@wundayatta
I agree with you, but I think that there are two problems: (1) I believe (recognizing the irony) that there are very few core beliefs that people are unwilling to have challenged; and (2) there’s a problem with challenging beliefs – it’s probably a better approach to discuss them and get down to their core, and perhaps then work up from that point, showing that what was previously defined as a belief was really a hypothesis, based on certain assumptions or evidence showing that they hypothesis was based on a belief.
A simple example is someone saying that they believe homosexuality is wrong and therefore vehemently protest against it. Why? Because god says so. Why? Because it’s in the bible. What is the bible? It’s the written word of god. And what is the basic message of the word of god? Jesus (assuming Christianity) is our savior, and that we get to the kingdom of heaven by him. And how do we do that? By loving each other, god, and doing good and not evil. So you believe that in order to be a good person, you should actively do no harm? As much as possible, yes.
Now, we get to the point that seems to really be the belief…harm is bad. The hypothesis is that being a homosexual is doing harm. If the goal is to convert the homosexual, then we can potentially discuss how the tactics used will defeat that, create shame, which leads to suicides, etc., among gay youths. That the message encourages gay-bashing and more. You’re using the core belief to challenge the tactics resulting from the hypothesis…without necessarily touching on the intermittent beliefs regarding the word of god, etc.
It’s more a mediation approach to beliefs…and overly simplified, as mentioned. I think that people are willing to have their beliefs challenged more easily in that they are willing to see that how they act on those beliefs can run contrary to the most important base belief they may hold.