Claims vs. Beliefs

[Subduction Zone]

I have but you deny it's existence.

No, I can guarantee that you have not. Like I said, you probably do not even understand the concept of evidence.

You could try posting it again and asking if it is evidence or not. Just posting some word salad, which you have done, is not evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

You fight on

But at least when you show up I do not fight alone and that makes all the difference.

 

[Nimos]

But at least when you show up I do not fight alone and that makes all the difference.

I support whoever I believe is right

But honestly I think most of the issues in these discussions are because it haven't been clearly defined what is meant by claim in the first place

 

[Trailblazer]

I support whoever I believe is right

That is because you are a principled person.

But honestly I think most of the issues in these discussions are because it haven't been clearly defined what is meant by claim in the first place

You hit the nail right on the head! Most atheists just assume that everything a believer says about their beliefs is a claim, but such is not the case, as you clearly pointed out to my second runner-up for favorite atheist, @John53.

I think it is just a knee-jerk reaction for an atheist to say a believer is making a claim.
They do not even think about why it is a claim, but I can always count on you to think things through.

 

[Nimos]

That is because you are a principled person.

You hit the nail right on the head! Most atheists just assume that everything a believer says about their beliefs is a claim, but such is not the case, as you clearly pointed out to my second runner-up for favorite atheist, @John53.

I think it is just a knee-jerk reaction for an atheist to say a believer is making a claim.
They do not even think about why it is a claim, but I can always count on you to think things through.

The problem is that it is not incorrect.

Its basically like me saying "I like dogs" that is a claim as well, but for most people it is not especially important whether or not that might be true or not. And even if it were I couldn't prove it or they wouldn't be able to trust me, because I could just pretend to like dogs. But none the less it is a claim in its standard use or form.

I would be certain that if I made a serious post claiming that UFOs were real or that the Earth is flat, that people would jump on it as well, so obviously context also matters.

But clearly its very important that both sides uses the same understanding of the word or it will go off track very fast. Because I think the majority of people can understand the difference between a claim in its standard use and that of a logical claim.

Obviously it tends to get messy quickly, because it gets mixed up in arguments as well and we might even use the word claim in both its form in the same discussion assuming that the other one understand what version we are referring too. I think its just how language is, it often create confusion, which is why it is important to ask for clarification when something is not clear.

 

[stvdv]

There should be no need to explain or defend any further, but there will be more explaining because their egos will not allow them to accept my explanation.

I am on EXACTLY the same page as you. I do not expect others to accept my explanation and I am totally fine if they disagree with my explanation, view, opinion, or beliefs

Thanks for being so clear

My experience is that they will bug me as long as I respond to them. Only by NOT responding does the bugging stop.

I have no expectations for anyone except myself

Aha, my mistake. Thanks !
I misinterpreted your first quote above:
"their egos will not allow them to accept my explanation"
And read it as:
"their egos will not allow them to accept my explanation. As in 'accept my explanation is true'."

I understand now that you just meant "I share my views, and they can't accept that my view or explanation is different from theirs"

Question: can your line be interpreted in both ways or is this my lack of understanding English and my mistake was "reading too much into what you wrote"? (I try to improve my English)

I now remember we have a saying in Dutch, that sounds translated in English something like "It is improper to criticize a gift given to you".

Do you have something like this in English too? That seems to apply perfectly here...If I share my view, opinion it is a gift, so take it or leave it, but definitely don't trash it. (if that is the case I might put it in my signature)

 

[Aupmanyav]

You believe you can answer something, which haven't been answered by no human so far in recorded history. And you can't understand that it is a belief, because you don't understand that it is a belief.

FYI, I am saying nothing new. What I am saying has been said by Indian philosophers and religious leaders including Buddha for millenniums - illusion, maya, anatta, anicca, etc. The only addition that I make is that Brahman is physical energy.

 

[Viker]

Beliefs can be presented, in a forum, as statements or claims.

"I believe in Cthulhu" is only a statement.

"Cthulhu is the one true God" is a claim.

In a debate, in can be safely presumed that even a mere statement may be a claim...but may not just be with further explanation. We have to understand that much of what is stated in a debate section is a position built on beliefs and claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am making no claims so I have no burden of proof.

You constantly make claims. You simply deny it after the fact. I will try to remember to note every claim that you make in the future. Does that sound reasonable?

 

[John53]

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.

Relax, enjoy, don't worry.

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.

Exactly and I believe I said something very similar several posts ago but you denied it.

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.

No one is asking you to provide proof! Just evidence. We then determine if we agree. It's called discussion.

 

[F1fan]

I never made any claims, I only ever stated my beliefs.

If you are stating your beliefs without the intent to assert they are true or believable, thus not claiming anything to anyone, then why post them at all?

This is the crucial question: why are you posting anything at all in a forum if you don't intend them to be claims to discuss?

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

I understand that, CG. Tribal pride (Christians, Muslims; Hinduism too is affected by that but not to the extent of Abrahamic religions), childhood indoctrination, etc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, there is no objective evidence for God's existence, but there is objective evidence for Messengers of God because they were real people who lived and left their footprints in the sand.

In this post you made these claims

1. That there were "Messengers of Gd"

2. That they were real people . . .

3. And that there was objective evidence for them.

That is at least three claims in that post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So is God making the rules to fit a particular culture? Or is a particular culture making their God fit into their culture? But if some of these religions are supposed to be for all people, and be the law for hundreds of years, I don’t see why the religious laws would be based on some Middle Eastern culture.

Since this same God had a different message to the founder of Baha'i I would say that his number of wives is troubling.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your answer sums it up, you don’t know why though, right? Why would you imagine I would run away? You can think that but it’s not it

I might know better than you do. For some odd reason you do not like a rational approach to your personal belief. That is often a sign that a person does know that his beliefs are not well founded. People will often use the ostrich defense (ostriches do not really do this only people seem to think that hiding makes problems go away) so that you do not have to learn how your beliefs are false.

 

[stvdv]

Opinions are claims...honestly expressed or not.

I am here on RF and I do my best to follow RF Rules (because I think they "rock"). They indirectly (imo) advise to phrase your reply as your opinion when speaking with others about (non) Religion; they even tell you how that can be done

8. Preaching/Proselytizing
Creating (or linking to) content intended to convert/recruit others to your religion, spirituality, sect/denomination, or lack thereof is not permitted. Similarly, attempting to convert others away from their religion, spiritual convictions, or sect/denomination will also be considered a form of preaching. Stating opinions as a definitive matter of fact (i.e., without "I believe/feel/think" language, and/or without references) may be moderated as preaching

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is the natural atheist perspective but it's not mine. What is belief to you is real to me. And, of course, neither of us will change the other person's mind.

It would be nice if believers could demonstrate that they know. But they only seem to be able to claim it and never have demonstrated proper knowledge. Yes, it keeps a persons hopes alive to falsely claim "I know". But when push comes to shove, I have yet to see one that does. That does not mean that none of them do, but it makes the case look rather hopeless.

 

[Trailblazer]

Thanks for being so clear

You're very welcome.

Aha, my mistake. Thanks !
I misinterpreted your first quote above:
"their egos will not allow them to accept my explanation"
And read it as:
"their egos will not allow them to accept my explanation. As in 'accept my explanation is true'."

I understand now that you just meant "I share my views, and they can't accept that my view or explanation is different from theirs"

Yes, you are correct in your understanding. I am glad I made it clearer so you understand now. It is so easy to misunderstand what people mean this forum and that is why I go the extra mile to explain what I mean.

Question: can your line be interpreted in both ways or is this my lack of understanding English and my mistake was "reading too much into what you wrote"? (I try to improve my English)

Yes, it can be interpreted in both ways because both of the following statements are true:

1. "their egos will not allow them to accept my explanation. As in 'accept my explanation is true'."
*** But I would qualify that and say their egos will not allow them to accept that my explanation is true for me.

2. "I share my views, and they can't accept that my view or explanation is different from theirs"

I now remember we have a saying in Dutch, that sounds translated in English something like "It is improper to criticize a gift given to you".

Do you have something like this in English too? That seems to apply perfectly here...If I share my view, opinion it is a gift, so take it or leave it, but definitely don't trash it. (if that is the case I might put it in my signature)

Unfortunately, I don't think we have anything like that in English.
I could be wrong though.

 

[Trailblazer]

You constantly make claims.

I have made no claims about my religious beliefs.

I will try to remember to note every claim that you make in the future. Does that sound reasonable?

Sounds like a good idea. Then I can tell you what what you believe is a claim is not a claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course part of the argument is what constitutes evidence. I've read posts that assert evidence of one sort or another. And I've read posts asserting that is not acceptable evidence or even evidence at all.

There are different sorts and different standards of evidence. I often demand reliable evidence. For example, a person may think that he observed something. Unfortunately there are many ways that people can be fooled. One person's eyewitness testimony is evidence, but it is rather weak evidence. If two people, that do not know each other and have never communicated with each other in any way, both see and describe the same thing that is much stronger evidence. Even then one must be careful. If a third party was the one that showed them the event that third party may have influenced both. If one ahs a physical record that can be checked and rechecked that enters the realm of objective evidence and that has a much stronger record of being reliable.

The evidence that I have seen for Gods has never come close to being reliable.