Is a Belief a Claim?

[Trailblazer]

The difference between belief and a claim, is evidence for belief is only required to meet your satisfaction, evidence for a claim has to meet the satisfaction of others.

I don't think that the difference between a belief and a claim is necessarily related to evidence, since a believer might hold a belief with no evidence at all.

However, as soon as a believer makes a claim then they should be able to support that claim with evidence, although that evidence won't necessarily meet the satisfaction of others.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I don't think that the difference between a belief and a claim is necessarily related to evidence, since a believer might hold a belief with no evidence at all.

What would inspire a belief in the absence of any evidence whatsoever? I can't think of any belief I've ever had that was completely devoid of evidence.

 

[Link]

The semantics does not matter if it's a claim or not.

There is two type of claims, one that is provable and one that is not.

For example, I claim to like bananas. It's inconsequential.

However, religious beliefs have consequences. Unless you keep it secret, you are promoting it by claiming it.

The Quranic stance is that religious claims and anything we attribute to God all require proof. If one keeps to themselves, and has no proof from legacy of knowledge nor a revelation from God, this is different.

But as soon as you reveal, you are making a claim that should be proven.

Also, there is three type of provable claims. There are the type that society should unite on as perpetual creeds and morals, and there are the types that are relevant to the time and place (news), and there is the types that are inconsequential for society to hold.

I believe truth is important. Justice won't be established unless society is sincere to enjoining truth.

 

[Trailblazer]

What would inspire a belief in the absence of any evidence whatsoever? I can't think of any belief I've ever had that was completely devoid of evidence.

I was thinking of believers who believe in God and have no religion. They just think that it makes sense that God exists, for various reasons.
I have known people like that.

But if evidence is defined loosely as:

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

I guess all believers have some kind of evidence for their beliefs, something in their mind that leads them to believe that God or gods exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The difference between belief and a claim, is evidence for belief is only required to meet your satisfaction, evidence for a claim has to meet the satisfaction of others.

Is that what's getting people worked up about the word "claim?"

No - we never have an obligation to provide evidence to others. Especially not in an internet argument; you're free to leave anytime no matter what you say.

You probably won't change any minds if you don't give people a reason to have their minds changed, but nobody's forcing you to try.

 

[Valjean]

What would inspire a belief in the absence of any evidence whatsoever? I can't think of any belief I've ever had that was completely devoid of evidence.

You're the exception, then. Many believe what they learned as children, before critical thinking and logic, and what their social network accepts as true.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What would inspire a belief in the absence of any evidence whatsoever?

Conditioning from birth, typically.

I can't think of any belief I've ever had that was completely devoid of evidence.

That reflects well on you, then.

 

[CG Didymus]

However, religious beliefs have consequences. Unless you keep it secret, you are promoting it by claiming it.

Yeah, And I have this belief that when a person says they believe in a particular religion and believe in that religion's description and definition of God, that they are claiming those beliefs are true. And I'm sure you're used to born-again Christians telling you their beliefs. Do they claim those beliefs are true? Of course.

 

[Heyo]

Describing it as a belief implies that you consider the claim to be true.

Nope. When I say I believe there's still one beer in the fridge, I'm saying that I'm not sure. I won't bet on it and I won't be surprised or upset if it turns out that my belief wasn't strong enough. (But I may be disappointed.)

You don't need to prove that something is true for it to be a claim. Describing a claim as your belief tells me that you found it compelling enough to accept as true, whatever your criteria are.

And then there are axiomatic beliefs. Things that can't be proven because in any logical system there needs to be a set of "claims" that are basic to the system. I.e. every theorem can be rooted back to the axioms but there is nothing you can prove the axioms with.

 

[Willamena]

Inspired by something I read in another thread here, where a member stated they're not making a claim, but expressing a belief, and another member, in the ever so civil and polite demeanor of so many of our debaters here, replied, "a claim."

If I tell you that I believe something with no expectation for you to believe that which I do, am I making a claim? Does that belief have to be supported by objective evidence? Does the belief need to be falsifiable?

Why or why not?

To me, it's a claim.

Belief only has to be supported if you want your claim to be believed.

 

[PureX]

I think most atheists somehow got the idea that all beliefs shared on a forum automatically become claims, but a belief is not a claim unless a believer declares the belief to be true.

I think they really like and want to stand in judgment of the beliefs of others. Especially when they have no intention of offering their own beliefs up to the same scrutiny.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I think they really like and want to stand in judgment of the beliefs of others. Especially when they have no intention of offering their own beliefs up to the same scrutiny.

Which beliefs are those?

 

[PureX]

Which beliefs are those?

Their belief in philosophical materialism, and their belief that if gods exist, there would be discernible, testable, physical evidence. And their belief that because no one has provided them with this, that no gods exist unless and until someone does.

For starters.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Their belief in philosophical materialism, and their belief that if gods exist, there would be discernible, testable, physical evidence.

No, it's more that if your belief in gods isn't rooted in testable physical evidence, then you've pulled it out of your butt and your claims are unreliable... even if gods coincidentally exist.

And their belief that because no one has provided them with this, that no gods exist unless and until someone does.

For starters.

What do you think "god" means? What distinguishes a god from something that isn't a god?

Personally, I think a core part of it is that gods are objects of human worship.

You can't worship what you don't know about, so this means that a "god" that's unknown to humanity isn't a god at all.

 

[PureX]

No, it's more that if your belief in gods isn't rooted in testable physical evidence, then you've pulled it out of your butt and your claims are unreliable... even if gods coincidentally exist.

Sure, in the atheist's 'kangaroo court'. Which is really what this whole debate is about.

What do you think "god" means? What distinguishes a god from something that isn't a god?

It being the great mysterious source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is.

Personally, I think a core part of it is that gods are objects of human worship.

Humans worship all sorts of things and ideas.

You can't worship what you don't know about, so this means that a "god" that's unknown to humanity isn't a god at all.

The mystery is real, and is important to humanity. Partly because we can envision it as we wish and then act on that vision.

 

[Kfox]

I think most atheists somehow got the idea that all beliefs shared on a forum automatically become claims, but a belief is not a claim unless a believer declares the belief to be true.

From my experience, whenever a theist shares a belief on a forum, it is almost always a truth claim

 

[SalixIncendium]

From my experience, whenever a theist shares a belief on a forum, it is almost always a truth claim

Why would this be unique to theists?

 

[Trailblazer]

From my experience, whenever a theist shares a belief on a forum, it is almost always a truth claim

That is only how you perceive it.
I assume you do not lie.
Is everything you post a truth claim, just because you believe it is the truth?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure, in the atheist's 'kangaroo court'. Which is really what this whole debate is about.

That's what you're trying to make the thread about: people have found your beliefs unreasonable, and this offends you.

It being the great mysterious source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is.

There's exactly one "source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is"? That sounds like a claim of its own.

And it can't be that mysterious to work as the focus of belief. To have belief in a thing, that thing has to be well-defined enough that the belief can point to it.

Edit: and your definition sounds way too monotheistic-centric to really work as a definition for "god."

Humans worship all sorts of things and ideas.

Sure. Worship is a necessary but not sufficient condition to be a god.

The mystery is real, and is important to humanity. Partly because we can envision it as we wish and then act on that vision.

Again: there's a limit to how mysterious a god can be, because we can't believe in or worship that which we can't conceive at all.

 

[Heyo]

That is only how you perceive it.

Yep.
But it takes some reading ability to discern a claim from "sharing".
And often the semantics of the words betray the intention (or just as likely, the perception) of the message.
What you see as sharing can be perceived as a claim (or at least as an invitation to debate) - or vice versa.

Especially women are good at hinting at things they don't say openly.
E.g.: Woman: "There is this new restaurant." - Man: "A-ha."
A logical exchange. A piece of information was shared and the recipient acknowledged it.
A total failure on an emotional level. The intention wasn't the sharing of information, it was "I'm hungry, what about you invite me to dinner. Now."