Arnaud1221
Red-hood
A claim must have to do with the legion.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is a Belief a Claim?
- Thread starter SalixIncendium
- Start date
Nimos
Well-Known Member
If you wanted the claim to be taken seriously, then yes. But if you don't care whether or not I buy into it, then obviously you have as much interest in the claim as I would have listening to it.
"Unicorns are real and I don't care the slightest whether you believe me or not"
In this case, I have decided that unicorns are real and that I don't care about your opinion. So why would you care about my claim?
It is a belief.
"You believe that the world is more real than I do"
If I didn't believe this about you, I wouldn't make the claim in the first place. (except as a joke etc. but assuming it was serious)
It's no different than me claiming or accusing you of something, why would I do this if I didn't believe it to be somewhat true?
"it informs another of what they believe."
Yes and no, I wouldn't say it like that. Because that indicates that it is true. Otherwise, it wouldn't inform them.
It would be like us having a discussion... and during that, I say to you "Let me remind you that you are a Christian.." assuming you had already stated that to be the case.
The reason I say yes and no, is because the sentence could be understood like such one, but assuming that you hadn't stated that you believed the world to be more real than me, then by default, I wouldn't inform you, but make a claim based on my believe/conviction.
A claim doesn't require objective evidence or anything. It only requires this if one expects others to take it seriously.
Then that would be an expression of belief. It is not a claim.
You could even go further and say:
"I believe God is real and that he doesn't like someone doing <something> because if we look in the bible it says XYZ"
That would be a justified belief, not that God is real, but that God according to the bible wouldn't like someone doing XYZ.
The reason that "I believe God is real" wouldn't be justified in the same way by the bible, is because it is the one claiming God to be real, so it is the one that makes the claim.
No different than someone saying, "God is real, because I say so" that is not justified.
So is it fair to say that all claims are beliefs, but not all beliefs are claims? And further would it be fair to say that a belief becomes a claim when one expects another to believe said belief or if that belief speaks to the views of another?
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Assuming that we ignore someone lying, making a joke etc. And we want to be extremely precise.
Then I think the most accurate way is to say that all claims are based on a belief. Because I could present a claim made by another that I didn't make. But I think it is fair to assume that the person originally making the claim did so based on a belief in it being true.
And yes, not all beliefs are claims. Again "I believe I will win the lottery" is not me claiming that it will happen.
I'm not sure about the last part what exactly you mean? "..if that belief speaks to the views of another?"
But in the first part, it depends on what exactly you mean. Sorry for nitpicking
but it really depends.If it is just an "expectation", then no. In that case that would just be an unjustified belief. A claim needs to be an expression of having knowledge, so:
"You have to believe in God, because if you don't you will burn in hell"
That is an expression of my belief, but also an expression of having knowledge about God and what will happen to you if you don't believe him.
And obviously, you would reply: "How do you know this?" to which I would say "Because the bible says so" and then the discussion would take off, "How do you know that God is real?"
So it isn't just your expectation that I should believe you. You are claiming something to be true and that I should believe you, because of the knowledge you think you have. And then turns into me requiring evidence and proof, if I am to take you seriously.
Perhaps if I provide an example, it would help...
"I believe that everyone should spend time each day in silent prayer."
It assumes the view that everyone believes or should believe that there is an entity that is worthy of listening to and has the power to grant petitions.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Yes.
And it is quite easy to mix up. It seems very similar to someone saying "We are all sinners", which also assumes knowing something. But the word "believe" has a meaning, it's not just there for fun. Because my example is a claim whereas your statement is just a preference based on your conviction, but doesn't actually claim anything about prayers. The assumption would obviously be that you think this because you believe they work.
And were it an actual discussion you had with someone about prayers, I guess that it eventually would end up with a claim discussion about whether prayers work or not. But looking at it isolated, it is not a claim.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
That would also be a claim.
"I saw a bird" is as much a claim as "I saw an alien".
The majority of people wouldn't require a whole lot of evidence for the first one, but would probably just take it at face value. Whereas the second one probably would not be.
The word believe is important because it allows for doubt, misunderstandings, and being wrong.
"I believe I saw a bird", "I believe I saw an alien"
In both statements, you intentionally allow for being mistaken, whereas in the first two, you claim you know what you saw.
Putting it simply...
:10 = belief
:14 = claim
:10 = belief
:14 = claim
Nimos
Well-Known Member
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
So, if you say, "I don't believe the world is real" or you say "I don't think the world is real" or "I say that this world is not real" or "You know what? You claim this world is real. Well, I claim it isn't"
What's the difference? But again, when a believer in a religion, like let's say a born-again Christian says, "Jesus is the only way." What are they conveying to us? A claim that what they say is the absolute truth? Or it's just their "belief", like an opinion? I think that when they say, "This is my belief", they mean, "This stuff is fact. It is religious truth. The Bible is the inerrant Word of God" and so on. It is what they believe is the most important and real truth that there could ever be.
But then when asked to prove it, what can they say? "Because the Bible says so? Then when asked how they know the Bible is true, they might say something like "Because it is the Word of God." They can't prove it to skeptics. So, does that make something less than a claim? I think that Baha'is, Christians and some other religious people are making the claim... Their beliefs are the absolute truth.
This whole "claim" vs. "belief" is something TB came up with. Where she got it from, I don't know. But it's her thing and she's sticking with it. And she ties it in along with that nobody can prove that God exists. Therefore, it's just a belief and not a claim, since it can never be proven.
Yet even she says that she has "proven" her religious beliefs to herself. And, of course, that to her, there is "evidence" that proves her prophet is the real deal and, since he says God is real, then that is good enough for her and other Baha'is, God is real. And round and round it goes, because then some people ask, "what's the evidence?" She says, "Baha'u'llah's character, his mission, his writings and, as icing on the cake, the fulfilled prophecies." To that the skeptics say, "That's not evidence, or it's weak evidence and the prophecies are too vague to prove anything."
For two years this same argument has been going on. Does it matter if it's a "claim" or "belief"? I say no, what matters is that Baha'is believe, claim, say, preach, teach and in any way possible they spread the message that what their religion teaches is the truth. Which is fine. It might be. Who knows? So, all that's asked is for more and better proof and evidence.
Not necessarily in my view, you dont have to believe in the value of a law to obey it.
PureX
Veteran Member
The dead giveaway, here, is that you could not justify setting up your 'kangaroo court' in relation to someone's faith in God. So you had to invent a straw scenario that made faith in God look harmful to everyone. Because actual faith in God is not harmful to anyone. Faith in God is not a Q-Anon conspiracy. And is nothing like one except through your own ignorant and biased opinion of it.
Actually, faith in God has been very harmful to a lot of people. I think, for example, of Joan of Arc, or Giordano Bruno, Thomas Cranmer or Hugh Latimer, just for starters.
PureX
Veteran Member
As always, you confuse alliegence to a religious dogma with faith in God. And then YOU decide what beliefs other people should live or die for. Just as those religious zealots you so love to point to as being so evil do.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I've had this discussion several times before.
The way I see it, beliefs and claims are the exact same thing expressed differently.
The way I see the burden of proof also, doesn't have anything to do with if someone is trying to convince someone else either.
Perhaps I think like that because I feel like even my own claims, I have to justify - for myself in any case at least.
Imo, claims have a burden of proof that should be met sufficiently if it is going to be believed by you, by others, whatever. In order for anyone to be rationally justified in accepting a claim, one should be able to sufficiently meet the burden of proof.
Having said that... what, really, is the practical difference between
"X is true"
and
"I believe X is true".
One could argue the first is a claim and the latter a "mere" belief.
But is it really different? When one utters the first one, is one not implying the words "i believe"?
Can you honestly state the first one while the second one isn't true?
When one makes a claim, one implies belief in it (why else would you state it).
EVEN if one is lying, one is implying belief. It's what you wish to make the one you speak to falsely believe: that you believe x is true.
So one can't make a claim without implying belief in it.
Likewise, one can't express a belief without stating what it is that is that is being believed. Which is a claim.
Why would claims not have a burden of proof when they are preceded by the words "I believe..."?
Meeting that burden remains the standard for rational justification for accepting a claim, right?
For yourself, for others, etc. This, it seems to me, is true wheter one tries to convince someone else or not.
Last edited:
And as always, incorrect. I don't want anyone to die for any reason other than a comfortable old age. It was those who had faith that they're dogmas were the direct result of God's will who decided which other beliefs were therefore contrary to that will. You must remember, many people who claim they have faith actually have very little more than the dogmas that they were spoon-fed, and you can see that most clearly in the 508 anti-LGBTQ laws being tracked by the ACLU in the United States.
Those with a true "faith in God" could not have that much hate in their hearts. As a Humanist, I certainly don't.
PureX
Veteran Member
Dogmas aren't God. Faith in a dogma is not faith in a God. Acting on one's dogma, religious or otherwise, is not acting on God's behalf. Acting on "voices" in one's head is not acting on God's behalf. So when these instances happen, it's not because of anyone's faith in God. It's because they are confusing God with their religious or political or social dogma, or because they are schizophrenic, or otherwise mentally ill. And once we eliminate these instances of abuse, how many people are actually harmed because of anyone's faith in God, and how many are helped by it?
And if we ask those who engage is such faith (in God), nearly all of them will say they are being helped by it. But you will ignore this and continue to just blindly presume that God is religion and religion is God and all abuse related to religious ideology is a condemnation of faith in God.
Because that is what you want to believe.
Last edited:
Nimos
Well-Known Member
You can do that easily.
"I have created these amazing pills that will prevent you from ever dying in a plane crash, all you have to do is eat one every day. And they are extremely cheap, only cost 100$ for 50 pills."
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
And those statements are implying your belief in it.
I addressed these in the post you are replying to.
You are lying, sure. The statements are designed to trick me into believe that you believe those claims to be true.
But the very wording of these statements as being true-isms, IMPLY that you believe these things.
Regardless if you are lying or not. That's what the statements imply.
That you are not being honest is of no relevance.
I can also say "I believe George was the killer" while actually lying.
A lying statement doesn't change how language works.