Discussions with Theists

[NobleSavage]

I use the word discussion, because debate gets boring. Anyhow, I found a great way to start these discussions. I simply ask: "Can you envision anything that will change your mind on this topic?" If no, "This is not a discussion. I will not talk to you about this subject." Surprisingly, I've gotten "no" several times. It's a great time and emotional energy saver.

I can't take credit, I found it here:

 

[dx713]

I don't like the phrasing of the first question.
Even on subjects where I'm willing to learn and evolve, my asnwer would be "no". Otherwise, I would already be researching that thing I envision and changing my mind accordingly, or discounting it as a false lead and thus not envisionning it anymore.
But that doesn't mean there doesn't exist an argument I didn't even envision that you could use to make me think.

 

[Underseer]

While I can understand the appeal, your problem is that you are talking about facts. That is simply not very productive when the other person has a flawed method of deciding what is true and what is false.

What you should talk about is not what is true, but why things are true:



Talking to them about evolution is pointless because you are talking about facts and they simply do not believe that evidence is a valid way of knowing the truth. As far as they are concerned, not having evidence is always a superior path to the truth (this is the definition of faith in both the dictionary and the Bible). Any discussion about facts are going to be pointless because you do not agree that facts are valuable, nor even a valid path to the truth.

So instead talk about their faith. They love talking about faith. Explain to them (as gently as possible) that faith is a bad path to the truth, and avoid using facts in your discussion as much as possible. Facts simply aren't important to them, and presenting facts could even drive them into a defensive position in which they are even less likely to consider the possibility that they might be wrong.

 

[NobleSavage]

Ok, I'll revaluate. I'll watach that clip once I get a chance Underseer.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I don't like the phrasing of the first question.

Maybe it should be something like: Are you willing to entertain the notion that your mind could be changed given adequate reasoning and/or evidence?

 

[Mageth]

Or just "Can you imagine that anything could change your mind on this topic?"

 

[untermensche]

Can you envision anything that will change your mind on this topic?

This is just a statement about a limit to the human imagination.

A better question would be; If I made a logical argument against your position would you accept it?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Talking to them about evolution is pointless because you are talking about facts and they simply do not believe that evidence is a valid way of knowing the truth. As far as they are concerned, not having evidence is always a superior path to the truth (this is the definition of faith in both the dictionary and the Bible). Any discussion about facts are going to be pointless because you do not agree that facts are valuable, nor even a valid path to the truth.

So instead talk about their faith. They love talking about faith. Explain to them (as gently as possible) that faith is a bad path to the truth, and avoid using facts in your discussion as much as possible. Facts simply aren't important to them, and presenting facts could even drive them into a defensive position in which they are even less likely to consider the possibility that they might be wrong.

This is pretty much it.

For two people to have a meaningful exchange both persons have to state that they could be wrong. That's the ante, giving away a little ego in exchange for trust, maybe get somewhere together. Maybe even figure out where you're trying to get. Without that it's probably just a competition, an argument. If both parties won't state this unconditionally don't expect too much for your efforts.

 

[NobleSavage]

So instead talk about their faith. They love talking about faith. Explain to them (as gently as possible) that faith is a bad path to the truth, and avoid using facts in your discussion as much as possible. Facts simply aren't important to them, and presenting facts could even drive them into a defensive position in which they are even less likely to consider the possibility that they might be wrong.

From my experience if they stubborn about "facts" they are gong to be just as stubborn about their "faith experience". I've asked them to compare their experience with those that convert to Islam (http://www.islamtomorrow.com/converts/women.htm) Or to watch the Dan Barker videos, but it does absolutely no good.

I like the question, "Can you imagine that anything could change your mind on this topic?" because it saves my time.

 

[Brian63]

For some people, their views on religion are HUGELY influential on the rest of their worldview, including their views on ethics, history, science, politics, family functioning, and so much more. So it should not be expected of anybody that if you change their religious views even minorly (and especially majorly like going from theist to atheist), it will happen immediately. Rather, they would have to basically reorient their entire life philosophy, attitudes, emotions, viewpoints, etc., and that (not always, but often) takes a major amount of time and effort. I do not think we should fault them for not overhauling their entire worldview in such a quick span. Rather, we should be patient and understanding, and try to help them if we can, not taunt or tease them.

Thinking of my own personal history of changing views on different subjects (some big changes, some small ones), I was, and still am, more likely to change them on-the-spot when it would not impact much of the rest of my worldview. If it would have significant ripple effects though, then I would want to research it all a bit more first. That is not only more understandable when other people have a similar perspective, but also seems more reasonable. I would not want to live in a world where people regularly overhauled their entire life philosophy if they came across some minor apparent flaw in it. Sometimes I have found what seemed to be flaws in my beliefs through someone else criticizing them, later investigated the criticism a bit more, and then discovered some flaw in the criticism that I had not originally seen. Sometimes then my own beliefs turned out to be right, sometimes they turned out to be wrong still for some other reason that became apparent. But if I was going to tell someone that I was willing to drop my atheism views and convert to theism on-the-spot if they had some apologetic that I could not immediately find fault in, that would be an unwise position to take. We should not fault theists for not taking that sort of position either in the reverse direction.

Brian

 

[NobleSavage]

For some people, their views on religion are HUGELY influential on the rest of their worldview, including their views on ethics, history, science, politics, family functioning, and so much more. So it should not be expected of anybody that if you change their religious views even minorly (and especially majorly like going from theist to atheist), it will happen immediately. Rather, they would have to basically reorient their entire life philosophy, attitudes, emotions, viewpoints, etc., and that (not always, but often) takes a major amount of time and effort. I do not think we should fault them for not overhauling their entire worldview in such a quick span. Rather, we should be patient and understanding, and try to help them if we can, not taunt or tease them.

Thinking of my own personal history of changing views on different subjects (some big changes, some small ones), I was, and still am, more likely to change them on-the-spot when it would not impact much of the rest of my worldview. If it would have significant ripple effects though, then I would want to research it all a bit more first. That is not only more understandable when other people have a similar perspective, but also seems more reasonable. I would not want to live in a world where people regularly overhauled their entire life philosophy if they came across some minor apparent flaw in it. Sometimes I have found what seemed to be flaws in my beliefs through someone else criticizing them, later investigated the criticism a bit more, and then discovered some flaw in the criticism that I had not originally seen. Sometimes then my own beliefs turned out to be right, sometimes they turned out to be wrong still for some other reason that became apparent. But if I was going to tell someone that I was willing to drop my atheism views and convert to theism on-the-spot if they had some apologetic that I could not immediately find fault in, that would be an unwise position to take. We should not fault theists for not taking that sort of position either in the reverse direction.

Brian

All good points.