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 20 by bjs]

The only absolutely non-negotiable belief is that I, in some sense, exist.

Unlikely necessary to be viewed as a belief then, let alone a faith-based belief.

Orthodox Christians have traditional summed up our non-negotiable beliefs in the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed.

These beliefs are non-negotiable in the sense that they are who we are. Its not that they cannot be abandoned, but if we do abandon them then we change from being an orthodox Christian into something else.

Indeed. These are the rule-sets of the Orthodox Christians and for one to identify as such, one must hold nonnegotiable beliefs, which means that such beliefs are beyond debate. To use such in a debate setting, is to take the opportunity to proselytize.

I wonder what the would be the 'something else' Orthodox Christians would refer to those who abandon the creeds, and whether such labels would be permitted on this message board.

[bjs]

I wonder what the would be the 'something else' Orthodox Christians would refer to those who abandon the creeds, and whether such labels would be permitted on this message board.

The something else is sometimes deism. Or it could be Jehovahs Witnesses or some other minor break off of orthodox Christianity. It my experience, it is usually a vague spirituality. Those who abandon orthodoxy without moving to some other specific religious movement most often become the people who say Im spiritual but not religious. I find that to be a faith without teeth; a belief in God without the need to change my life to fit that belief. But as I said, that is just my experience.

As for what is permitted on this here: This site defines Christian as anyone who says that they are a Christian. This is the main reason that I avoid talking about Christianity in general, and only discuss orthodox Christianity. To me, if the only belief or practice required to be a Christians is saying that we are Christians, then Christianity has no meaning. I limit my discussion to those who ascribe the beliefs agreed upon by Roman Catholics, Easter Orthodox and Protestant Christians, commonly summed up in the two Creeds.

[William]

[Replying to post 22 by bjs]

I wonder what the would be the 'something else' Orthodox Christians would refer to those who abandon the creeds, and whether such labels would be permitted on this message board.

The something else is sometimes deism. Or it could be Jehovahs Witnesses or some other minor break off of orthodox Christianity...

Is there an overall type of label such members following the creed would apply to these others you have mentioned, which would not be acceptable to use on this site?

This site defines Christian as anyone who says that they are a Christian. This is the main reason that I avoid talking about Christianity in general, and only discuss orthodox Christianity.

So it is not a definition your creed would accept, but since it is a massage board rule, you observe it by avoidance of interacting with others not strictly following the same creed?

To me, if the only belief or practice required to be a Christians is saying that we are Christians, then Christianity has no meaning. I limit my discussion to those who ascribe the beliefs agreed upon by Roman Catholics, Easter Orthodox and Protestant Christians, commonly summed up in the two Creeds.

So one can identify your statement above and the reasons preceding it, as nonnegotiable.

The mantras of both Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed are nonnegotiable as far as you would be concerned?

[bjs]

[Replying to post 22 by bjs]

I wonder what the would be the 'something else' Orthodox Christians would refer to those who abandon the creeds, and whether such labels would be permitted on this message board.

The something else is sometimes deism. Or it could be Jehovahs Witnesses or some other minor break off of orthodox Christianity...

Is there an overall type of label such members following the creed would apply to these others you have mentioned, which would not be acceptable to use on this site?

I suppose the word you are going for is either heresy or cult (cult in the religious philosophy sense of the word, as opposed to the pop culture sense of the word.) I dont know how either of those words is viewed on this site.

This site defines Christian as anyone who says that they are a Christian. This is the main reason that I avoid talking about Christianity in general, and only discuss orthodox Christianity.

So it is not a definition your creed would accept, but since it is a massage board rule, you observe it by avoidance of interacting with others not strictly following the same creed?

I interact with people following all different creeds, including those who use the vaguer definition of Christian. However, I see no value in that vaguer definition and it is not a position I would attempt to defend it. I debate from the position of orthodox Christianity, taking a more specific definition than how "Christian is defined on this site.

To me, if the only belief or practice required to be a Christians is saying that we are Christians, then Christianity has no meaning. I limit my discussion to those who ascribe the beliefs agreed upon by Roman Catholics, Easter Orthodox and Protestant Christians, commonly summed up in the two Creeds.

So one can identify your statement above and the reasons preceding it, as nonnegotiable.

The mantras of both Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed are nonnegotiable as far as you would be concerned?

I think that the definition of orthodox Christian is nonnegotiable, largely because I want language to be a tool for communication instead of hindrance to understanding.

I see adherence to the Creeds as nonnegotiable only if someone wants to remain an orthodox Christian. They are not absolutely nonnegotiable because at any moment we can be convinced, for instance, that Jesus did not rise from the dead and thereby leave orthodox Christianity for something else.


I have been thinking about your search for nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs. Perhaps I have one that fits what you are looking for:

I believe that human life is good and meaningful. I have no evidence to support that belief. I take it as a ground belief which I take on faith and accept as true, and a great deal of my other beliefs and practices are built on that nonnegotiable faith-based belief.

[William]

[Replying to post 24 by bjs]

I see adherence to the Creeds as nonnegotiable only if someone wants to remain an orthodox Christian.

That is generally why such positions are nonnegotiable, yes.

I think that the definition of orthodox Christian is nonnegotiable, largely because I want language to be a tool for communication instead of hindrance to understanding.

Yes - from what you say, the reader can see that the definition is observed in ones adherence to the creed, and it is that adherence which is nonnegotiable.

They are not absolutely nonnegotiable because at any moment we can be convinced, for instance, that Jesus did not rise from the dead and thereby leave orthodox Christianity for something else.

Then they are not nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs, because - 'at any moment' - you are willing to drop them, with the proviso that 'you can be convinced'.

What would convince you that Jesus did not rise from the dead?

Of course it is noted that the creeds don't appear to have that proviso written in, such as;

"I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord, but at any moment I am ready to drop said belief if someone can convince me that it is not the case..."

Are you participating on this forum with the anticipation you will find that someone who can convince you?

I believe that human life is good and meaningful. I have no evidence to support that belief. I take it as a ground belief which I take on faith and accept as true, and a great deal of my other beliefs and practices are built on that nonnegotiable faith-based belief.

Then I would suppose one would expect to see you never arguing for the opposing position on this or ever being convinced this belief is not the case at all.

In relation to those 'great deal of other beliefs and practices' you attach to this main one, which are nonnegotiable... can any be put aside as unnecessary support for this main belief, such as, the negotiable ones, whatever these may be?

I suppose the word you are going for is either heresy or cult (cult in the religious philosophy sense of the word, as opposed to the pop culture sense of the word.) I dont know how either of those words is viewed on this site.

Re 'cult' it appears not to matter if the word is used in the 'religious philosophy sense' or in the 'pop culture sense', it is unacceptable to use it in relation to others beliefs, on this message board.

Heresy most likely would have the same delegation as would any words which imply there is a 'true' or 'false' representation of Christianity.

Obviously the creeds allow for such adherents to view others NOT of that same persuasion, in such a manner.

[William]

I meant to post the following in this thread but posted it in another one;

These linked posts are about faith-based beliefs and debate between myself and fellow member, 'mrhagarty' which occured in the thread "The divinity of the person called Jesus of Nazareth "

[Replying to post 54 by William]


Excerpt from the link;

I agree that statements of belief are indeed happening on both sides of this argument.
There are differences in the beliefs though.
Christianity is, of necessity, a faith-based belief, while those of StuartJ are beliefs largely obtained/shaped through lack of any available evidence. ...

[Replying to post 56 by mrhagerty]

And if he recognizes he has entered the realm of faith, fine. He can certainly say he believes there is no God from lack of evidence.

But something more subtle is happening. Atheists want to be able to make a claim re: the truth about reality, i.e. that a feature of reality is that there is no God. Because they're mission in life is to dissuade myth-believers in a desire to re-educate gullible people about the true condition of reality. And that is how they make the move from a belief to a claim, or a fact, which they can't do, else they have to allow Christians the same privilege...

[Replying to post 60 by William]

I did not state or imply that StuartJ had faith or was expressing faith-based beliefs. It is my understanding that he is not. One should take care not to conflate belief with faith. Not all belief requires faith...

[Replying to post 66 by mrhagerty]

I did not state or imply that StuartJ had faith or was expressing faith-based beliefs.

Oh, but he is; because he makes a claim about reality without evidence to back it up. In his posts he effectively defines faith as make believe because Christians cant back up their claims with evidence. He is making a claim that he knows the truth about God, yet provides no evidence. By his own paradigm, he is operating by faith.

And no, William, you didnt imply it. I did, by necessity.

Atheists need to realize that atheism isnt possible. The very best they can ever do is agnosticism, which says they simply dont know because no evidence has yet come to light.

[Replying to post 69 by William]

Oh I see. You are saying that Stuart is criticizing faith based beliefs of theists while upholding his own faith-based beliefs as acceptable, but either way they are faith-based beliefs.

If that were the case, I suppose it would explain why Stuart appears not to want to negotiate even that ample opportunity to do so has been afforded him.

So am I correct in understanding you are saying that someone who declares GODs do not exist, does so because of faith-based beliefs?

[Replying to post 74 by William]

So, in a forum called Christian Apologetics, you are banning discussion about the key topics that constitute being a Christian. In other words, Come and debate Christianity, but dont mention anything essential to Christianity.

See my above reply.

Short answer is "no". I am not banning anyone from doing anything. I am pointing out that in good use of critical thinking processes, anything identified as nonnegotiable, does not belong in a debate setting. That it finds its way there anyhow, is besides the point. Identifying it can have positive effects all around. Christians who understand that their faith is not negotiable, can also chose to refrain from wasting their time proselytize in a debate setting. Atheists can also choose not to waste their time attempting to debate the nonnegotiable. Win-Win...

[Replying to post 76 by mrhagerty]

That is precisely my argument mrhagerty. If Christian beliefs are nonnegotiable, then the existence of Christian debate forums begs the question.

So you'll be quitting, right?

[Replying to post 79 by mrhagerty]

My main aim is to promote the understanding of how proselytizing is done

Then you need to use examples where it is being done, not pseudo-examples which you surmise are motivated by a desire to proselytize. That takes knowledge of another person's mind. If I don't make a call to believe or to abandon your atheism for my truth, I'm not evangelizing.

BTW, proselytizing is a term applied to people of a different religion or faith who are encouraged to come to abandon theirs and embrace yours. Its a religion to religion thing.

We don't use it for unbelievers. 'Evangelizing' is the proper term. Unless of course you are seeing yourself being called from your current "faith" to mine. Hmmm? ...

[Replying to post 88 by William]

And why would you want to convince others that your beliefs are true (and theirs are not) if not to try and persuade them to adopt your beliefs?

Simple. To correct misunderstandings about those beliefs, untrue statements or lies about those beliefs. That doesn't have to be interpreted as a call to believe. Unless you feel conviction. In which case that would be your own experience.

Are the beliefs you have and wish to defend, nonnegotiable mrhagerty?
Lets say for the moment that I believe your beliefs are indeed nonnegotiable.

Would I be incorrect about that? Would my belief about that be a misunderstanding of your beliefs?

mrhagerty - if you still want to continue this debate regarding nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs, we can continue here in this thread.

To add to this, the continuing debate between mrhagerty and myself from the "Faith-based beliefs - Are they debatable?" thread.


LINK TO POST

Excerpt from the link;

We agree here. Faith-based beliefs are things one trusts in as true. Depending on what it is that people are trusting as true, depends upon whether the faith trusted in is nonnegotiable.

And Christian faith is one such thing, which makes this forum antithetic and self-defeating since you and your other atheist comrades label faith-based arguments as non-negotiable.

LINK TO POST

Excerpt from the link;

1: Removing nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs from the debate would not have the affect of making the debate forums self-defeating. Rather my argument is in the acknowledgment that not arguing with nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs allows for the cancelling out of time wasted on something other than debate.

2: I am not an atheist.

LINK TO POST

Excerpt from the link;

So, give me an example of a debate that could take place on a Christian subject where any and all could agree to avoid faith-based statements and arguments.

LINK TO POST

Excerpt from the link;

Why? Are you saying that "Christian subjects" are all faith-based, therefore there is no avoiding it? The argument I am making is not in the identification of faith-based assumptions, but identifying nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs. That will vary from person to person as well.

LINK TO POST

Excerpt from the link;

Bingo!

Unless you want to be ridiculous and talk about which agencies for the homeless have good Christian beds. That's a use of Christian that avoids all reference to faith-based ideas.

LINK TO POST

Post in reply

I was wondering why you seemed to be missing my point about the OP being focused upon nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs, since I had made it quite clear from the onset.

Post#60 [in the thread "The divinity of the person called Jesus of Nazareth" ]

mrhagerty wrote:
My impetus for tip-toeing onto the property is to put the apologetic statements out there whether they take effect or not. Because it's every believer's responsibility to provide an answer. There's even a verse for that: "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is within you " (I Peter 3:15)


William wrote:
That is what I was referring to as 'finding the opportunity to proselytize'.

That of course, is different to debating, especially when what is being proselytized is obviously not up for debate. Some of which are listed in the OP of this thread:

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


It seems that perhaps the confusion is that instead of continuing the debate in the above thread (Identifying nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs ) I did so in this, the "Faith-based beliefs" thread.

My bad.

The prior posts in this thread actually inspired me to create the "Identifying nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs" thread so they are connected, but the focus shifted once it dawned on me that it wasn't what folk had faith in but whether their faith was up for negotiation or not.


Shall we continue mrhagerty?

[William]

[Replying to post 82 by mrhagerty]

I was wondering why you seemed to be missing my point about the OP being focused upon nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs, since I had made it quite clear from the onset.

It seems that perhaps the confusion is that instead of continuing the debate in the above thread (Identifying nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs ) I did so in this, the "Faith-based beliefs" thread.

My bad.

And since all these threads are DEBATES, I considered it appropriate to DEBATE the truth that faith-based beliefs are nonnegotiable.

Sure. But that is not what I am debating. I am debating that nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs - by there very nature, are not debatable.

Some nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs I have listed in the OP 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'

If you feel that I am incorrect about these, feel free to debate.

But there's more here, William. You also have the expectation that members can debate Christian topics without invoking faith-based statements or arguments, which is naive and must be coming from a profound misunderstanding of what Christianity is.

Like I have already replied to these misinformed statements you are making mrhagerty - my focus isn't on faith-based beliefs but on identifying nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs

That is why I wrote;

I see this as the process involved with identifying what are negotiable beliefs and what are not nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs.

and;

I decide that faith-based beliefs which are nonnegotiable, are - by there very nature - non debatable. Those who hold such nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs actually help me decide the best position to take on the subject. Prior experience in wasting time 'debating' with those who are actually proselytizing has allowed for me to evaluate the best response to use in such cases.
Identifying possible nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs allows for me to immediately ask for confirmation from the believer as to whether their beliefs are negotiable or not, and they - for the most part - seem happy enough to tell me.

and;

Are you saying that "Christian subjects" are all faith-based, therefore there is no avoiding it? The argument I am making is not in the identification of faith-based assumptions, but identifying nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs. That will vary from person to person as well.

and;

I don't personally have any concerns about Christians and their NNFBB's and whether they choose to continue with them.
My job is to identify whether there is a chance for debate or not, so if Christians bring their NNFBB's to the table, they are not doing so for that purpose. They are doing so to take the opportunity to proselytize, which is not what I am here to encourage or otherwise waste my time being involved with. I am here to debate.

and;

The rational approach in recognizing nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs as a means of avoiding wasting time and effort in a debate setting, is not disallowing anything. You fail at present to understand that. The individual Members are free to proselytize their NNFBB's all they want to, just as I am free to recognize their proselytizing NNFBB's are not debatable.

You also have the expectation that members can debate Christian topics without invoking faith-based statements or arguments, which is naive and must be coming from a profound misunderstanding of what Christianity is.

Is it your contention here that there are NO Christian faith-based beliefs which are negotiable then mrhagerty?

Frankly, if the rules or the conclusion remains that faith-based statements are non-negotiable, ergo non-debatable, then I hardly see the point in continuing a debate about Christianity, in a forum called Christian Debate.

Only those with beliefs can tell anyone whether those beliefs are nonnegotiable or not, mrhagerty. The list I made above, are simply some topics I have found to be nonnegotiable by most Christians I have encountered.

It is, all said and done, not the fault of those who do not share the beliefs, that those beliefs are nonnegotiable.

Regardless of which thread, you still haven't addressed what subjects about Christianity could be debated without faith-based statements getting into the picture. I have no idea what those topics could be, or why, after seeing the rather limited list, anyone would bother.

Subjects about Christianity which are negotiable will continue to be found on a case-by-case-individual-by-individual basis, as they happen. I cannot myself make any list of those subjects because they are largely dependent upon individual Christians. Making a list of generic nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs is easier for obvious reasons.

[Deleted]

"Replyng to post 1 by William"

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 too have been thinking about this thread, and although I understand the reason you started it, I can't help but contemplate its profound irony.

People do a lot of things in the name of debate, under the belief that when it comes to debating nothing should be off the table. Personally, I agree with this to a limited degree when it comes to the theological basis of Christianity. Where it borders on pointless is in a forum dominated by atheists.

In ordinary experience, the atheist is exceedingly determined to not let the nose of the camel in the tent, and the Christian must be content to at least get the word of God in front of their eyes.

I know of no conversions in either direction from these exchanges, and the best place for it is one-on-one in person, where one can hear the tone of voice and see the facial expression, which can go along way toward giving another person the benefit of the doubt that they dont wish your cruel and hideous downfall.

But this. This is really puzzling. Because while I do believe precepts of Christian faith can be debated, youve put yourself in the unenviable position of making that possibly impossible.

To be in a Christian debate forum and then provide a list of non-debatable topics that effectively exclude all topics about Christianity is either horribly ill-conceived or nave in the extreme.

its like a Christian setting up a forum to talk about Evolution vs. the Bible, then creating a rules thread that declares an opinion that virtually all scientific discussion about evolution is non-debatable.

Now, to be fair, you are offering the non-negotiable list up for debate. But that really wont avoid the inevitable polarization " that faith-based statements will be argued for being non-negotiable, which means that all the topics that are worth discussing for the Christian will be considered non-debatable.

I mean, its simply nave to think that there could be some topics coming out of the nonnegotiable debate that would make the prospect of debate even interesting.

And I guess thats why this whole attempt seems so incredulous.

Allow me a scenario.

Lets say that every one of the topics in the OP list come out of this sub-debate as non-negotiable, therefore non-debatable. If we try to start a thread with any of these topics, well be reminded either by a policeman or by the non-participation of others, that this will be a waste of time.

So, youll have achieved a paring down and stifling of the real discussions folks ought to be having and leaving everyone with topics like:

- Should Christians Live in Nice Homes or Poorer Ones?
- Are Christians Better with Finances than Non-Christians?
- Should Christians Support Anti-hunting Legislation?

And I can tell you that most Christians who even think about environments like this will want to debate more substantive subjects than those.

We wouldnt even be able to ask the seemingly innocuous, Is the General Christian Witness Still Effective if the truth about the subject revolves around who or Who determines whats effective.

And this is all happening in a forum where part of the label is the word Christian.

Which brings us back around to the first observations of irony and naivete. Its ironic because youve started a process that could create an thinly approved vigilance that defeats the purpose of the forums name. Its nave because this doesnt seem to have occurred to you.

[William]

[Replying to post 28 by mrhagerty]

I too have been thinking about this thread, and although I understand the reason you started it, I can't help but contemplate its profound irony.

It's a start.

In ordinary experience, the atheist is exceedingly determined to not let the nose of the camel in the tent, and the Christian must be content to at least get the word of God in front of their eyes.

If the 'tent' is the forum created for the purpose of luring non-believers into the camp in order to have the opportunity to proselytize their NNFBB's, then the ethics are questionable.

To be in a Christian debate forum and then provide a list of non-debatable topics that effectively exclude all topics about Christianity is either horribly ill-conceived or nave in the extreme.

It is neither. It is simply years of experience and deducing that in all cases where debate involves certain subjects, (such as those listed) those subjects have been consistently seen to be nonnegotiable. The obvious answer to the question 'why' is that it is not about having the opportunity to debate but about having the opportunity to proselytize, as you clearly pointed out above when you wrote the words;

"In ordinary experience, the atheist is exceedingly determined to not let the nose of the camel in the tent, and the Christian must be content to at least get the word of God in front of their eyes"

Now, to be fair, you are offering the non-negotiable list up for debate. But that really wont avoid the inevitable polarization " that faith-based statements will be argued for being non-negotiable, which means that all the topics that are worth discussing for the Christian will be considered non-debatable.

Inevitably once both camps agree together on what is NNFBB and what is on the common list only those who are ignorant of this or otherwise willing to ignore, will waste their time arguing with one another.
Those who take the opportunity to proselytize and those who enjoy baiting them (such as creating threads with titles designed to produce a reaction) will continue ignoring the reasonable observation re NNFBB's in order to continue their games with each other. The atheists in their mocking manner, and the believers in their inability to understand the wisdom of keeping their pearls close to their necklines.

In all cases, things of value can be learned in the observation of the differing dynamics, so certainly all is not lost.

I mean, its simply nave to think that there could be some topics coming out of the nonnegotiable debate that would make the prospect of debate even interesting.

And I guess thats why this whole attempt seems so incredulous.

Or, the above is a simply conclusion based upon mere assumption. People are people and it may be discovered over time that understanding the age old useless dynamics of pointless argument - those who do - will gravitate to more convivial modes of interaction - perhaps even deep and meaningful, in an atmosphere reminiscent of gathering around a campfire as 'friendlies' - as members of a family which are not gathered for the purpose of judgmentalism, subtle put-downs, 'winning' through one-upmanship etc ad nauseam.

And I can tell you that most Christians who even think about environments like this will want to debate more substantive subjects than those.

On the contrary - and to the point of the OP - it is not debate re more substantive topics which these 'most Christians' are interested in having. What they are interested in doing is proselytizing, because their faith-based beliefs are not up for debate.

The difficulty you appear to be having is in acknowledging this as the truth of the matter.

[Deleted]

"Replying to post 29 by William"

. . It is simply years of experience and deducing that in all cases where debate involves certain subjects, (such as those listed) those subjects have been consistently seen to be nonnegotiable.

THEN FIND ANOTHER FORUM that doesn't have the word Christian in it, PLEASE.

Because either you're incredibly naive and don't get it even when the impossibility is explained to you, or you're here for ulterior motives, to simply nettle Christians, which destroys any semblance of intellectual honesty.

FOR THE LAST TIME - you've admitted now that Christian debate subjects are impossible to engage in debate. Therefore, YOU have no basis to continue in a forum called CHRISTIAN DEBATING.

If you don't now know what the logical next-step should be from the above, your powers of inference are in serious question.

Inevitably once both camps agree together on what is NNFBB and what is on the common list only those who are ignorant of this or otherwise willing to ignore, will waste their time arguing with one another.

You're one of them. Look at the thread titles in this forum. They reek of faith-based non-negotiable implications that will of necessity call for debating. And YOU participate in them - then have the audacity to claim you're putting forward this thread is to avoid wasting time in them. Do you actually fail to see the hypocrisy in that? Or is the argument beyond you somehow?

I'm here because I disagree that faith-based topics are nonnegotiable. So this is not a logical contradiction for me. But you. You're dripping with contradiction.

Or, the above is a simply conclusion based upon mere assumption. People are people and it may be discovered over time that understanding the age old useless dynamics of pointless argument - those who do - will gravitate to more convivial modes of interaction - perhaps even deep and meaningful

Oh. You mean topics like "Do Christians look better in green ties or blue ties?"

That's a safe topic. NOOOO proselytizing possible there.

Or, "Should Christians Buy Nice Houses or Poor Ones."

Because those are the ones that are left after you win your argument about NNFBB.

Explain how we would "gravitate to more convivial modes of interaction" with those subjects.

, in an atmosphere reminiscent of gathering around a campfire as 'friendlies' - as members of a family which are not gathered for the purpose of judgmentalism, subtle put-downs, 'winning' through one-upmanship etc ad nauseam.

This is the most naive and puerile statement I've read in a decade or more. You really have the idea that Christians and atheists can sit around the fire and sing Kumbayah? Is it that you see this as possible if Christians could just abandon their polarizing precepts that draw the hard lines that separate people? Is that the golden mountain you see ahead?