Convincing in a believer vs. nonbeliever debate

[ppp]

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.

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

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

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

Oh jeez... The bait is too juicy! I'll bite!

Pray-tell, what disqualifies or defines something as a belief system to you?
Or... are you using 'theism' in a fashion that's juxtaposed to 'religion in general' regarding them being belief systems?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My apologies, I had previously included atheism as a belief structure and was admonished.

Atheism isn't a belief system, but there are plenty of belief systems that don't include any gods.

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.

Weird presumption.

 

[ppp]

Oh jeez... The bait is too juicy! I'll bite!

Pray-tell, what disqualifies or defines something as a belief system to you?
Or... are you using 'theism' in a fashion that's juxtaposed to 'religion in general' regarding them being belief systems?

Wasn't meant to be bait.

Christianity. Hinduism. Zoroastrianism. The ancient Aztec and Hellenic religions. All fall into the bucket of theism, but none are theism. And they are all separate and discrete belief systems.

Theism is just a holding category for all of the positions that include a belief that one or more gods exist. But it is not itself a belief system.

Maybe you consider that bait. I just consider it set theory.

Edit: I will add that there are several belief systems that do not include a god. I'm fine with calling those atheistic belief systems. But those belief systems conflict in their opinions and goals just as much as relatively systems do. Treating them as a single thing is as ridiculous as treating Islam and the ancient Greek religion as a single thing.

 

[Truthseeker]

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.

I can't speak for others, but I don't do that, and my favorite fellow Baha'i @Trailblazer doesn't do that. At least I don't think so. It is okay if what we present appeals to people's sense of spirituality. Spirituality is not the same as emotional. Do you understand the difference? It is hard for atheists to do so. Spirituality is beyond definition, it is something you feel and do in action.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can't speak for others, but I don't do that, and my favorite fellow Baha'i @Trailblazer doesn't do that. At least I don't think so. It is okay if what we present appeals to people's sense of spirituality. Spirituality is not the same as emotional. Do you understand the difference? It is hard for atheists to do so. Spirituality is beyond definition, it is something you feel and do in action.

No, I do get you as an atheist. I just call it psychology.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

The fun thing is that which you consider a religion, is a part of semantics as it relies on a definition/meaning.

 

[Heyo]

Oh jeez... The bait is too juicy! I'll bite!

Pray-tell, what disqualifies or defines something as a belief system to you?
Or... are you using 'theism' in a fashion that's juxtaposed to 'religion in general' regarding them being belief systems?

@Policy gave some good examples.
Basically, for a belief system, you need multiple beliefs, connected into a whole.
Atheism has just one belief, or better non belief. That's not a system.
Theism is a set of systems with just one commonality: belief in intervening gods. Not a system in itself.

 

[Truthseeker]

No, I do get you as an atheist. I just call it psychology.

Rationality is mixed with emotion and spirituality ideally.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Rationality is mixed with emotion and spirituality ideally.

Psychology is not just about rationality.

 

[Sabour]

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.

Well I think it is possible but it rarely happens. Not because of what you have mentioned, but because few people are open minded to challenge their beliefs and reflect.

Most people think of a belief as something that a person blindly follows. That is not the case. There is always a strong foundation behind something that a person believes in. The key in a debate with a believer is to see what he or she are basing their belief on and you can go from there. For example, people who believe in angels believe so because the Quraan or the bible said it. They believe the Quraan or the bible because they believe that one of these books is the word of God. They believe there is a word of God because logically hey have reached the conclusion that God exists and they have studied the books and reached a conclusion that the book can not be written by men because it is faultless and it talks about subjects that men couldnt have known at that time.

So here how it goes.

This world has creator ===> God exists===>Quraan is faultless===>Quraan is the Word of God===> Quraan says there are angels===> belief that angels are real.

Now if you want to sit there and debate with the person that angels are not there, you will not reach anywhere. However if you debate and prove that this world has no creator, or God doesn't exist, or Quraan contains error than you many have a chance at changing the person's mind.

The key here is not to debate the belief itself, but to debate the foundations of the belief.

Similarly, if you want to convince a non believer of a certain belief, you will have to start with the foundations and move forward in the process.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well I think it is possible but it rarely happens. Not because of what you have mentioned, but because few people are open minded to challenge their beliefs and reflect.

Most people think of a belief as something that a person blindly follows. That is not the case. There is always a strong foundation behind something that a person believes in. The key in a debate with a believer is to see what he or she are basing their belief on and you can go from there. For example, people who believe in angels believe so because the Quraan or the bible said it. They believe the Quraan or the bible because they believe that one of these books is the word of God. They believe there is a word of God because logically hey have reached the conclusion that God exists and they have studied the books and reached a conclusion that the book can not be written by men because it is faultless and it talks about subjects that men couldnt have known at that time.

So here how it goes.

This world has creator ===> God exists===>Quraan is faultless===>Quraan is the Word of God===> Quraan says there are angels===> belief that angels are real.

Now if you want to sit there and debate with the person that angels are not there, you will not reach anywhere. However if you debate and prove that this world has no creator, or God doesn't exist, or Quraan contains error than you many have a chance at changing the person's mind.

The key here is not to debate the belief itself, but to debate the foundations of the belief.

Similarly, if you want to convince a non believer of a certain belief, you will have to start with the foundations and move forward in the process.

That is not possible so far. It has been tried for over 2000+ years and has so far not worked.

 

[Sabour]

That is not possible so far. It has been tried for over 2000+ years and has so far not worked.

You mean the approach as a whole or that particular example ?

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Wasn't meant to be bait.

Christianity. Hinduism. Zoroastrianism. The ancient Aztec and Hellenic religions. All fall into the bucket of theism, but none are theism. And they are all separate and discrete belief systems.

Theism is just a holding category for all of the positions that include a belief that one or more gods exist. But it is not itself a belief system.

Maybe you consider that bait. I just consider it set theory.

Edit: I will add that there are several belief systems that do not include a god. I'm fine with calling those atheistic belief systems. But those belief systems conflict in their opinions and goals just as much as relatively systems do. Treating them as a single thing is as ridiculous as treating Islam and the ancient Greek religion as a single thing.

Allow me an attempt at analogism here, I will repeat your 2nd sentence in the context of another hotly debated topic. Hopefully it clarifies where I lack clarity:

"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."

I suppose 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 (at least in their mind). I must ask, 'Did/does the deity do anything or have any purpose? Nothing, ever?' I understand a belief need not evidence, reason, nor logic...

For that matter, it seems odd to believe that any of our beliefs are a monolith standing unsupported... "All alone, by itself, against the naysayers, a lone pillar of hope in an ocean of doubt! Believing!"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You mean the approach as a whole or that particular example ?

As a whole. You can't prove the world as such. It has been tried and it doesn't work. That is not particular to God. It is a limit to the idea of justified true belief.
You are in effect claiming a method of a foundational approach in epistemology and/or rational/empirical method(s) that can prove everything in positive terms. So far that hasn't worked and I doubt that you can do it. I can't and I have been at it for over 25 years and reading books covering 2000+ years of people trying to do it.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

The fun thing is that which you consider a religion, is a part of semantics as it relies on a definition/meaning.

Yes. Words. They have meanings. Semantics.

Weird presumption.

Actually... I figured, when considering the url I use to arrive at these forums, it was fitting.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Allow me an attempt at analogism here, I will repeat your 2nd sentence in the context of another hotly debated topic. Hopefully it clarifies where I lack clarity:

"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."

I suppose 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 (at least in their mind). I must ask, 'Did/does the deity do anything or have any purpose? Nothing, ever?' I understand a belief need not evidence, reason, nor logic...

For that matter, it seems odd to believe that any of our beliefs are a monolith standing unsupported... "All alone, by itself, against the naysayers, a lone pillar of hope in an ocean of doubt! Believing!"

In biological terms it seems that evolution allows us to be a part of the replication of the fittest gene and from there doesn't follow that we need to be able in explain the world in strong rational terms.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes. Words. They have meanings. Semantics.


Actually... I figured, when considering the url I use to arrive at these forums, it was fitting.

And but words are more that just meaning.
Words are meaning, signs and referents used by some lifeforms and computers and not all referents are of the same category.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

In biological terms it seems that evolution allows us to be a part of the replication of the fittest gene and from there doesn't follow that we need to be able in explain the world in strong rational terms.

Tell that to our subconscious. It creates narratives and stories to back up our positions. There have been studies in which the subjects were manipulated into believing a false memory/belief, which they end up defending, using narratives and stories to rationalize their position.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Tell that to our subconscious. It creates narratives and stories to back up our positions. There have been studies in which the subjects were manipulated into believing a false memory/belief, which they end up defending, using narratives and stories to rationalize their position.

Well, it is not all subconscious, because then you wouldn't know that. If that was the case then your example would be nothing but that also.

If everything is a rationalization after the fact, then that also applies to everything is a rationalization after the fact.