Is a Belief a Claim?

[Valjean]

A claim is an expressed belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

I have asked myself that hundreds of times.

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 have bothered to demonstrate to myself that my belief is true, because I only want to believe true things.
The only burden of proof I have is the burden to demonstrate to myself that my belief is true.
I have no burden to demonstrate to anyone else that my belief is true...
Other people have the burden to demonstrate to themselves that my belief is true, if they want to know.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

I did not start this thread. @SalixIncendium started it.

Is a Belief a Claim?

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...

www.religiousforums.com

I do not need an excuse because I have no burden of proof to prove that my belief is true to anyone except myself.
If anyone wants to know if my belief is true they have the burden to prove it to themselves.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

Yes, that is what I have done.

So, she might as well claim it...

But I did not claim it is true, I only ever said that I believe it is true. A belief is not a claim.

Baha'u'llah, to her, is a manifestation of God. Why? Because, she says, his character, his mission and his writings.

That is why I believe Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God, but I am not claiming that Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

A claim is an expressed belief.

Yes, but all expressed beliefs are not claims, not unless someone is 'claiming' that their belief is true.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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.

People, especially those people who delight in challenging the beliefs of others, are often more concerned with being right, and being seen to be right, than they are with truth.

One generally finds in people who are concerned with truth, a propensity to challenge their own beliefs.

 

[Nimos]

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.

I don't think this is fair.

I assume you are an atheist?

I'm an atheist as well, but for the sake of argument, I will put on the religious hat.

Me: What is your position on gods?
You: I don't believe that gods exist.
Me: So you claim that no gods exist?
You: No, that is not what I said.
Me: Well you are merely trying to hide your claim behind your belief, so you have the burden of proof!!

I assume you agree that this is fallacious because you don't have the burden of proof, yet that is what you demand from @Trailblazer because you treat all that she is saying as one argument and don't see a difference between belief and a claim.

You can be a strong atheist and claim that no gods exist, in which case you have the burden of proof or you can be a soft atheist and say that you see no evidence for gods, without claiming that gods couldn't exist. It is a vastly different position than the one of a strong atheist.

We have to apply the same rules for discussion for both atheists and religious people.

 

[McBell]

Me: What is your position on gods?
You: I don't believe that gods exist.
Me: So you claim that no gods exist?
You: No, that is not what I said.
Me: Well you are merely trying to hide your claim behind your belief, so you have the burden of proof!!

You do know that not believing in god is different from believing god not exist, right?

AND

Trailblazer did flat out claim she believes that atheists want beliefs to be claims for no other reason than to demand evidence from the believer.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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.

Well, that would put the burden of proof on you now, wouldn't it. Of course, your premise is wrong, because I started the thread.

But I digress.

If I tell you I believe something, I have no burden of proof. It's a belief. It's not objectively evident. If it was, it would be a fact. If my belief involves you and suggests you should change your views based upon my belief, then that is a claim, and therefore I have the burden of proof.

People simply worry to much about the beliefs of others that have no impact on them.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Trailblazer did flat out claim she believes that atheists want beliefs to be claims for no other reason than to demand evidence from the believer.

And in @Trailblazer's defense, I've seen atheists do just that.

There have been atheists here (and for all I know, still are) that joined this forum for the sole purpose of discrediting theism.

 

[Nimos]

You do know that not believing in god is different from believing god not exist, right?

Can you clarify that, I don't really understand the sentence.

Trailblazer did flat out claim she believes that atheists want beliefs to be claims for no other reason than to demand evidence from the believer.

I'm not sure how that is relevant to whether a belief is the same as a claim? or that it is fair to treat them as if they are?

If Trailblazer did claim this, then that is an individual claim, completely separated from the above.

 

[McBell]

And in @Trailblazer's defense, I've seen atheists do just that.

There have been atheists here (and for all I know, still are) that joined this forum for the sole purpose of discrediting theism.

These atheists in question said as much?
That the only reason they think beliefs are claims is so that they can demand evidence?

Seems to me you are making a rather interesting assumption.

 

[McBell]

Can you clarify that, I don't really understand the sentence.


I'm not sure how that is relevant to whether a belief is the same as a claim? or that it is fair to treat them as if they are?

If Trailblazer did claim this, then that is an individual claim, completely separated from the above.

I do not believe in god
Is a different and separate claim from
I do not believe god exists.

Of course, there are some who claim that because they are beliefs, they are not claims at all.
Even though they are in fact claims of their beliefs.

 

[SalixIncendium]

These atheists in question said as much?
That the only reason they think beliefs are claims is so that they can demand evidence?

Seems to me you are making a rather interesting assumption.

I don't do assumptions.

I've seen such behaviors where an atheist will treat a belief as a claim and demand evidence. There have also been those in this thread whose response indicates blur the distinction between the two.

I made no assumptions. I arrived at conclusions base on logic.

 

[McBell]

I don't do assumptions.

I've seen such behaviors where an atheist will treat a belief as a claim and demand evidence. There have also been those in this thread whose response indicates blur the distinction between the two.

I made no assumptions. I arrived at conclusions base on logic.

The point in question, that you seem to be avoiding is "the only reason they think beliefs are claims is so that they can demand evidence".

I mean, it can not possible be that they honestly do not agree with the idea that claiming belief is somehow not a claim.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think this is fair.

I assume you are an atheist?

I'm an atheist as well, but for the sake of argument, I will put on the religious hat.

Me: What is your position on gods?
You: I don't believe that gods exist.
Me: So you claim that no gods exist?
You: No, that is not what I said.
Me: Well you are merely trying to hide your claim behind your belief, so you have the burden of proof!!

I assume you agree that this is fallacious because you don't have the burden of proof, yet that is what you demand from @Trailblazer because you treat all that she is saying as one argument and don't see a difference between belief and a claim.

You can be a strong atheist and claim that no gods exist, in which case you have the burden of proof or you can be a soft atheist and say that you see no evidence for gods, without claiming that gods couldn't exist. It is a vastly different position than the one of a strong atheist.

We have to apply the same rules for discussion for both atheists and religious people.

Any burden of proof requires a context.

Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, anyone who cares about whether their beliefs are true has a burden of proof for themselves.

If we're trying to convince others of an idea, then we have to clear the bar of what they consider to be a reasonable burden of proof.

Atheism in and of itself is just what happens when god-claims don't meet their burden:

"Sorry - I don't think your arguments for God cut the mustard. I'll pass, thanks."

"Your description of your god isn't coherent enough for me to tell what it's supposed to be, so I don't even have a claim I can evaluate yet. Talk to me again when you've clarified your position."

... so atheism (absent of actual anti-theistic beliefs) really is different, since it isn't a claim.

Where I've seen a lot of friction between several of our Baha'i members (including @Trailblazer ) and others is that they have this weird "proselytizing but you can't call it proselytizing because proselytizing is a sin and we're a non-proselytizing religion" thing going on. They try to convince others of their beliefs, which definitely gives them a burden of proof. At the same time, they freak out if you call attention to this, because having a burden of proof suggests that they're proselytizing, and they see it as slanderous to be accused of proselytizing... even as they're proselytizing.

It's bizarre and exhausting to be in those conversations.

 

[PureX]

You do know that not believing in god is different from believing god not exist, right?

AND

Trailblazer did flat out claim she believes that atheists want beliefs to be claims for no other reason than to demand evidence from the believer.

And in most cases, she is right.

Many of the self-proclaimed atheists here have fallen into the habit of creating their own 'kangaroo court' in their own minds where they get to stand in judgment of everyone else's beliefs, statements, options, and whatever else even though they are clearly biased in favor of their own, and yet have no intention of presenting their own to anyone else's judgment. And the doorway to all these imaginary kangaroo courts is "show me your evidence" (so that I can dismiss it as invalid).

 

[Nimos]

I do not believe in god
Is a different and separate claim from
I do not believe god exists.

Of course, there are some who claim that because they are beliefs, they are not claims at all.
Even though they are in fact claims of their beliefs.

Let me turn it around.

I believe the car on the right is faster than the one on the left. Am I claiming that it is? or am I just making a guess?

Correction (these are the same just formulated differently):
I do not believe in god vs I do not believe god exists.

Yet that distinction doesn't seem to apply to @Trailblazer as they are treated as being a claim, which I think is not only unfair but also wrong.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The point in question, that you seem to be avoiding is "the only reason they think beliefs are claims is so that they can demand evidence".

I mean, it can not possible be that they honestly do not agree with the idea that claiming belief is somehow not a claim.

I saw your post earlier in this thread about "claiming belief." I dismissed it because the phrase carried as much logic to me from a religious/spiritual standpoint as "theorizing hypothesis" would carry from a scientific one.

"Claiming belief" is as much a claim as "theorizing hypothesis" would be a theory.

 

[McBell]

Let me turn it around.

View attachment 85883

I believe the car on the right is faster than the one on the left. Am I claiming that it is? or am I just making a guess?

And I agree with you that:
I do not believe in god vs I do not believe god exists.

Are not the same, I thought that was obvious from my example? Yet that distinction doesn't seem to apply to @Trailblazer as they are treated as being the same, which I think is not only unfair but also wrong.

Why do you believe the car on the right is faster than the car on the left?
I mean, there must be a reason for your belief, right?

Or are you of the mind that people have beliefs for no reason?

Why declare your belief at all if you have no intention of discussing it?
ESPECIALLY in a debate forum?

If you are just guessing, why declare your guess as a belief and not as a guess?

Like I said before, this all sounds like wanting to give beliefs a free pass.