How do you stop arguing with fundamentalists? Should you?

[George-ananda]

I've had lots of debates with non-materialists including @George-ananda but I think we (or hope we) have a mutual understanding that when we debate we're merely sharing why an argument does or doesn't convince us. Our objective is not to change the other person's mind nor to 'win.'

Actually, I do debate to change people's minds because I think my worldview is both objectively and subjectively better than a materialist worldview. I think there is so much information out there that most are not aware of as we are living in an age where science is supposed to do away with 'irrational' and 'superstitious' thinking. And I actually feel I can enrich people's lives with this information. However, I try to maintain a 'professional' tone and back off when things become unprofessional. However in the heat, I might last one post too many.

I am open-minded to what my opponent has to say too and if I considered what they said and I disagree I will explain why. If I agree with them I will incorporate that into my position.

 

[Quintessence]

What's wrong with wanting to be right?

In of itself? Nothing. Never said there was. However, when the need to be right is causing problems in one's life or in that of others, that begs for a reassessment of values and priorities, doesn't it? The OP was asking how to let it go, and they're experiencing emotional negativity due to run-ins with people who will not listen to them. Seems to me a simple approach is to adjust one's own expectations, such as the need to be right, to win an argument, or whatever.

What's wrong with wanting to combat ignorance?

I didn't see this thread as being about that, particularly given the topic of contention. Differences of opinion on metaphysical issues are poorly characterized by a term like "ignorance."

If some-one doesn't care what others think, why would they join this board?

Let me clarify the intended meaning there. It may have been better to say "why do you feel a need to control or influence what others think?" or "why do you have difficulty accepting that others are different from you?" or even "why do you want to convert people to your way of thinking? because that's what this really seems to be about to me. It's one thing to listen to the thoughts of others and accept the stories they tell - it is entirely something else to want to control the story they tell and replace it with yours. Why is that the approach here, instead of live and let live? Why is this particular issue so important? What ramifications does it have?

Near as I can tell, one's metaphysical philosophies regarding the underlying substance(s) of reality don't have much to do with people's day-to-day behaviors. So I'm a bit perplexed why one would plant a flag on this particular hill. I mean, I'm the sort of person who thinks about that kind of stuff more than many people, and I can't say it has much impact on my day-to-day interactions with other persons. So why upset oneself about others having a different opinion on the issue? I'm having trouble understanding that.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I remember being a kid first stumbling upon yahoo answers, and slap fighting with the creationists and all that. I used to let myself get stressed over it, frustrated that people just don't listen, etc. Then I just kind of gave up, not even sure what happened. Now I find myself in the same position with atheism and materialism. Sometimes no matter how much logic and evidence you shove in someone's face they still simply won't listen. Again I find myself angry and frustrated, and I want to know how to just let it go.

But then, is letting it go right? Sure you can't change the mind of a fundamentalist denying reason and evidence, but does that mean you just accept it? What about onlookers? What about a simple responsibility to challenge fundamentalism?

Any tips or thoughts?

Carlita's words of wisdom: LRRA (Listen, Respect, Respond, Accept)

If you can follow the LRRA rules, you're good. I do that daily here. Listen "Yes, I know if I go to confession, god will forgive me so I can go to mass again", Respect, "that makes sense. I understand. I haven't heard that before. Tell me more (...) Respond: "thank you. I haven't gone to mass in a while. I will have to think about it." Accept "Thank you for the (20th rosary) um rosary and cheat sheet. I will take your advice in mind." You just did a cycle of LRRA without having to say they should have evidence for anything.

I don't have evidence my mother loves me. Love in some cultures means duties to one's elders. In America, nowadays, that's going away. So seeing our parents love us etc is probably near to none. I can show you what my mother did. I can tell you stories.

They mean nothing without a mother's spirit. You can't prove that. It's a motherly instinct. Anyone can take a child to the doctors. Anyone can say I love you. Not everyone has two biological mothers.

So, basically LRRA also involves not seeing a need to give evidence etc to their beliefs. It comes in with the Respect and Accept. Hopefully, their religion has a version of LRRA. If not, that's on them. Not quite a world we'd like to live in, but like anything else, listening, respecting, responding (appropriately), and accepting what is said in most situations will lead to better communication even if both parties still disagree.

 

[Quintessence]

Carlita's words of wisdom: LRRA (Listen, Respect, Respond, Accept)

Good communication skills are so huge. Can't be overstated. If you start off by arguing with someone, most people's reaction is going to be to get defensive. By that point, you are already fighting a loosing battle... and something that should not be a fight or a battle to begin with. People want to be listened to, understood, and accepted.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's right, deflect. Make sure nobody, especially yourself, realizes you have no argument. I'll be here if you ever come up with anything.

If it makes you feel better, I can just accept that you're wrong as an axiom.

 

[Neo Deist]

The solution is simple, and it is something that I recently came to the realization over. Just state your points backed by whatever evidence, and then walk away. The fundamentalists can reject your claims all they want to (and often will), but the flip side is that you might influence someone else who just chooses not to respond. You planted the seed and they are now exploring that avenue. If they truly want to know more about whatever it is that you are saying, they can ask you.

 

[Akivah]

Let me clarify the intended meaning there. It may have been better to say "why do you feel a need to control or influence what others think?" or "why do you have difficulty accepting that others are different from you?" or even "why do you want to convert people to your way of thinking? because that's what this really seems to be about to me. It's one thing to listen to the thoughts of others and accept the stories they tell - it is entirely something else to want to control the story they tell and replace it with yours. Why is that the approach here, instead of live and let live? Why is this particular issue so important? What ramifications does it have?

Near as I can tell, one's metaphysical philosophies regarding the underlying substance(s) of reality don't have much to do with people's day-to-day behaviors. So I'm a bit perplexed why one would plant a flag on this particular hill. I mean, I'm the sort of person who thinks about that kind of stuff more than many people, and I can't say it has much impact on my day-to-day interactions with other persons. So why upset oneself about others having a different opinion on the issue? I'm having trouble understanding that.

I understand it. When I first started public posting on the internet (many years ago), I remember that I got so angry about people's opinions about my beliefs. My most obvious and logical posts were ignored by them. They seemed completely immune to reason and no matter what I wrote, clung to their irrational beliefs. Just like 1137, I too felt my blood boiling. Finally I was told that I was acting badly and driving people away. They let me know that someone else's opinions have no effect on my life. It took a little while, but I finally understood the sense of it. It was a matter of personal growth for me to accept and let roll-off-my-back opinions that I found repugnant.

I also learned to avoid insulting people. Once people read an insult directed to themselves, they tend to ignore anything else you write. Or else just respond with one to you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have asked why it's absurd several times, including this thread, but you can't even begin to show why so...

If you're claiming that your "axioms" are unquestioned, this is refuted by the mere fact that I've questioned them.

If you're saying that they ought not to be questioned, then it's up to you to justify this. So far, it seems like the only reason you have is that these claims would be difficult to establish properly... so you just take it on faith that the answer you want to be true is true, just like the fundamentalists you complain about.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Actually, I do debate to change people's minds because I think my worldview is both objectively and subjectively better than a materialist worldview. I think there is so much information out there that most are not aware of as we are living in an age where science is supposed to do away with 'irrational' and 'superstitious' thinking. And I actually feel I can enrich people's lives with this information. However, I try to maintain a 'professional' tone and back off when things become unprofessional. However in the heat, I might last one post too many.

I am open-minded to what my opponent has to say too and if I considered what they said and I disagree I will explain why. If I agree with them I will incorporate that into my position.

Haha well I think we all feel our views are objectively and subjectively superior. But I don't think I can convince you of it. So I don't aim to try and change your mind, just to present my view. And if you are convinced of it, great! If not, then maybe you'll understand your own belief from a new angle or at the very least have a better understanding of what my belief actually entails. To me debate without trying to change minds is still a win, because we can all learn even if we don't agree.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Apologies for that! You popped into the middle of a very heated thread there, and I certainly was dismissive.

I agree that I need to change my view to simply "why X does or does not convince me."

Hey we've all been there, self included.

 

[1137]

If it makes you feel better, I can just accept that you're wrong as an axiom.

Ok, now can you provide the reasoning and evidence for your axiom like I have with mine?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok, now can you provide the reasoning and evidence for your axiom like I have with mine?

You've done no such thing.

 

[1137]

You've done no such thing.

Um, yes I have? Self existence is self evident, necessary, has no simpler premises, and cannot be argued against for it would have to be assumed true to argue at all. These are the characteristics of axioms, and apply to self existence. If you could deny this it would be insanely easy if incorrect: simply show that self existence does not fit these characteristic. I discussed this in depth in my newest thread.

 

[George-ananda]

Haha well I think we all feel our views are objectively and subjectively superior.

Do you think that annihilation of consciousness at death is subjectively better than continuation of consciousness that includes experiencing further love and learning on a higher plane? I can understand that we should believe what we objectively believe to be true.

If I thought I was debating for a position that was less subjectively appealing in the end to my opponent, I might decide to just let people have their subjectively nice beliefs if it wasn't hurting anything.

 

[1137]

If you're claiming that your "axioms" are unquestioned, this is refuted by the mere fact that I've questioned them.

If you're saying that they ought not to be questioned, then it's up to you to justify this. So far, it seems like the only reason you have is that these claims would be difficult to establish properly... so you just take it on faith that the answer you want to be true is true, just like the fundamentalists you complain about.

Haha, whatever you need to tell yourself I guess? It's not that axioms aren't questioned, anyone can say "A can totally be non A", but it can't actually be shown false. Just when you question "the self exists", you must exist to ask the question in the first place. I think it's probably a new low for a materialist to rely on the idea that axioms are "faith... what you want to believe as true". Hell materialism and science rely on such axioms, so are those just faith as well? If something is not an axiom then it's easy to show that, so why have you not even tried? Instead of this childish crap, why no show how self existence is no self evident, necessary, relies on premises, or can be argued against without it still being required to be true.

Your other ridiculous examples of axioms show you clearly don't understand the concept, so hopefully that simplifies it enough.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Do you think that annihilation of consciousness at death is subjectively better than continuation of consciousness that includes experiencing further love and learning on a higher plane? I can understand that we should believe what we objectively believe to be true.

If I thought I was debating for a position that was less subjectively appealing in the end to my opponent, I might decide to just let people have their subjectively nice beliefs if it wasn't hurting anything.

That all depends on if you value truth or happiness more. The subjective better to me is not putting false hope in something, to the detriment of appreciating the now. I'd rather know the universe as it is, rather than what I'd rather it to be.

All the same though, I understand you don't believe that materialism/physicalism is preferable or truthful. But I do, and I am more inclined towards the Carl Sagan approach:

“Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astounding universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy."

 

[George-ananda]

That all depends on if you value truth or happiness more.

I want truth first but others might be different.

The subjective better to me is not putting false hope in something, to the detriment of appreciating the now. I'd rather know the universe as it is, rather than what I'd rather it to be.

Our difference is I don't see the hope as 'false' but as the most reasonable analysis of the evidence. Here's an example of why I feel that way; Afterlife Evidence.

All the same though, I understand you don't believe that materialism/physicalism is preferable or truthful. But I do, and I am more inclined towards the Carl Sagan approach:

Funny you should mention Carl Sagan at this time as I have just been reading a book and a website called 'Channeling Erick'. I highly respect the Erick's mother that does the site and if anyone reads the background to her story you might also. Erick is a young man that committed suicide at age 20 and reached out after to his family with physical evidence. But anyway, Erick brought Carl Sagan through for a medium and I and many respect this source for multiple reasons.

Here is Part 1 (of three parts) Carl Sagan

I can explain who the characters are in this dialogue if anyone cares. On RF I don't expect it will garner much interest

 

[bubbleguppy]

Arguments never get anything done. Discussions and actual consideration as well as thoughtful discussion where all who are involved refuse to actively insult the other participants is how to get anyone to listen to anything. You have to remember that most everyone is as convinced that their way of viewing the world is as undeniably correct as you do your position.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I want truth first but others might be different.
Our difference is I don't see the hope as 'false' but as the most reasonable analysis of the evidence. Here's an example of why I feel that way; Afterlife Evidence.

Funny you should mention Carl Sagan at this time as I have just been reading a book and a website called 'Channeling Erick'. I highly respect the Erick's mother that does the site and if anyone reads the background to her story you might also. Erick is a young man that committed suicide at age 20 and reached out after to his family with physical evidence. But anyway, Erick brought Carl Sagan through for a medium and I and many respect this source for multiple reasons.

Here is Part 1 (of three parts) Carl Sagan

I can explain who the characters are in this dialogue if anyone cares. On RF I don't expect it will garner much interest

You know, I don't often see blogs that I believe outright made up their content but I honestly believe that Carl Sagan story is 100% fake. Not only is the language of the quotations not anything like his cadence, but his stated claims are different from his own writing (he wasn't a self-proclaimed atheist, he was always a hard agnostic.)

This is my problem with a lot of medium stories and healing and NDE stories: They all rely on testimonial evidence which is tenuous and often (even many believers agree) easily faked.

 

[LuisDantas]

It seems to me that arguments are only of some constructive use when people are willing to listen - which is no small restriction, truth be told.

When one's interlocutor lacks emotional structure to deal with an idea, arguing will more than likely simply trigger the defense mechanisms and make him oblivious to the argument, consciously or otherwise.

On the other hand, silence and avoidance usually reinforce those attitudes to some extent as well. People seek behavior patterns that they feel confortable with, and lack of significant challenge often breeds confort.

Even language can be a significant challenge. There are very mismatched, even irreconcilliable ideas out there about what otherwise simple and basic words are supposed to mean.

I think a measure of unpredictability and sincere attempts at cultivating a common language while at the same time perceiving manipulation attempts, exposing them upfront and nipping them in the bud by refusing to lend them more meaning or respect than they have earned is the best approach.

People must be given clear reasons to question their current strategies. Sometimes a straight statement along the lines of "that is not a stance I find worth of any respect nor consideration, and therefore I will not waste any time considering it" is both more clarifying and ultimately less damaging than the realistic alternatives, including avoidance and silence. At the very least, it minimizes misunderstandings and discourages many forms of manipulation, both conscious and unconscious.

There is an art to that. Both extremes (avoidance and direct confrontation) can be very destructive when used without a good understanding of the situation.

Humor can be a good alternative, although it too has its dangers and quagmires. When used with skill, a measure of humor can signal the specific emotional resonance of various subject matters, furthering the mutual understanding. When it approaches satire and ridicule, it can also be more convincing at giving people motivation to reconsider their stances than most other postures, including logical reasoning (which is far harder to meet or to produce than most people seem to realize).