Convincing in a believer vs. nonbeliever debate

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Believers do not challenge one another on the existence of a god or Gods. Conversations involving mixed audiences of all beliefs do not go down as per your imaginings.

Theists don't have a monopoly on belief. "All beliefs" includes people with non-theistic belief systems.

The key here is a "belief/faith" system. Not verified and tested. You don't verify and test God, verily He *will* test you.


Q: "Does a God exist."
A: "Yes."
Q: "What's your evidence or proof?"
A: "Existence."

Yeah... this is a good example of the failure to give a proper explanation.

 

[F1fan]

Do you mean absolutely true or something else?

Since belief is a human judgment the limit is "likely true" Absolutely true would be a fact, and all we have to do is observe it. We look at any judgment at a trial by jury and their verdict is ideally likely true, whether it's guilt or acquittal. There is a chance for error. So the true faith believer who has decided irrational ideas are true have a poor approach because we can demonstrate faith is unreliable and biased. Reasoning is vastly superior to making decisions.

 

[F1fan]

Every time i read a qoute from baha'i teaching or from Baha'u'llah now i become relaxed in my mind...

Because it supports an established belief, and it offsets rational doubts?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Since belief is a human judgment the limit is "likely true" Absolutely true would be a fact, and all we have to do is observe it. We look at any judgment at a trial by jury and their verdict is ideally likely true, whether it's guilt or acquittal. There is a chance for error. So the true faith believer who has decided irrational ideas are true have a poor approach because we can demonstrate faith is unreliable and biased. Reasoning is vastly superior to making decisions.

So how do you with reasoning (and reasonable facts) do morality, which is not irrational?

 

[F1fan]

So how do you with reasoning (and reasonable facts) do morality, which is not irrational?

That is an overly broad question. There are basic morals that is largely expressed by nature, mostly that social animals cooperate with each other so there's a survival advantage the individual can't attain.

Beyond this for humans who can design abstract morals these tend to align to the needs and whims of the population. If there are human tribes that occupy a region and they live at peace due to an agreement, this moral view could be abandoned if there is a famine and limited resources. The tribes may fight for the resources, and how you kill others may be justified. One tribe might attack children to eliminate them replacing the adults, which would be a savvy and long term moral view for the sake of the tribe's future. the other tribe might say children are innocent, don't kill them, which would be more idealistic. Morals are up to us. What is right an wrong is up to us. There needs to be an argument behind every moral judgment that appeals to the people for it to be accepted.

An example of interest is after the fire bombing of Dresden in WW2 by the allies the people of England were horrified that 30,000 German citizens were killed. Part of this moral outrage was the self interest, because citizens of England were killed too, and they knew how bad this act of war is. Today it is a war crime to target citizens, and we are seeing Russia condemned for these crimes in Ukraine as they target hospitals, train stations, and apartment buildings. This illustrates how morality changes.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is an overly broad question. There are basic morals that is largely expressed by nature, mostly that social animals cooperate with each other so there's a survival advantage the individual can't attain.

...

Well, the base problem is in effect today North Korea. A part of a population can survive by cooperating to take advantage of another part.
Evolution is about the replication of the fittest gene, not replication of the totally of a population in toto. Learn your biology.

 

[stvdv]

Is it just me, or is convincing someone of something in a believer vs. nonbeliever debater generally not possible because

#MeToo, not just you

Belief-claims aren't wrong or right to the believer

True for me. They are just beliefs until proven right/wrong, then they shift away from "I belief" into "I know"

I would not call it "belief claim".
I never say "I claim to believe this or that". I just say "I believe this or that". If I claim something then I don't believe it anymore, then I just know from personal experience (not reading books, nor even hear my Master claim it)

My beliefs are open to change and/or edit. When I know something (spiritual) to be true, because of personal experiences (and before sharing it, I rather have like 3 different experiences at least), then people must be really good to make me change my "knowing it to be true".

Usually an Atheist can't do that, unless he has had a personal spiritual experience, but then I would be surprised if he still identify with Atheism ("lack of God(s) belief(s)"). Of course, depending on how intense his experience was (I need at least 3, preferably 10 experiences to change my strong belief)

If it can be proven or disproven, it's not a belief at all

 

[Twilight Hue]

The question remains, if someone's beliefs are proved wrong, will he change them? If they're faith based, and he's emotionally invested, I doubt it.

It's like old leather. It's much too comfortable and familiar to discard even if it's falling apart.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's like old leather. It's much too comfortable and familiar to discard even if it's falling apart.

That is so for us all except you. You are the special one, right?

 

[Twilight Hue]

That is so for us all except you. You are the special one, right?

We all are the special ones. Didn't you forget? ;0)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We all are the special ones. Didn't you forget? ;0)

So we agree? We are all believers and the differences and how we treat them individually, are what makes us all special?

 

[Twilight Hue]

So we agree? We are all believers and the differences and how we treat them individually, are what makes us all special?

More like that there is only one each in the world who contains those unique and special perspectives that no one else has.

 

[Truthseeker]

This is why we keep going on about faith being unevidenced belief. So much of the 'evidence' the various religious beliefs rely on is problematic in some respect.

There is always some problems, even in the Baha'i Faith, that have to be sorted out. But there is less for the Baha'i faith, in my opinion. This is from my experience. But since the Baha'i Faith just seems to be just one of many obscure religions, and there is so much to investigate in the Baha'i Faith, few go very far in investigating, if they investigate at all.

 

[Truthseeker]

My impression is that most speakers on behalf of theistic belief only rarely gravitate significantly far from appeals to emotion. Variations of claims of some form of need of deities to enforce justice, purpose, meaning or confortable answers to questions that some find unconfortable are the bread and butter of it.

Sometimes you also find appeals for unity under the banner of the True Believers, which can be surprisingly effective for people plagued by uncertainty and insecurity.

I don't think any of that is a valid way to appeal to people for a religion. There has be an intellectual component to all this, it has to be tested against reality as we know know it. Baha'i uses that approach, which may be one factor why there are not more Baha'is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think any of that is a valid way to appeal to people for a religion. There has be an intellectual component to all this, it has to be tested against reality as we know know it. Baha'i uses that approach, which may be one factor why there are not more Baha'is.

I've seen Baha'i members here use all sorts of emotional appeals to argue for their religion. Are they really told not to do this? I'd be surprised if they were from how often I see it happen.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

I've seen Baha'i members here use all sorts of emotional appeals to argue for their religion. Are they really told not to do this? I'd be surprised if they were from how often I see it happen.

Well, to truly be Christ-like and be worthy of calling oneself a 'Christian' you are told to shed yourself of all material worldly goods and rely on the generosity of others while you travel and do good deeds for others. A benevolent transient person with no personal belongings.

Tell me, how many 'Christians' have you met?

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Theists don't have a monopoly on belief. "All beliefs" includes people with non-theistic belief systems.

My apologies, I had previously included atheism as a belief structure and was admonished.
I have since presumed the use of 'belief' to be referring to theism, spiritualism, or similar lore. I have also attempted to restrict my use of the term to those same topics.

 

[Nakosis]

Is it just me, or is convincing someone of something in a believer vs. nonbeliever debater generally not possible because:

Belief-claims aren't wrong or right to the believer.

To the nonbeliever, a claim should be wrong or right.

Belief-claims however, can only be proven moral or immoral, if that, or orthodox or heretical.

If it can be proven or disproven, it's not a belief at all.

I suspect because belief is not a rational position.

 

[Heyo]

My apologies, I had previously included atheism as a belief structure and was admonished.
I have since presumed the use of 'belief' to be referring to theism, spiritualism, or similar lore. I have also attempted to restrict my use of the term to those same topics.

Maybe someone was unclear. Atheism itself is not a belief system. But atheists can have a non theistic belief system. Secular Humanism is a frequent choice.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Maybe someone was unclear. Atheism itself is not a belief system. But atheists can have a non theistic belief system. Secular Humanism is a frequent choice.

Hmm... For the purpose of keeping conversation from suffering or altogether dying from something superficial such as semantics, I think I will modify and maintain my current modus operandi ...I'll allow the plasticity of its meaning to others while restricting my use of it, I'll just have to request clarification when used in a format which isn't clearly or directly referencing religion/s and the like.