• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Convincing in a believer vs. nonbeliever debate

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
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.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
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.
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.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
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.
There are plenty of things to try and convince someone of besides that their entire belief system is wrong.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
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.

If someone claims to believe a certain set of scriptures it may be possible to convince them, from those scriptures that their beliefs are wrong. But of course people usually have to be open to their beliefs being wrong or it is lit bashing your head against a brick wall.
With Christianity it is God who draws people to it, to Jesus.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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.
Religious belief is usually faith-based, ie: unevidenced. It's unlikely to have been adopted from a critical analysis of observed or tested facts, and pointing this out will rarely change the mind of a believer. The basics are installed long before a child learns to evaluate or analyze evidence. It's hardwired.

Facts and reason didn't install these beliefs, and facts and reason will rarely change them.

Non-believers may lack belief for many different reasons. Some open to facts, some indifferent to them. On the whole, however, non-believers are less emotionally invested in their disbelief than believers are in their belief. Changing a belief, or adopting new beliefs isn't a matter of ego-identity.
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.
Good luck with proving morality. Beliefs, though, are often fact-based, and open to disproof, or to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

How are you defining belief? Can't a belief be fact or fantasy; evidenced or imagined?
A belief is anything you hold to be true. It doesn't matter why you believe something, it's still belief, true, false or undetermined.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
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.
It is not possible by discussion or debate. You can only change someone by your own action or words.

Speaking badly about someones faith and belief only leads to frustration and bad situations.
 
Last edited:

Heyo

Veteran Member
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.
What is a "belief-claim"? If you believe something I can't convince you that you don't. I can't convince you that what you believe is wrong. I can possibly prove that a set of believes is contradictory.
If a claim is wrong, I can possibly disprove it but I don't have to. The claimant has to prove it is right.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What is a "belief-claim"? If you believe something I can't convince you that you don't. I can't convince you that what you believe is wrong. I can possibly prove that a set of believes is contradictory.
If a claim is wrong, I can possibly disprove it but I don't have to. The claimant has to prove it is right.
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.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
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.
Does s/he have to? They have a right to be wrong. It would be nice if they'd agree that they are illogical but that doesn't mean they have to change.
I'm highly illogical. I smoke.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Does s/he have to? They have a right to be wrong. It would be nice if they'd agree that they are illogical but that doesn't mean they have to change.
I'm highly illogical. I smoke.
Nobody has to do anything. I'm just saying that religious beliefs tend to be faith based and resistant to contrary facts.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
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.
Convincing someone of something in a believer vs. nonbeliever debate generally not possible because a believer sees evidence for God and their religion so an nonbeliever is not going to convince that person they are wrong, whereas a nonbeliever does not see evidence for God or a religion so a believer is not going to convince a nonbeliever that God exists or a religion is true.

That is what I have learned from nine years of posting to atheists on various forums. ;):)
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Nobody has to do anything. I'm just saying that religious beliefs tend to be faith based and resistant to contrary facts.

Yeah, but in general all people can end up having invested emotionally in something and can thus having trouble changing their mind.

So let us play facts, two non-religious people:
One: It is a fact that the universe is natural.
Two: No, it is not a fact.
See, one of them could end up in the same situation as with religious beliefs.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
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.

Just to derail. The problem is that you can't prove proof or disproof. In the end to the best of my ability there are no absolute proof or disproof. We apparently end here:
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
It is not possible by discussion or debate. You can only change someone by your own action or words.
Maybe people will change or maybe not but our own actions and words have a better chance of having an effect on someone that trying to win a debate, which is just ego.

1: O SON OF SPIRIT! My first counsel is this: Possess a pure, kindly and radiant heart, that thine may be a sovereignty ancient, imperishable and everlasting.
The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 3
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Maybe people will change or maybe not but our own actions and words have a better chance of having an effect on someone that trying to win a debate, which is just ego.

1: O SON OF SPIRIT! My first counsel is this: Possess a pure, kindly and radiant heart, that thine may be a sovereignty ancient, imperishable and everlasting.
The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 3
Every time i read a qoute from baha'i teaching or from Baha'u'llah now i become relaxed in my mind...:confused:
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
What is a "belief-claim"? If you believe something I can't convince you that you don't. I can't convince you that what you believe is wrong. I can possibly prove that a set of believes is contradictory.
If a claim is wrong, I can possibly disprove it but I don't have to. The claimant has to prove it is right.

Well, I have been doing this for many years and it has nothing to do with religion as such. Here is a non-religious example:
"All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality."
—Ayn Rand Lexicon
 
Top