercised from belief.
An action is the proof of belief.

Quit dodging the question. Is it difficult for you to accept that people exist who do not believe in anything - even the belief that they do not believe in anything?

Yes or no?

Your previous answer was "no". Your responses since (including the above text-wall of irrelevance) have said "yes", indicating that answer to be false.

"Ring a ding ding", you finally admitted a truth in reality.

Self assurance for an action, is an exercise in belief.

It's hardly an admission. It's pretty much the definition of belief - self-assuredness in an outcome regardless of evidence.

Add in evidence and remove the self and it's no longer belief.

Not necessarily.
Although, without some reasonable indicater to influence his belief, it would be going against the odds on favorability.
The critical point is, he has no gaurantee of any kind on either outcome, since again, there is none on future outcome or fulfillment.
Its all belief either way.

Well boy howdy, aren't you excelling at missing the point?

Dying before you wake is one of myriad possibilities that must be considered and assigned a probability when setting an alarm clock. So is a power failure or spike resetting the alarm. So are interdimensional portals opening up and transporting you or your alarm clock to Tau Ceti, a curiously specific neutrino burst obliterating your clock, your ears spontaneously filling with wax and preventing you from hearing it or the entire street outside being filled with wildebeest. All are possible and all must be considered and assigned a probability.

Setting your alarm clock and it waking you in the morning is, on balance of probability, the most likely thing to happen. Expecting this to occur is just an analysis of evidence, weighting of probability and extrapolation of outcome.

Believing it will wake you, no matter what, is self-assuredness in an outcome regardless of evidence.