18
18
0
There you are having a polite conversation about important issues when a "true believer" interrupts with ideological dogma. You attempt to respond politely but they insist on shouting. More often than not, they are not responding to anything anybody has commented. More often than not, anything you say offends them. You can invite them to start a conversation of their own, but it's too important to them to ruin yours. What to do? What to do?
Politics
Religion
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 32
11
11
0
"What would it take to make you change your stance on this?"
Have them provide the evidence they require, then provide the evidence. If they say they are unwilling to change their stance regardless of ANY evidence, it's an impasse and a waste of both people's time. Disengage on topic.
I'm an %$#% but if confronted with actual evidence, I'll change my stance. I've modified my opinions regarding various topic based on new data. It may be a nuanced difference, but it's a change of stance. Someone who is unwilling to cede ground is not worth having an intellectual conversation with. They might be worth learning from however.
Have them provide the evidence they require, then provide the evidence. If they say they are unwilling to change their stance regardless of ANY evidence, it's an impasse and a waste of both people's time. Disengage on topic.
I'm an %$#% but if confronted with actual evidence, I'll change my stance. I've modified my opinions regarding various topic based on new data. It may be a nuanced difference, but it's a change of stance. Someone who is unwilling to cede ground is not worth having an intellectual conversation with. They might be worth learning from however.
(11)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
1stLt Nick S - I don't think I actually watched the debate, however I know I caught various highlights of it at points. I don't believe believe I took Mr. Nye's words (at least intentionally), however "On the shoulders of Giants" as I am prone to quote.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
1stLt Nick S I didn't think you were. I actually took it as a compliment, however I always like to cite a source if I am aware of it, even if accidentally.
Now I have to go watch that debate....
Now I have to go watch that debate....
(1)
(0)
7
7
0
True believers cannot be content with the facts, they have to continue trying to convince the world of their twisted logic.
(7)
(0)
6
6
0
Depends. Are you talking about religious True Believers or atheist True Believers? What takes a less logical mind to believe? That the universe was created by an all powerful cloud giant or that the universe is a vast improbable chaos which emerged from nothing...instantaneously? While I don't espouse either, at least the first provides a causality. Despite the scientific requirement for causality, science cannot provide it; nor does it postulate an alternative. Frankly both sides can be annoying if they are staunch in their beliefs.
(6)
(0)
MCPO (Join to see)
COL (Join to see) - So, do you "believe" there is no Santa, or do you know. How much effort do you put in to your conclusion? That was the core of my comment.
Do you "believe" in gravity, or do you know it exists and works? How much effort do you put in this conclusion?
How about unicorns? Air? Fairies? Blue whales? Facts do not rely on faith - they are true whether you accept them or not. Faith requires effort - take a concept and actively support it in the face of evidence supporting it or lack of evidence supporting it - or even evidence proving that the concept is impossible.
Atheists put forth zero effort in not believing in a deity. How is that considered putting forth effort?
Claiming a lack of belief is a belief in and of itself is a contradiction. You might also want to research "personal attacks" before you throw out the victim card. Statements of contrarian viewpoints are not personal attacks.
Do you "believe" in gravity, or do you know it exists and works? How much effort do you put in this conclusion?
How about unicorns? Air? Fairies? Blue whales? Facts do not rely on faith - they are true whether you accept them or not. Faith requires effort - take a concept and actively support it in the face of evidence supporting it or lack of evidence supporting it - or even evidence proving that the concept is impossible.
Atheists put forth zero effort in not believing in a deity. How is that considered putting forth effort?
Claiming a lack of belief is a belief in and of itself is a contradiction. You might also want to research "personal attacks" before you throw out the victim card. Statements of contrarian viewpoints are not personal attacks.
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
MCPO (Join to see), I used the first line, "it's a shame you don't understand what an atheist actually is." One could have said, "I question your interpretation and use of the term atheist and disagree with your use of the word. I believe a definition is necessary and the identification of what an atheist is in order to dispel inconsistencies." Your choice of words made my knowledge of a subject a "shame." I assume we both understand what the word shame means. If not, we can pursue the definition of that term. Using the word shame in the same sentence on the questioning of someone's knowledge of a subject equates to an attack on my person versus an intellectual claim or question about a term. I'm no victim and I don't throw any cards. Your use of the language is clear...perhaps definitions will help both of us. (see what I did there?) Now...onto the issue at hand because I like your line of questioning. I believe there is no Santa. I put little effort into the belief (not a conclusion as there is no argument made). I believe that it is possible that unicorns exists, but I have no proof of their existence. Air exists. Fairies I assume are the people that run fairs. They exist. We may need to work on a definition of terms there though. I may be confused. Blue whales. I don't know how color got into this argument, but I'm offended. I believe in all colors of whales. Equally. Faith does require effort. It must take an extraordinary amount of faith to believe that one has the truth to an existential question that so many others have missed in the past. Or...it must take a monumental amount of effort to believe in something without proof. Either way, it takes a lot of mental effort...IF...you actually take the time to think about it. One thing I will give to the side of atheists is that most of them have probably done some heavy thinking on the subject before coming to their belief. I think there are quite a few theists who have spent very little time contemplating the big questions and whether there are consistencies with what we can understand.
(0)
(0)
MCPO (Join to see)
No, LTC, it is truly a shame. To call atheists "believers" when they lack faith, is just like saying you have over 4000 faiths because that's how many religions are on the planet at this time. Wait... you CLAIM you only have one and you don't believe in the others, therefore I'm wrong? Well, I am using the exact same definition as you are using. Think on that for a few.
I will agree with you on your last point, though. I've found that atheists (and, to a lesser extend, agnostics) have studied religion much more extensively than those that claim a franchise of religion... and there are a HUGE majority of believers that have never studied their faith, their chosen rule of sacred law, or their religion's rules. They just follow along because that's what their parents did...
I will agree with you on your last point, though. I've found that atheists (and, to a lesser extend, agnostics) have studied religion much more extensively than those that claim a franchise of religion... and there are a HUGE majority of believers that have never studied their faith, their chosen rule of sacred law, or their religion's rules. They just follow along because that's what their parents did...
(0)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
MCPO (Join to see), I as well as people who actually "claim" to be philosophers on the subject refer to Atheism as a belief. They believe, without a doubt that there is no "capital G," God. The argument is spurious in a way though as you have already pointed out...how can you disprove a negative? As a side, I haven't professed faith. F.E. Peters, Peter Kraft, and Peter Armstrong (all published and recognized experts with PhD's in the field of comparative religion) all refer to Atheism as a belief system. One of them believes Atheism is more concrete a belief system than religion because of it being rooted in "...reality, or measurable cause and effect." It's a shame those people who have spent so much time studying in the field we are discussing don't understand the argument.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google