Claims vs. Beliefs

[John53]

I am not the one who is twisting the meaning of words.
It does not MATTER what people say "I am doing" because that does not make it true.
What I say is not a claim just because I post it on the forum. It is on only a claim if I am claiming it is true.
I am not claiming it is true because I cannot prove it is true.

Then there's no point in saying anything ever. (I enjoy your threads so I hope you continue).

People can question or disagree with anything they want to. Did you ever see me object to that?

It appears to be the central theme of the thread.

No, the only thing I object to is when people accuse me of making a claim because I am not making a claim.

No, you object because of your definition of what a claim is. Or maybe you just don't want to justify what you post.

 

[Trailblazer]

OK, one more try. I can walk down the road believing I'm the best looking bloke in Karuah but if I stand at a corner and start telling people I'm the best looking bloke my belief is now a claim.

Yes, your belief that you are the best looking bloke in Karuah is a claim because you claimed to be the best looking bloke in Karuah.

My belief that Baha'u'llah is a Messenger of God is not a claim because I never claimed that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God. I only ever said I believe that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.

 

[CG Didymus]

Not correct. I am not a God. I am just one of the 8 billion humans and a 100 thousand trillion living beings and a 100 thousand quadrillion entities or more in the universe. Of course, my personal belief (Advaita Hinduism - non-duality) says that all that exists in the universe is 'Brahman' (physical energy). But that is not a God.

And what's wrong with that? Why do "God" believers discount your beliefs but are so certain of theirs... even though many of them disagree with each other.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then there's no point in saying anything ever. (I enjoy your threads so I hope you continue).
Why would I not post anything ever just because I do not want to make claims?

Why would I make claims I cannot prove are true? That would be wrong.

It appears to be the central theme of the thread.

It is, only because people cannot accept what I say when I say I am not making a claim.

No, you object because of your definition of what a claim is. Or maybe you just don't want to justify what you post.

No, I object because I know I am not making a claim, not by any definition of the word.
Don't you wonder why certain atheists insist I am making a claim after I say I am not making a claim? All atheists do not do this, some accept what I say when I say I am not making a claim.

 

[John53]

Yes, your belief that you are the best looking bloke in Karuah is a claim because you claimed to be the best looking bloke in Karuah.

My belief that Baha'u'llah is a Messenger of God is not a claim because I never claimed that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God. I only ever said I believe that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.

Word play

 

[John53]

P.S. If I'm the best looking bloke in Karuah the world is in trouble

 

[John53]

Why would I make claims I cannot prove are true? That would be wrong.

Nobody would communicate if we only said what we can prove.

 

[Trailblazer]

Word play

It is word play but not on my part.
None of the definitions of words prove anything about my intent.

Only I know if it is a claim because I am the one posting what I post.
Nobody except me knows if what I post is a claim, some people just arrogantly think they know.

When I say I am not making a claim that should be enough for anyone to accept that I am not making a claim, if they were not so arrogant.

 

[Trailblazer]

Nobody would communicate if we only said what we can prove.

I do not only say what I can prove. I say lots of things, but I only claim what I can prove.

 

[John53]

It is word play but not on my part.
None of the definitions of words prove anything about my intent.

Only I know if it is a claim because I am the one posting what I post.
Nobody except me knows if what I post is a claim, some people just arrogantly think they know.

When I say I am not making a claim that should be enough for anyone to accept that I am not making a claim, if they were not so arrogant.

I would say it's arrogant to expect everyone to accept my narrow definition of a word without question.

 

[Trailblazer]

I would say it's arrogant to expect everyone to accept my narrow definition of a word without question.

You have a right to your opinion, as we all think differently...

This is not about definitions of words. We would never fail to run out of definitions of words but that does not prove anything about a person's actual intent.
Only the person posting the words knows their own intent, nobody else knows.

I would say it is arrogant whenever someone speaks for someone else as if they know what that person's intentions are.
When I say I am not making a claim that should be accepted because only I know if I am making a claim or not.

 

[John53]

You have a right to your opinion, as we all think differently...

This is not about definitions of words. We would never fail to run out of definitions of words but that does not prove anything about a person's actual intent.
Only the person posting the words knows their own intent, nobody else knows.

I would say it is arrogant whenever someone speaks for someone else as if they know what that person's intentions are.
When I say I am not making a claim that should be accepted because only I know if I am making a claim or not.

We agree but you're taking it as an insult when people question or don't agree with you. If I stand on the corner telling people I believe I'm the best looking bloke I have to accept I'm opening myself up to having people disagree (most likely vehemently).

 

[Nimos]

OK, one more try. I can walk down the road believing I'm the best looking bloke in Karuah but if I stand at a corner and start telling people I'm the best looking bloke my belief is now a claim.

Actually I don't think it is.

There seem to be a lot of confusion about the purpose of a claim in all these discussions and I think it boils down to people thinking or assuming that any statement is by default also a claim, which it is not, at least not in a logical sense.

For instance, as @Trailblazer in her example, I could similarly make the statement. "I believe UFOs are real" that is not a claim, that is merely a belief. Even in your example I don't think I would call it a claim or at least a logical claim . Because it is not really an argument or a testable statement in regards to whether that is true or false. Sort of like me saying that "Strawberry tastes better than chocolate", obviously some might agree while others won't, but as with your claim about being best looking bloke, it is not testable or verifiable in regards to whether that could be considered true or false.

And at least in my opinion, referring to a claim outside an argument makes little sense due to this issue.

So when Trailblazer say that she believes Baha'u'llah were who he said, it is not a claim, but a belief. But asked how she reached such conclusion and state the 3 main reasons for this in the OP. Those could be considered an argument for her position, which could be validated in regards to whether or not that is a sound argument or not.

Likewise, you could ask me how I reached the conclusion that UFOs are real and I could say that I saw strange lights in the sky or whatever and we could argue about whether that were the case or whether it were more likely to have been a plane or something else. However me stating that I saw lights in the sky would be a claim, but one that we couldn't really reach a conclusion on, because I obviously wouldn't be able to demonstrate it, however whether or not UFOs exists or not, is a true or false statement, which there is no logical reason for why one couldn't test or reach a conclusion about.

So again, it doesn't fall in the same category as my statement about strawberry and chocolate.

At least in my opinion, to even start talking about whether or not something is a claim or not, it has to be part of an argument to make sense.

 

[John53]

Actually I don't think it is.

There seem to be a lot of confusion about the purpose of a claim in all these discussions and I think it boils down to people thinking or assuming that any statement is by default also a claim, which it is not.

For instance, as @Trailblazer in her example, I could similarly make the statement. "I believe UFOs are real" that is not a claim, that is merely a belief. Even in your example I don't think I would call it a claim. Because it is not really an argument or a testable statement in regards to whether that is true or false. Sort of like me saying that "Strawberry tastes better than chocolate", obviously some might agree while others won't, but as with your claim about being best looking bloke, it is not testable or verifiable in regards to whether that could be considered true or false.

And at least in my opinion, referring to a claim outside an argument makes little sense due to this issue.

So when Trailblazer say that she believes Baha'u'llah were who he said, it is not a claim, but a belief. But asked how she reached such conclusion and state the 3 main reasons for this in OP. Those could be considered an argument for her position, which could be validated in regards to whether or not that is a sound argument or not.

Likewise, you could ask me how I reached the conclusion that UFOs are real and I could say that I saw strange lights in the sky or whatever and we could argue about whether it could have been or it were more likely to have been a plane or something else. However me stating that I saw lights in the sky would be a claim, but one that we couldn't really reach a conclusion on, because I obviously wouldn't be able to demonstrate it, however whether or not UFOs exists is a true or false statement, which there is no logical reason for why one could test or reach a conclusion about.

So again, it doesn't fall in the same category as my statement about strawberry and chocolate.

At least in my opinion, to even start talking about whether or not something is a claim or not, it has to be part of an argument to make sense.

All seems like word play to me and I can't for the life of me work out why it matters. I don't care if someone says what I post is a claim but I do care that TB seems hurt by it (but is that only because I'm trying usurp your favourite atheist ranking <evil cackle> )

 

[Trailblazer]

We agree but you're taking it as an insult when people question or don't agree with you. If I stand on the corner telling people I believe I'm the best looking bloke I have to accept I'm opening myself up to having people disagree (most likely vehemently).

This is not about people agreeing with me.
I am not making any claims, period.
When I say I am not making a claim I am not making a claim.
Anyone who keeps insisting that I am making a claim is speaking for me and that is arrogant.

 

[John53]

This is not about people agreeing with me.
I am not making any claims, period.
When I say I am not making a claim I am not making a claim.
Anyone who keeps insisting that I am making a claim is speaking for me and that is arrogant.

But you're complaining about them speaking for you as you speak for them. We all do it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Actually I don't think it is.

There seem to be a lot of confusion about the purpose of a claim in all these discussions and I think it boils down to people thinking or assuming that any statement is by default also a claim, which it is not, at least not in a logical sense.

For instance, as @Trailblazer in her example, I could similarly make the statement. "I believe UFOs are real" that is not a claim, that is merely a belief. Even in your example I don't think I would call it a claim or at least a logical claim . Because it is not really an argument or a testable statement in regards to whether that is true or false. Sort of like me saying that "Strawberry tastes better than chocolate", obviously some might agree while others won't, but as with your claim about being best looking bloke, it is not testable or verifiable in regards to whether that could be considered true or false.

And at least in my opinion, referring to a claim outside an argument makes little sense due to this issue.

So when Trailblazer say that she believes Baha'u'llah were who he said, it is not a claim, but a belief. But asked how she reached such conclusion and state the 3 main reasons for this in the OP. Those could be considered an argument for her position, which could be validated in regards to whether or not that is a sound argument or not.

Likewise, you could ask me how I reached the conclusion that UFOs are real and I could say that I saw strange lights in the sky or whatever and we could argue about whether that were the case or whether it were more likely to have been a plane or something else. However me stating that I saw lights in the sky would be a claim, but one that we couldn't really reach a conclusion on, because I obviously wouldn't be able to demonstrate it, however whether or not UFOs exists or not, is a true or false statement, which there is no logical reason for why one couldn't test or reach a conclusion about.

So again, it doesn't fall in the same category as my statement about strawberry and chocolate.

At least in my opinion, to even start talking about whether or not something is a claim or not, it has to be part of an argument to make sense.

Thanks @Nimos for shedding some logical light on this subject.
I will be getting back to your post from yesterday as soon as I can... As you can see, I am swamped!

 

[Nimos]

All seems like word play to me and I can't for the life of me work out why it matters. I don't care if someone says what I post is a claim but I do care that TB seems hurt by it (but is that only because I'm trying usurp your favourite atheist ranking <evil cackle> )

I agree, I do think a lot of it comes down to word play. But most of all, it seems to me that the word has different meanings. Because obviously anything we state as truth is a claim, such as you being the best looking bloke etc. But these are not really interesting because we can't verify them as being true or false anyway. But we can do that with logical claims, meaning statement that can be either true or false.

5 is a greater number than 2, is a claim and we can verify it.

But I think its sort of similar to how the word theory is used, when some people refer to the theory of evolution as just being guess work, because they don't really see or care to use the distinction between what a theory means in the context of science compared to how it is used in everyday language. And similar with a claim, there at least to me is a huge difference whether or not we are referring to a claim in its standard form or whether we are referring to how one would use it when we are talking logic.

Such as the example above with the numbers.

 

[Nimos]

Thanks @Nimos for shedding some logical light on this subject.
I will be getting back to your post from yesterday as soon as I can... As you can see, I am swamped!

You fight on

 

[Trailblazer]

But you're complaining about them speaking for you as you speak for them. We all do it.

But I am not speaking for them, they are speaking for me, telling me I am making a claim when I am not making a claim. That is misrepresenting me and I don't like it.

The only reason it is important whether I am stating a belief or making a claim is because if I am making a claim I have the burden of proof, but since I am not making a claim I have no burden of proof. I can share my evidence knowing that evidence is not proof.

Holy moly! I cannot prove that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, I can only believe that He was.
And that is why I do not claim that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, because I cannot prove it.