Is a Belief a Claim?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

They are CHARACTERS: REPRESENTATIONS, in stories, and as imaginary placeholders in the mind.

And that justifies classifying them all together. None of those things exist. Ideas of nonexistent things exist, but the objects to which they refer do not. Remember, it's this grouping of gods with the myriad other nonexistent things is what you called offensive.

They are different because they represent different idea sets, different stories, and different life experiences.

The descriptions and lore attributed to them may vary, but tales of vampires are not vampires, just as tales of gods are not gods. The gods and vampire have equal ontological status whatever stories one creates about them - they don't exist, just ideas about them.

If I say that strawberries taste good, I am saying that I enjoy the taste of strawberries and I believe that I will enjoy the next strawberry I eat.
That is not a claim because I am not claiming that strawberries taste good.

The claim is that strawberries taste good to you, and it is implied that you believe that the next one will taste good to you as well.

If I say that I believe that the writings of Baha'u'llah came from God, that is not a claim, because I am not claiming that the writings of Baha'u'llah came from God. I believe that the various aspects of the Messenger's words and deeds are evidence for a god being channeled, but I am not claiming that is true

You are claiming that you believe those things.

I don't understand what it means to say that you believe something but don't consider it correct, or why you seem to think that expressing that belief isn't making a claim about reality as you perceive and understand it. You might not be inclined to debate the matter and aren't looking for a rebuttal, but those facts wouldn't make the stated belief not a claim. I understand that you disagree, so you needn't explain that again.

 

[Trailblazer]

The claim is that strawberries taste good to you, and it is implied that you believe that the next one will taste good to you as well.

"Strawberries taste good to me" is not a claim. I am saying I like strawberries, I am not claiming anything.

You are claiming that you believe those things.

No, I am saying that I believe those things.

Say: utter words so as to convey information, an opinion, a feeling or intention, or an instruction.
say means - Google Search

I don't understand what it means to say that you believe something but don't consider it correct, or why you seem to think that expressing that belief isn't making a claim about reality as you perceive and understand it. You might not be inclined to debate the matter and aren't looking for a rebuttal, but those facts wouldn't make the stated belief not a claim. I understand that you disagree, so you needn't explain that again.

I believe it is correct but I am not claiming it is correct since I cannot prove it is correct.
I am not making a claim. I am only expressing a belief.

A stated belief is not a claim, not by any definition of the word claim.

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

 

[McBell]

"Strawberries taste good to me" is not a claim. I am saying I like strawberries, I am not claiming anything.

No, I am saying that I believe those things.

Say: utter words so as to convey information, an opinion, a feeling or intention, or an instruction.
say means - Google Search

I believe it is correct but I am not claiming it is correct since I cannot prove it is correct.
I am not making a claim. I am only expressing a belief.

A stated belief is not a claim, not by any definition of the word claim.

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

be·lief
/bəˈlēf/
noun
1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

 

[Trailblazer]

be·lief
/bəˈlēf/
noun
1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

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

 

[McBell]

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

state·ment
/ˈstātmənt/
noun
a definite or clear expression of something in speech or writing.

 

[PureX]

And that justifies classifying them all together.

Only if you want to promote ignorance, and bias.

None of those things exist.

They ALL "exist". Each in their own ways. Which is why it's important not to lump them together, but to address them more precisely.

Ideas of nonexistent things exist, but the objects to which they refer do not. Remember, it's this grouping of gods with the myriad other nonexistent things is what you called offensive.

PERCEPTION IS CONCEPTION. Every "thing" exists as an idea created in the mind by an interactive experience with the mystery of existence.

The descriptions and lore attributed to them may vary, but tales of vampires are not vampires, just as tales of gods are not gods.

And tales of tornadoes are not tornadoes. Even 'you' and 'I' are just a bunch of ideas and images and stories held in our own and other people's minds.

The gods and vampire have equal ontological status whatever stories one creates about them - they don't exist, just ideas about them.

Clearly, they do exist. Just as you and I exist.

I don't understand what it means to say that you believe something but don't consider it correct, or why you seem to think that expressing that belief isn't making a claim about reality as you perceive and understand it.

You don't even know what "reality" means, so I'm not surprised that you are confused. You think reality is a physical state. It's not. It's a cognitive illusion made up of ideas and images and stories and collected experiences. Reality is an imaginative representation, just like God and Superman, and you and I.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You don't even know what "reality" means

Now you're projecting.

It's apparent from your post that you don't make a distinction between ideas that have no external referent and those that do. You wrote this: "Clearly, they do exist. Just as you and I exist" in reference to gods and vampires. Wolves exist. Werewolves don't. Both are concepts, but only one has a real referent.

And you seem to think that actual people are nothing but ideas: "'you' and 'I' are just a bunch of ideas and images and stories held in our own and other people's minds." You seem unaware that human beings comprise flesh and bones, and while their conscious brains may generate ideas, they are not those ideas.

It's remarkable that you would write such a thing. Gods, vampires, and werewolves are just ideas in minds and nothing else as best we can determine, but the idea of a wolf has a real referent made of flesh and bones.

Let me explain to you what reality is. It includes the wolf but not the werewolf. Only the wolf is real. Only the wolf can run or howl or be photographed or eat or die. For whatever reason, you make no distinction between such things.

 

[CG Didymus]

be·lief
/bəˈlēf/
noun
1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

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

A believer in a religion says they "believe" that their religious beliefs are true and are factual, but can't prove it. And other people don't believe it. Close enough for me.

People that have a belief in a religion are making the "claim" it is true. Either way to say they "believe" it is true or they "claim" it true, they should be ready to give reasons why they think so.

Then comes the next issue, how good are those reasons? Usually, they are great for the believer, but not so great for the skeptic. But really do believe that for those that believe in a religion, and try to live by its teachings, that the religion will work for them.

Trouble is, religions and cults that have all sorts of beliefs, with all sorts of contradictions between them, I think still work... for those that want to believe them. Like with Scientology. It works for them. Or with Young Earth Creationist Christians... it works for them. But are either of them true? For me, probably no. But they believe it and claim it is true. And what would they gain by saying that they don't claim it... but only have a "belief"?

 

[Trailblazer]

A believer in a religion says they "believe" that their religious beliefs are true and are factual, but can't prove it. And other people don't believe it. Close enough for me.

IF a believer in a religion says that their religious beliefs are true and factual that is a claim.
e.g. Jesus rose from the dead.

IF a believer in a religion says they "believe" their religious beliefs that is not a claim.
e.g. I believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[McBell]

IF a believer in a religion says that their religious beliefs are true and factual that is a claim.
e.g. Jesus rose from the dead.

IF a believer in a religion says they "believe" their religious beliefs that is not a claim.
e.g. I believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

say
/sā/
verb
1.
utter words so as to convey information, an opinion, a feeling or intention, or an instruction.

noun
an opportunity for stating one's opinion or feelings.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

IF a believer in a religion says that their religious beliefs are true and factual that is a claim.
e.g. Jesus rose from the dead.

IF a believer in a religion says they "believe" their religious beliefs that is not a claim.
e.g. I believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

Yes, you've said that that is how you use those words, and others have told you that they disagree according to their usage. And I have seen you going through this semantic discussion every few months for a few years now.

You also don't give a reason for your idiosyncratic usage. You just cut-and-paste dictionary definitions that don't support your position. But it seems like it must be important to you to be able to say that you believe something but don't claim that you consider your belief is correct. Others would say, "Yes, I claim god exists. That is my belief." Or the opposite: "Yes, I claim that gods don't exist. That is my belief." Even the usual agnostic position considers an expressed belief and a claim the same: "I do not claim that gods exist nor that they don't. I believe neither of those." But it seems that you alone like to affirm one while denying the other for reasons inapparent to me and at the cost of continually having this discussion.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, you've said that that is how you use those words, and others have told you that they disagree according to their usage.

If you read on this thread, especially at the beginning, you will see that many people agree with me, that a belief is not a claim, expressed or otherwise.
One person who agreed is @Nimos, who is one of my favorite atheists. You might want to read his rationale because he is very logical, and very smart.
#42
#88
#127
#138

 

[CG Didymus]

Yes, you've said that that is how you use those words, and others have told you that they disagree according to their usage. And I have seen you going through this semantic discussion every few months for a few years now.

You also don't give a reason for your idiosyncratic usage. You just cut-and-paste dictionary definitions that don't support your position. But it seems like it must be important to you to be able to say that you believe something but don't claim that you consider your belief is correct. Others would say, "Yes, I claim god exists. That is my belief." Or the opposite: "Yes, I claim that gods don't exist. That is my belief." Even the usual agnostic position considers an expressed belief and a claim the same: "I do not claim that gods exist nor that they don't. I believe neither of those." But it seems that you alone like to affirm one while denying the other for reasons inapparent to me and at the cost of continually having this discussion.

But she says, "IF a believer in a religion says that their religious beliefs are true and factual that is a claim." That's what believers do. And I don't believe that TB doesn't believe her religion is true and factual. Yet, she keeps claiming it's a "belief" not a "claim". Why? Who cares?

Except she keeps sounding as if she is "claiming" God exists and her prophet is the one foretold in all the prophecies of all the major religions. Then when put on the spot she says, "I'm not claiming it. It's my belief". But I think it's a belief that she and other Baha'is believe to be true and factual.

Or maybe she's not so sure. No, I don't believe that's the case. The thing is she can't prove it. So, how and why would she "claim" something that she can't prove? It is my belief that this whole thing has been all about that. Of course, I can't prove it, so it is just my "belief".

 

[vulcanlogician]

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?

As I'm sure others have explained, the difference is highly technical. If you see your uncle in the horse barn, you have grounds to believe that your uncle was in the horse barn. Likewise, you could trust the sayso of your aunt who told you your uncle was in the horse barn at x time. Given that your aunt has never lied to you, and has no reason to do so, both could be justifications for the belief that your uncle was in the barn.

On the other hand, if someone were trying to be objective in determining if your uncle actually was in the barn, they must be more stringent. Though they are good grounds for belief, seeing something with your own eyes, or accepting testimony you have found reliable in your life do little to strengthen the plausibility of a claim.

Beliefs don't need to be falsifiable. But claims do. A belief has a first person accountability to it while a claim has a third-person accountability thing going.

 

[Trailblazer]

But she says, "IF a believer in a religion says that their religious beliefs are true and factual that is a claim." That's what believers do. And I don't believe that TB doesn't believe her religion is true and factual. Yet, she keeps claiming it's a "belief" not a "claim". Why? Who cares?

I believe my religion is true but I am not claiming it is true because I cannot prove it is true as a fact.
If it was true 'as a fact' then I would not have to believe it is true, I would know it is true.

Except she keeps sounding as if she is "claiming" God exists and her prophet is the one foretold in all the prophecies of all the major religions.

What it 'sounds like' to you is not what it is. It is only what it sounds like to you and it does not sound like that to everyone.

Then when put on the spot she says, "I'm not claiming it. It's my belief". But I think it's a belief that she and other Baha'is believe to be true and factual.

That's right. I believe it is true but not factual since it is not a fact, it is a belief.

Or maybe she's not so sure. No, I don't believe that's the case. The thing is she can't prove it. So, how and why would she "claim" something that she can't prove? It is my belief that this whole thing has been all about that. Of course, I can't prove it, so it is just my "belief".

I am sure it is true but I cannot prove it is true, which is why I am not claiming it is true.

 

[Heyo]

As I'm sure others have explained, the difference is highly technical. If you see your uncle in the horse barn, you have grounds to believe that your uncle was in the horse barn. Likewise, you could trust the sayso of your aunt who told you your uncle was in the horse barn at x time. Given that your aunt has never lied to you, and has no reason to do so, both could be justifications for the belief that your uncle was in the barn.

On the other hand, if someone were trying to be objective in determining if your uncle actually was in the barn, they must be more stringent. Though they are good grounds for belief, seeing something with your own eyes, or accepting testimony you have found reliable in your life do little to strengthen the plausibility of a claim.

Beliefs don't need to be falsifiable. But claims do. A belief has a first person accountability to it while a claim has a third-person accountability thing going.

Furthermore, a claim that has been verified (or accepted as is) can be built upon. If you claim to be the owner of a property (and you can show it or it is accepted as is) you can rent or sell the property.
On you saying "I believe I own that property but I can't show it", nobody will pay you or rent from you.

 

[CG Didymus]

Furthermore, a claim that has been verified (or accepted as is) can be built upon. If you claim to be the owner of a property (and you can show it or it is accepted as is) you can rent or sell the property.
On you saying "I believe I own that property but I can't show it", nobody will pay you or rent from you.

Again, we are talking about a believer in religion. If a born-again Christian tells you that they believe Jesus is their Savior and that the only way to get to heaven is by believing in Jesus, it is obviously a "belief" but aren't they claiming it is true? And when asked how they know that they say that it is what is said in the "Word of God", the Bible, meaning the Christian version of the Bible. If pressed further, they can tell you why they believe their Bible is the inerrant word of God. Those Christians are sure that what they believe is the truth and are not afraid to claim it.

I'd imagine many Baha'is would feel the same about their religious beliefs... That it is the truth and wouldn't be afraid to claim it. And even TB has said that she has "proven" it to herself. And that's all the Baha'i Faith is expecting of people, to investigate on their own and verify to themselves that it is true and factual.

The glitch is... For those of us that have investigated it and found it not to necessarily be true, what do Baha'is do with us. It is an endless argument. The gives their reasons and what they believe (claim) to be evidence, and us skeptics tell them that their "evidence" doesn't prove anything. On and on it goes. Then one Baha'i has been going on and on about that she isn't "claiming", it is only her "belief". Again, in essence, what's the difference? We still question her as to why she "believes" it. So, she might as well "claim" that, for her, it is the truth.

 

[Heyo]

Again, we are talking about a believer in religion. If a born-again Christian tells you that they believe Jesus is their Savior and that the only way to get to heaven is by believing in Jesus, it is obviously a "belief" but aren't they claiming it is true? And when asked how they know that they say that it is what is said in the "Word of God", the Bible, meaning the Christian version of the Bible. If pressed further, they can tell you why they believe their Bible is the inerrant word of God. Those Christians are sure that what they believe is the truth and are not afraid to claim it.

I'd imagine many Baha'is would feel the same about their religious beliefs... That it is the truth and wouldn't be afraid to claim it. And even TB has said that she has "proven" it to herself. And that's all the Baha'i Faith is expecting of people, to investigate on their own and verify to themselves that it is true and factual.

The glitch is... For those of us that have investigated it and found it not to necessarily be true, what do Baha'is do with us. It is an endless argument. The gives their reasons and what they believe (claim) to be evidence, and us skeptics tell them that their "evidence" doesn't prove anything. On and on it goes. Then one Baha'i has been going on and on about that she isn't "claiming", it is only her "belief". Again, in essence, what's the difference? We still question her as to why she "believes" it. So, she might as well "claim" that, for her, it is the truth.

Then we should ask @Trailblazer if she would claim any privileges or favours for her religion based on the claim that she has "proven" it to herself. (And she also recently retracted her claim that her belief is rational.)

 

[osgart]

Whatever I believe I don't impose on anyone, and is therefore not a claim. Some beliefs I'm very certain of. Other beliefs come and go.

Belief to me is defined as things that appear to be true, but as of yet have little to no proof nor evidence to say for certain.

There are also things in my religion I hold to be true that have proof from self evidence, but I don't enter them as claims for everyone to accept.

Claims are claims based on willful intention to persuade others of validity and truth.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Furthermore, a claim that has been verified (or accepted as is) can be built upon. If you claim to be the owner of a property (and you can show it or it is accepted as is) you can rent or sell the property.
On you saying "I believe I own that property but I can't show it", nobody will pay you or rent from you.

Yeah. Claims are beliefs that you think other people ought to accept. Like, they are "beliefs+." As such, they not only deserve scrutiny concerning whether it is a valid belief, but must also make it through the gauntlet of others' skepticism.