Is it stupid to think.............

[cleanbluesky]

Originally Posted by Kitten

the thing is, if you believe something - then you listen to something that could question your belief structure, but yet you still believe then the question has STRENGTHENED the faith you have, not weakened it! It flabbers my gast that some people can't see this.

Like Pat Condell suggested, the less evidence you have for a belief - the stronger your conviction has to be in order to hold it.

As for convincing someone that their 'faith' is wrong, it depends on WHY they want to believe it in the first place. You can make a person do whatever you want if you apply the right pressure, but that doesn't mean you can always change their mind in discussion.

[AboveTheSalt]

Originally Posted by Lana

...
When I did missionary training, they said there was an XYZ model or something. Basically saying that people shift along a scale of A-Z in what they believe through their lives, A being completely atheistic and Z being accepting religious beliefs as the truth. The people need to go through A-Y before getting to Z, and if you are the lucky person to be there for Z you get to see people make decisions to change their lives!

What of those people who are brought up in a religious background, accept a belief in God as entirely reasonable and later in life decide that it is no such thing?

What of those people who as they approach the end of their lives, feel fear and resort to religion as a way of fighting that fear?

What of those people who have lost a loved one and see an after-life as a way of meeting that loved one again?


With all due respect, your "XYZ model" seems to be complete opportunistic mumbo-jumbo to me.

I don't think that "rational argument" can EVER convince any sane person as to the existence of a God ... on the other hand, since you referred to "religion" that may not be what you meant

[Pebs]

Perhaps this is why I 'like' Jehovas Witness' beliefs so much, because I spent a couple of days with a very patient minister who gave me very very plausable reasons and reasonable argument and debate for his beliefs.

What about those of us who are too scared to nail our flag to any tree, in case we're wrong? Or is that just hedging bets

[ChemicalKicks]

Originally Posted by Kitten

It really depends on whether the person is closed or open minded. SOmetimes people have genuine, personal reasons for believing something they do, and in that case it's going to be really hard however you want to get across to them. Other people are just idiots who think they are always right. Other people are open to argument and different opinion. I like it when someone can change my mind - it doesn't happen often but I do like it when someone makes me question what I think. I don't think it's a yes or no answer - it's relative to the person in question and the subject.

Pretty much sums it up for me really.

I like to think that I'm pretty open minded and open to ideas, I change my mind based on valid arguments but I think the most important thing is to be rational about whatever you're told, that way you remain open.

WRITE PENETRATION ON YOUR ARM

[Lana]

Originally Posted by AboveTheSalt

What of those people who are brought up in a religious background, accept a belief in God as entirely reasonable and later in life decide that it is no such thing?

What of those people who as they approach the end of their lives, feel fear and resort to religion as a way of fighting that fear?

What of those people who have lost a loved one and see an after-life as a way of meeting that loved one again?


With all due respect, your "XYZ model" seems to be complete opportunistic mumbo-jumbo to me.

I don't think that "rational argument" can EVER convince any sane person as to the existence of a God ... on the other hand, since you referred to "religion" that may not be what you meant

You know what, I may have messed up the XYZ model. :-/ it is more than possible. I once started telling Garp a story about a friend of mine, then it turned out that it was HIS story about a friend of HIS. I mix my stories sometimes.

I agree with you, I do not think argument alone can convince anyone of the existence of God. I know many sane people and not one has been convinced because of rational argument. I will also say that there are a good amount of people who DO believe in God and were convinced by things other than argument.

I won't even touch the rest of it. I know where you stand and I imagine you know where I stand. I don't want to give you cognitive dissonance by pushing it:-)

[cleanbluesky]

Originally Posted by Pebs

Perhaps this is why I 'like' Jehovas Witness' beliefs so much, because I spent a couple of days with a very patient minister who gave me very very plausable reasons and reasonable argument and debate for his beliefs.

Religious arguments are fine until you get to the single point that there is no proof - if you are willing to believe something without ever knowing if its true and whilst people show you things that show contradictions in the holy book that a person reads from - then religion is as meaningful as any other theory.

What about those of us who are too scared to nail our flag to any tree, in case we're wrong? Or is that just hedging bets

I WORSHIP THE HAWK!

[Tak]

Originally Posted by Pebs

What about those of us who are too scared to nail our flag to any tree, in case we're wrong? Or is that just hedging bets

This is very similar to the suggestion put forward by the Quirmian philosopher Ventre, who said, "Possibly the gods exist, and possibly they do not. So why not believe in them in any case? If it's all true you'll go to a lovely place when you die, and if it isn't then you've lost nothing, right?"

When he died he woke up in a circle of gods holding nasty-looking sticks and one of them said, "We're going to show you what we think of Mr Clever Dick in these parts..."

-- (Terry Pratchett, Hogfather)

[semi-pro waster]

Although I used the term earlier I do have a fairly big problem with the theory of cognitive dissonance, at least in regard to certain things (first one to point out the irony in that wins nothing). It can be used as a tool to try and prove the 'correctness' of a view when it actually does nothing of the sort - "oh XXX won't accept that pan-dimensional tomatos rule us by pizza, displaying typical cognitive dissonance". No, XXX doesn't accept it because it's clearly a load of bull dookie that I've just made up on the spot. Rejecting a viewpoint as absurd does not intrinsically give it some credence because your cognitive dissonance means you are unable to accept the 'truth'.

My point I suppose is that you've got to be careful where you apply the theory and just because something appears to be true for you doesn't automatically make it true for everyone else.

[Lana]

Originally Posted by Kitten

I don't really like labelling things, because it puts you in a particular box. Things like personal choice and your ability/willingness to take on board other people's point of view vary so differently from person to person that I suppose you might take elements of certain theories and be able to apply more than one.

Heehee, I like labelling things (not people, mind!) but I love it when things fit neatly into their little boxes. rarely happens in real life, does it? :-)