• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is there ANY point arguing with believers?

Well, any single belief is based on a large web of other beliefs, and any new information is going to be incorperated into the larger whole, interpreted, if you will, in the context of other beliefs. This often means that new information will take a back seat to deep set beliefs, but that's probably a good thing in the grand scheme of things. Sure, it's annoying when presenting someone with the truth they won't listen, but if everyone was willing to flip their beliefs 180 just because some guy over the internet made a reasonable sounding arguement, I don't think that would be a quick road to the truth.

But this also means, that even when it sounds like you're not making any progress, you probably are, at least to some degree. Not only in the area you're arguing, but you shed a little skepticism on every belief connected to it.
 
There are so many people out there with delusions and those cannot be convinced. I think most of the hardcore believers of silly things out there have delusions and cannot be convinced of anything else. Then ofcourse there are also many people that belive in paranormal crap becuse they are ignorant and those can be convinced of there errors if you pout some effort into it. My brother have delusions and it seemed very strange to me that it was impossible to talk him out of his silly believes unmtil i read about delusions and it all made sence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusions

The psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers first defined the three main criteria for a belief to be considered delusional in his book General Psychopathology. These criteria are:

* certainty (held with absolute conviction)
* incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
* impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)

These criteria still live on in modern psychiatric diagnosis. In the most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a delusion is defined as:

A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g. it is not an article of religious faith).

-
 
Believers don't really argue: They whine and proclaim things baselessly until our pattern recognition skills overpower our naive hopes and we give up.

Around me, they claim to have evidence, but they won't show it because they've psychically deduced I'll dismiss it, even though I've never, ever had the opportunity to do so in the past.
 
I don't find any generalizations about believers to be useful in dealing with individuals or even a group.
The True Skeptic doesn't exist, either.
I was taught to consume the transformed wafer, which was now the body of Jesus F. Christ! washed down by his freakin blood.
Now, that was not the $cientologists, that was the Anglicans.
Xenu, save us.
 
If it's some clown at the pub, and you don't care about making friends, then go ahead and take him to school.

But it's pointless and can damage relationships when you confront your friends over some of these issues. I know the sweetest little college girl, so innocent and cute and cuddly and happy and smiley, and she believes in astrology. I felt like I was pulling wings off a butterfly when I tried to tell her the truth about astrology, so about halfway through the conversation I dropped it and changed the topic to puppies or flowers or something. :D
 
mayday said:
I guess about as much as point as arguing with nonbelievers.
Click to expand...

The difference is.... (drum roll...) "non-believers" argue the evidence, whilst the credulous argue ignorance. The "non-believers" have that pesky "sum of scientific discovery" thing on our side.
 
Splossy said:
Is there any point to trying to convince people to think critically? Is it genetic or something?! Has anyone successfully changed a mind?
Click to expand...

At some point you have to recognize that the other person just refuses to question their own beliefs. Last year (at XMas, actually) my family decided to take me to task for being atheist (actually, they called it a religion, I got pissed and refuted them). What ensued was a long, strange conversation that got around to skepticism in general, and then "what, you don't believe in ghosts either?".

I said, NO, no evidence for 'em. My brother in law (a nice but uneducated fellow) declared that his dead grandfather visited him at night and helped him make a decision. Of course, he didn't consider that this might be a dream, or that he was subconsciously comforting himself (grandpa agreed w/the decision)... he believed, therefore I was wrong. Not much you can do to refute that.

On the other hand, I have a friend who decided to challenge me on evolution, as 'just a theory'. It took the better part of a year (and several conversations -the last ending with me railing 'ok, it's a theory... but if it's wrong then so is physics, chemistry, biology, paleontology, etc.... it happened!') but he finally conceded that it happened.

He's a christian tho... so now he accepts evolution but somehow wedges The Creation back 4 Billion years. The God of the Gaps strikes again.

Incidently, who would wanna worship a god that kept losing ground to Phds ?
 
It's good to plant the seed of doubt. I've turned a few people to believe in less nonsense. However, a person suffering from TBS should be left alone once you realize they have it.
 
thaiboxerken said:
It's good to plant the seed of doubt. I've turned a few people to believe in less nonsense. However, a person suffering from TBS should be left alone once you realize they have it.
Click to expand...

Hmm... is that "Total [Penn&Teller's Show] Syndrome" ?
 
I have found that arguing with a group of believers is a waste of time for the most part, as they tend to band together and support each other. Any amount of logic will never be enough. It is best to nail them when they are alone! Separate the weakest from the herd then pounce!
Being a "magician" what I have done at times when I see the discussion in a group steer towards the supernatural, is to perform some effects that tend to seem supernatural, then I ask people if they can explain them, (I love the responses!) Then let them know they were all tricks. Then I warn them about believing too quickly. This sometimes wins a few converts. Although some will still argue, even after my confesion; that what I did was indeed supernatural!
 
Re: Re: Is there ANY point arguing with believers?

Luke T. said:
I changed my wife's mind on psychics. Took right here to this site, years before the forum was created, and showed her a sample psychic reading Randi has on here. She had just been to a psychic that day and when she read Randi's reading, she was immediately converted to skepticism. She is now rabidly anti-psychics. Hates them.
Click to expand...

Well done. So, should genuine psychics exist (and they almost certainly do), she now has an irrational hatred of them.

The general stupidity of human beings never ceases to amaze me. Can she not understand (and indeed can you not understand) that simply because there are fraudulent psychics does not prove there are no genuine psychics? Indeed it is clear to me that the existence of fraudulent psychics makes the existence of genuine psychics more likely.

But I don't expect the mind numbing stupidy of skeptics to understand something like that.

And in my experience there doesn't appear to be anyone more stupid than a believer who has been converted into skepticism in their adult life.
 
Re: Re: Re: Is there ANY point arguing with believers?

Interesting Ian said:
Well done. So, should genuine psychics exist (and they almost certainly do)
Click to expand...
Like who?
The general stupidity of human beings never ceases to amaze me. Can she not understand (and indeed can you not understand) that simply because there are fraudulent psychics does not prove there are no genuine psychics?
Click to expand...
Agreed. And just because all my toys are made in factories, doesn't mean that some aren't made by Santa's elves.
Indeed it is clear to me that the existence of fraudulent psychics makes the existence of genuine psychics more likely.
Click to expand...
Uh. Huh. Well that nice Nigerian chap I just sent all my bank details to turned out not be quite as I expected, but I guess the fact that he exists makes it a bit more likely that someone will send me millions of dollars in return for my credit card number, doesn't it? I'll keep trying.
But I don't expect the mind numbing stupidy of skeptics to understand something like that.
Click to expand...
No, our stupidy knows no bounds.

:rolleyes:
 
Re: Re: Re: Is there ANY point arguing with believers?

Interesting Ian said:
... Indeed it is clear to me that the existence of fraudulent psychics makes the existence of genuine psychics more likely.

But I don't expect the mind numbing stupidy of skeptics to understand something like that....
Click to expand...

What a brilliant statement! And so typically interesting.
 
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well done. So, should genuine psychics exist (and they almost certainly do), she now has an irrational hatred of them.
Click to expand...
What evidence do you have to support your claim that psychics almost certainly exist?
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Indeed it is clear to me that the existence of fraudulent psychics makes the existence of genuine psychics more likely.
Click to expand...
How does this follow?
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But I don't expect the mind numbing stupidy of skeptics to understand something like that.
Click to expand...
Why is it stupid to require evidence before believing something to be true?

:confused:
 
Re: Re: Re: Is there ANY point arguing with believers?

Interesting Ian said:
Well done. So, should genuine psychics exist (and they almost certainly do), she now has an irrational hatred of them.
Click to expand...

... and should genuine unicorns exist, she probably has an irrational hatred of them, too.

In the meantime, she has been partially immunized against the nearly omnipresent claims of fraudulent psychics who claim they are genuine.

I think that's a fair tradeoff. To think otherwise is like refusing to fasten your seatbelt on the grounds that that will interfere with Jesus taking you when the Rapture comes.



And in my experience there doesn't appear to be anyone more stupid than a believer who has been converted into skepticism in their adult life.
Click to expand...

In my experience, there is. A believer who has not been converted to skepticism and who presents straw men as a defense against any attempts to convert.
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
Indeed it is clear to me that the existence of fraudulent psychics makes the existence of genuine psychics more likely.

Now, Nucular didn't have a very good counter-excample of this, because, as far as I know, there aren't a tenth as many Nigerian scammers as there are psychic scammers.

But he does touch upon a far better subject. Because, if we are to follow Ian's "logic" here, then obviously, the probability of the REAL Santa Claus existing is pretty damn high. I mean, think about all those shopping mall santas spread out in the Western world and beyond. And in some countries (like Norway), the Santa variation even makes a personal appearance (i.e a father or grandpa or uncle in costume). If we assume 5% of the Norwegian population dressing up for Christmas Eve (Yes, we do the present thing on Christmas Eve.), that's almost 250 000 fake Santas in Norway alone! And I can tell you, we certainly don't have that many fraudulent psychics about by far. Add half a million of Swedish "tomtegubber" (which is close enough), and even without all those malls in the USA etc, the real Santa's practically certain!

So according to Ian's way of thinking, it is more likely for a genuine Santa Claus to exist than for a genuine psychic to exist. Who knew?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there ANY point arguing with believers?

II
Indeed it is clear to me that the existence of fraudulent psychics makes the existence of genuine psychics more likely.

Nucular
Uh. Huh. Well that nice Nigerian chap I just sent all my bank details to turned out not be quite as I expected, but I guess the fact that he exists makes it a bit more likely that someone will send me millions of dollars in return for my credit card number, doesn't it? I'll keep trying. [/B]
Click to expand...

That's a false analogy of course. People simply need to do a bit of thinking here. If we live in a world which doesn't correspond exactly to how contemporary science paints it, and people on odd occasions do indeed get information through some means defying any sort of mechanistic explanation i.e anomalous cognition or ESP, then people claiming they can obtain such information almost at will is not going to sound all that implausible.This is especially so if these people being fooled by these charlatans have personally undergone such experiences.

On the other hand if we lived in the world where nobody ever had ever experienced any paranormal phenomena, then somebody claiming that they can contact dead people at will, or foresee the future, are whatever, will sound that much more implausible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom