• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Would "facts" change your mind?

Shakazuluuuuu

Deist I guess what that is
I am very vocal - in real life too - anyway, the "sexed up atheism" thing was a reference to Richard Dawkins' definition of pantheism - but in any case, as far as the origins of human life is concerned its all about sex - isn't it?

No. Pro creationism is about life and the illusion given to the future. "Shall we, or not?"
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Statistically its 50/50. However, the evidence of your previous 27 “heads” would suggest that another factor than ‘chance’ is at play. i.e. a trick coin, your technique in flipping, a ferrous metal coin and you have magnetic cuff-links on your shirt, etc...etc...
Not at all. In an infinite number of flips, one can expect any number of heads in a row, or tails in a row. The simple fact remains that the next flip is still statistically 50/50, regardless of what has happened in the past.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
“In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really goodargument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.” - Carl Sagan

Yes. For me, demonstrated evidence of facts will change my mind.

That said, I seldom have my mind changed, because I have grown up basing my beliefs/opinions upon facts first.
It is not a matter of ‘It is true, because I say so’, but rather ‘I say so, because it is true’. ;)

Vanity has little role in my life. As Dr. Sagan indicated above, and the article cited in the OP, it is human vanity to believe something is right, just because that is the way you first heard it, or just because Mr. High Muckity Muck says that it is true. :rolleyes:
Thank you very much for the Carl Sagan quote. Hadn't seen that one before.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
We've seen them before: the questions like "atheists, would you change your mind and believe if there were proof of God," and the converse, and of course everybody answers in the affirmative. (After all, who would want to admit that facts don't mean a thing, and that they'll believe whatever they like no matter what the facts say.)

Same thing with the evolution arguments, the sexual orientation brouhahas, and so many others.

And yet, having read several score thousand such arguments here on RF and elsewhere, one of the things that I find most remarkable is how little all the back-and-forth arguments, no matter how well supported, actually make any dent at all in the opinions of the debaters. I have yet to see, in any such debate, one side or the other declare, "oh, that's a fact I didn't know, and it has made me reconsider."

Here's an article I found in the New Yorker that discusses this very issue. It shows that, "once formed" (as the authors drily remark) "impressions are remarkably perseverant."

So here's the real question: what, if anything, would really make you change your mind?

I think it largely depends on how arguments go, what the subject matter is, and what facts are involved.

Sometimes, the argument may not be over the actual facts themselves, but more related to interpretations and conclusions based on the same set of facts. Such can be found in the academic world among learned professionals.

As for what would make me change my mind, again, it depends. If I make an obvious mistake, such as "2+2=6," then it should be easy enough for someone to show me where I'm wrong. But most discussions aren't really as simple as that.
 

Shakazuluuuuu

Deist I guess what that is
Proof of God. Hell, if all the desire for that in the world is wrapped up in these questions.

Ok. What if. Watch pure.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
We've seen them before: the questions like "atheists, would you change your mind and believe if there were proof of God," and the converse, and of course everybody answers in the affirmative. (After all, who would want to admit that facts don't mean a thing, and that they'll believe whatever they like no matter what the facts say.)

Same thing with the evolution arguments, the sexual orientation brouhahas, and so many others.

And yet, having read several score thousand such arguments here on RF and elsewhere, one of the things that I find most remarkable is how little all the back-and-forth arguments, no matter how well supported, actually make any dent at all in the opinions of the debaters. I have yet to see, in any such debate, one side or the other declare, "oh, that's a fact I didn't know, and it has made me reconsider."

Here's an article I found in the New Yorker that discusses this very issue. It shows that, "once formed" (as the authors drily remark) "impressions are remarkably perseverant."

So here's the real question: what, if anything, would really make you change your mind?

Facts are only relevant to me if I'm need to take the right medication type of thing. Experiences, as long as they are healthy, would probably change my mind. If I had a good experience in one religion and had a more profound experience in another, I would go for the latter but still respect and keep the experiences of the former. [Which I do in real life]

I got this from taking the 16Personality test. I'm an ISFP. It was saying for us to make goals based on our experiences rather than facts loosely translated.

Which is interesting, too. I can learn the Dharma, scripture, whatever, all I want but if you want my mind to change I'd have to have a healthy profound experience.

The thing is, once we are stuck in something, we will -let ourselves- have new experiences to learn other things?

That's probably what I'd ask in relation to the OP.
 

Daemon Sophic

Avatar in flux
Not at all. In an infinite number of flips, one can expect any number of heads in a row, or tails in a row. The simple fact remains that the next flip is still statistically 50/50, regardless of what has happened in the past.
In the absence of any other information, what reason would there be to assume anything other than a fluke run?

And is that not also part of the "not changing one's mind" syndrome that we all suffer from? We just can't believe that a run of 27 heads could possibly happen by chance - even if we happened to witness it. And therefore if it is revealed that it just happened, we refuse to acknowledge the evidence before us and remain firmly of the opinion that it couldn't possibly have "just happened" - even though it probably, though rather improbably, just did.
You are both correct,......yet naïve. Of course a run can occur. That is why I started my paragraph with a citation of the statistics.

HOWEVER: If I watch a man flip a coin 27 times in a row, and each time it is “heads”. And then he says that he’ll give me 10:1 odds on whichever side up I choose before the next 5 flips with a $20 minimum bet each time (it’s “statistically” 50/50 right? My odds of winning are Great!).
....and so @siti exclaims, “Gee Willickers! I just saw a one in 134-million+ event. Wait till I tell my family! Then he whips out five $20 bills and says “In the absence of any other information.....I’m in!” :facepalm:

Meanwhile, I check the coin and his cuff-links and say “I need more information.” ;)
 

siti

Well-Known Member
You are both correct,......yet naïve. Of course a run can occur. That is why I started my paragraph with a citation of the statistics.

HOWEVER: If I watch a man flip a coin 27 times in a row, and each time it is “heads”. And then he says that he’ll give me 10:1 odds on whichever side up I choose before the next 5 flips with a $20 minimum bet each time (it’s “statistically” 50/50 right? My odds of winning are Great!).
....and so @siti exclaims, “Gee Willickers! I just saw a one in 134-million+ event. Wait till I tell my family! Then he whips out five $20 bills and says “In the absence of any other information.....I’m in!” :facepalm:

Meanwhile, I check the coin and his cuff-links and say “I need more information.” ;)
Is @siti allowed a second "exclamation"? If so can I go for something like "there you go - you just proved the OP's point!"?

And that's a fairly typical "i'm not changing my mind" ploy - you disprove the obvious factual point being made by attacking the illustration used to make it - there's probably a name for that - but it is a fallacious argument...and the odds on a coin flip - in the absence of any other information (he said repeating himself yet again) is always 50/50. Fluke runs don't change that and betting for or against a fluke run is definitely naive (which I am spelling naive because I don't know how to type an i with two dots like this ï ) - the only thing you can do when you see one is accept that they sometimes happen - but you knew we weren't really talking about coin tosses anyway - didn't you?
 

Daemon Sophic

Avatar in flux
Is @siti allowed a second "exclamation"? If so can I go for something like "there you go - you just proved the OP's point!"?

And that's a fairly typical "i'm not changing my mind" ploy - you disprove the obvious factual point being made by attacking the illustration used to make it - there's probably a name for that - but it is a fallacious argument...and the odds on a coin flip - in the absence of any other information (he said repeating himself yet again) is always 50/50. Fluke runs don't change that and betting for or against a fluke run is definitely naive (which I am spelling naive because I don't know how to type an i with two dots like this ï ) - the only thing you can do when you see one is accept that they sometimes happen - but you knew we weren't really talking about coin tosses anyway - didn't you?
Yes. I just like pointing and laughing.
Also, I should admit that my ability to type “naïve” with the fancy double dots has nothing to do with skill. My auto-correct function makes me seem more capable than my actual level of naïveté. ;)
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
We've seen them before: the questions like "atheists, would you change your mind and believe if there were proof of God," and the converse, and of course everybody answers in the affirmative. (After all, who would want to admit that facts don't mean a thing, and that they'll believe whatever they like no matter what the facts say.)

Same thing with the evolution arguments, the sexual orientation brouhahas, and so many others.

And yet, having read several score thousand such arguments here on RF and elsewhere, one of the things that I find most remarkable is how little all the back-and-forth arguments, no matter how well supported, actually make any dent at all in the opinions of the debaters. I have yet to see, in any such debate, one side or the other declare, "oh, that's a fact I didn't know, and it has made me reconsider."

Here's an article I found in the New Yorker that discusses this very issue. It shows that, "once formed" (as the authors drily remark) "impressions are remarkably perseverant."

So here's the real question: what, if anything, would really make you change your mind?

I disagree based on the illusory truth effect... It's repeated exposure and time that make the difference.

Illusory truth effect - Wikipedia
 

Samana Johann

Restricted by request
Yes, patience.
Those who go out of their home, stand, may be able to Meeting the Divine Messengers.
It was the sight of the four "divine messengers" — an old man, a sick man, a corpse, and a wandering ascetic — that propelled the young Bodhisatta from his complacent and luxurious princely life into the homeless life of a serious seeker of spiritual freedom. Then as now, these messengers appear all around us, not merely to incite us to discover how to cope with life's difficulties and dangers, but to inspire us to transcend them once and for all.​

Generosity (giving into, Saddha), respect and patient are the base of getting in touch with the Unbond-Domain: Respect, Confidence and Patient
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
We've seen them before: the questions like "atheists, would you change your mind and believe if there were proof of God," and the converse, and of course everybody answers in the affirmative. (After all, who would want to admit that facts don't mean a thing, and that they'll believe whatever they like no matter what the facts say.)

Same thing with the evolution arguments, the sexual orientation brouhahas, and so many others.

And yet, having read several score thousand such arguments here on RF and elsewhere, one of the things that I find most remarkable is how little all the back-and-forth arguments, no matter how well supported, actually make any dent at all in the opinions of the debaters. I have yet to see, in any such debate, one side or the other declare, "oh, that's a fact I didn't know, and it has made me reconsider."

Here's an article I found in the New Yorker that discusses this very issue. It shows that, "once formed" (as the authors drily remark) "impressions are remarkably perseverant."

So here's the real question: what, if anything, would really make you change your mind?
I change my mind all the time, sometimes more than once in a few hours. It’s from trying to see what other people are thinking, the way they see it, as one of my techniques for self improvement. It probably happens a lot for other people too, all over these forums. Maybe the reason it doesn’t happen in mock debating is because people are imitating formal debating. It’s part of the definition of debating that the people debating never change their minds. Whatever anyone’s reasons might be for choosing a side in mock debating, it is certainly not to learn anything.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
We've seen them before: the questions like "atheists, would you change your mind and believe if there were proof of God," and the converse, and of course everybody answers in the affirmative. (After all, who would want to admit that facts don't mean a thing, and that they'll believe whatever they like no matter what the facts say.)

Same thing with the evolution arguments, the sexual orientation brouhahas, and so many others.

And yet, having read several score thousand such arguments here on RF and elsewhere, one of the things that I find most remarkable is how little all the back-and-forth arguments, no matter how well supported, actually make any dent at all in the opinions of the debaters. I have yet to see, in any such debate, one side or the other declare, "oh, that's a fact I didn't know, and it has made me reconsider."

Here's an article I found in the New Yorker that discusses this very issue. It shows that, "once formed" (as the authors drily remark) "impressions are remarkably perseverant."

So here's the real question: what, if anything, would really make you change your mind?
In response to the title of the thread, I think that the word “facts” can be useful for some beneficial purposes, but obviously forum debating is not one of them.

The word “facts” can be useful for beneficial purposes when it refers to reports of experience that no one in the discussion is questioning.

(edit) I want to revise what I said. I see some possible benefits in forum debating, but in that context, calling statements “facts” does nothing to change anyone’s mind. I don’t think that it’s part of anyone’s purpose in forum debating for anyone to change their mind about anything. If anyone wants to try to change anyone’s mind, or is open to having their mind changed, they would not be debating on one side or another in a mock debate, for that purpose.
 
Last edited:
Top