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.

[William]

[Replying to post 40 by brunumb]

I am just a weak, sinful poster.

I really don't think you believe this to be the case brunumb.

You are way better at this than I am William.

Practice will help you improve, as well as being aware of the traps for unwary players.
But nothing will help you if you are simply addicted to the entertainment value.

Even so, if one were to seriously want to break from such addiction, one can find ways in which to achieve that.

Meantime, one would be silly to care about any complaints along those lines that others are not debating, are only hedging, making up excuses, causing distractions in order to avoid answering, moving goal-posts, etc et al - if those complaining understand faith-based beliefs are nonnegotiable but choose to play the game anyway.

Such type of complaints can naturally enough fall upon deaf ears.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Faith-based beliefs...Are they debatable?

Oh heck yeah.

It's just it's so hard to make 'em come true.

[William]

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 can’t 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 didn’t imply it. I did, by necessity.

Atheists need to realize that atheism isn’t possible. The very best they can ever do is agnosticism, which says they simply don’t 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 don’t 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.

[Deleted]

"Replying to post 88 by William"

Why would you assume I would want respect from anyone who actively participates in misusing language?

You're controverted logic is a thing to behold.
The paradigm is that the person upholding proper English usage and definitions (as delineated in English dictionaries and studies on English usage and etymology) is NOT the person misusing language. Yet in your puzzling logic, you somehow see that person as misusing language.

I would settle for acknowledgement that English is not the perfect use of language when it comes to this type of thing, and efforts to change that would garner my respect.

English is more than adequate to express ideas without misleading inferences. You simply have to use enough words to make an idea clear and comprehensible.

If, rather, one chooses to be sloppy and casual, or views adding additional words a burdensome chore to be avoided, then yes, explanations in English can be imperfect.

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.

Hopefully you will answer my request that you list topics about Christianity that can be devoid of faith-based statements.

Are you saying that not all faith-based beliefs are nonnegotiable?

Yes, provided that participants can discuss them on a common ground,such as a source of faith-based declarations (Something here in this thread that has been ruled out in advance.)

Ex. two people can share common ground about what a Christian is, but have differences of belief about things like the Rapture or Predestination. Those topics are faith-based but can be debated as negotiable. Each can appeal to their understanding of the thing they hold in common, the Bible.

About that, I have this to say.

1: I recognize you have the belief that I believe there is no GOD.
2: I recognize that the belief you express above is NOT faith-based.
3: I also recognize that the belief you express above is not based in any knowledge you have acquired from evidence.

Things can be true without evidence. You prefer Rationalism. You must then be aware that the second criteria for establishing truth by Rationalistic means is the operation of reason.

7+5 = 12 is a statement of pure reason WITHOUT a shred of evidence required to make it true. It is true by simple appeal to the definitions involved (what 5 means, what 7 means, what addition means). That's called analytic by folks like Hume and Kant. So are all syllogisms based on terms true by definition.

Here are the two I'm referring to: a) Atheists claim that there is no god. b) Agnostics claim they don't know whether god exists or not because there is a lack of evidence thus far.

And b) happens to be what all supposed atheists are doing in this thread. It's not rocket science for be to conclude they are agnostics. But as they insist I'm wrong in doing so, I've held them to the folly of the atheist position, and asked them to prove what they claim to know.

The number of atheists and agnostics worldwide who affirm those definitions is truly immense. So, unless you're disclosing that you, William, are the designated controller of definitions for atheists everywhere, taking exception to these as though I'm blowing smoke does not command respect.

On the other hand, you are free to declare for yourself what you agree with or don't, in which case you change the label under which you organize yourself.

The corollary is true for me regarding the label Christian. A Christian is defined by the NT. I am free to personally disavow certain defining beliefs. But in doing so I cease to be Christian and must find another label.

What I'm not allowed to do is re-define the definition of Christian for all other Christians or the NT concept.

About that, I have this to say;

My belief is that the Bible is not 'The Word' of any GOD. That -specifically - is what I consider to be 'make believe' about the Bible.

And as a belief, I don't have a problem with that. But you go further. You use that belief to show me that I'm mistaken for believing the opposite. And you disallow faith-based arguments, which you don't have a credible basis to do, since your criteria for that restriction comes from Rationalism, which fails in its rules for testing the things that comprise reality.

[StuartJ - am I waxing too philosophical for you? Too many highfalutin terms?]

How much did this cost you in terms of time and money? (An estimate will suffice.)

I never made the statement that my rules of engagement are meant to save time and effort.

What is written is open to evaluation.

But not just any wild evaluation that comes to mind. Over the centuries the NT material has been available to study, rules of interpretation have developed that assure students and scholars they are understanding the intent correctly.

If you're interested: see Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation.

mrhagerty ...but you can't disbelieve they said them.

William: What is written is open to evaluation.

Not as to what they said, only what it means or if it is true. If you think you can question THAT the NT authors wrote what they did, you'll have to question that Julius Caesar ever said, "the die is cast" or that he ever crossed the Rubicon.

The reliability that the NT materials represent WHAT the authors actually wrote is no longer questioned by careful, intellectually honest scholars, secular included. Greenleaf, and F. F. Bruce demonstrate this. That doesn't stop people of bias from still doing so.

So far my evaluation is that it does not matter who wrote anything. What matters is whether what is written is useful to my investigations or not.

And how do you do that investigating? If you're investigating a murder, do you decide up front to eliminate blacks from possible suspects because you have a social justice bent to your process?

The decision ahead of time that no knowledge can come through faith experience is prejudicial, especially if being decided by people who have never experienced faith in order to tell.

If I adjust what I wrote to now read;

"I still fail to see how something metaphysical can be proven with material evidence, and that was the focus of my argument." would that change your assessment any?

As to what kind of evidence is being expected yes. But you wouldn't now be saying that there are thus no other reasons for affirming metaphysical truths

So explain to the reader if you will mrhagerty, how did you arrive at the conclusion that I want something that can be seen or tested or independently verified, by what I said in the above.

In post 74 you quote your post in Member Rules where you list arguments that can't pose evidence for immaterial gods, which includes the following:

♦There ARE no examples of scientific evidence that would convince anyone God exists.

which you say applies to immaterial gods, because you have been under the impression that I've been arguing for a non-immaterial God of the Bible.

That's why according to your rules you've been asking me to provide evidence (you took me as believing in a God who was NOT immaterial).

And are now surprised that I am clarifying that my God is immaterial. So, according to you own rule above, there is no expectation for material evidence.

However, that doesn't rule out such a God from being real or true. That's the rule I believe you are making a mistake about. That if a God is immaterial then such a God can't be real or true. Truth or reality doesn't depend on only what is demonstrable from material evidence.

Are the beliefs you have and wish to defend, nonnegotiable mrhagerty?

Not by my definition, but I believe they are by yours. When I have agreed above that they are non-negotiable, it is within the context of your definition.

I've always maintained that they are negotiable or debatable once we arrive at a common ground about what constitutes evidence.

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?

Yes. Because it's an understanding of my beliefs through your lens that faith-based statements can't convey evidence. I'm forced to acknowledge they are deemed nonnegotiable here, but not that they are nonnegotiable in truth.

I specifically asked about YOUR belief mrhagarty. I was not asking for a commentary on religious truth in general.

It's only an attack if others believe that all religious beliefs should exist in a democratic environment, where every belief has equal standing.

But that's completely arbitrary. No one actually knows that all beliefs ought to have equal standing. It's something we impose on religious beliefs because we treat them like all other ideologies - that no single belief should be exclusive and de-legitimize all others. That's viewed as unfair. But it's arbitrary.

But is your answer a reflection of your beliefs in that your beliefs include the right to attack other beliefs which are not exactly your beliefs?

Only where such beliefs speak lies or untruths about my beliefs.
Ex. Mormons promote a belief that Jesus is not deity. That's a contradiction of what the NT proclaims and can be seen as a lie about what the Bible teaches.

But I don't launch a campaign that marches to their door to attack their beliefs.
But when they come to my door and try to purvey their misstatements about biblical claims, I have an obligation to disclose what is wrong with theirs.
Or if I'm asked by someone what I think or believe, the obligation is the same.

When I joined here and posted, I was responding to claims made against biblical statements or about the nature of faith. Once a claim is made, the author has invited critique.

I have to say that the list of questions I wrote were done in a manner of 'these are questions that your arguments are begging' rather than implying that you have done some/all of those things. I want to know what your beliefs entitle you to do in relation with other beliefs.

As above, if they attack the foundation of my beliefs or make claims that contradict them, I am entitled to defend my beliefs and also to show where such claims are in error.

Ex. It's an error to propose that faith cannot prove that what is believed is true. Because it has an assumption that proof must always and only mean scientific or material evidence.

Why would you say that?

You just said if they are nonnegotiable then Christian debate forums beg the question, implying they are a waste of time and effort (that's the whole point of saying they beg the question).

You've established that proof for immaterial gods is nonnegotiable, Ergo, it's begging the question, Ergo, it's a waste of time, Ergo, shouldn't you be somewhere else more productive.

[Tcg]

a) Atheists claim that there is no god.

No we don't, at least not all of us.

My signature below reveals this truth.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 44 by mrhagerty]

It's an error to propose that faith cannot prove that what is believed is true.

Given that faith can allow one to believe something that is patently false, it is hard to reconcile your claim. Care to elaborate?

[Deleted]

[Replying to post 45 by Tcg]

This is just so much wriggling on the hook. You're certainly free to define atheism for yourself as you wish. That doesn't define it for everyone else.

You say "lack of belief in gods." Which means ONLY one of two things, logically:

1) you have a lack of belief because you're certain there are no gods. You don't need to believe if there aren't any,

or 2) you have a lack of belief because you haven't seen evidence yet and you can't go further and prove there are no gods.

The first is atheism. The second is agnosticism. Agnosticism remains a belief that there are no gods. If you have a lack of belief "in gods" because there simply are no gods, then you are believing that statement because it is not self-evident as a fact, and remains a belief.

[Deleted]

[quote="Replying to post 46 bybrunumb"

Given that faith can allow one to believe something that is patently false, it is hard to reconcile your claim. Care to elaborate?

Patent means demonstrably. I don't agree that Christian faith is demonstrably false. Having no material or scientific evidence doesn't mean there is only one other alternative - that it is false.

To claim it is false, you have to show that there are NO other means for establishing it as true. And you really can't do that if you ignore what the experience of faith conveys. If you are of the mind that it's impossible for faith to provide evidence, you've tainted the assessment from the start,

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 45 by Tcg]

You're certainly free to define atheism for yourself as you wish.

You are right. That is why I define it properly hoping that some will come to a accurate understanding.

Oddly, many have a compulsion to redefine atheism in a way that doesn't represent my clear words in any way.

I'm glad to see you admit that redefining my words is a fallacy. I wish more would reach that proper conclusion.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 45 by Tcg]

You're certainly free to define atheism for yourself as you wish.

You are right. That is why I define it properly hoping that some will come to a accurate understanding.

Oddly, many have a compulsion to redefine atheism in a way that doesn't represent my clear words in any way.

I'm glad to see you admit that redefining my words is a fallacy. I wish more would reach that proper conclusion.

All they need to do is read your signature ....

Not difficult really.

BUT ...

Your signature says what a LOT of folks of faith don't want to hear.

MANY folks of faith HAVE to understand that we say "There is no God" ...

Otherwise, their position crumbles ...

And the spotlight stays on the angels and virgins and talking donkeys and their god-man with his extraterrestrial origins and amazing superpowers.