Claims vs. Beliefs

[F1fan]

I agree with the belief definition. A claim might be something proposed to others as a "potential belief" they might have if they should become so convinced, but not necessarily. Rather, a claim is an assertion that a belief is true but the motives for asserting that vary.

When you post your beliefs on this website, namely that you believe Messengers prove a God exists, and are from God, are you aware that other members of this site will see your posts?

When you post your beliefs are you aware that there are other members who will read your beliefs and will disagree?

Are you aware that members disagree with things other members post?

Are you aware that members commonly post claims of truth with the intent of convincing others their views are correct?

If so, are you aware that many members post claims and cannot defend their claims (which they believe are true) to a degree that is required by logic?

If you answer yes to any of these questions then are you surprised when other members treat what you post like they do what other members post, as other members post things as assertions and/or challenges to other posts?

Lastly, do you want members to ignore your posts when you state what you believe? Are we to understand you just want to post what you believe and not have anyone respond to it?

 

[F1fan]

I would disagree with such statement, obviously not that you believe it

But a belief doesn't become a claim once expressed. In that case, all atheists or in theory anyone that expresses a believe have a burden of proof. You could therefore never have a negative position such as atheism or a lack of believe in bigfoot or anything for that matter, without running into problems. The moment someone ask you about your position on a given topic, such as God and you answer is "Im an atheist and I don't believe in God", then according to what you say, you have made a claim and therefore the burden of proof is on you.

The sort of weak atheism in your example isn't a claim, it's a response to a claim a theist has made. The statement "I don't believe in God" was never possible until Gods were invented and people believed them to exist. Only then could someone reject this belief and not believe it. Think of the thousands of Gods that exist on lists that believers don't believe in. Do they assert claims about all those Gods by not thinking they exist? It is a natural intellectual impulse to reject claims at face value when they lack evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, but I also think we have to somehow respect common communication

If I say "God doesn't exist and didn't create the universe!!" someone could ask me to demonstrate it, however if I did as you say, I could just say that its my personal opinion and I didn't really make a claim, they just misunderstood what I said. It makes it almost impossible to communicate, because we can always back out of what we said with such excuse.

In my opinion, that is not going to work or be very productive.

Please let me know if you ever hear me saying "God exists and God created the universe." If I ever say such a thing I will gladly admit it is a claim but I cannot recall ever saying such a thing because there is no proof that God exists and God created the universe. I have said I believe that God exists and God created the universe but that is not a claim, it is a statement of my belief. Imo, beliefs even if stated publicly are not claims.

But I understand what you mean. I often say that Messengers of God are the only way that God communicates to humans and I can see how that sounds like a claim, so I need to be careful to say "I believe that Messengers of God are the only way that God communicates to humans" or "According to my beliefs, Messengers of God are the only way that God communicates to humans." I do not consider either one of those statements a claim but rather they are a statement of my beliefs. Likewise, if I say that the Baha'i Faith is the latest and most current religion from God that could be taken as a claim, but if I say "According to my beliefs, the Baha'i Faith, is the latest and most current religion from God" I do not consider that a claim but rather a statement of my beliefs.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not to everyone but you. In this thread at least.

What would be interesting is for those who think they are the same to explain why they think so.
That could open up a discussion that might be useful.

 

[Trailblazer]

The reality of the situation is that when a person dies, that is when they will know the Truth. All the debating is done.

Since this thread is about claims vs. beliefs, I consider what you just said to be a claim.
If you had said "I believe that when a person dies they will know the Truth because all the debating will be over with" that would be a statement of your belief, not a claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

I expect you're wrong. I expect that the reality is that after you die, you know nothing, just like before you were born, and for the same reason. But I won't call that a fact, because I understand the limits of knowledge. That is something nobody knows or can know this side of death.

So I consider what you just said your personal opinion, but what you were responding to was a claim.

ElishaElijah said: ↑
The reality of the situation is that when a person dies, that is when everyone knows the Truth.

Yes. When I say I believe something I am also saying that I consider it true. The belief becomes a claim once it is expressed.

I understand but that is not how I see it. I do not think all expressed beliefs are claims.

It's easy to understand what you are saying. The difficult part is understanding why you think one needs to prove something or say that they can to be making a claim. It's simply not part of the definition.

That is just the way I think. I don't make claims I cannot prove are true.

Now you give an example that you still call a claim even though you say you can't prove it. It seems like that was your criterion for excusing statements from being claims - not claiming that you could prove it.

That's right, and that is why I try never to say "The Baha'i Faith is a true religion of God" but rather say "I believe that the Baha'i Faith is a true religion of God."

Also, I don't make much distinction between the two, since "I believe" is always implied before making any statement of fact. Saying, "The Baha'i Faith is a true religion of God" means exactly the same thing to me as "I believe the Baha'i Faith is a true religion of God," so adding those words doesn't make the claim not a claim.

I do not see it that way as one is an assertion, a truth claim, and the other is a statement of a belief, and just because I believe something is true that does not mean it is true.

 

[Trailblazer]

If you answer yes to any of these questions then are you surprised when other members treat what you post like they do what other members post, as other members post things as assertions and/or challenges to other posts?

I can answer yes to all those questions so I am not surprised when other members treat what I post like they do what other members post.

Lastly, do you want members to ignore your posts when you state what you believe? Are we to understand you just want to post what you believe and not have anyone respond to it?

No, I do not want other members to ignore my posts and not have anyone respond to it but I also do not want people saying I have the burden of proof when I have clearly stated that I cannot prove that x, y, and z are true.

 

[samtonga43]

No, that's agnosticism. If you don't know you aren't an atheist.

I wonder if "I don't believe God exists" is the same as "There is no God"?

 

[samtonga43]

Tb says that "only the person who wrote it knows if they are making it a claim".

You are claiming that only you know if you are claiming something?

 

[Nimos]

The sort of weak atheism in your example isn't a claim, it's a response to a claim a theist has made. The statement "I don't believe in God" was never possible until Gods were invented and people believed them to exist. Only then could someone reject this belief and not believe it. Think of the thousands of Gods that exist on lists that believers don't believe in. Do they assert claims about all those Gods by not thinking they exist? It is a natural intellectual impulse to reject claims at face value when they lack evidence.

I don't think that holds up, looking through a lot of replies here in this thread, mostly from the atheists, a lot of them do not see a difference between these two statement.

"I believe God exist" and "God exist"

They seem to think that both of these mean the exact same thing. So in theory we could simply replace both of them with "I claim God exist". But when you say that the statement "I don't believe in God" weren't possible before God(s) were invented and therefore atheists do not have to follow the same rules, I think this is a misrepresentation or bad excuse for not having a burden of proof.

Because what is also implied or happens in what you are saying is that the burden of proof automatically falls on those that believe something, even if they didn't make the claim, so basically the responsibility of the burden of proof is shifted to them for no other reason than them finding something more likely to be true than not.

And I think the bible serve as a perfect illustration for this, because we don't know who wrote most of it. So those people living today that believe it to be true didn't make the claim in the first place and they didn't invent God either. The bible were thrown into their lap as with us atheists and we can then take up a position regarding what it claim.

To put that bluntly we can have two positions, ether its telling the truth or it is not. None of us know this for certain and none of us invented God. So logically the believers just as the atheists ought to not have a burden of proof following the "rules" you mentioned and they don't in this regard.

Simply believing something to be more likely than not, doesn't put a burden of proof on you. Its not really any different than me saying that "I believe that quantum mechanics is true", I hardly know anything about it, but if someone wanted to be cocky, they could demand me the burden of proof for that believe, even if I didn't make the claim about quantum mechanics in the first place. And in theory all scientists could keep shifting the burden of proof backwards to the one who originally made the claim until we reach a dead end as the person is dead.

 

[joelr]

I am tired of being accused of making claims. I am not making any claims because I have nothing to claim since I am a nobody.

The Messengers of God made claims in their scriptures. The main things they claimed were that:

1) They were sent by God
2) That God communicated to them
3) That God exists

I believe their claims but I am making no claims since I have nothing to claim.

Atheists assert that I am making claims so they can say that I have the burden of proof, but I am making no claims just because I believe the claims of the Messengers of God, so I have no burden of proof.

You do. If I came here and said I found the new version of Jesus, he's in Austrailia right now and I have video. That is a claim. People would ask for evidence. If I say "I just believe him" well fine, no one is going to take this claim seriously. Generally on a debate forum you are trying to make a case for your claims?

I
The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim. The Messengers of God made the claims so they were responsible to meet the burden of proof. I believe that the true Messengers of God met their burden by providing evidence that supports their claims.

The evidence that supports the claims of any alleged Messenger of God is as follows:

1) Their Person (their character, as demonstrated by the life they led)
2) Their Revelation (the history, which is what they accomplished on their mission from God)
3) Their Words (the words that were attributed to them in scriptures, or what they wrote)

.

We have done this in detail. There was a book sourced that explained how to know a person is a messenger of God. I found Bahai to have failed on all accounts.

Their Person - nice man. There are many nice men. Ghandi was nice. However he also claims to be a messenger of God and he hasn't even come close to producing proof. So I personally think he's bending the truth, same as Paul, same as Joseph Smith, same as the Islamic prophet, same as the Cargo Cult prophet, and so on. So saying you are a God messenger when you are not is a strike.
Maybe he actually thinks he is? Still weird?

Their Revelation - people get famous as prophets who are definitely not prophets and are world renown? I already mentioned a few. The founder of Scientology isn't a messenger from God. But he's a messenger from space aliens. And he's super famous. Does that make it real? This is confirmation bias.


Their Words - I've read this. The philosophy is really weak. (read Plato, Aristotle and move on through the centuries up to Kant and Jung and so on). The theology is almost non-existant, mostly praise literature, over and over and very general (love everyone).
The book I spoke of said the prophet would give new accurate science. He didn't. It was current science of those days and still wrong. But nothing new, nothing. He could have given so much math and science or explained about the universe, dark matter, there was no science or math. Just incorrect stuff and some numerology nonsense, what you would expect from someone faking it.
He predicted a war when it was clear that a war was about to happen?
God cares so little about supporting a prophet that he can't say "ok tell them electromagnetism and fields are coming, then relativity, two of them, then quantum mechanics and eventually computers and the internet. Here is a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis and a few other things.

I think he read a lot of religious books and liked to write and like many others decided to make prophet claims. Definitely read the Bible, Islam and Sikh texts.

"Anger, passion, ignorance, prejudice, greed, envy, covetousness, jealousy and suspicion prevent man from ascending to the realms of holiness, imprisoning him in the claws of self and the cage of egotism."Bahá’í
"In Sikhism, the influences of ego, anger, greed, attachment, and lust, known as the pānj chor ('five thieves'), are believed to be particularly distracting and hurtful. Sikhs believe the world is currently in a state of kali yuga ('age of darkness') because the world is led astray by the love of and attachment to māyā.


I mean in the NT there are miracles, several people raising from the dead, excorcisms, all types of magic spells? Isn't it little suspicious we don't even get the traditional fanfare?

 

[Nimos]

Please let me know if you ever hear me saying "God exists and God created the universe." If I ever say such a thing I will gladly admit it is a claim but I cannot recall ever saying such a thing because there is no proof that God exists and God created the universe. I have said I believe that God exists and God created the universe but that is not a claim, it is a statement of my belief. Imo, beliefs even if stated publicly are not claims.

You are taking it way to literally.

I don't claim that you said what I wrote in the post, its completely irrelevant to my point. It was an illustration of how we, when we communicate with each other can screw up language if we don't follow a common set of rules in how we talk to each other.

Meaning, that if I were to have a discussion with someone and this person constantly had to guess what I meant with what I was writing, because I didn't follow these common rules, then that person would most likely give up very fast, because it would be impossible for them to communicate with me.

Just a very basic example:
Me: "The car is red"
Other: "No, its clearly blue"
Me: "You misunderstood me, what I meant was that the car could have been red"
Other: "Whatever"

This is basically what would happen if we don't follow some common rules when we talk with each other. So when you write something like this:

"An Almighty God, the creator of the universe, needs no excuses for what He chooses not to do"

People would understand that as being a series of claim, its not an expression of a mere belief. Because you are assigning "personality" or expressing having knowledge about God to what you are saying here.

First of all,
1. That God exist.
2. That said God created the Universe
3. That you know what said God need and don't need of excuses for doing and not doing things.

That is to claim things about God, even though you didn't use that exact word. So people would and are in there good right to questions such statement, because that is how we commonly understand a sentence structured that way.

And as with the example above with the car, when people then question you, your reply is that "I never claimed such thing, it was just my personal opinion or believe" then that causes confusion, because it is no longer possible for them to interpret what are claims and what is not and what is merely a believe. What you are certain about and what you are not. In other words, communication becomes almost impossible, unless the person or you, constantly clarify what you actually mean.

But I understand what you mean. I often say that Messengers of God are the only way that God communicates to humans and I can see how that sounds like a claim, so I need to be careful to say "I believe that Messengers of God are the only way that God communicates to humans" or "According to my beliefs, Messengers of God are the only way that God communicates to humans."

Exactly, because the word "believe" makes a huge difference, it doesn't mean the same as not using it.

And as I mentioned in another post, a lot of the atheists that reply here from what I can see, doesn't seem to think that this word makes any difference at all. But it is actually a good counter argument or at least a good way for religious people to demand atheists with a burden of proof for our position and im surprised that some religious person haven't pointed that out, obviously haven't read all posts, so someone might have already.

Likewise, if I say that the Baha'i Faith is the latest and most current religion from God that could be taken as a claim, but if I say "According to my beliefs, the Baha'i Faith, is the latest and most current religion from God" I do not consider that a claim but rather a statement of my beliefs.

This gets messy quickly

Simply adding the word "believe" doesn't automatically remove you from also making claims in a sentence for which people can demand you with a burden of proof.

For instance,

"I believe God exist and that he created the Universe"

That you believe this to be true is perfectly fine. But if someone ask you how did you reach the conclusion that God exist. You ought to be able to give them an answer.

So just for simplicity, not saying that you would reply that , but to this you answer "Because the bible say so". Even if that is your reason, you don't have a burden of proof of having to demonstrate God. But you are making a claim that the bible provide prove of God and therefore a valid reason for how you can draw the conclusion that God exist and created the Universe.

Do you see the difference? I can't "attack" your believe in God, simply for believing him to be true, if you don't claim to know it. But the foundation that led to you reaching that conclusion that he is real, is based on assumptions and claims. Even if you would reply, "Well I just believe the bible is true so I don't have a burden of proof", that wouldn't work. Because your claim is that this lead to a sound conclusion that God exist, and I would disagree for instance, because we can't verify whether or not the bible is actually telling the truth or not.

We have to be careful when we communicate, because simply throwing in certain words like "believe" doesn't necessarily mean that we are not also making claims.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

When I say I believe something I am also saying that I consider it true. The belief becomes a claim once it is expressed.

I would disagree with such statement, obviously not that you believe it. But a belief doesn't become a claim once expressed. In that case, all atheists or in theory anyone that expresses a believe have a burden of proof.

There is no burden of proof if one isn't trying to convince another. My chief belief as an atheist is that one ought to have sufficient supporting evidence before believing, that I have not seen compelling evidence of a deity, and therefore I am not a theist. If I tell someone that I am an atheist, and he says, "Prove it," I probably won't bother to try. Still, I am making several claims implied and expressed about belief and evidence, and if it were important, I could make my argument in their support

I don't make much distinction between the two, since "I believe" is always implied before making any statement of fact. Saying, "The Baha'i Faith is a true religion of God" means exactly the same thing to me as "I believe the Baha'i Faith is a true religion of God," so adding those words doesn't make the claim not a claim.

I think you are wrong about that. "I believe.." is not a precursor for a statement based on facts. Because something being a "fact" is something which is proven. And if something is proven to be true and you accept this, it ought also automatically mean that you believe it or one could call such position irrational, so you got it backwards so to speak as I see it. Your initial statement might be that you believe something to be true, but in that case it starts out as a statement of uncertainty.

Yes, for me, the words "I believe" are implied whenever a claim of fact is made. Nothing is a fact because somebody says it is, and even when we agree, we are essentially saying we believe as well.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I do not think all expressed beliefs are claims.

Why not? What makes some expressed beliefs claims but not others? You seem to have said that the difference is that you only consider some of your beliefs true, and these become claims when expressed. If so, that's an alien way of thinking to me. I simply wouldn't use the words "I believe" (explicitly or implicitly) unless I considered the belief correct, even if it's not. I'm still looking for a rule from you that will allow me to know which expressed beliefs you don't consider claims. I can't discern one.

For example, it seems to me that you would call your statement that the proof of God is in the life and words of Baha'u'llah a claim, but not that Baha'i is a correct religion, but maybe you consider them both claims or neither. I'd like a clear understanding of how you decide as I have given you. You know that if I make either of those statements, I consider them claims of fact: for me, the evidence supports belief and makes the religion correct. I still can't do that with you.

that is why I try never to say "The Baha'i Faith is a true religion of God" but rather say "I believe that the Baha'i Faith is a true religion of God."

OK, but I just want to say that in my mind, and perhaps many others, those two statements are interchangeable. Everybody who says that the Baha'i Faith is a true religion of God believes that if he is not knowingly lying. So, whatever rule I would use for deciding what is a claim and what is not, either both of these or neither would be a claim, but not only one. I'm beginning to think that the answer to my question is this simple rule: "When I explicitly say I believe something, it is no longer a claim."

a claim is an assertion that a belief is true but the motives for asserting that vary.

Now I'm lost again. I thought that if you called it a belief, it ceased to be a claim for you. Maybe saying that something might not be true makes it not a claim to you. That is also implied in every claim I make, just like, "I believe." Philosophical doubt is the understanding that even when psychologically certain, one may be mistaken.

 

[Nimos]

There is no burden of proof if one isn't trying to convince another.

I don't really think we have much of a choice in that matter. You and me talking here, I at least, don't get the impression that either of us are especially concerned or interested in trying to convince the other of anything, as much as we are just sharing our views on this particular topic. But by doing so, you might give a reason or explanation that convince me that you are right, even though that weren't your motivation at all.

I think the moment we discuss something with each other and share our views, we automatically also try to convince the other, unless we are in complete agreement already.

If so, that's an alien way of thinking to me. I simply wouldn't use the words "I believe" (explicitly or implicitly) unless I considered the belief correct, even if it's not. I'm still looking for a rule from you that will allow me to know which expressed beliefs you don't consider claims. I can't discern one.

But simply believing something, doesn't imply certainty. Believing something is merely a position about a given thing or topic, its not something which we can directly question, so if we have two overall beliefs.

My believe: "I think there is other lifeforms in the Universe"
Your believe: "I don't think there is other lifeforms in the Universe"

If I simply said to you "Your believe is wrong" it wouldn't have any meaning, because on its own I can't tell you what you believe is right or wrong, only you know that.

But we could have a discussion about what made you believe that and why I believe what I do. And these are points where we could "attack" each other. And even here we could have believes as well, because you could believe a certain person, which had the view that life simply couldn't exist in the Universe and he made a case for this somehow or whatever. But this is based on this persons claims about knowing something about lifeforms in the Universe.

So if we should try to illustrate it.

<1. Your belief> <--- <2. Experiences/Exposure/Claims/Beliefs>

1. We could refer to this as you overall believe about something.
2. Would be the foundation for which you have based your overall believe on or whatever have convinced you that it is true.

Does that make sense?

If not, here is a very basic example:

I believe chocolate tastes better than strawberry, the reason I believe this is because I have tasted both of these. The foundation for my believe is that I tasted both.

For example, it seems to me that you would call your statement that the proof of God is in the life and words of Baha'u'llah a claim, but not that Baha'i is a correct religion, but maybe you consider them both claims or neither. I'd like a clear understanding of how you decide as I have given you. You know that if I make either of those statements, I consider them claims of fact: for me, the evidence supports belief and makes the religion correct. I still can't do that with you.

Its like above, Baha'u'llah made a claim that he was a messenger of God or whatever. The burden of proof is on him.

A person comes along and say they believe he was telling the truth. So now they are a Bahai follower.

Now you come along and question Baha'u'llahs claim, the burden of proof doesn't suddenly shift to the person that believe Baha'u'llah were a messenger, just because you don't believe it. That claim is on him and will always be.

But you can have a discussion with the Bahai follower, in regards to how they reached the conclusion that Baha'u'llah were telling the truth and what convinced them. This will lead to them having to create an argument for their position which contains a lot of claims and they are responsible and have the burden of proof for these.

(Sorry noticed I accidentally quoted the wrong reply, but given it follows the say discussion I just left it here )

Yes, for me, the words "I believe" are implied whenever a claim of fact is made. Nothing is a fact because somebody says it is, and even when we agree, we are essentially saying we believe as well.

Well if we follow normal definitions, we would say that it is a fact that we will die, it is a fact that gravity exist etc. And I agree something is not a fact simply because we say so, it is a fact because it have proven to be so. Obviously we can't be certain, that we in some magical way won't die, or that gravity stops to exist tomorrow. But that is beyond rational thinking in regards to how we perceive reality and use the word fact.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...(Good post)...

Well if we follow normal definitions, we would say that it is a fact that we will die, it is a fact that gravity exist etc. And I agree something is not a fact simply because we say so, it is a fact because it have proven to be so. Obviously we can't be certain, that we in some magical way won't die, or that gravity stops to exist tomorrow. But that is beyond rational thinking in regards to how we perceive reality and use the word fact.

But we don't know what happens after we die.

 

[Nimos]

But we don't know what happens after we die.

Agree, we don't.

And as we know, people have lots of different views on this. Some are even trying to study it etc.

But all these views are different believes that people have, but I would never demand someone, which simply said that they believe in life after death to prove that this is the case. Unless they claimed to know it with certainty.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think the moment we discuss something with each other and share our views, we automatically also try to convince the other, unless we are in complete agreement already.

That's not generally how I feel when I express a belief, but I'm not averse to explaining myself to anybody interested. I just expressed two more beliefs, one on either side of that comma, but I'm not thinking that I want to convince you of them if you aren't willing to accept them at face value. Still, if you or anybody else were interested in why I believed those things, I would try to explain.

My believe: "I think there is other lifeforms in the Universe"
Your believe: "I don't think there is other lifeforms in the Universe"

If I simply said to you "Your believe is wrong" it wouldn't have any meaning, because on its own I can't tell you what you believe is right or wrong, only you know that.

Why wouldn't that last comment have meaning? It says again to me what the first comment says.

Incidentally, I don't believe that there are other life forms in the universe yet. I do believe that they very probably exist and very possibly may be discovered before the end of this century, but for now, the only defensible position is agnosticism just as it is with god beliefs.

Has believe become a noun? I only know the word belief. I say that I believe beliefs, not believes, but maybe that's not the only acceptable usage.

Its like above, Baha'u'llah made a claim that he was a messenger of God or whatever. The burden of proof is on him. A person comes along and say they believe he was telling the truth. So now they are a Bahai follower. Now you come along and question Baha'u'llahs claim, the burden of proof doesn't suddenly shift to the person that believe Baha'u'llah were a messenger, just because you don't believe it.

If that second person wants me to believe, he has a burden of proof. If he's just telling me what he believes, then no, no burden of proof. Either way, a claim was made.

 

[F1fan]

I can answer yes to all those questions so I am not surprised when other members treat what I post like they do what other members post.

Then what is your intention and expectation when you post comments that express what you think is true?

When you admit "I cannot prove that x, y, and z are true" then why are you posting that you think it is true?

No, I do not want other members to ignore my posts and not have anyone respond to it but I also do not want people saying I have the burden of proof when I have clearly stated that I cannot prove that x, y, and z are true.

Do you think others have a burden of proof when they post beliefs that they claim expresses truth?

If I post that no rational person can conclude that Messengers are authentic and that what these people write do not indicate any God exists, something that opposes your beliefs, would you expect me to explain my thinking process?

If other posters did as you request and not challenge you, but respond to you that F1fan says Messengers aren't authentic so you must be wrong, would you demand explanation from them? Or would you just carry on with indifference?

 

[F1fan]

I wonder if "I don't believe God exists" is the same as "There is no God"?

These are two different statements.

The first is a response to someone else claim that God does exist, and that claimant fails to present evidence adequate to convince critical thinkers.

The second is an assertion that no God of any type exists. A claimant would have to present an argument why this is valid. Proving negatives are very difficult and require specific definitions and conditions that allow a rational mind to make an assessment.