Convincing in a believer vs. nonbeliever debate

[ppp]

*walks over there and shouts*
..."Over here?! No? Oh, over there!"....

*walks further and shouts again*
..."Okay, I can see your goal posts was that what I was meant to see?"

If it makes you feel any better, theism is not a belief system either.

No, no. That's too soon. You can have your wins as soon as you tell me the belief system of theism that necessarily applies to all theists. And the belief system of atheism that necessarily applies to all atheists. Until then, just stand over there and look pretty.

I'm on topic son. It's you who constantly wander afield.
You are prettier when you smile.

 

[Truthseeker]

Sorry.

That's okay, everybody makes mistakes.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

You can have your wins as soon as you tell me the belief system of theism that necessarily applies to all theists. And the belief system of atheism that necessarily applies to all atheists.

Why would I do that? That is not a position I hold. Why would I care to defend the strawman that you built to burn down? En Gard, show him your worst!

I'm on topic son. It's you who constantly wander afield.
You are prettier when you smile.

Okay father. You're right, as always. Forgive me, I beg you! I am but an erroneous mortal, who grovels before your infallible wisdom! *I prostrate myself before the blinding illumination of your wisdom*

Oh... And I never stopped smiling, you little heartthrob, you.

 

[ppp]

Why would I do that? That is not a position I hold.

Of course.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

is convincing someone of something in a believer vs. nonbeliever debater generally not possible

So, I think I've found the source of the impasse addressed in the OP.

Within these... Networks of intrapersonal conviction (beware the Bridge Troll )... Within them, there are ideologues. These individuals would appear to me, indistinguishable from a number of archetypes of persons, from innocent and jovial to nefarious and full of malcontent. Likewise, these individuals are possibly driven by any of a myriad of motivators from good intentions to chipped shoulders.

There are also those willing to have open debate but tend to be unwilling to wade through the trivial claptrap going on between people who get caught up in the trolling. Thus, they leave the thread and the long-drawn outs of 'you said this this way, so it means this' 'no it means this when used this way, so I meant this'...

It seems like the only way to open up the communications is to restrict communication... I don't like this for a single second.

 

[vulcanlogician]

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.

"Belief" is a funny word. In some circles (like philosophy) belief simply means "something you take to be true." And that includes things that can be proven. It even includes obvious things... such as "Joe Biden is the president of the United States." If you think that's true, a philosopher says "That is one of your beliefs."

Now, colloquially, we have a different meaning for the word. It means, "Something taken to be true without evidence." And so, by this definition, we want to contrast "facts vs beliefs"... and this makes all beliefs look unfavorable. So I prefer to use the philosophers' definition in debate. It's cleaner and it doesn't suffer from negative connotations.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

In some circles (like philosophy) belief simply means "something you take to be true." And that includes things that can be proven. It even includes obvious things.

So, are you saying this formal use of the word excludes that which is not overtly so, or lacks provability?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, are you saying this formal use of the word excludes that which is not overtly so, or lacks provability?

Well, no. But now we are inside philosophy and here it gets weird. Depending on you what take for granted about proof, proof is true as different in the fundamental sense from non-true versus proof is simply a limited class of beliefs, but not fundamentally different from other beliefs.
How? Because there are 2 overall schools of thoughts. There is an absolute universal objective truth versus cognitive relativism.

There is a lot more, but it here in the 2 forms of philosophy:
"philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience. ..."
philosophy | Definition, Systems, Fields, Schools, & Biographies

I can do both forms and even compare them using the one or the others. So what is the correct version? I don't know, because they both work with different limitations and get different results, i.e. cognitive relativism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Objective morals in animal evolution is not controversial.


I didn't realize you weren't familiar with this issue as I am. I've heard this referenced for decades.

Still waiting for some source of this other than your words.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

@mikkel_the_dane & @vulcanlogician
Well, if there is a propensity for people to come to understanding "without evidence" to mean "false information" and thus result in a negative connotation...

I would propose that the philosophical use would be preferable. However, without being highly self-conscience of the context and syntax we use, the reader is the one who interprets the narratives we produce, not ourselves.

 

[Hawkins]

Most of the time, humans don't know what they are talking about. Belief is the fundamental way for humans to get to a truth of any kind. It is so because humans lack the capability to reach truths by means of evidence. For example, covid-19 death tolls have been listed on a daily basis for more than 2 years now, that is, 2x365= 730 days. Which day's figure was ever made evident to you. To the mass majority, it's zero. You have zero evidence on any 1 day's data out of the 730 days of data. The figures are conveyed in a form of human testimonies from those who are responsible for counting and collecting the data. Their number is in a negligible amount, the rest of humankind needs to believe either their testimony (i.e., their data gathered) is accurate or not. The mass majority won't (i.e., will never) have the evidence anyway, since it's not possible and incapable for them to get to the evidence directly.

Either you believe those figures or you don't. It is completely out of human capability for each and every individual to acquire evidence by digging into the details such as the name list of the dead daily and how each one died specifically.

In a nutshell and in today's world, you believe everything by putting faith in the credibility of the mass media to get to truths of any kind. You don't dig and examine the evidence. Instead, you are sitting home to get to the truths by means of BELIEF! Evidence belongs to the eyewitnesses whose number is very few.

Well, President Trump often warned that "You are fake news". He questioned the credibility of our media while evidence is never part of the formula.

And you know that God exists simply by watching humans farting nonsense.

All you need is faith, that's what God said. Apparently, God knows better.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Most of the time, humans don't know what they are talking about. Belief is the fundamental way for humans to get to a truth of any kind. It is so because humans lack the capability to reach truths by means of evidence. For example, covid-19 death tolls have been listed on a daily basis for more than 2 years now, that is, 2x365= 730 days. Which day's figure was ever made evident to you. To the mass majority, it's zero. You have zero evidence on any 1 day's data out of the 730 days of data. The figures are conveyed in a form of human testimonies from those who are responsible for counting and collecting the data. Their number is in a negligible amount, the rest of humankind needs to believe either their testimony (i.e., their data gathered) is accurate or not. The mass majority won't (i.e., will never) have the evidence anyway, since it's not possible and incapable for them to get to the evidence directly.

Either you believe those figures or you don't. It is completely out of human capability for each and every individual to acquire evidence by digging into the details such as the name list of the dead daily and how each one died specifically.

In a nutshell and in today's world, you believe everything by putting faith in the credibility of the mass media to get to truths of any kind. You don't dig and examine the evidence. Instead, you are sitting home to get to the truths by means of BELIEF! Evidence belongs to the eyewitnesses whose number is very few.

Well, President Trump often warned that "You are fake news". He questioned the credibility of our media while evidence is never part of the formula.

And you know that God exists simply by watching humans farting nonsense.

All you need is faith, that's what God said. Apparently, God knows better.

Superfluous. Who seeks data or knowledge from a news anchor?

If I desired that information, rather than the other info I seek into, I could easily look into a countries 730 listings. I would probably prefer a 104 week-based list, if I desired that information.

 

[metis]

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

A belief by definition does not have to be proven.

In the case of debating religion, the reason why such debate rage here and all over the world is that it is virtually impossible to prove any religion right or wrong.

 

[Sheldon]

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

That is a textbook use of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, also a belief is just something one holds to be true, so I believe the earth is not flat, is of course a belief, and since it is also a knowledge based claim, you seem to be wrong here.

 

[Sheldon]

"Humans. Chimpanzee. Silverback. The ancient Homo erectus and neanderthal. All fall into the bucket of primates, but none are primates. And they are all separate and discrete species."

Not really, since they're clearly all primates, though they are of course distinct species. Belief systems may or may not include theism, which is one single aspect of some belief systems, in the same way a human is one species of primate.

 

[Sheldon]

'Human are primates' is a grammatical shorthand for 'humans are a type of primate'. Not for 'humans are equivalent to the category of primate'.

Exactly, humans are primates, but humans are not all primates?

Just as Christians are theists, but they are not all theists.

 

[Sheldon]

I can't fathom how or why anyone would supposedly hold the belief of a God or gods without a network of beliefs that collaborate in corroborating one another

as soon as you tell me the belief system of theism that necessarily applies to all theists.

Why would I do that? That is not a position I hold.

To be fair, I can see why your post emboldened above, suggests you were claiming precisely what @Policy asserts. Maybe you can clarify, to remove this confusion in your assertion?

Edit:

To be honest now I re-read read the assertion, I think I just misunderstood what you said, as you were.

 

[Sheldon]

I cannot remember the details of the case study, but this is fairly close to the heart of the matter, if you ask me. What is rationale?

If you ask me, the process of rationalization is analogous to: Intending to navigate the ocean, by building a ship from a flotsam in the middle of said ocean.
We're all as mad as hatters and we consider everything we've had to matter!

Rationalisation is the action of attempting to explain or justify behaviour or an attitude with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate. Whereas rationale is a set of reasons or a logical basis for a course of action or belief. One's rationale can include rationalisations, but they are not the same thing obviously, since a rationale can also be rational, whereas rationalisations are usually not rational.

 

[MonkeyFire]

The faith justification used by believers is their fatal flaw. There's a reason they rely on faith and not reason to cdecide their ideas are true.

Non-believers claim to be end all of all truths, but with out the warmth of Fire there is no seeing the light.

without belief there is nothing to reason its like wondering endlessly, without reason belief unfound. Knowledge is nice and all, but without belief there is no perceiving the truth, because that is what belief is.

 

[Sheldon]

So, are you saying this formal use of the word excludes that which is not overtly so, or lacks provability?

To be fair that's the way I've always read the dictionary definition of belief.

noun

1. an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

Note the qualifying use of the word especially in red, so a belief need not be "unproved" (for want of a better word), or lack sufficient objective evidence to support it.