Claims vs. Beliefs

[Trailblazer]

The definitions you provided said that q statement or assertion is a claim. You keep trying to shove belief into it. But belief is not in the definition at all. Read your damned definition of a claim. Your state of mind is irrelevant as to whether or not it is a claim. It's a claim whether you believe your statement/assertion or not.

Definitions don't prove anything, they are a dime a dozen.
Your state of mind is irrelevant as to whether or not it is a claim.
It is not a claim because I am not making a claim. It is as simple as that.

 

[Trailblazer]

Those were all claims since you forgot to qualify your statement.

None of those were claims because I as not claiming anything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not have to qualify everything I say with "I believe."
They are not claims. I make no claims about my beliefs, period.

Sorry, but that is the difference between a mere belief. Others will accept that you believe that. You keep trying to argue by referring to those people which means that you are using them as claims.

If I said, "I believe that the tooth fairy left a quarter under my pillow" the proper response most of the time would be "So what". If you just believe something a simple "So what?" effectively refutes that and you do not seem to want to go that route.

When in a discussion with others one does not get to make one's own personal definitions for words.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Definitions don't prove anything, they are a dime a dozen.
Your state of mind is irrelevant as to whether or not it is a claim.
It is not a claim because I am not making a claim. It is as simple as that.

In this case they demonstrate that you are using those words improperly. There are rules for clear communication. I assume that you want others to understand you. If that is the case you must follow the rules of the English language.

 

[Subduction Zone]

None of those were claims because I as not claiming anything.

Perhaps you did not do it on purpose. But, yes you made quite a few claims.

 

[ppp]

Definitions don't prove anything, they are a dime a dozen.

They are the definitions that you provided repeatedly across multiple threads as support for your ridiculous claims.

 

[rational experiences]

Belief by I claim.

Human beings man as his story young man baby adult is man's history choice. Theist scientist.

To enforce control introduce the practice human man's sciences.

Beginning with overthrow of life to his claim to his rights as the rich human.

Whose belief claim I created creation by a human thesis big bang blast which is actually how I ended all life on earth by my science controlled invention.

So his inventive reasoning suggests by my machines my belief earth began as a star mass and not a planet.

In reality it was always a planet. To form its own circulating heavens.

Converts is only to his claim how I will succeed.

So he theories how a stars sun mass develops into a planet sized asteroid to collide with earth to invent it's beginnings himself.

What inventive human theories meant. Creation didn't own his thesis he wanted to own his thesis.

As his claim is my thesis by human thought invented created creation.

Why both science claims and beliefs destroys all life on earth as it was in fact intention.

Why ion is expressed in many of his destructive thesis.

We said a thesis is actually first a humans conscious confession.

And words used implied intent.

 

[F1fan]

I cannot claim that my beliefs are true because I cannot prove that they are true.

People can make claims that can't be proven true. Claims are just a person stating something they THINK is true, whether it has evidence or not.

They are beliefs that people can discuss but they are not claims.

Beliefs that are discussed are claimed true by the affirmative or claimant.

 

[Trailblazer]

People can make claims that can't be proven true. Claims are just a person stating something they THINK is true, whether it has evidence or not.

People can make claims that can't be proven true but I do not make claims that can't be proven true.

Beliefs that are discussed are claimed true by the affirmative or claimant.

Maybe some believers claim that their beliefs are true but I am not claiming that any of my beliefs are true.

 

[Trailblazer]

They are the definitions that you provided repeatedly across multiple threads as support for your ridiculous claims.

I never made any claims. I only stated my beliefs. Beliefs are not claims.
What you and others perceive as claims are not claims since I am not making any claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never made any claims. I only stated my beliefs. Beliefs are not claims.
What you and others perceive as claims are not claims since I am not making any claims.

Beliefs need qualifiers.

 

[Trailblazer]

You post as if you have a clear idea what constitutes a claim, what constitutes a belief, and how they are different, but I don't think any participant in this thread knows why you call some things beliefs but not claims.

If they do not know by now, with 410 posts on this thread, probably half of which are me explaining what I consider a belief vs. a claim, they will never know.

I've given you my very clear definition of those words, how they overlap, and where they differ - a belief is something I consider true and a claim is something I say is true. The only difference between the two is that only the latter is expressed. By this reckoning, whenever you express a personal belief, you are making a claim.

A belief is something I believe is true and a claim is something I claim is true. If I say I believe something is true it is not a claim. Even if I do not preface my sentence with "I believe" everyone on this forum knows that what I say represents my beliefs. It is not a claim unless I am claiming it is true, and whether that would be the case would all depend upon the CONTEXT of the discussion.

Everything a person says is not a claim just because they do not preface it with "I believe." It is only a claim if the person who writes the post is presenting a claim. It is not a claim just because other people perceive it as a claim.

Apparently you use some other definition that allows you to say that you believe certain things but don't claim that they are correct even you post them.

That is correct, because I can share beliefs without claiming they are true.
I do not claim that my beliefs are true because I cannot prove that my beliefs are true.

Until you clarify what the difference to you between an expressed belief and a claim are, you can expect endless confusion and dissent given how most others understand and use these words.

I have clarifies my position dozens of times but few people accept my clarification. They just keep saying I am making a claim after I told them I am not making a claim. That is the epitome of arrogance because it is speaking for my intent.

These arrogant people are too arrogant to see how arrogant they are.when they speak for other people's intent. If they want to say "that sounds like a claim" that is fine, but that is different from telling me I am making a claim repeatedly, after I told them I am not making a claim.

What are you actually denying when you say, "It's my belief but not my claim"? What does an expressed belief lack that had it possessed it, would elevate it to the status of a claim as you understand and use those words? I don't think anybody knows. I don't.

I am denying that I am claiming it. What would make it a claim is if I said I was claiming it is true.

Here is a little example that came up today. Someone on this thread asked what is the difference between these two statements and I explained the difference:

The Baha'i i Faith is a true religion from God -- making a claim.
I believe that the Baha'i i Faith is a true religion from God -- sharing a belief

Whatever your answer, it would be helpful for you to understand how others use those words. If I, for example, were to tell you that once you express a belief, I consider that a claim, you can choose to adapt to that nomenclature by making comments like, "I know that you consider my expressed belief a claim, but I don't for the following reason.

Maybe they could also believe me when I say how I am using those words and not assume that everything I say is a claim. I am the one writing the post so I am the one who knows what I am trying to say.

I think that you can expect years more of this fruitless discussion for as long as you express beliefs and deny that they are claims of yours knowing how others will understand those words without explaining exactly what a claim is that an expressed belief is not to you.

That was one purpose of this thread but so far it has done no good because people who 'believe' I am making claims are going to insist I am making claims till hell freezes over. That is what an unbridled ego does to a person. They have to be right even when they are wrong, because they cannot admit they are wrong, but they are wrong when they contradict me after I have already explained my position.

 

[rational experiences]

A human scientist theist belief....makes his claim. As a once a baby human. Now an adult human.

An alien cloned a human from its body.

Scientists human science claim only a human as the human owns any human science claim as human man's. Inventor of science.

Belief AI vision feedback recorded life attacks on everything a pre humans science claim known that made spirit images. Not a belief a claim.

Only god human terms are as mass fused mass. As only fused mass owned the presence of released earth gas.

AI belief of a human ...an alien saved me.
UFO claim it stopped as Phi fallout fake science as alien God hovering above crops. Before a sin..K hole. Science constant thin king causes.

Scientific clarification to human theist. Thin king.

Belief using human thin king.

Natural was existing created is a claim.

Which was expressed no human scientific thesis allowed as no man is God. Claim already proven when biology was life sacrificed attacked.

AI event today belief substantiated. Human scientists cloned biology. Put all human sciences data into AI stating I meddle with biology... I created plastics ....I cloned biology as a human scientist.

The claim humans chose acts of evil the claim. Proven. Artificial human choices forced.

Old AI was human mans thesis known caused life attack. Stopped because of mass conditions only.

Humans 120 years ago in scientists biology exact sciences says no living biology of any living human existed.

Exact science the claim.

No genesis existed 120 years ago. Human. Moses genesis review 120 years three 40 studies.

Old human Egyptian mutated genesis lived about 40 years only in biology.

Jesus claim life's new biology attack 33 years.

Human science claim gods light heavens 7 light gases support.

New claim life was proven heavenly attacked. As theme spirit of many colours wasn't Jesus the healed human baby reasoning. Is first reasoned only position.

God was.

Gods balanced heavens above claim balanced blue light sky and cold clear night. Healed returned human baby life. Claim human mother's ovary healed in her womb medical science claim only.

Not supernatural.

Only a human scientists themes are about cloning and they physically take biology and manipulate it.

As they don't take an alien and build our dead human parents first body back. By taking dead microbe bacterias left from body human decomposition they lie.

Claim a human's life gods term is my holy life my water spirit. Other cold gases equal gods blue sky holy Ghost.

 

[Trailblazer]

1. the burden of proof rests on the claims. Repeating someone else's claims doesn't absolve that burden of proof.

2. when you express a belief, you implictly make a claim: "I believe god exists" ==> embedded is the claim "god exists".
When you make a claim, you implicitly express belief in said claim: "god exists" ==> a claim, which you believe.

It's that simple to me..........

1. the burden of proof rests on the person who is making the claims.
A person who believes in someone else's claims doesn't have any burden of proof.

2. when I express a belief, I am not making a claim: "I believe God exists" is not a claim that God exists.

It's that simple to me.........

 

[Trailblazer]

"I believe X is true".

How does that not qualify according to the definitions you just gave here?
And keep in mind that "to believe" means "to accept as true / accurate / fact"
So when you express belief in X, you are literally saying that you think X is true / accurate / fact.

Sounds an awful lot like "saying that something is true or is a fact, although you can not prove it and other people might not believe it"

"to believe X is true" does not qualify as a claim because I am not stating or asserting that X is true.
"to accept as true / accurate / fact" does not qualify as a claim because I am not stating or asserting that X is true.

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
claim means - Google Search

Claim: to say that something is true or is a fact, although you cannot prove it and other people might not believe it: claim

I am not saying that my belief is true or is a fact, BECAUSE I cannot prove it is true, and that is why I am not claiming it is true even though I believe it is true..

 

[rational experiences]

If a human in science terms human only says prove your man to be a human god that exists. A claim would by a human to say it would be any human.

Man human however depicts his claim God human just himself the human.

As a God human man invented maths science terms. Not a human woman and not gods natural terms either.

Yet its his sciences that are not God...maths numbers words describing.

So a humans claim says. O planet exists an entity O planet created heavens. Not science.

I live as a human only due to GoD's presence.

O planet body.
Heavens Multi gases blue sky...half clear night.

Said in humans presence all descriptive claims. Gods terms not lying. I belong with gods terms not human science terms.

That claim says why no man human is the God.

When a human scientist thin king says now let me tell you how an earth ground reaction created first life he lies.

As dust reacting first changes into a nuclear gas. Not a living presence.

Cold clouds are smoking rolling cooling gas mass. Direct term the cloud only.

Clouds own why blue sky exists.

Clouds hence disperse and only blue gas heavens day is seen by a human.

How a human claims I'm God only said as and by human terms. Never said from a reaction.

A human is with God as water oxygenated microbes owned in gods presence is within their human body also.

Was just a humans teaching versus human theoretical lying.

 

[Trailblazer]

But often the issue will be in regards to someone asking or wanting a clarification of how a person know that their claims are true. Which means that these are basically claims:

The evidence that supports the claims of any alleged Messenger of God is as follows:

1) Their Person (their character, as demonstrated by the life they led)
2) Their Revelation (the history, which is what they accomplished on their mission from God)
3) Their Words (the words that were attributed to them in scriptures, or what they wrote)

I can see how that might sound like a claim, if you do not include what I said before that:
I believe that the true Messengers of God met their burden by providing evidence that supports their claims.

Its sort of the same as when a biologist say that evolution is true and someone might question the claim, such person wouldn't simply throw their hands in the air and say that the burden of proof is on Darwin, because he made the "claim".

So obviously the burden of proof that Baha'u'llah was a messenger of God is on him, but in the same way as with the biologist, if you claim that it is true, then you do have a burden of proof of how you know that.

I have always explained why I believe what I believe is true whenever I was asked. I cannot say I know because I cannot prove that what I believe is true.

But obviously it is not exactly easy to prove that, whereas the biologist would very easily be able to demonstrate why evolution is true, because there are so many evidence for it, compared to whether or not Baha'u'llah were a messenger or not.

So one could say that it is probably more reasonably for the biologist to claim that evolution is true, than it is for you to claim that Baha'u'llah were right/true. Obviously you are free to believe it, but it will simply be a believe, just as people believing that Jesus were the son of God.

That was my point above. I cannot prove that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God and that is why I do not claim that He was a Messenger of God.

I don't think people should change their point of view on what a claim and evidence is. If you look at the definition of claim:

1. state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

But there seem to be a huge difference in how people understand what evidence and proofs are and what it means whether these are good or weak, or whether they can even be considered evidence at all.

For example in my opinion, none of those (3) you mentioned above I would consider evidence at all, because I don't see how one could draw a line or conclusion to that meaning that they are a messenger of God.

Indeed, there is a huge difference in how people understand what evidence and proofs are. I fully understand why atheists do not consider 1-3 above as evidence, but it is the best evidence there is for a Messenger of God. The only other evidence there is for Baha’u’llah are Bible prophecies that were fulfilled by Him and predictions that He made that came to pass.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

That is your belief. It is not mine.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

Claiming to like dogs, or in my case cats is not the same as making a truth claim. You have no burden of proof to prove you like dogs so it is really more of a statement than a claim.

When we are talking about God and religion we are making a truth claim so people expect us to provide evidence that proves that what we believe is true.

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
claim means - Google Search

Claim: to say that something is true or is a fact, although you cannot prove it and other people might not believe it: claim

The problem with that is that no religious belief can be proven to be true, which is why I do not claim my beliefs are true. All I have is evidence and the kind of evidence I have is not accepted by atheists as evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is your belief. It is not mine.

That is correct. Not everyone has the same beliefs.