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?

[Deleted]

"Replying to post 37 by William"

Well and good, but this thread topic isn't about faith-based beliefs which ARE negotiable. It is about identifying those which are not.

And once done, which faith-based beliefs do think will remain?

Proselytizing NNFBB's doesn't belong in a debate setting.

I wasn't. You have to identify my intent in those instances. And I gave no hints. Quoting Scripture in a defense or answering challenges to my beliefs doesn't mean I was trying to win you.

How you happened to feel about it, doesn't make me culpable.

Why you are unable or otherwise unwilling to accept that, I can only guess.

I'm fine not proselytizing (since it was impossible anyway, given your situation).

Identifying what does not belong helps individuals to focus on what remains - which of course must be subjects which are open to negotiation.

None remain in the context of the word Christian.

(now it's my turn to mirror your incredulity: Why you're unable to understand that this will be the outcome, I just don't get)

. . and they - more often than not - will ignore my observations and simply carry on proselytizing those beliefs. I can then ascertain that I am dealing with someone who is not interested in examining the holes I have identified in their beliefs

It's not because they're not interested. It's because they don't see them as holes.

You don't walk in the other person's shoes. You propose that the holes you've found must be true holes for all people everywhere in all universes. So you express exasperation (or curiosity) that I don't see the holes and say, "Oh my, William. Thanks for pointing those out. I need to begin a re-orientation that can make me as smart as you."

and only wants to proselytize those beliefs AT me.

Since you misuse the word, this point is lost on me.

If my argument 'wins' anything it will largely go unnoticed until it is popular,

The above is called missing the point or skirting the point.

I've challenged you more than once to list the Christian topics that would be left for debate if you succeed at identifying all the topics it will be pointless to debate.

I don't want a category - "like the debatable ones." I want a list of topic titles you think will remain once you curtail the non-negotiable ones.

For example, I would do this.

ME: Dear LORD...Do Christians look better in green ties or blue ties?

Dear LORD: "Ummm...I prefer the sparkly ones...what do you think?"

ME: "I don't know...it does not seem to matter. Perhaps it is the individuals choice?

Which isn't a debate anymore now is it. It's more like two people chatting over the back fence.

You know - I've just stumbled on it for you. You really want this to be a chat, not a debate, right??

ME:So how do I go about recognizing the what is true and what is not?

William. This isn't Romper Room. I'm not 12 years old.

[ytrewq]

Identifying nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs
What to look out for which is non-debatable...

Maybe I do not understand the question. A "faith-based" belief is one which is believed without evidence, at least that is the usual meaning of faith. And that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence - in other words - a "faith-based" belief is not worth the bandwidth to communicate it. Every faith-based belief is non-debatable by definition, as you clearly cannot debate a belief that is held without evidence, so I don't see that whether or not it is "non-negotiable" is relevant to anything. If a belief is solely "faith-based" then is instantly discarded, no more to discuss.

[Deleted]

"Replying to post 42 by ytrewq"

Maybe I do not understand the question.

The reason for this admission is that you misunderstand faith.

The actual faith proposition is believed without evidence, but that doesn't mean no evidence led them to the point of exercising faith.

A "faith-based" belief is one which is believed without evidence, at least that is the usual meaning of faith.

It's a misunderstanding of faith. People who are contrary to the idea of faith often satisfy themselves with the definition that says, "if without evidence it must be make believe" which isn't true.

Another dictum they profess is that with faith there is no truth, because there can only be truth with evidence. Equally false.

The only thing you can say with confidence is someone with faith won't be able to convince another person who insists on evidence.

But critics of this go further and say that the person who is exercising faith can't be experiencing anything true. That requires a comprehension of the operation of another person's mind, and they're unable to do that.

So why not be satisfied that faith just isn't for you and leave off with the universal definitions that all are supposed to take for granted.

faith-based belief is non-debatable by definition,

Untrue. It's non-debatable only when you add a second precept - that what would make it debatable is evidence. And that's also untrue, per se. It's only untrue where someone has set that rule.

If a belief is solely "faith-based" then is instantly discarded, no more to discuss.

Sure there is. You can debate why people who have their wits about them, are well-educated, understand evidence in terms of science and reason, go ahead and exercise faith as a dimension of their lives.

You won't be able to dismiss that with the cheap argument that by some arbitrary definition all such people are simpletons or ignorant masses who fall for make-believe stories.

[William]

[Replying to post 41 by mrhagerty]

I'm here because I disagree that faith-based topics are nonnegotiable.

Well and good, but this thread topic isn't about faith-based beliefs which ARE negotiable. It is about identifying those which are not.

And once done, which faith-based beliefs do think will remain?

This thread is about identifying nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs.

This thread topic isn't about faith-based beliefs which ARE negotiable. It is about identifying those which are not.

My list of picks which are commonly seen to be NNFBB's are;

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'

There will be exceptions to the norms of course, but so far no one claiming to be a 'Christian' - including yourself - has made any argument that anything on the above list is - actually - negotiable.

Oh. You mean topics like "Do Christians look better in green ties or blue ties?"
That's a safe topic. NOOOO proselytizing possible there.

I am not sure why you think all Christians are somehow left to the mundane once their NNFBB's are identified as "that which is not up for debate'. Proselytizing NNFBB's doesn't belong in a debate setting.

I wasn't.

I wasn't saying your were or were not proselytizing. I wrote that proselytizing NNFBB's doesn't belong in a debate setting.
Why you are unable or otherwise unwilling to accept that, I can only guess. Identifying what does not belong helps individuals to focus on what remains - which of course must be subjects which are open to negotiation.

None remain in the context of the word Christian.

You have argued this before and I have asked you about that.

Q: Do you think that Christianity is a nonnegotiable faith-based belief?

I personally have no problem with anyone proselytizing whatever they want in regard to what they believe and do not believe. My focus is on determining what is and what isn't up for negotiation.
Someone might say "I believe such and such" and I might respond with "but here are the holes I have identified in your beliefs" and they - more often than not - will ignore my observations and simply carry on proselytizing those beliefs. I can then ascertain that I am dealing with someone who is not interested in examining the holes I have identified in their beliefs and only wants to proselytize those beliefs AT me. Any further debate on the subject is pointless at that stage, as all I am doing is offering them further opportunity to proselytize. They have effectively shown me that their faith-based beliefs are not up for debate.

It's not because they're not interested. It's because they don't see them as holes.

You write on behalf of every person calling themselves a 'Christian' who I have ever interacted with? From examining the content and context of these interactions my conclusion that they are arguing NNFBB's has been sufficiently established.

I want a list of topic titles you think will remain once you curtail the non-negotiable ones.

Then perhaps start a thread of your own and build such a list mrhagerty. I am simply focused upon identifying the nonnegotiable ones. You could start by asking yourself, and then extend that to asking other Christians.

For example, I would do this.

ME: Dear LORD...Do Christians look better in green ties or blue ties?

Dear LORD: "Ummm...I prefer the sparkly ones...what do you think?"

ME: "I don't know...it does not seem to matter. Perhaps it is the individuals choice?
Should Christians Buy Nice Houses or Poor Ones?

Dear LORD: Perhaps it is the individuals choice?

ME: "But didn't you say people who follow you should reject the mundane?"

Dear LORD: Perhaps I did. Perhaps I didn't. Perhaps it is the individuals decision to make?

ME: Riiiiiiight! So how do I go about recognizing the what is true and what is not?

Dear LORD: Is that a trick question? You find out what is your truth and what is another's truth and then you set about attempting to merge those truths together to make that truth bigger...and if they cannot merge, your question remains unanswered.

ME: Wheew! That'll take one hell of a campfire!

Dear LORD: You're telling me!!

Which isn't a debate anymore now is it. It's more like two people chatting over the back fence.

Well so what? I answered your question. You asked how we would "gravitate to more convivial modes of interaction" with those subjects you offered as to 'what would remain' once all nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs were identified.
My point is that it isn't debate in the first place. One cannot debate with those who are using their nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs to arguing with .

[William]

[Replying to post 42 by ytrewq]

Maybe I do not understand the question. A "faith-based" belief is one which is believed without evidence, at least that is the usual meaning of faith. And that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence - in other words - a "faith-based" belief is not worth the bandwidth to communicate it. Every faith-based belief is non-debatable by definition, as you clearly cannot debate a belief that is held without evidence, so I don't see that whether or not it is "non-negotiable" is relevant to anything. If a belief is solely "faith-based" then is instantly discarded, no more to discuss.

There are indeed things individuals can have faith in whereby they are still open to negotiation.

Just as there are beliefs individuals can have which are not faith-based.
Just as there are non-faith-based beliefs which can be nonnegotiable.

This thread is focused upon identifying nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 43 by mrhagerty]

... you misunderstand faith.

The actual faith proposition is believed without evidence, but that doesn't mean no evidence led them to the point of exercising faith.

One can define the meaning of a word as one chooses, but usually 'faith" means a belief without evidence, and a 'faith-based belief" is one believed without evidence. Do you agree with these definitions? You appear to do so.

Then you bring in the term "exercising faith" which I presume means living one's life on the basis of a belief held without evidence. But no matter, because the OP never mentioned the term "exercising faith". Lets just agree on what is a faith-based belief, which is a belief held without evidence. And on that definition of a faith-based belief, I fully stand behind everything I said.

The actual faith proposition is believed without evidence ...

Yes, on that we agree,. That is what I was talking about, and I stand behind everything I said.

faith-based belief is non-debatable by definition,

Untrue. It's non-debatable only when you add a second precept - that what would make it debatable is evidence. And that's also untrue, per se. It's only untrue where someone has set that rule.

What I say here is absolutely true, unless you have a different idea to me about what "debate" actually is. Trust me, one cannot engage in any meaningful debate in the normally accepted meaning of the word if one side is unable to provide any evidence of any sort for their belief. Sometimes it is useful to take religion right out of the discussion, so let's do that, and consider the following faith-based belief.

Tom sees his doctor, and claims that he has cancer. The doctor of course asks for the basis of this belief, for evidence. Tom replies that he has no evidence, just a strong belief, a strong faith that he is right. Do you feel unwell, have any symptoms, asks the doctor. No, I feel perfectly well, but that's because the cancer is in it's early stages, says Tom, which is why we need to treat the cancer now. But, says Tom, you can't look inside my mind. That requires a comprehension of the operation of another person's mind, and you're unable to do that. I know that I have cancer, I just know it. I have complete faith in what I feel and believe, no doubt at all in my mind that I have cancer, though I cannot provide you with evidence as such.

OK, so if you were the doctor, how much credibility would you give to this faith-based belief on Tom's part that he has cancer? And do you believe that the Doctor is able to engage in any meaningful debate with Tom, who has no evidence? And please, no special pleading that religion is special or different, unless you can actually show that it is. This is a debate forum. Feelings in your head don't actually count for anything here.

[William]

[Replying to post 46 by ytrewq]

OK, so if you were the doctor, how much credibility would you give to this faith-based belief on Tom's part that he has cancer? And do you believe that the Doctor is able to engage in any meaningful debate with Tom, who has no evidence?

Just to assist with keeping things in focus re the OP, my argument here is that the doctor might try to convince Tom that evidence for his assertion is required. In the case of cancer, such evidence would be easy enough to come by. In the case of theist beliefs (faith based or not) the question of GOD is not the same as the question of cancer. This is because one can use science to determine if cancer exists in Tom.

That - very slightly - aside, if the doctor fails in his attempt to get Tom to get tests done, then there would be no point in the doctor wasting time and effort any longer.

However, your story implies that Tom would actually go for the tests, and does not require the doctor to believe what Tom believes.

The reality might indeed be that the doctor would require more than Toms belief that Tom needs to be tested for cancer because 'cost'.

All in all I do not think your analogy is an accurate portrayal of a nonnegotiable faith-based belief, such as the thread subject is focused upon.

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 42 by ytrewq]

Maybe I do not understand the question. A "faith-based" belief is one which is believed without evidence, at least that is the usual meaning of faith. And that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence - in other words - a "faith-based" belief is not worth the bandwidth to communicate it. Every faith-based belief is non-debatable by definition, as you clearly cannot debate a belief that is held without evidence, so I don't see that whether or not it is "non-negotiable" is relevant to anything. If a belief is solely "faith-based" then is instantly discarded, no more to discuss.

There are indeed things individuals can have faith in whereby they are still open to negotiation.

Of course, faith-based beliefs can be "negotiable" or "non-negotiable", meaning that the holder of the belief may or may not be open to discussion and potentially changing their mind.

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? 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. My apologies if I have taken you thread slightly OT.

Re my example of Tom and the doctor, I gave no thought as to whether Tom's belief was negotiable or not. The most important thing about his belief, I would have thought, is that it was of no value. FWIW, given that Tom did nor know what type of cancer, and given that Tom believed the cancer to be at a very early stage, it is likely that science would not be able to detect the cancer anyway.

[Deleted]

"Replying to post 46 by ytrewq"

One can define the meaning of a word as one chooses, but usually 'faith" means a belief without evidence, and a 'faith-based belief" is one believed without evidence. Do you agree with these definitions? You appear to do so.

As before, no I don't. My definition is this: "Faith is the evidence of things not seen." Heb 11:1

Bear in mind we've just made Mr. William uneasy, who will accuse me again of proselytizing. (Another word being misused here.)

So, I actually don't lack evidence. I simply can't transfer that evidence into your mind so you can see it also. You have to see it personally by faith, as does every person. (And yes, I understand how that bugs you no end.)

Then you bring in the term "exercising faith" which I presume means living one's life on the basis of a belief held without evidence.

Again, no. Think of exercising faith the same way an investor exercises an option.

To exercise faith is to choose to participate in the faith "transaction" God gives to the believer. It is exercised in the soul.

But no matter, because the OP never mentioned the term "exercising faith".

So because he didn't mention it, I'm somehow out of place for doing so?

Lets just agree on what is a faith-based belief, which is a belief held without evidence.

Let's not. I was chastised for trying to get atheists to agree that they are really acting like agnostics. To which they complained vociferously that they knew the definition of what they were.

I know the definition of the faith I hold. I'm not going to redefine it so you can make an argument based on a worldly definition.

The actual faith proposition is believed without evidence ...

Yes, on that we agree,. That is what I was talking about, and I stand behind everything I said.

No. In the above I was clarifying how the worldly definition of faith (without evidence) only comes in - in their terms - at the end. Before that point the believer is not in a vacuum, without certain facts.

But that was accommodating for a purpose at the time. If we went deeper, I would have offered that this moment the unbeliever sees as without evidence is not without evidence to the believer. Unfortunately, it's of little consequence, because the unbeliever can't comprehend it, hence it all comes across as no evidence to them.

What I say here is absolutely true, unless you have a different idea to me about what "debate" actually is. Trust me, one cannot engage in any meaningful debate in the normally accepted meaning of the word if one side is unable to provide any evidence of any sort for their belief.

And so in one fell swoop you dismiss the whole of Greek philosophy. You assign Plato and Socrates to the trash heap. You see no point in following Socrates' example in debating what beauty, or courage, or virtue might be? Those all lack support by evidence, because they are ideas.

This isn't even a rationalistic argument. At least in rationalism they allowed for ideas to have moment in debate. You've reduced debate to merely the discoveries of science and empiricism.

There has always been a place for the debate of ideas. Most ideas have been argued pre-evidence. Once evidence comes forward, they become facts, no longer ideas.

And facts are actually those things that are non-negotiable.

So, do you now get the irrationality of this thread?

1. You're looking for faith-based beliefs so you can avoid their non-debatability.
2. You prefer things that can be supported by evidence, which, since they would be facts, are equally non-debatable.
3. What's left?

Sometimes it is useful to take religion right out of the discussion,

Which is mighty odd and incredibly ironic when you go back to the top and read the name of this forum.

OK, so if you were the doctor, how much credibility would you give to this faith-based belief on Tom's part that he has cancer?

No credibility. But that's because in the field of medicine there is a clear and uncontested expectation of facts to support diagnoses and treatment.

Where you're making a fundamental mistake is that you think religious truth must be handled exactly the same way. But it's an animal that won't fit in you're pre-defined cage, and it's galling virtually everyone in this forum.

You asked me not to do any special pleading which I managed to go right ahead and do, but that's just another way of saying you don't like things being pulled away from you into their own class. And I'm not sure you can have things a certain way for that reason.

But to comply with the only explanation there is: faith is defined by God, not you, and He declares that faith is the evidence of things not seen, which moves it out of the realm of evidentiary evaluations that are transferable.

If you don't happen to like that, take it up with Him.
[/b]

[ytrewq]

[Replying to post 49 by mrhagerty]

Where you're making a fundamental mistake is that you think religious truth must be handled exactly the same way. But it's an animal that won't fit in you're pre-defined cage, and it's galling virtually everyone in this forum.

You asked me not to do any special pleading which I managed to go right ahead and do, but that's just another way of saying you don't like things being pulled away from you into their own class. And I'm not sure you can have things a certain way for that reason.

But to comply with the only explanation there is: faith is defined by God, not you, and He declares that faith is the evidence of things not seen, which moves it out of the realm of evidentiary evaluations that are transferable.

If you don't happen to like that, take it up with Him.

OK. I finally get it. You are a deeply religious person. But what you wrote above tells me you are also a very honest person and, on your own admission, you cannot justify your beliefs except by "special pleading", by saying outright that your religious beliefs and world do not follow the normal rules of logic, but are 'special", a law unto themselves. If this was a formal debate, then it would be game over, but what the heck. Clearly we can't "debate" in the strict sense of the word where you insist on making up your own rules, claiming that religious truths and requirement for evidence are different to other truths, and so on. I don't actually agree with that, but it's not worth losing respect or a friend over, and you are clearly not going to change to fit the normal rules of debating anyway. But we can still chat in a less rigorous manner, and I certainly don't find your beliefs "galling".

Just a quick rave on the methods and rules of formal debate, which have been agreed upon over centuries with the intention of establishing if not truth, then at least the better argument. But once you throw all that out the window and allow special pleading, faith, pseudo-evidence and the idea that one person can have their own special truth (eg but not limited to religious truth) that must be handled differently to other truths, then you are most unlikely to reach a meaningful conclusion. 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.