Theory: You can never change someones mind by arguing. Logic behind theory: - Arguing creates an attacking and defensive atmosphere which is not compatible with education. - Arguing raises the heart rate and gets the adrenalin pumping which encourages all or nothing, black and white thinking. This encourages participants in an argument to dig their heels in and refuse to budge. - Arguments about religion are particularily fruitless because religious views are seen as something personal and part of the individual. To attack a religious view is to attack an individual. - Unlike issues raised in a normal relationship, you cannot avoid personal attacks for the above reason. In a normal relationship an issue can be discussed with an air of respect by focusing on the situation rather than the individual. For example: "I asked you to take out the bin before. Are you able to empty it now because I really have to get dinner started and I need room for scraps" VS "I asked you to take out the bin before. Why are you so lazy? Can't you just empty it?" - Religious disagreements are inherently personally offensive because once personally identified with a religious viewpoint any insinuation that that religious view point is wrong brings with it the implication that they are wrong, and they are personally stupid or at fault. - Personal attacks bring forth the strongest of all defensive reactions. - Any truth behind a personal attack is irrelevent, if someone calls you stupid you will not sit down and talk about the validity of the point based on your recent IQ scores, rather you will ardently defend yourself. For these reasons trying to argue someone toward or away from religion is fruitless. Reason for post? I'm very very bored at work right now. I hope both sides of the argument can appreciate this post as I'm not favouring either side, it's just a post about the nature of the argument. This all does pose a good question though. Why do you post on here if you know your not going to be able to change anyone's mind? Is it: (A) You are just bored like me. (B) You think you will actually be able to convert someone (C) Other: please explain... Thanks everyone, I really am very bored right now, I hope this sparks some sort of interesting discussion Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Personally, I think each side of the argument needs to progressively evolve toward a better counter to the other. Developing a better argument necessitates a better understanding of the opposing argument, as a truly effective argument is one where the opposing viewpoint is completely accounted for. For the most part, both parties continue to use the same tired arguments posed over a century ago. With the advent of communication advances, these can more readily be refined through competition. There may be some chance for mutual understanding and respect, regardless of agreement.
I have been defensive in many discussions, but have learned something after later reflection. Not all disagreements erupt into explosions of adrenaline. In fact if debate is something that you find yourself engaged in often, it's likely that you've learned to keep your calm, and if you haven't, it's merely a personality trait rather than an unavoidable feature of dispute. I generally find religious and/or philosophical debates to be rewarding, assuming that the other party(ies) is/are capable of remaining rational. I am often forced to examine my own position more closely, and there's all sorts of peripheral learning that can take place (perusing articles, viewing lectures, familiarizing oneself with formal arguments etc). In fact sometimes they are responsible for spawning those awesome hours long wikipedia surfing adventures. I think you'll find that there are many religious people who are happy to get stuck into mounting a good theological defense of their position in the face of criticism, whether it be for intellectual reasons or simply because they feel that it's their duty to do so. Why else do you think so many of them choose to stick around here? Sure, in those cases where people are sensitive to them. Personally, being that I'm something of an internet veteran (been along for the ride since around '93) personal insults are kinda just, you know, meh. And when they're not merely boring, they are simply amusing. Leather skin, so to speak. It's been observed that many people around here have developed it. Even if no-one's mind is ever changed on any issue (which I certainly don't think is true), discussion and/or debate can still benefit both parties in terms of the clarity it can bring, the direct and peripheral learning that can take place, and even just the sharpening effect it can have on one's debating skills themselves. Note: I'm not strictly disagreeing with your assessment, because there is indeed truth to it. My intention is simply to point out that things are not always that way.
Valid points, but I think although for the minority arguments may bring some sort of education although maybe not opinion change, there are actually better alternatives for learning than through arguments.
1. One's own mind changes through discussion; one gets a better, more detailed grasp of one's own position; one advances or changes one's position. 2. One gets to know other people. 3. One has a discussion with someone in the hopes that a particular third party would read it and favorably notice one. 4. Just like some people find baseball or hunting or crocheting pleasurable, so some people find philosophical(lly tending) discussion pleasurable. 5. Over time, a special chemistry (positive or negative) develops between certain posters, and that is a challnge some like to engage in.
Plenty of debates, arguments, and conversations at Sciforums have made me rethink and change my position. Including debates I have only followed along with. I know lurkers are generally frowned upon in the internet forum community, but there is plenty to be learned by reading along with some of the more knowledgeable posters. And I'm also driven to do more research. For example, just this morning I had a false assumption of mine called out and amended regarding the Resurrection in the Gospel of Mark. It's tough to swallow that pill, but it teaches you to be more prepared and better-read coming in. And you'd be surprised at how quickly pretenses are abandoned when one of the participants admits to making a mistake.
In my observation, people debate from their own platform of experience and indoctrination. The only way for a person to change their mind is to restructure what they currently hold dear. I am interested in what everyone has to offer and reserve the right to take from it what works for me. There is nothing to be gained by debating what others 'believe', IMO, though I find it helpful to understand how and why they have arrived at their present conclusions. Change is the only constant I have observed and I have little to offer in the way of 'beliefs' for I find little to 'believe' in. I respectfully endeavor to walk my own path and permit others the same courtesy.
So what you do seem to believe in then (perhaps even cherish), is the freedom to carve out a practical existence and philosophical outlook that is both meaningful to you, and doesn't impinge on the freedom of others to do the same. As far as beliefs go, I would submit that that is a pretty damned good one.
And I would submit that such a practical existence and philosophical outlook that "is both meaningful to you, and doesn't impinge on the freedom of others to do the same" leaves very few options. At first glance, Sche's idea seems noble; but once we examine it realistically, it turns out that it is only in a rigid, uniform monoculture that such is possible. In all other situations, freedom of thought implies conflict, mental and physical.
To be perfectly honest, I'm not really inclined to participate in a discussion that involves a criticism of a philosophy that promotes individual and collective freedom. Not tonight anyway. Perhaps some other time.
Changing people's minds is a waste of time; better to crush them!!! (and their puny arguements) . . . Haaaaaaaaaa!
things click sometimes. rarely, but sometimes. it's also kinda fun and ego replenishing, to come here and show some new people their rightful places.
We, all of us, are here to give and take abused, learn, teach and preach. You will recognize that we are all here to do the five things at issue. Nothing else. You will agree that we are all here to improve on what we knew in the past as compared to now. We all wish to continue this process. Like it or not, learning and teaching happen at the same time. Preaching is the ego bonus we all give ourselves as the benefit to the activity and participation here. Otherwise, we would not be here. The best way to learn is to teach. We are all here to learn how to preach more effectively. Why? I think that it is fundamentally because, ------ we are all as fundamentally tied to how we think------ as any fundamental literalist Christian or Muslim fanatic -------, or in fact, any person anywhere of any faith or non-faith as with atheists etc, -----all humans, ----- including yourself, ------- are fundamentally locked into how you and others think at any given point in time. Things can be no other way. If you can accept this concept, you will admit it includes you. Proof is that, ------be it at the theological level or at the philosophical level, ------ the only two levels that you think in, ------- all of us need something really spectacular to change our minds. For this, we all accept the give and take of abuse that posting brings. Who of you will say that you are here to change your mind about anything major in your thinking pattern? My money is on almost none of us. That is why you will rarely see a statements that show a reversal in thinking on anything fundamental. This is also why you see so much petty back biting and people answering posts with comments that are a waste of everyone’s time. We also all give abuse to those we disagree with. Be that that was done in a more eloquent way. That would be a blessing. As we preach to each other, let us make it worth the reading. If you are here as I suggest, to do only four of the things at issue, ------- broadly speaking -------then good. If some other, please tell. Regards DL
I think there is a big distinction between discussions and arguments. One that isn't clear in some of the replies here. But in any case I see where you are all coming from, and if you do have the ability to change your mind and side with the one putting you down at the same time, then that's an ability that is rare and shows the pinacle of openmindedness. Personally I think people wanting to know more about religion should just go take a course in it at college. Or if they want to know why people believe in religion, take a course in psychology. I've found that learning, which you aren't in complete control of, usually forces you to study things that are hard to take sometimes. Many times our biases come through in what we research independently. Christians read christian books and articles to support their opinions in arguments and atheist read athiest books and artciles to support their own. No cross over. No fuel for opinion change. Of course there are exceptions, they are the lucky few Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No argument on this. I have observed via statistics that more atheist know more about religions and their texts and theologies than Christians know of their own theologies. Regards DL
I think that that would fall under learning would it not? If one is defensive then I would think it is because they have not learned enough of the issue to make their position more assertive and less defensive. Regards DL
