Faith-based beliefs

[William]

There seems to have been a misunderstanding as to the purpose of my first thread on this subject due to the nature of some members making personal comments about other members in their posts, comments which were not directly related to the thread topic, and as a result the thread was locked.

I was using a disclaimer another member often uses, as a means of example - which is not contrary to any of the forum rules - not as a means of personal attack - which is contrary to the forum rules.

Certainly - as can be clearly seen, the OP does not make any such thing as a personal comment/attack or debate against any individual member.

The way I see it, debating is a form of schooling, in which the participants are both teaching and learning, whereas proselytizing clearly has no intention of learning, and in that is not teaching so much as preaching.

Is it fair that individuals use such a platform as a debate forum to preach from, when it is clear that their intention is not to debate at all, but to consistently spam the forum with their particular brand of organised religious indoctrination?

It is clear that the forum rules allow for some proselytizing to occur as a matter of 'par for the course', but when it is clear that individuals are not interested in any actual debate - especially in regard to their own particular sect - and even go to lengths to make disclaimers in order to avoid having to. Does this contravene the rules sufficiently to be dealt with in the same manner as any other type of rule breaking is dealt with?

Faith-based beliefs...Are they debatable?

What do you think?

PS - please don't use the OP question as an opportunity to make personal unrelated comments against other members. Just answer the question the OP is asking.

Thanks.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 19 by Tart]

I debate about it all the time, but im starting to think "why do i even need to debate it?"... Its not negotiable, I have Faith in Jesus and that will remain that way..

Precisely.

Thank you for contemplating this and returning with an honest answer.

Faith Based Beliefs are NOT debatable. As such, they cannot belong in a debate setting and when they are placed in such a setting these can only be considered to be proselytizing, period.

Yes im beginning to think that...

[Tcg]

Faith Based Beliefs are NOT debatable. As such, they cannot belong in a debate setting and when they are placed in such a setting these can only be considered to be proselytizing, period.

Would this include the Faith Based Belief that humans who have never died can know that there is life after death?

If not, then you need to qualify your statement that the Faith Based Beliefs you don't like "can only be considered to be proselytizing, period."

The ones you hold of course are miraculously exempt from this determination.

[William]

[Replying to post 22 by Tcg]

Would this include the Faith Based Belief that humans who have never died can know that there is life after death?

If not, then you need to qualify your statement that the Faith Based Beliefs you don't like "can only be considered to be proselytizing, period."

The ones you hold of course are miraculously exempt from this determination.

The question as to "What Are Faith Based Beliefs" is a good one and I would suggest that you create a thread to debate it.

This particular thread is not asking that question.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 15 by Tart]

If there was no evidence for Christianity, we wouldnt even know of its existence...

That is not the issue. The issue is that there is no compelling evidence that Christianity is true. When you rely on faith for your belief that Christianity is true you are effectively admitting that there is no compelling evidence supporting your belief. The question then becomes, why do you have faith that Christianity is true?

[William]

[Replying to post 24 by brunumb]

That is not the issue. The issue is that there is no compelling evidence that Christianity is true. When you rely on faith for your belief that Christianity is true you are effectively admitting that there is no compelling evidence supporting your belief. The question then becomes, why do you have faith that Christianity is true?

Actually the question - in a debate setting - (which incidentally is the OP subject) becomes besides the point and only promotes the opportunity for proselytizing if answered.

Better then, not to ask the question...in a debate setting.



This is because, this type of faith itself is nonnegotiable. It gets down to being a purely subjective personal thing, where the individual has all the evidence they require for the faith they hold, period. Ones objections, concerns and questions created to try and get people to drop their faith are pointless if indeed the faith is actually nonnegotiable faith.

Some have argued, for example, that they once had such faith, but were convinced through various forms of argument that their particular type of faith was negotiable, and they eventually dropped it.

This is likely one of the main motivations such folk then have in which to attempt to convince others to do the same, not realizing that a debate setting is not the place to try and accomplish such a thing, as they are not dealing with the type of negotiable faith they once had, but a different type of faith altogether, one which is simply nonnegotiable.

Indeed, even when such are accused of 'having faith' they often respond along the lines of "show us the evidence and we too will believe', clearly showing that their faith is negotiable.

Specifically what has occurred is that use of the term 'faith-based beliefs' re the OP has to do with the specific nonnegotiable faith, which this thread subject is focused upon, in relation to the question "Are they debatable?"

Obviously, they are not.

[Tart]

I am accustomed to responding to atheists to give reason for the Faith i believe. Which i can do, but this leads to debate that descends into faithlessness, the blind leading the blind into a ditch as Jesus said...

The truth is that the answer is Faith in Christ... Simply put... I think the spirit is far more compelling then reasoning...

[William]

[Replying to post 26 by Tart]

Be that as it may, your response is categorically proselytizing, not debating. As such, it does not belong in a debating forum. As you point out, when you 'give reason' this descends into what you refer to as "debate that descends into faithlessness, the blind leading the blind into a ditch as Jesus said... " which of course, is not debate at all, when viewed honestly. Rather, it is taking the opportunity to proselytize, as is your second sentence;

The truth is that the answer is Faith in Christ... Simply put... I think the spirit is far more compelling then reasoning...

Whether the temptation to continue to proselytize in a debate setting is avoided or not, is yours to deal with.

[brunumb]

I am accustomed to responding to atheists to give reason for the Faith i believe. Which i can do, but this leads to debate that descends into faithlessness, the blind leading the blind into a ditch as Jesus said...

The truth is that the answer is Faith in Christ... Simply put... I think the spirit is far more compelling then reasoning...

There is nothing that you can't believe based on faith. Faith allows you to believe something that is in fact true and it also allows you to believe something that is in fact false. Faith therefore is not a reliable indicator of what is true and is therefore completely useless in that regard. It simply allows people to indulge in wishful thinking. Anything believed on the basis of faith should not be promoted as fact.

[William]

[Replying to post 28 by brunumb]

Faith allows you to believe something that is in fact true...

If something is in fact true, this implies that it has been evidenced as true. Something which has been evidenced as true, does not (no longer) requires faith of any sort.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 28 by brunumb]

Faith allows you to believe something that is in fact true...

If something is in fact true, this implies that it has been evidenced as true. Something which has been evidenced as true, does not (no longer) requires faith of any sort.

That implies that the truth of the fact is known prior to adopting the belief. What I meant was that people accept belief in unknown things, some may prove to be true and others may prove to be false. Using faith as a pointer to what must be true is not valid.