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?

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 1 by William]

One of the most astounding nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs I've seen is the faith some people have that an experience of some form that occurs while they are alive provides proof of an afterlife.

Some who hold this faith-based belief go so far as to claim they know what the afterlife will be like. That's a faith-based belief stacked on top of another faith-based belief.

It's a belief based on empirical evidence

empirical: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

synonyms: experiential, practical, heuristic, firsthand, hands-on; observed...

[William]

[Replying to post 9 by Guy Threepwood]

We all have faith, beliefs, whether we recognize them or not, and whether we label them as 'non-beliefs' of alternatives

The idea of this thread is primarily to identify faith-based beliefs which are nonnegotiable.

I am unconvinced that your example is a belief based upon faith, since faith requires something to believe in and the belief itself stipulates the necessity of the faith, and that faith has to be believed in, absolutely. The faith is nonnegotiable.

Not to say that you are incorrect wanting to add such to the list. Just to say that it is still unclear to me that your example fits the criteria.

To example, Christian faith has it the one must accept Jesus as Lord or one won't get the reward of eternal life in a paradise - some even believe that the penalty for not doing so is punished by eternal life in suffering.

The stipulation is nonnegotiable, thus we are able to note that a nonnegotiable stipulation requiring faith, makes for a nonnegotiable faith-based belief through those who choose to believe it.

Clearly then, the aspect of reward for the faith-based belief is part of the reason for having the faith. Where is that aspect to be seen in the example you gave?

[William]

[Replying to post 2 by Overcomer]

There is only one God (monotheism) and that one God exists as a Trinity -- God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. They are one in essence and are co-eternal.

According to arguments between Christians themselves this idea appears to be debatable, although in the context you are writing, could still qualify, as it is - at least for those Christians who believe it - something which is nonnegotiable.

In the OP list, those things appear to be accepted by every Christian sect, or if not, I have never seen Christians disagreeing among themselves about those.

Those others you mention are nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs;

5: Jesus died on the cross to atone for the sins of humankind.
6: Jesus will return at an unknown point when he will judge the world.

seem to be accepted by all Christians as nonnegotiable.

But again;

"Salvation is a gift from Jesus given to those who accept it in faith. Works have no part of salvation."

...and...

"The Holy Spirit is a person, not just an impersonal force."

...may not be across-the-board non-negotiable faith based beliefs.

Importantly though, it is still good to know what the individual considers to being something they will not debate about, as doing so can help streamline the process of debate. In that, it would appear to be the pertinent thing to ask an individual before getting into the process of debating, in order to verify that this is what the person is wanting.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 9 by Guy Threepwood]

We all have faith, beliefs, whether we recognize them or not, and whether we label them as 'non-beliefs' of alternatives

The idea of this thread is primarily to identify faith-based beliefs which are nonnegotiable.

I am unconvinced that your example is a belief based upon faith, since faith requires something to believe in and the belief itself stipulates the necessity of the faith, and that faith has to be believed in, absolutely. The faith is nonnegotiable.

Not to say that you are incorrect wanting to add such to the list. Just to say that it is still unclear to me that your example fits the criteria.

To example, Christian faith has it the one must accept Jesus as Lord or one won't get the reward of eternal life in a paradise - some even believe that the penalty for not doing so is punished by eternal life in suffering.

The stipulation is nonnegotiable, thus we are able to note that a nonnegotiable stipulation requiring faith, makes for a nonnegotiable faith-based belief through those who choose to believe it.

Clearly then, the aspect of reward for the faith-based belief is part of the reason for having the faith. Where is that aspect to be seen in the example you gave?

I appreciate your civil/ thoughtful responses


Hoyle was an atheist, so he believed that the physical universe could ultimately be accounted for by entirely naturalistic/ materialistic mechanisms, right? (Frame that as a non belief in the God hypothesis if you like, makes no difference to what he did believe)

One theory that was overwhelmingly popular among atheists in that day, was that the universe simply was not created (no creation = no creator). hence steady state

Those are beliefs, positive assertions, and acting on the assumption of their truth, is an act of faith- nothing wrong with that

only one that, as we see here, often tries to claim 'default status' as merely a non-belief of the 'impossible' alternative.. which obviously discourages critiquing the positive assertion itself

For a 'reward' you are introducing more definitions but that's okay... I can only speak for myself that I found atheism more intellectually rewarding, comforting, gratifying. That the world we see around us was probably created by design, for a purpose, was a logical deduction for me, not necessarily an entirely comfortable or rewarding one

That this purpose might involve an afterlife is a fairly logical extension of that belief- but not the basis for it, nor for most people of faith in my experience.

I could likewise accuse atheists of seeking the reward of immunity from higher judgement, but I don't think that's a common rationale either, most of us are just trying to figure out what's really going on here, either way, don't you think?

The greater point again: we all believe in something, there is no 'default' answer here, we have no precedent for how universes are 'usually' created to define this. Any belief should stand on it's own merits and recognize itself as such. Would you not agree?

[Elijah John]

There have been people who have started religions, claiming them to be Christian, but they deny most of what I have written above which means they are only pretenders. I am not allowed to name them on this forum. However, one only has to read what some people write here to know that they do not subscribe to the above essential doctrines of Christianity. The one thing they have in common is the denial of the deity of Jesus Christ. They have written their own religious books and one group has even re-written the Bible to make it line up with their beliefs.

Paul warned Christians to be wary of such people, writing, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" (Gal. 1:8-9, NIV).

Moderator Warning


For this purposes of this forum, a "Christian" is defined as anyone who identifies themselves as such. Here, you have attempted to define what is a "true" Christian and indirectly attacked those who do not agree with your interpretation as "pretenders". An indirect attack is still an attack. Your last two paragraphs here amount to little more than preaching, divisive and needlessly exclusionary preaching at that.

You are certainly free to believe what you will on this matter, but on this site, please abide by our rules and guidelines.

This warning covers your offence in post #4 as well, but they will be counted as only one warning, as the two offences were pretty much simultaneous.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[William]

[Replying to post 10 by bjs]

What do you mean by non-negotiable?

That faith-based belief which is held by the individual and isn't up for debate.

Do you mean things a person must believe to be an orthodox Christians, the way Overcomer does?

Only inasmuch as the individuals believe their particular faith-based beliefs to do with Christianity (in the case of your question) which are held by the individual to being nonnegotiable.

Or do you mean things that people believe on blind faith without critical thinking, the way Guy does?

What I mean is that which is either accepted across the board as nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs (such as those in the OP list) as well as faith-based beliefs which individuals identify and hold for themselves as being nonnegotiable.

'Blind faith' and stating and/or implying that individual members of this message board hold such, is not of itself a focus of the OP subject.

[William]

[Replying to post 14 by Guy Threepwood]

I appreciate your civil/ thoughtful responses

And I, yours Guy.

Hoyle was an atheist, so he believed that the physical universe could ultimately be accounted for by entirely naturalistic/ materialistic mechanisms, right? (Frame that as a non belief in the God hypothesis if you like, makes no difference to what he did believe)

I will take your word on that.

One theory that was overwhelmingly popular among atheists in that day, was that the universe simply was not created (no creation = no creator). hence steady state

The theory itself is debatable. Are you saying then, that Hoyle - and those who believe this to being the case about the universe and believe that the idea of a 'Steady State' universe allowed for atheists to claim that there is no need for a creator if the universe always existed...thus the position itself is nonnegotiable in terms of arguing with creationists (not necessarily just Christian creationists).

If so, then yes - I think a nonnegotiable position can be identified in such belief.

Those are beliefs, positive assertions, and acting on the assumption of their truth, is an act of faith- nothing wrong with that

This is where I do not yet agree, as the position itself is not faith based. What it identifies is that not all things which are nonnegotiable need to be based in faith.

While the OP is focused upon actual faith-based beliefs which are nonnegotiable, I am willing to allow that non faith based beliefs which are nonnegotiable can be included, as primarily the idea of the thread is to identify what people argue for which they consider nonnegotiable.

The debate process itself appears to have two main purposes.

1: To try and win folk over to ones way of thinking - or at least have them genuinely contemplate the intricacies of ones position.

2: To learn about other positions people take, for the purpose of trying to reach agreement...agreement which isn't just "we shall have to agree to disagree" which in itself is an expression acknowledging the two sides are arguing nonnegotiable items, or items which either side refuse to consider because it could mean the possibility of changing ones position, which cannot be achieved if ones position is actually nonnegotiable.

only one that, as we see here, often tries to claim 'default status' as merely a non-belief of the 'impossible' alternative.. which obviously discourages critiquing the positive assertion itself

Would you give the reader an example of the type of argument you are referring to here.

For a 'reward' you are introducing more definitions but that's okay... I can only speak for myself that I found atheism more intellectually rewarding, comforting, gratifying.

I mentioned reward simply because it is often associated with faith based beliefs which are non-negotiable.

That the world we see around us was probably created by design, for a purpose, was a logical deduction for me, not necessarily an entirely comfortable or rewarding one

As a founding conclusion in itself, the idea of the universe being created and thus having a purpose is in itself not necessarily comfortable or rewarding for the individual, but can be.

What is built upon the foundation of that idea, often requires accompanying ideas which can be both rewarding and comforting for the individual as the 'why' is examined through the logical process of critical thinking. Not always, but often.

This is natural enough. There is complexity in the universe just on the face value (empirical) alone...as scientific processes seek to find the answer to 'how' questions. Adding the metaphysical in order to find possible answers to 'why' questions has its own complexities with the added nuance that scientific instruments are not suitable for that task, and other ways have to be found which are.

That this purpose might involve an afterlife is a fairly logical extension of that belief- but not the basis for it, nor for most people of faith in my experience.

I myself see the question as part of the foundation. IF the universe was created, THEN there was such a thing as 'something else' before that, so it is a natural enough step to take to think that the 'something else' will likely be experienced in what is called 'afterlife'.
In relation to this, there are experiences people have which verify the assumption of the metaphysical, even that many of those individuals may not have even contemplated the idea prior to the experiences. Some former atheists changed their positions based upon their metaphysical experiences. Not all of them became religious in that change either.

But for them, the question of 'is there an afterlife to experience' is likely pretty much nonnegotiable as a result, but again, this does not infer that their belief is faith-based. More to the point it is experience-based.

I myself am still open to the idea that life ends at death and the universe was not created, but for me the current evidence points to both ideas being erroneous, so my openness has more to do with remaining so in case some irrefutable evidence comes which shows that this is absolutely the case.
Even so, I am happy to discuss such with others, but only from the position I presently hold, not because I am looking to convert to anything - be that religious-based or atheist based. I prefer logic-based critical thinking, which I presently understand has not as yet been able to discard the metaphysical as irrelevant.

I could likewise accuse atheists of seeking the reward of immunity from higher judgement, but I don't think that's a common rationale either, most of us are just trying to figure out what's really going on here, either way, don't you think?

I understand how off-putting that can be, when the metaphysical foundation has been built upon by ideas of higher judgement, especially when this involves the creator of the universe rewarding the faithful while sending the reprobate - the 'reprobate' according to those who hold such faith - to an eternal existence of suffering. It does not even make sense when one takes into account the universe itself - as a creation - that the creator would be like that and dish out such judgement.

However, again I do take into account what those who experience Astral Projection and NDEs have to say about their experiences, and if indeed such are precursors to what can be expected in the next phase, then there are indeed heavens and hells and other places besides these.
Overall the common understanding given by those who experience such is that the nature of the next phase is that it responds to the individuals own belief systems - both conscious and unconscious/subconscious and their accompanying attitudes/personalities/egocentric bias - and in that, what individuals experience is a self-created environment which equates to self judgement rather than a direct involvement of some creator being taking that role on. To me this is an exceptionally great type of justice.
Certainly the stories from those who claim to have observed such, is that most individuals are not aware that it is they who are creating the environments they then experience...again - because of belief.

In short, if an individual believes that there is a creator GOD who will judge them to some terrible fate because they also believe that they deserve it, then that is what they will experience.

What I say above is a summary and there is much more involved than what I have touched on. A complex subject in and of itself.

The greater point again: we all believe in something, there is no 'default' answer here, we have no precedent for how universes are 'usually' created to define this. Any belief should stand on it's own merits and recognize itself as such. Would you not agree?

Certainly.
The point of the OP is to identify beliefs which are nonnegotiable - either by being based in faith, or based upon positions which are specifically against all things metaphysical - so that the individual is better equipped in order to avoid the non debatable proselytizing (theist or atheist based) when involved specifically in debating.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 17 by William]

I think we agree on much here then (but what fun is that? )

Not to ignore everything else you said, I think you make some very good points, but just taking your conclusion:

so that the individual is better equipped in order to avoid the non debatable proselytizing (theist or atheist based) when involved specifically in debating.

I take your point, but having been on both sides of that theist/atheist fence.. from my experience I do think there is inherently more non-negotiable 'barbed wire' on the atheist side:

If I can switch metaphors...

A theists faith might be very firmly nailed down on the negotiating table, of course, and for some reasons you note, that may be particular to theism and it's implications..

But it's still on the table- in the sense that both sides can acknowledge it, discuss it, appraise it, and either one can change their position based on this. And it happens. I don't know any person of faith who does not concede 'tests' of that faith- i.e. doubts from time to time. That's normal, healthy, & aka critical thought..

Where an a-theists beliefs are protected from those tests, in a box labeled 'EMPTY'. :

Would you give the reader an example of the type of argument you are referring to here.

Stuart J:

Atheism is NOT a belief (system)

To claim that it is is a FALSE claim.

Atheism - a lack of belief

etc..

As long as beliefs are framed this way- they are not even on the table for appraisal, far less negotiation. Atheists of course can also change their beliefs (as did I), but the box has the be opened first, the beliefs have to be put on the table to be made negotiable- even in the atheists own mind--there is an extra step involved here which can be a bit of a leap.

[William]

[Replying to post 18 by Guy Threepwood]

If I can switch metaphors...

A theists faith might be very firmly nailed down on the negotiating table, of course, and for some reasons you note, that may be particular to theism and it's implications..

But it's still on the table- in the sense that both sides can acknowledge it, discuss it, appraise it, and either one can change their position based on this. And it happens. I don't know any person of faith who does not concede 'tests' of that faith- i.e. doubts from time to time. That's normal, healthy, & aka critical thought..

Your argument is apparently changing tracks from the OP intent, which is to identify the nonnegotiable.

Claiming the nonnegotiable on the theists side of the table is really 'open to debate' because faith-based beliefs are sometimes naturally 'tested' really means that the faith is sometimes 'negotiable' depending on the individuals state of resolution on the day.
If the beliefs are able to be doubted, these cannot be identified as nonnegotiable, and thus can be on the debate table.

Such beliefs are thus not under question re the OP. They may appear to be the same beliefs, but are held differently, so cannot actual be said to be the same at all.

This is why it is necessary to ask the individual whether their beliefs are considered by them to being nonnegotiable. If the reply is affirmative, then one can deduce from that, that there is nothing therein to debate and that when the person is arguing their beliefs, they are proselytizing rather than debating.

Would you give the reader an example of the type of argument you are referring to here.

Atheism is NOT a belief (system)

To claim that it is is a FALSE claim.

Atheism - a lack of belief

These are actually on point. Atheism IS a lack of belief and nothing more.

It is a heading title if you like - a heading of a position which has sub-titles branching from that position.

Similar as Theism is a heading, in which subtitles branch off from that.

So if one wishes to argue with atheists, one has to establish what kind of atheist one is arguing with.
Obviously the member quoted is 'not just an atheist' due to his expressions as he is simply not arguing 'lack of belief'

That an atheist lacks belief is nonnegotiable due to the fact that this is the position which determines 'what is an atheist' but WHY an atheist lacks belief might be nonnegotiable, and thus one is required to ask the individual if that is the case, in order to establish it one way or the other.

For example, an atheist who is asked, might answer that they "have no physical evidence shown them to prove the existence of a metaphysical being".
If one replies to that answer, that "physical evidence for the existence of a metaphysical being is not logically possible" and the atheist demanding such evidence persists with that, then one can ascertain that there is no negotiation because the atheists position on the matter is obviously nonnegotiable. Thus "no debate required' as the atheist is simply proselytizing rather than debating, no matter that they argue otherwise.

As long as beliefs are framed this way- they are not even on the table for appraisal, far less negotiation.

The identified nonnegotiable belief in the above case is that the atheist believes physical evidence can be produced to prove metaphysical beings exist, and will not budge from that belief.

Atheists of course can also change their beliefs (as did I), but the box has the be opened first, the beliefs have to be put on the table to be made negotiable- even in the atheists own mind--there is an extra step involved here which can be a bit of a leap.

Either way, nonnegotiable beliefs can be identified in both camps, and responded to accordingly.

Which is to say, no actual debate goes on re the arguments produced from either side of the table, the table is for the purpose of proselytizing rather than debating.

Of course, actual debating can and does occur between theists and atheists, but only in regard to them accepting agnostic (rather than antagonistic) positions. The vast grey area of accepting ignorance and wanting knowledge rather than the black and white areas of nonnegotiable belief systems, be they atheist or theist in nature.

[bjs]

[Replying to William]

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_v ... cene_Creed

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