Is a Belief a Claim?

[TagliatelliMonster]

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. Isn't it.

When you ask a suicide jihadist if he is helped by his faith, he'll tell you yes.

 

[Nimos]

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.

Edit: (Just to make it more clear)
Pretending to believe something and believing in something is not the same.

Honesty makes a crucial difference because it changes belief to non-belief, otherwise, it would be like saying that "lying" and "truth" are the same.

That is why we have to look at belief as being truthful when talking about it in this context. We can't protect ourselves against a lie when talking about someone else belief.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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?

I say yes. All of our beliefs are simply what we think is true based on how we evaluate the evidence. Every belief is a truth claim. You cannot believe something is true without being convinced by the evidence. Otherwise you would just say I don't know. If someone says I believe God exists, that is a truth claim. What is the alternative? They believe god exists but they don't think it is true? That makes no sense.

 

[PureX]

When you ask a suicide jihadist if he is helped by his faith, he'll tell you yes.

A suicide jihadist's faith is in his religious dogma. Not God. He believes and does what other people who also have no faith in God, tell him. A cult of violence and self-righteousness that pretends to have faith in God but in fact only trusts in the force of violence, is not an example of faith in God. Or even theism. It's a form of collective mental illness.

Also, keep in mind how very RARE this example actually is. And that you had to grasp at a scenario THAT RARE to try and defame BILLIONS of people that actually do have faith in God.

 

[PureX]

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.

And to whom are they expected to present this rational justification and burden of proof? Oh! That would be YOU, wouldn't it! Because YOU are the appointed determiner of rational justification and proof, aren't you. No one else is allowed to determine their own justifications, or their own definition of proof. Everyone is expected to present these to YOU, for your validation or condemnation. Right?

Having said that... what, really, is the practical difference between
"X is true"
and
"I believe X is true".

Well, none, since WE aren't allowed to make that determination according to you. Only YOU can do that! All statements stand before you to be judged by you according to your universally correct criteria. It doesn't matter what we believe.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

True, but belief and claim are not synonymous since they do not have the same meaning, not even close.

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

Belief:
1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"

2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
https://www.google.com/search

Belief:
the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true:
His belief in God gave him hope during difficult times.
Recent scandals have shaken many people's belief in (= caused people to have doubts about) politicians.
belief

Right. Any belief stated out loud can reasonably be considered a claim.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not making claims about my beliefs.
The prophet founder of the Baha'i Faith made a claim to be a Messenger of God. I believe his claims. I am making no claims of my own since I have nothing to claim.

Whether or not I share my beliefs on a forum or not has nothing to do with whether it is a belief or a claim.
A belief is a belief and a claim is a claim and they are not the same.

So...

You agree that "the prophet founder of the Baha'i Faith is a Messenger of God" is a claim.

You accept this claim, but say that you don't make the claim yourself.

Is that a fair rephrasing?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And to whom are they expected to present this rational justification and burden of proof? Oh! That would be YOU, wouldn't it! Because YOU are the appointed determiner of rational justification and proof, aren't you. No one else is allowed to determine their own justifications, or their own definition of proof. Everyone is expected to present these to YOU, for your validation or condemnation. Right?

We can have a reasonable discussion about where the bar should be.

As an objective standard, if the bar is set so low that mutually exclusive claims both clear it, then it's objectively too low. Above that, we can have reasonable disagreement on where the bar ought to be.

 

[PureX]

We can have a reasonable discussion about where the bar should be.

No, mostly we can't. For several reasons. One is that it's important that we each decide for ourselves what we 'believe' reality (truth) to be, according to the experiences of it that we have, and the means we possess of understanding it. And these are always going to be unique to us. And secondly, humanity is a collective, cooperative species, which means we all need to share our individual experience and understanding with each other to help expand and enlighten each others' world-view. We need to SHARE our uniqueness with each other, not "correct it" to accommodate some uniform homogeneous "truly true reality" that we all must then accede to.

It's why I object to the ever common atheist's "kangaroo court' mentality around there.

As an objective standard, if the bar is set so low that mutually exclusive claims both clear it, then it's objectively too low. Above that, we can have reasonable disagreement on where the bar ought to be.

We WANT disagreement. It's from the areas that we disagree that we can learn from each other. The rest is just 'stroking-the-righteousness'. When we encounter disagreement, we should be trying to understand the counterpoint, not trying to reject and dismiss (defeat) it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, mostly we can't. For several reasons. One is that it's important that we each decide for ourselves what we 'believe' reality (truth) to be, according to the experiences of it that we have, and the means we possess of understanding it. And these are always going to be unique to us. And secondly, humanity is a collective, cooperative species, which means we all need to share our individual experience and understanding with each other to help expand and enlighten each others' world-view. We need to SHARE our uniqueness with each other, not "correct it" to accommodate some uniform homogeneous "truly true reality" that we all must then accede to.

I meant "we" in the general. I didn't mean to suggest that I could have a reasonable conversation with you specifically.

 

[PureX]

I meant "we" in the general. I didn't mean to suggest that I could have a reasonable conversation with you specifically.

I meant "we" in general as well. As is so often evidenced by the endless 'talking past' each other that goes on here in these threads. Peaople looking to 'win' the altercation in the name of one righteous "truth" instead of learning from the different experiences and understanding of others.

 

[Trailblazer]

Right. Any belief stated out loud can reasonably be considered a claim.

No, it is not a claim unless the person making the statement is claiming that the belief is true.
I believe x is true is not a claim 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

 

[Trailblazer]

So...

You agree that "the prophet founder of the Baha'i Faith is a Messenger of God" is a claim.

You accept this claim, but say that you don't make the claim yourself.

Is that a fair rephrasing?

Baha'u'llah claimed to be a Messenger of God.
I believe that His claim is true.

Acceptance/belief that a statement is true is not claiming that the statement is true.
I am not claiming that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.

Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
belief means - Google Search

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

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Baha'u'llah claimed to be a Messenger of God.
I believe that His claim is true.

Right: Baha'u'llah claimed it, therefore it is a claim. Not your claim, but still a claim.

Acceptance/belief that a statement is true is not claiming that the statement is true.
I am not claiming that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God.

But you did say that you believe he claimed it. You agree that it is a claim, right?

 

[Trailblazer]

Right: Baha'u'llah claimed it, therefore it is a claim. Not your claim, but still a claim.

Yes, Baha'u'llah claimed it so it is His claim.

But you did say that you believe he claimed it. You agree that it is a claim, right?

I do not believe that He claimed it. I know that He claimed it, since I can read what He claimed in His Writings.

“Attract the hearts of men, through the call of Him, the one alone Beloved. Say: This is the Voice of God, if ye do but hearken. This is the Day Spring of the Revelation of God, did ye but know it. This is the Dawning-Place of the Cause of God, were ye to recognize it. This is the Source of the commandment of God, did ye but judge it fairly. This is the manifest and hidden Secret; would that ye might perceive it.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 33

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

Claims have the burden of proof because someone is claiming that something is true.
Beliefs do not have the burden of proof UNLESS someone is claiming that their belief is true.

Having said that... what, really, is the practical difference between
"X is true"
and
"I believe X is true".

1. Jesus rose from the dead.
2. I believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

1. is a claim that Jesus rose from the dead.
2. is a statement of belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

1. has the burden of proof but 2. does not have the burden of proof since it is not a claim.

When one makes a claim, one implies belief in it (why else would you state it).

A claim implies belief in what one is claiming, but a belief is not always a claim.
Unless someone is claiming that their belief is true, it is not a claim.

So one can't make a claim without implying belief in it.

But one can state a belief without claiming that it is true.

Likewise, one can't express a belief without stating what it is that is that is being believed. Which is a claim.

Stating what it is that is that is being believed is not a claim unless one is claiming it is true.

It is true that Jesus rose from the dead is a claim
I believe that Jesus rose from the dead is not a claim.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

1. Jesus rose from the dead.
2. I believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

1. is a claim that Jesus rose from the dead.
2. is a statement of belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

1. has the burden of proof but 2. does not have the burden of proof since it is not a claim.

For anyone who cares whether their beliefs are true, 2 has a burden of proof as well.

 

[Trailblazer]

For anyone who cares whether their beliefs are true, 2 has a burden of proof as well.

Why would that be the case?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why would that be the case?

Because people who care whether their beliefs are true ask themselves questions like "how can I tell whether my belief is true or not?" and then seek out the answer.

If you haven't bothered to demonstrate to yourself that your belief is true, then you aren't that concerned with believing false things.

 

[CG Didymus]

For anyone who cares whether their beliefs are true, 2 has a burden of proof as well.

Because people who care whether their beliefs are true ask themselves questions like "how can I tell whether my belief is true or not?" and then seek out the answer.

If you haven't bothered to demonstrate to yourself that your belief is true, then you aren't that concerned with believing false things.

I still "believe" that the only reason TB started this whole thing about beliefs vs. claims is that she wanted to have an excuse not to have any burden of proof. But what does a person that believes in a religion do when asked, "Why do you believe it?" And she has said that she has looked at the so-called evidence and has proven it to herself that the claims of her prophet are true. So, she might as well claim it... Baha'u'llah, to her, is a manifestation of God. Why? Because, she says, his character, his mission and his writings.

Ah yes, but I forgot, she can't "prove" it. And she can't prove God exists. She says there's "evidence" but no "proof." With no "proof", she says she can't "claim" it. Except here's a Baha'i article that claims there is proof.

In the Baha’i teachings, we find three varieties of proofs for the existence of God—”rational” (logical, scientific) proofs; “scriptural proofs from the Old and New Testaments or the Koran;” and “spiritual proofs.” There are also sensory and scientific proofs for the existence of God, and the first essays in this series deal with those proofs.​

​

The Baha'i author of that article also wrote some books about "proofs".

Peter Terry is an independent religious scholar, musician and educator. He is the author of A Prophet in Modern Times (a biography of the Bab); In His Own Words (an autobiography of Baha'u'llah); Proofs of the Prophets (a compilation and commentary on 40 proofs of prophethood); Companion to Proofs of the Prophets; Proofs of the Prophets--Lord Krishna; and Proofs of the Prophets--Baha'u'llah.​

​