Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2019 7:10 AM
19 online now:
AZPaul3, Percy (Admin), ProtoTypical, Tangle (4 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,658 Year: 3,695/19,786 Month: 690/1,087 Week: 59/221 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56789
10
Author Topic:   Best approaches to deal w/ fundamentalism
onifre
Member (Idle past 1031 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 136 of 142 (503167)
03-16-2009 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by alaninnont
03-16-2009 10:45 AM


1. You can't change people's mind by force.

Only an ignorant person would not change their mind when presented with a logical and reasonable positions, littered with objective evidence, against their arguments. Once one encounters such a person, it's best to leave them to their ignorance, I've found.

They have to want to change.

They should be more prone to a proper education than winning an argument, but you're right, people need to accept that they don't know a lot of things and allow themselves to be taught. This would signify a "change", at least in their perspective.

2. People retreat to defensive, well fortified positions when threatened. It then becomes even harder to move them.

Only if one holds to the position that they have infallible information to counter you with. There is no defensive measure they should retreat to when one is simply trying to educate that person.

Their defensive measures are indicative of a weak position, it shows lack of confidence in their argument and usually takes any discussion into a childish debate.

It should be constantly challenged and questioned.

Yes, but by whom? Any crackpot off the street or well educated scientists that have presented an argument to the contrary using the scientific method of gathering evidence to support their hypothesis?

This is the key point to leaving an open door invitation to "challenge" science. It MUST be done properly for it to be affective.

I say bring 'em on. In the past, any theory that is valid has eventually won the day.

Faith cannot be contested against. Your point is moot if one is simply going to "challenge" science with their subjective beliefs.

What would be the point of allowing such an argument to be presented?

Not to mention the lowering of scientific standards that would have to take place for such metaphysical hypothesis to be given an open forum for scientific discussion.

- Oni


"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by alaninnont, posted 03-16-2009 10:45 AM alaninnont has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by alaninnont, posted 03-16-2009 4:47 PM onifre has responded

    
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 3517 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 137 of 142 (503177)
03-16-2009 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by onifre
03-16-2009 3:59 PM


Only an ignorant person would not change their mind when presented with a logical and reasonable positions, littered with objective evidence, against their arguments. Once one encounters such a person, it's best to leave them to their ignorance, I've found.

As wonderful as that world would be, I don't think it is realistic. This study dealt with reasonable individuals and strong evidence and still the opinions became polarized.
p.s. I think the word "ignorant" is a poor word choice. An ignorant person is one lacking training or knowledge. But I understood what you meant.

Only if one holds to the position that they have infallible information to counter you with. There is no defensive measure they should retreat to when one is simply trying to educate that person.

Their defensive measures are indicative of a weak position, it shows lack of confidence in their argument and usually takes any discussion into a childish debate.

Defensive measures and childish name calling is not limited to the creationist side on these forums.

Faith cannot be contested against. Your point is moot if one is simply going to "challenge" science with their subjective beliefs.

What would be the point of allowing such an argument to be presented?

Not to mention the lowering of scientific standards that would have to take place for such metaphysical hypothesis to be given an open forum for scientific discussion.

So why bother? If I remember from a previous exchange, we differ on important points and I have no wish to convince you over to "my side." I'm just looking to bounce ideas around and enjoy the discussion. I reiterate my opinion. If you're here to convince others that you are right and they are wrong, you're wasting your time. It's highly unlikely that it will happen.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by onifre, posted 03-16-2009 3:59 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by onifre, posted 03-16-2009 5:06 PM alaninnont has responded
 Message 139 by Taq, posted 03-16-2009 5:22 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1031 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 138 of 142 (503185)
03-16-2009 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by alaninnont
03-16-2009 4:47 PM


I reiterate my opinion. If you're here to convince others that you are right and they are wrong, you're wasting your time.

I think you are wrong about that...;)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by alaninnont, posted 03-16-2009 4:47 PM alaninnont has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by alaninnont, posted 03-17-2009 8:56 AM onifre has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 139 of 142 (503186)
03-16-2009 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by alaninnont
03-16-2009 4:47 PM


If you're here to convince others that you are right and they are wrong, you're wasting your time. It's highly unlikely that it will happen.

At a certain point you realize that you are not going to convince the most ardent believers. However, you can convince those who are unsure of their position and may not vocally participate (i.e. lurkers) in forums, debates, etc. By confronting fundamentalists on such issues as the creation v. evolution "debate" one can make obvious the disparity in evidence between the two positions. Those who are reasonable in their judgement will easily see that the fundamentalists are not driven by evidence, but by faith. Ultimately, that is the good that comes out of sites like these.

To put it bluntly, humanity wins when willful ignorance is fought with evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by alaninnont, posted 03-16-2009 4:47 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 3517 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 140 of 142 (503283)
03-17-2009 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by onifre
03-16-2009 5:06 PM


I think you are wrong about that...

lol

Their defensive measures are indicative of a weak position, it shows lack of confidence in their argument and usually takes any discussion into a childish debate.

I propose that on these forums, atheists descend into childish debate more often and more quickly than creationists on average. I took a look through some of the topics you have participated in (I hope you don't mind but these are open forums. Big brother is watching.) I'm assuming you are an athesist. Correct me if I'm wrong. I saw very little of what I'd call childish debate from the responses of the creationists. For a wide variety of reasons, I currently think that the existence of creator is more probable than not. If you take a look at my correspondences (mind you, I'm new and so the number of responses may be considered statistically insignificant) and count the childish responses from atheists (assuming again) I hypothesize that creationists demonstrate less childish debate than atheists on this site. I know this isn't scientific, no establishing of definitions, no double blind, etc. but there is a trend.

Edited by alaninnont, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by onifre, posted 03-16-2009 5:06 PM onifre has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Percy, posted 03-17-2009 9:39 AM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18312
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 141 of 142 (503286)
03-17-2009 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by alaninnont
03-17-2009 8:56 AM


alaninont writes:

I propose that on these forums, atheists descend into childish debate more often and more quickly than creationists on average.

It's good to know we have people around who know what's childish and what's not. Just for future reference, is someone who insists that a snake really did talk to Eve (who apparently not only understood everything he said but even followed his instructions to the letter) being childish? Or are they engaging in serious historical commentary? And whichever it is, how do we deal with such people?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by alaninnont, posted 03-17-2009 8:56 AM alaninnont has not yet responded

    
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 929 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 142 of 142 (503429)
03-18-2009 6:12 PM


A novel idea, continuing education..
I am beginning to think that the only solution to this problem is continuing education. So the question may be how do we encourage people to continually feed themselves educationally. The creationists almost overwhelmingly show indications of lack of enterprise in this area. Perhaps they become turned off because it does not coincide with their viewpoints. But there was evidence in the book about right wing authoritarians that most of them haven't even read the bible completely.

How do we create a society that fosters life long education and advancement?
It seems that stagnation of thought provides the pools in which pollution accumulates.

Here is a link that provides some free online educational resources. If anyone knows of others please add them.

As the average intelligence of the community increases maybe it will become increasingly socially unacceptable to remain in a state of ignorance.


    
Prev1
...
56789
10
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019