Identifying nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs

William · Post by **William** » Mon Dec 03, 2018 3:27 pm

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 · Post by **William** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:34 pm

[Replying to post 57 by ytrewq]

Thanks for that. Now I can see where you are coming from and, it seems we are pretty much on the same page.

I am glad that my attempt at clarity worked out the way it was intended.

But why only faith-based nonnegotiable beliefs?

Because that is all I created this thread to focus on. This forum (Christianity and Apologetics) is the best place to create such a thread.

In general, all nonnegotiable belief, faith-based or not, is a complete waste of time and by definition unable to be debated, yes?
And this is equally true whether the said nonnegotiable belief is of a theistic or atheist nature. Any belief of value must be open to scrutiny, AKA must be negotiable.

Yes, of course. Anything nonnegotiable is by definition non-debatable. One can start a thread about nonnegotiable beliefs which are not faith-based and try and identify those as well, but for now - my attention - is focused upon identifying NNFBB's.

I do take your point though that although all beliefs based purely on faith (ie without evidence) are worthless, if the holder of such a belief is negotiable to debate and reason, then debate can be constructive and worthwhile.

I did not say faith-based beliefs were worthless. I said that there was no point in wasting time debating them in a setting created for debate. If the holder of a faith-based belief is open to negotiable debate and reason, then the faith-based belief is obviously negotiable, not a NNFBB.

Deleted · Post by **Deleted** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:39 pm

"Replying to post 60 by ytrewq"

I did not actually say that faith is worthless, as in some cases it can provide comfort or encourage good behavior and so on. Who am I to judge what faith is worth to the holder of that faith?

You wrote:
". . although all beliefs based purely on faith (ie without evidence) are worthless,"

Perhaps you can help me understand (without straining on a gnat) what difference there is between faith and "beliefs based purely on faith."

I mean there is literally no reason to think that such beliefs are true

Although I appreciate what I perceive to be a friendly attempt, I think you're digging yourself still deeper. The worth of such beliefs is in the perception that they are true.

In common parlance, any belief based solely on faith without evidence of any kind, is not worth the paper it is written on, or the bandwidth to send it.

We'll all have to wait and see. Some words may end up merely mistaken. Others, the most regrettable.

ytrewq · Post by **ytrewq** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:30 pm

mrhagerty wrote: "Replying to post 60 by ytrewq"

I did not actually say that faith is worthless, as in some cases it can provide comfort or encourage good behavior and so on. Who am I to judge what faith is worth to the holder of that faith?
You wrote:
". . although all beliefs based purely on faith (ie without evidence) are worthless,"

Perhaps you can help me understand (without straining on a gnat) what difference there is between faith and "beliefs based purely on faith."

I thought this was covered in previous discussion, but maybe not, so happy to do my best to explain. Like I said, if your faith is worth something to you personally, then that's great. Apparently that means exercising your faith and and communicating with your God, which is more than just a belief, is it not? I accept that such a faith and all it entails can make you feel good, feel loved, not fear death, behave morally, and so on, and these benefits can be real and tangible. I don't have a problem with that. As discussed previously, the mere fact that someone believes something can provide benefits to the believer, quite independently of whether the belief is true. In your words, the worth is in the perception of truth.

But if you present your faith-based beliefs to others, including here on this debate forum, and such beliefs are based purely on faith, without any supporting evidence whatsoever, then those beliefs are indeed worthless, not worth the paper they are written on. An example would be a belief presented to others that your God exists and you can communicate with him, with no evidence whatsoever except that you passionately believe it to be true.

I hope that is clear.

ElCodeMonkey · Post by **ElCodeMonkey** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:33 am

Moderator Comment
All, Just a quick note. Please keep in mind that the subject for debate is regarding which items are non-negotiable, not whether or not faith-based beliefs have merit in debate. That can be discussed in a separate thread, but also be aware that rules for debate on this particular forum do indeed require evidence. If someone asks for evidence, rules state to present such evidence or else stop making such claims as facts. Continuing to make claims without evidence is in violation of our rules for debate despite what conclusion might be made in this separate topic regarding the value of such unsubstantiated claims. I hope that makes sense. Thank you, and carry on

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Deleted · Post by **Deleted** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:19 pm

"Replying to post 63 by ytrewq"

An example would be a belief presented to others that your God exists and you can communicate with him, with no evidence whatsoever except that you passionately believe it to be true.

I hope that is clear.

What is clear is your opinion that unless something can be supported with evidence it isn't true. Your opinion doesn't make that a feature of reality.

Your comments come down to entertaining all those folks who want to feel good and thus allow a make-believe story to comfort them. I'm offended at that analogy.

As above, it may qualify as untrue to you, but that doesn't allow you to say with tongue in cheek, "But all us clear thinking people who play with a full deck know it's utterly untrue."

It follows the line of criticism that all Christians are those who must check their brains at the door.

Christians know when they're being asked to believe a fairy tale. We know the difference between Santa Clause and the Messiah. We're not in the society of foil hats.

The substance of our faith does NOT boil down to only passionately believing it to be true. It is for us proven to be true. The problem we keep coming back to is that it's in a dimension as yet unavailable to you.

It's like lookie-loo's outside a store. They look through the windows at all the wonderful things inside while choosing never to come in. Yet from their vantage point they believe themselves to be a judge of the quality and usefulness of everything inside.

Deleted · Post by **Deleted** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:39 pm

"Replying to post 64 ElCodeMonkey"

Moderator Comment
. . Continuing to make claims without evidence is in violation of our rules for debate despite what conclusion might be made in this separate topic regarding the value of such unsubstantiated claims. I hope that makes sense.

So all comments on what Christians believe has been a violation of the rules of debate since inception, correct?

Because establishing a rule that anything having to do with Christianity must be supported by evidence seems to be a clever way to simply promote the atheist jab that says, "Christians have nothing substantive to say (and watch us prove it here)."

If you think that harsh or judgmental, please tell me what other topics about Christianity were originally envisioned when this forum was created? I'm curious.

ElCodeMonkey · Post by **ElCodeMonkey** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:27 pm

mrhagerty wrote:So all comments on what Christians believe has been a violation of the rules of debate since inception, correct?

Moderator Comment
Since this sounds more like a question than a challenge I will clarify here, but please make future questions regarding moderator actions in private messages.

No, all Christian beliefs do not violate the rules because they can supply what they see as evidence. Whether or not the evidence is sufficient is the very nature of what is debatable.

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

William · Post by **William** » Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:29 am

An example of the kind of faith-based belief which is nonnegotiable can be shown in the interaction of myself and ttruscott starting at Post 25 through to Post 27.

Therein it is noted that what was being proselytized by ttruscott was argued by myself as having holes in the theology which needed explaining. No explanation comes forth and the result is it just gets added to the list of questions which are never really answered;

From the forum;
Questions for a Specific User

The thread titled;

ttruscott - please explain WHY you believe what you do
One question at a time about ttruscott's beliefs.

This is the nature of nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs. They do not have to be explained or debated.

They only need be given the opportunity to be used to proselytize.

William · Post by **William** » Wed Jan 30, 2019 6:59 pm

[Replying to post 68 by William]

Identifying nonnegotiable faith-based beliefs;
Be like...

William · Post by **William** » Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:28 pm

[Replying to post 83 by mrhagerty]

All believe Christ is the only way to salvation, all believe in His Second Coming, all believe baptism is a command of the Lord, all believe the Bible is the supreme guide to faith and practice.

This is a good example of a fine list of faith-based nonnegotiable beliefs - which by definition are not up for debate and thus do not belong in a debate setting.

Debating Christianity and Religion