Identifying nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs

[William]

As I have been pondering more implicitly about the question of nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs - particularly for the purpose of being able to identify arguments which are a waste of time even attempting to debate, and those which are not - I have come up with a short list of common - mainly Christian based ones - which I thought I would throw out there to see what others think.

Feel free to add other nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs you think should be on this list as well.


My picks
1: The GOD of the OT is 'The one and only true GOD'.
2: Jesus was the promised Messiah
3: Jesus was a messenger of the OT GOD.
4: The bible is the 'inerrant word of GOD'

I have thought of others, but since they can be subsets of these 4 main ones, see little point in listing them.


Q: What can definitely be considered nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs?

[William]

[Replying to post 48 by ytrewq]

But who cares? If the belief is entirely faith-based, meaning not based on any evidence, then why would we care if it is negotiable or not, because it can and should be instantly discarded, as explained. If a belief has no value to start with, then why would we care if it is negotiable or not?

The idea is that a nonnegotiable faith-based belief (NNFBB) which is used in a debate setting need only be seen as taking advantage of the opportunity to proselytize.
The idea is that one becomes aware of seeing this for what it is and not wasting any time or effort debating it.

You wrote "because it can and should be instantly discarded" and this is what I am also pointing to - not on the grounds that there is no evidence but on the grounds that there is no debating the nonnegotiable, and since this is a debate setting, debate is to be expected.

If I could understand where you were coming from, and I'm sure you have a reason for asking your question, then I would be in a better position to contribute.

As I have already pointed out, your lack of understanding is because you are arguing against faith-based beliefs, and the thread is specifically focused on a particular type of faith-based belief.

[Deleted]

"Replying to post 50 by ytrewq"

Think about it. If everyone was permitted the luxuries that you demand in debate, then debate would be a complete and total waste of time.

All that you said is logically consistent, except that it's being said inside the landscape of a forum called Debating Christianity. I mean, if ever there was an oxymoron, this would be it.

If we were engaging in a forum about Evolution as a Fact, your observations would be more applicable because a rule could be stated that this is for evaluating the scientific facticity of evolution, and contributions from the Genesis account would not qualify as scientific observations.

I actually did a class on Evolution and Intelligent Design in which I argued within the science of evolution that it had not risen to the status of fact, regardless of how loudly scientists proclaim it to be. No arguments from Genesis were used. It was simply based off George Gaylord Simpson's text, The Meaning of Evolution.

But here in Debating Christianity and Religion, it's just inappropriate to rule out
faith-based beliefs, because everything Christian is based in them.

What you're touching on in your final paragraph and the term special pleading is the phenomenon of Christian faith. It is a phenomenon because believers see clearly the difference between make-believe and faith. Faith sticks, myth doesn't. And the depth of that faith goes on generation after generation unscathed by critics and debunkers.

Nor does the attribution of that staying power to brainwashing succeed, because there are functional components to brainwashing that simply aren't occurring in churches and families.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by ElCodeMonkey]

I dont believe God chose to see the choices of eveyone on earth would ultimately make. Nor do I believe earth is a testing ground for future heavenly life (after all the angels were created to live in heaven and the bible gives no indication they had to pass a test on earth first).

I believe the God created humans to live happily on earth forever. The earth was made for them not because he needed either but because it was his good pleasure to share life and love with humans*.

JW




*PLEASE NOTE I am not claiming to know the mind of God, I have come to these conclusions through my analysis of the bible which I believe to be the word of God.

The above quote from JW in the thread "Why Earth?" is a great example of JW taking advantage of the opportunity to proselytize.

Having interacted with JW over the months I have come to realize that she has specific nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs and therefore there is no need for me to debate against her proselytizing because it clearly would be a wasteful use of time and it is wise not to waste time.

She makes it clear in debate settings that she has a belief about the topic and takes the opportunity to express that belief in debate settings. That is what proselytizing is.

It is harmless and of course needn't be taken seriously as it seriously isn't up for debate anyway. It has been identified as being nonnegotiable. It is also part of the list of the four main examples I gave in the OP;

1: The GOD of the OT is 'The one and only true GOD'.
2: Jesus was the promised Messiah
3: Jesus was a messenger of the OT GOD.
4: The bible is the 'inerrant word of GOD'

[Tcg]

1: The GOD of the OT is 'The one and only true GOD'.
2: Jesus was the promised Messiah
3: Jesus was a messenger of the OT GOD.
4: The bible is the 'inerrant word of GOD'

Here's number five for you:

5. The Spirit has been with us always. Deal with it, we each do, as we will.

I'm sure you'll recognize the author.

As you have also said:

It is harmless and of course needn't be taken seriously as it seriously isn't up for debate anyway.

You are right. Number 5 needn't be taken seriously.

[William]

1: The GOD of the OT is 'The one and only true GOD'.
2: Jesus was the promised Messiah
3: Jesus was a messenger of the OT GOD.
4: The bible is the 'inerrant word of GOD'

Here's number five for you:

5. The Spirit has been with us always. Deal with it, we each do, as we will.

I'm sure you'll recognize the author.

As you have also said:

It is harmless and of course needn't be taken seriously as it seriously isn't up for debate anyway.

You are right. Number 5 needn't be taken seriously.

As I have already stated in relation to the idea of the 'spirit' ('holy' or otherwise);

I tend to think of Her as an 'attitude'.

Of course, 'holy' is in the eye of the beholder, and my understanding of 'spirit' is that predominant attitude we each have within, and listen to, and act upon.

Whether that attitude is 'holy' depends upon the nature of the one experiencing it, and helping to shape it.

For me it is not just about the voice in the head we all are, or the visions of alternate experiences most of us have had, and some will continue to have...

The is not a faith-based belief. It is a belief which I think is correct and the reader is free to debate that with me, as I am open to negotiation about it.

The reader need not take it seriously if he/she determines that it is a waste of their time debating it.

But that in itself does not mean it is not debatable. If one can show me the error of my belief in this, they are free to take the opportunity to do so, or not as the case might be.

[William]

[Replying to post 54 by Tcg]

It is a belief which I think is correct and the reader is free to debate that with me, as I am open to negotiation about it.

More about that here;

[link]

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 48 by ytrewq]

But who cares? If the belief is entirely faith-based, meaning not based on any evidence, then why would we care if it is negotiable or not, because it can and should be instantly discarded, as explained. If a belief has no value to start with, then why would we care if it is negotiable or not?

The idea is that a nonnegotiable faith-based belief (NNFBB) which is used in a debate setting need only be seen as taking advantage of the opportunity to proselytize.
The idea is that one becomes aware of seeing this for what it is and not wasting any time or effort debating it.

You wrote "because it can and should be instantly discarded" and this is what I am also pointing to - not on the grounds that there is no evidence but on the grounds that there is no debating the nonnegotiable, and since this is a debate setting, debate is to be expected.

Thanks for that. Now I can see where you are coming from and, it seems we are pretty much on the same page.

But why only faith-based nonnegotiable beliefs? In general, all nonnegotiable belief, faith-based or not, is a complete waste of time and by definition unable to be debated, yes? And this is equally true whether the said nonnegotiable belief is of a theistic or atheist nature. Any belief of value must be open to scrutiny, AKA must be negotiable.

I do take your point though that although all beliefs based purely on faith (ie without evidence) are worthless, if the holder of such a belief is negotiable to debate and reason, then debate can be constructive and worthwhile.

[Deleted]

"Butting in to post 57 by ytrewq"

I realize I was not addressed in your reply here, but you said something at the end that can't be overlooked.

I do take your point though that although all beliefs based purely on faith (ie without evidence) are worthless,

You cannot make declarations like this - that beliefs based on faith are worthless. You can certainly declare they are worthless to you, to others of like mind, or for debate. But not per se. Perseity belongs to claims that are true of themselves and independent of specific situations.

Faith is certainly not worthless in my experience, nor in the testimony of believers across some twenty centuries.

[Tcg]

"Butting in to post 57 by ytrewq"

I realize I was not addressed in your reply here, but you said something at the end that can't be overlooked.

I do take your point though that although all beliefs based purely on faith (ie without evidence) are worthless,

You cannot make declarations like this - that beliefs based on faith are worthless. You can certainly declare they are worthless to you, to others of like mind, or for debate. But not per se. Perseity belongs to claims that are true of themselves and independent of specific situations.

Faith is certainly not worthless in my experience, nor in the testimony of believers across some twenty centuries.

It is worthless for people who are interested in reality.

For those who draw comfort from mythology, it is oddly satisfying.

[ytrewq]

"Butting in to post 57 by ytrewq"

I realize I was not addressed in your reply here, but you said something at the end that can't be overlooked.

I do take your point though that although all beliefs based purely on faith (ie without evidence) are worthless,

You cannot make declarations like this - that beliefs based on faith are worthless. You can certainly declare they are worthless to you, to others of like mind, or for debate. But not per se. Perseity belongs to claims that are true of themselves and independent of specific situations.

Faith is certainly not worthless in my experience, nor in the testimony of believers across some twenty centuries.

I did not actually say that faith is worthless, as in some cases it can provide comfort or encourage good behavior and so on. Who am I to judge what faith is worth to the holder of that faith?

What I did say though, and stand by it, is that beliefs based solely on faith (meaning concluded without evidence of any kind) are worthless, by which I mean there is literally no reason to think that such beliefs are true, and have no value for debate, as you said yourself. In common parlance, any belief based solely on faith without evidence of any kind, is not worth the paper it is written on, or the bandwidth to send it.