Conversations with a believer

[Sunsneezer]

A friend of mine is a believer. We often argue because I'm not a believer myself, and you know how often you can hear believers talking about what they believe... I used to look at all the material he presented to me with a bad attitude, mostly trying to prove it's false. Now I'm trying to ignore my bias and let through more of the benefit of doubt instead of just, you know, the sarcasm of doubt And put my reason where my arguments are. Here is a conversation we just had for your consideration. I'd like for you to kindly ignore all the bad clichés that seem to be inevitable in this kind of conversations but point out the fallacies and beginners mistake at reasoning I must have made in it.
I think it's an interesting conversation because it helped me realize that I rely on denial pretty much the same way he relies on belief.

Believer: Did you check out the Disclosure Project?

Me: Yeah I watched the first 30 mins of it and another 30 mins at random
Believer: so, inconclusive?
Me: Do you think that 100% of the content of the disclosure project is true?
Believer: Even is 90% is fake, there's 10% of truth and it's freak
Me: how can you tell the difference?
Believer: That's impossible until there's a disclosure, if there ever is one
Me: So, inconclusive.
Believer: But statistically significant
Me: it's nonetheless interesting
Believer: Imagine that the same number of reputable people were denouncing child trafficking from the government.
Me: there would immediately be an investigation
Believer: so I think all of this stinks
Me: According to what I've read there's a feeling of "been there done that" from the government. They've investigated a lot of UFOs, compiled testimonies, opened investigations for years...
It gives me the impression that some of it was of good faith.
The Blue book
Believer: It's the perfect alibi for skeptics
Believer: very convenient
me: So? Those were people who didn't have access to the true data?
Believer: or pre-selected, or maybe voluntary dissimulation
Believer: the US gvmt already lied in the past and it's been proved, for the beginning of the Vietnam war, irak...
Believer: We're walking in circles
Me: no, not at all
Me: I hope that it will help me become a better balanced skeptic and improve my critical thinking
by not rejecting by default and by forcing myself to form better arguments.
Believer: A little bit IMO like being a skeptical and a believer
Me: You can't be a skeptical and a believer I think... Because it leads to trying to use your skepticism to prove your belief. Like you can't be a skeptic and a total non-believer
Believer: how the skeptic uses his skepticism
Me: Using your skepticism to prove something is true or false is PSEUDOskepticism.
That's why I'm forcing myself not to try proving things are false
Skepticism is not a position, it's a process

That being said, we always have a prejudice that's how the mind works
you just have to try not listening to it but it's hard as hell
Believer: That goes against everything we've been though since we're kids
Me: Did you fail philosophy class?
Believer:no
80 average
Me: nice... I failed philo.
so my point was it doesn't go against what we learned in philo
Believer: I argued a lot with the teacher and he was having a hard time
Me: that's because some arguments are impossible to answer
Believer: Always... the fact is there is so many elements that leads to believing in a conspiracy about UFOS that for me it's not a question of yes or no but how it's really happening and what's happening today
Me: When you look and an event trying to prove a theory, it changes your perception
Believer: Denial is a theory like Belief is.
me: Exactly! That's why I try to fight against my own denial, and that I consider the elements you bring to me and that I answer your arguments trying not to depend on anything but my own reason.
Believer: The problem is that your reason is limited to your knowledge and your 5 senses
like mine
Me: So we shouldn't depend on reason? How can you be against thinking?
Believer:No, but the fact that the possibilities are infinite... so our reason is limited to our perception... Do you know the allegory of the cave?
Me: that's philo 1 yes
Believer: So, maybe we are in the cave, that's the question I ask myself
Me: There's not only what we perceive, there's also the information relayed to us by others
Believer: sure... but now we're questioning the reliability of EVERYTHING that's real for us
Me: Exactly!
Believer: It's the level of enthusiasm that changes
Me: Not trying to discover if something is true or false is lazy. And I mean discovering, not proving...
I'm lazy as ****
Also uncomfortable when confronted with things that contradicts what I already know...
Believer: That's for sure, because everything we know maybe false
Me: at different levels!
Believer: Like in the Matrix but you can't escape
Me: everything is not black or white
You know the guy that went from "I think therefor I am" that was his idea... what's the only thing I can be sure of and then build from there
But each layer we add to this kernel is increasingly uncertain
Believer: depends of where you want to go
Me: that's vague, explain...
Believer: Well, what life to choose, fight or give up
Me: The comfort of ignorance or the fight for the truth
But tell me, how can you fight for the truth, you [the Believer], without really wanting to explore and analyse it in your own head?
That's the same mistake I ake when I take for granted that Aliens are not amongst us because I'm not aware of it.
By choosing to believe in the possibility of a conspiracy and hoping that truth will be revealed by others, that's also what you're doing.
Believer: Now there's the question of financing
me: yes and no
Financing is but a clue, but truth is independent of who tells it!
That's why I subscribed to AboveTopSecret
and that I watched the Disclosure Project video and gave it consideration despite what I know about Steven Greer
who literally earns his living promoting his claims
Believer: There's also credibility
He invested 100%, how much did he make with this?
Me: Let's say he's comfortable
and that it's in his best interest ton continue to get people talking about him
or else no more dough
But that's not important
Believer: he doesn't have to sacrifice his life for his cause, and if earning a living doing that makes him biased, we're entering a dubious line of though.
Me: that's why it's not important
it's the value and the consistency of what's declared that counts
Me:
[Denial]-ME--------[Doubt]--------YOU-[Belief]
[Denial]------ME---[Doubt]--------YOU-[Belief]
Your move

• Note that this conversation occured in french but I refrained from improving my writing as much as I could while translating it.
• While proofreading it I noticed I unconsciously omitted the part about failing philosophy class(es). I'm a bit of a slacker sometimes. That whole post is the procrastinating proof of it.
• It's not a very balanced conversation as I think I was more motivated than him. I'm currently thinking a lot about that stuff.
• I'll post other conversations as they occur if they are interesting for somebody other than me.

 

[Trent Wray]

different kinds of believers and perhaps what makes them so

Holy Smokes sunsneezer ---- that's a lot of transcript to read! I read some of it (but not all), and I thought I might post some thoughts I had awhile back about "how to understand believers".

I typed out the following thoughts ... basically just free-flowing and thinking "outloud", so take them for what they are worth. What I wrote obviously doesn't encompass every type of believer, and some of my statements seem like blanket absolute statements ... but they really aren't. It's just how I formulate thoughts sometimes when writing/typing. I could easily change my mind on some of them, but I thought perhaps there was some good insights there to be gleaned ... and that's why I'll post them here. They are kind of long-winded, but perhaps they are applicable to some of your questions about how to understand your believer friend. Maybe you'll find something of value in them :

-----

I posit that "god" fills a void in someone's life that is missing to them. It could be a legitimate "need" that person has, or could simply be a want not based on need at all. Once that void is filled, the need for "god" diminishes and is replaced with "reality".

For example, a person who is lonely and has difficulty finding meaningful relationships might "find god" … and thus their god becomes a source of love, friendship, and a relationship for them. Another person might have had several injustices committed against them, and feel vulnerable and violated in general. "God" becomes their protector and the one who will "avenge" them perhaps, by sending perpetrators to hell, etc and so forth.

For others, they might lack an ability to cope with the stressors of society in general for whatever reason … and god becomes their source of hope. Or perhaps science and medicine has not yet caught up to the point where a cancer can be cured or complete sight can be restored, etc ….. thus a person who has physical ailments might turn to a "god" in order to find hope.

Still others might find themselves in a string of continual bad choices, a rut in life they find no way out of. Perhaps they are caught up in detrimental addictions, or extremely self-destructive behavior. Perhaps the idea of a "god" is what will bring them out of those dark holes and into a more productive, enjoyable life for themselves.

These are examples of those who might "need" a god to replace something missing in their lives. These people represent the downtrodden or perhaps the outcast in society. God becomes a friend, a role model, a mentor, a parent, a hope, etc.

God becomes a crutch … but a beneficial and useful crutch.

Others perhaps desire god to increase "power". They want more riches, more finance, more control, etc and so forth. They want to see their enemies destroyed, or those that do not agree with them. The motive of these people is to "extend their own domain" so to speak. Greed, in other words. They want a god to promote and authorize their greed.

They might "need" god to authorize such greed because in general, society doesn't. We exist in a greedy world, but the downtrodden do not usually authorize the greedy to become greedier. As such, "god" becomes a tool that greedy people capitalize on. He becomes the ultimate cop-out. People can justify their anger, hate, greed, need for power, control, etc …. by hiding behind an invisible god. If "god provides" --- then great, yeah, hallelujah. If god doesn't provide, then it's the devil and his minions … usually in the form of those people withholding whatever the "faithful" in this case want or need.

In this case, god becomes not a crutch, but a "get out of jail free" card.

And there are others, who are merely afraid of what they cannot understand and claim that "god is the cause" simply because there is no other explanation. This is more akin to superstition and a lack of education.

Now ----- at some point in their lives, the believers who use crutches, ideally, will get "healthy enough" to not need the crutches any longer. They can set the crutches down, and begin walking in reality, with reality. The need for "god" is no longer an issue, because the crutch worked and filled a void that reality did not fill for whatever reason. In other words, life is unfair and they were finally able to rise to a level of coping with it. To attack these people for their crutch when they are down …. is unlikely to produce a result other than watching them fall farther down. Afterall, they are CLINGING to their god for a reason …. they do not have an alternative. They do not trust some aspect of life enough to provide them a crutch, or they simply have not had a real one offered to them or taught to them. Regardless, it is probably best to not attack their crutch … but attack the problem first. What is it they lack, that they need to believe in a sky fairy to cope with life? And if they are downtrodden …. calling them names and telling them they are stupid or whatever, isn't giving them tools. That is just reinforcing why they need the crutch most likely.

These people probably would accept responsibility for their own lives, especially once they are able to walk freely without crutches. But until then, they most likely need some kind of support to survive. They are children that are starving.

Now the greedy believers, who are merely wanting "god" to extend their agenda … they are hiding behind god to live a spoiled life. It is essentially perfectly healthy people pretending to need a crutch for no reason at all. They are often quite cowardly. They will pray for the death of another, but never raise a hand to commit the murder themselves. They will send others to die "in the name of Allah" … but they themselves will never go and blow themselves up. They will take all your money, but not give a cent back. They are the bullies of the believer world. It is highly unlikely they will change, so long as their "get out of jail free" card works and everyone else is doing their dirty work for them. When they do get caught sexually abusing a little boy or scamming the public at large …. they will hide out of shame for awhile, but then pop back up later to try their get out of jail free cards again on someone else. They will hide underground sending videos of threats to the infidels, but never show their face even though they have "great faith". It hardly makes a difference whether you call these people names or not. It hardly makes a difference whether you even engage these people in conversation. They are usually fully convinced in their own minds, and need "god" as a crutch to fool even themselves that they have a problem that needs fixed.

These people just simply do not accept responsibility for their actions. They remain spoiled children, stealing the crutches from those who need them to get the same attention and pity. They are the ones that will oppress others from behind pulpits, and put laws into action limiting our freedoms and spreading hate but not enforcing it themselves. They do not have the backbone to do their own dirty work. They blame the atheists, and the skeptics, and science, and whatever political party they are against, etc and so forth. They blame popular music, secular society, pressures, etc ….. anything they can blame they do blame, so they don't have to accept responsibility for their own shortcomings and disappointments with the world. They seek power and control through "god", like a little man hiding amongst enslaved body guards for protection.

The tricky substrata of "believers", however, are the ones who have the most potential to learn the truth about reality and let go of sky fairy notions … but they are also the ones who are most likely to strap a bomb to their chest and put their money where there mouth is.

These are the "believers" that have the most potential to be "reached" with rationale thought and critical thinking, because these believers mean business.

They mean business, and you will know it be their actions which show as much, because they are the ones who are willing to take the biggest risks. And that right there says something about them …. they have great FAITH.

And because they have a lot of faith, they have a lot of trust. And if they are willing to walk out that faith and trust in an invisible being, they obviously have a high degree of motivation. Because of this, these people are the most likely to be reasoned with. They are the most likely to be reasoned with because they have made a DECISION to trust something, and they will take responsibility for it if necessary. They have chosen a side in other words, and they have done so wholeheartedly. They actually BELIEVE what they claim. They are not hiding behind "god" and blaming him for their actions. They are not so feeble and weak and desperate that they need god to fill a void they lack daily. No, these people are walking side by side, hand in hand with their "god" …. jumping when they believe they are to jump, waiting when they believe they are supposed to wait, killing when they believe they are supposed to kill, thinking when they believe they are supposed to think.

These people believe that what they believe is, in all actuality, the truth. So telling them that it isn't, isn't the best starting point to communicate with them and try to offer them tools for thinking otherwise.

These people let their actions somewhat speak for themselves … be it blowing themselves up or giving all their money away to the poor, etc and so forth. Some of their actions are viewed as "more beneficial" and others of them are viewed as "complete wacko fundamentalism".

However … because they do not hide behind something, and are strong enough to walk … they are reachable.

BUT … the key to reaching them, is understanding WHY they are still believing what they are believing. If you do not appeal to the reason they believe so strongly in their god, then you will not offer them anything they will even touch. If you attack their god, you will be wasting your effort. If you attack them, you will be wasting your effort. You have to know WHY they choose to live in their delusion, in order to understand how to offer them REALITY. Look at the thing that isn't true. The small, tiny, minute component. The biggest component of untruth is most likely their ideas that a sky fairy is real … HOWEVER …. what are the components of that sky fairy? What is the foundational error that their "truth" is built on? Find that error, and you have a chance of "reaching" them and helping them find reality.

And one of the easiest ways to find out WHY … is to examine their god up close. Get to know "god" … you will see that god is a projection of that person. Plain and simple. If God shows himself to be a crutch, you will see it. If god shows himself to be a get out of jail free card and an excuse to hide behind like a coward, you will see that.

But if god shows himself to be "the restorer of the people of Islam from the infidels who stole our land" …. you will know that attacking that god will be the same as attacking that believer. If you do not help to restore that person from the infidels and address that issue, you will get no where.

If that god shows himself to be "the one who loves me all the time and shows me purpose in my life," if you do not address the reasons that person feels they need god to have a purpose, you will get nowhere. Attacking god, takes away their purpose. And the fact they need an outside source to tell them what their purpose is, tells you that no outside source has ever taught them about purpose or answered those questions.

Also … if a person clings to god for mostly emotional reasons, appealing to their rational thought and critical thinking will go nowhere. You must meet them on their level … talk to them in their language. That of emotions. That is what their god is … that is what their delusion is …. so speak the language of the delusion. If a person clings to their god for analytical reasons and "logical" reasons … then speak to them on a logical level. Speak that language. Trying to manipulate their emotions will go nowhere.

These critical believers are oftentimes overlooked as being "teachable" or "reachable", because they are so zealous for their beliefs and are unafraid to voice them. BUT … if you understand WHY they are doing what they are doing, and look at their god, you will see what their god is giving them and what they are not finding in reality. If that can be provided for them in reality, then it can be replaced and that person can start LIVING a reality based life, and not one merely in their imaginations. Likewise, if the very thing they are looking for is all around them and they are simply failing to see it …. then again, you might be able to give them the tools to begin to live in reality … but first, you must examine their god. You have to speak their god's language and understand what their god is powerful at doing and not doing.

If you're not, you will be speaking into the thin air. Because someone who lives as though the invisible were actually real … they themselves are trying to live an invisible life. They are more fantasy than reality, because their life is based on fantasy. So speak fantasy to speak to them.

And what is the point in trying to "reach" anyone at all who believes in magic, the invisible, and falsehoods and delusions?

What if that someone was you, or someone you loved, that needing reaching?

 

[Marduk]

get a room

 

[Sunsneezer]

@Trentway:
Yeah I know it's a little bit long...
I should have snipped some parts in the middle - the obvious parts about general philosophy, I didn't want to because they actually influenced the conversation. Sorry about the platitutes...

I mostly agree with your views on how believers rely on God, although from my experience of having been raised in a reasonable protestant family I'd say being christian and a critical thinker are not mutually exclusive. Protestants, to me, represent the skeptics of religion, doubting the dogmas created by men and questioning the authority of churches. There's a lot of teachings that go in the direction that God and Jesus are not helpers, but guides, and that you have to live and think for yourself.

Still, I'm currently an agnostic, which is something I'll have to address for myself eventually. And I wish this thread not to become a thread about religion, but about belief, and belief in denial.

Unconditional belief in the power and presence of God, aliens, or a conspiracy indeed seem like the same phenomenon, motivated by the same impulses. And so is denial.

And as such, you should always be wary of people who pretend to know the ways and the will of God, aliens, and conspiracies. Or, on the denial side, approach a video of an alien from the point of view that Aliens doesn't exist therefore that video is fake, and then try to prove it. It's a reasonable prejudice but it shouldn't get in the way of a neutral analysis.

 

[KingMerv00]

@And as such, you should always be wary of people who pretend to know the ways and the will of God, aliens, and conspiracies. Or, on the denial side, approach a video of an alien from the point of view that Aliens doesn't exist therefore that video is fake, and then try to prove it. It's a reasonable prejudice but it shouldn't get in the way of a neutral analysis.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You don't need to approach a video with absolute neutrality.

 

[Loss Leader]

This transcript reads like one of those commercials where the one person is "skeptical" of the new product, but then learns how great it is and renounces skepticism forever.

I sense a lack of intellectual honesty in the whole thing.

Sorry if I'm mistaken.

 

[Sunsneezer]

I sense a lack of intellectual honesty in the whole thing.

Sorry if I'm mistaken.

This conversation happened as typed and I took care not to omit anything in it. Now I may be fooling myself into trying too hard not to be a pseudoskeptic. The recent realization that I was dismissive of the evidence before researching it shook me up a bit.

ETA: For the record my position that "believing that aliens are amongst us and that 9/11 was an inside job as anything but stilted speculation is wrong" hasn't changed at all. To believe those as facts supported by strong evidence you really have to squint your mind.

 

[Olowkow]

Am I missing something? I think he means UFO believer.

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

 

[Marduk]

this link helpfully defines what a UFO believer is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder

 

[Sunsneezer]

It's not only UFOs, it's conspiracies at large. His starting point as well as his last objection to my rebuttals is always the possibility of a conspiracy. I think delusional is right, but that doesn't mean the elements he brings to my attention are not worthy of at least some research before I tell him why I can't accept them as conclusive proof of his beliefs. And isn't trying to prove his evidence as false the wrong mindset for that? Shouldn't I value this opportunity at flexing my skeptic muscle?

 

[Trent Wray]

It's not only UFOs, it's conspiracies at large. His starting point as well as his last objection to my rebuttals is always the possibility of a conspiracy. I think delusional is right, but that doesn't mean the elements he brings to my attention are not worthy of at least some research before I tell him why I can't accept them as conclusive proof of his beliefs. And isn't trying to prove his evidence as false the wrong mindset for that? Shouldn't I value this opportunity at flexing my skeptic muscle?

I didn't understand that the main goal of this "learning experience" was to flex your skeptic muscle.

So are you trying to "crush the opponent" with strength .... or look good in the mirror flexing your muscle?

And I'm not judging you ... there is nothing wrong with wanting to beat an opponent or enjoy the way you look in a mirror. Seriously

But it might help to nail down your motives and agenda in order to figure out the best way to get your desired results. For example ... at what point will you feel you successfully beat your opponent? It sounds like a subjective stance as long as your opponent is living. Also ... if looking good in the mirror is the main goal, well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder ... also a very subjective experience. Unless you are relying on others to tell you how "beautifully skeptical" you are.

 

[Olowkow]

I poked around a little on the "Disclosure Project". Pretty much nonsense. One video of a guy telling how someone at NASA told him they found a settlement on the back side of the moon, with towers and buildings. Now, I can't disprove that this guy was told that story, but I think it is pretty well proven that there is no such settlement. This makes the fellow who swallowed the tall tale pretty gullible and ultimately foolish for believing such a story in the first place.
You can't prove there are no fairies, nor that there is no teapot orbiting Jupiter. Sometimes it is just best to let people believe what they want, and hope they will eventually grow out of it.

 

[paiute]

Looking glass logic

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You don't need to approach a video with absolute neutrality.

But believers see things like this: There is a God, and you are making the claim that there is not. So the burden of proof is on you.

 

[Sunsneezer]

I poked around a little on the "Disclosure Project". Pretty much nonsense.

At least the first part (after the longuish, repetitive intro) is mostly testimonies of sightings of UFOs and is interesting as such. Everything else met my unabashed incredulity. The guy who declares he's been gratuitously shown pictures of a base on the moon is priceless.

But it might help to nail down your motives and agenda in order to figure out the best way to get your desired results. For example ... at what point will you feel you successfully beat your opponent? It sounds like a subjective stance as long as your opponent is living. Also ... if looking good in the mirror is the main goal, well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder ... also a very subjective experience. Unless you are relying on others to tell you how "beautifully skeptical" you are.

I don't want to "beat" my "opponent". I don't think he will ever change his beliefs and it's not my goal. I'm just trying to adjust my attitude and make this a constructive effort. I'm not asking you to tell me how good at arguing I am because that is not constructive either. I am, in fact I'm asking for criticism.
My motivation is that this guy keeps bringing things up to me, and until recently I made the assumption that it was going to be nonsense even before looking at it, and an embittering argument ensued. Maybe if I let go of part of this negative bias, our conversation will less often end with him pulling out the conspiracy card and gradually become about evaluating the evidence together instead of idly confronting our belief and non-belief.

 

[Loss Leader]

Okay, taking it all at face value:

Believer: Even is 90% is fake, there's 10% of truth and it's freak

There's no reason to assign these 90/10 values to this. There's no more reason to believe 10% is true than that 100% is true. There's no reason to think any of it is true. It would be like saying, "There's a 99.99% chance I am not the President of the United States. But if I were, you would look really foolish for not giving me reservations at your restaurant. So, on the off chance that I really am the President, give me a reservation."

Believer: But statistically significant

What's statistically significant? What numbers is your friend referencing? Where can I find them? Does he have any reason for believing there's statistical significance? My guess is that he just means that there are a lot of anecdotes out there. The plural of anecdote, as has been observed, is not evidence. The phrase "statistical significance" has an exact meaning and I see nothing to indicate that it is being used correctly here.

Believer: Imagine that the same number of reputable people were denouncing child trafficking from the government.
Me: there would immediately be an investigation

Why is that necessarily true? Your conclusion does not follow from your statements. What are the criteria that need to be met for the government to investigate something? How have you met them?

Me: ... It gives me the impression that some of it was of good faith.

Why does your impression matter? Why does it matter that the government's investigations were or were not in good faith? All that matters is whether the available evidence is inconsistent with the current explanation. The motives of the investigators don't matter. Would DNA be less likely to exist if James Watson admitted that he only studied it to win the Nobel Prize? DNA exists independently of Watson or his motives.

Believer: It's the perfect alibi for skeptics
Believer: very convenient

The truth is, by definition, a perfect alibi. Either evidence exists to show that the current explanation is impossible, or the evidence does not exist.

me: So? Those were people who didn't have access to the true data?
Believer: or pre-selected, or maybe voluntary dissimulation

Speculation about how a conspiracy might have been accomplished is not evidence that there was a conspiracy. I might have just been beamed down from the Enterprise or I might have gotten to my office by car. Unless you have evidence to suspect I was beamed down, there's no reason to discuss how a transporter might theoretically work.

Believer: the US gvmt already lied in the past and it's been proved, for the beginning of the Vietnam war, irak...

The credibility of the government is meaningless. If Watson had been an inveterate liar, DNA would still exist. There is either evidence or there is not.

Me: I hope that it will help me become a better balanced skeptic and improve my critical thinking by not rejecting by default and by forcing myself to form better arguments.

Actually, no. As has been pointed out, the person arguing in favor of a proposition has the burden of proof. The default setting for good skepticism should be to reject positive propositions untill evidence is produced.

Me: You can't be a skeptical and a believer I think... I'm forcing myself not to try proving things are false

I don't know. To me, all of that sounded like gibberish.

Believer: Denial is a theory like Belief is.

My theory is that this is wrong. Denial is a state of readiness to receive information.

Believer: The problem is that your reason is limited to your knowledge and your 5 senses like mine
Me: So we shouldn't depend on reason? How can you be against thinking?

Philosophically, this is complete nonsense. You've just conflated the concepts of Rationalism and Empiricism. Considering the fact that they're as close to philosophical opposites as exist in a Freshman survey course, that's a pretty outstanding mistake to make.

Believer:No, but the fact that the possibilities are infinite... so our reason is limited to our perception... Do you know the allegory of the cave? ...

Jeez. I wish I could go back in time and explain to Plato just how badly people were going to abuse his allegory of the cave. Just about the entire philosophical discussion that follows your invocation of the cave is wrong in so many ways as to be unfixable.

Believer: That's for sure, because everything we know maybe false

Not even vaguely what Plato was talking about.

Believer: Like in the Matrix but you can't escape

Here's a good tip: If your philosophical conversation includes The Matrix, you probably have no idea what you're talking about.

By choosing to believe in the possibility of a conspiracy and hoping that truth will be revealed by others, that's also what you're doing.
Believer: Now there's the question of financing

WTF?

I don't know what kind of comments you were looking for, but my advice would be that you not talk philosophy ever again.

Sometimes, the unexamined life is just fine.

 

[Trent Wray]

But believers see things like this: There is a God, and you are making the claim that there is not. So the burden of proof is on you.

I think that's a big misconception imo. It's more like, "There HAS to be a god. There is no way there cannot be. So you have to prove why, beyond the shadow of a doubt, there doesn't have to be a god." In other words, you have to rule out the possibility of even the possibility ... otherwise, there is always that chance that you are wrong, and the believer sees that sliver of possiblity that you may not have sufficiently covered for them as "the mustard seed of faith".

At least the first part (after the longuish, repetitive intro) is mostly testimonies of sightings of UFOs and is interesting as such. Everything else met my unabashed incredulity. The guy who declares he's been gratuitously shown pictures of a base on the moon is priceless.

I don't want to "beat" my "opponent". I don't think he will ever change his beliefs and it's not my goal. I'm just trying to adjust my attitude and make this a constructive effort. I'm not asking you to tell me how good at arguing I am because that is not constructive either. I am, in fact I'm asking for criticism.
My motivation is that this guy keeps bringing things up to me, and until recently I made the assumption that it was going to be nonsense even before looking at it, and an embittering argument ensued. Maybe if I let go of part of this negative bias, our conversation will less often end with him pulling out the conspiracy card and gradually become about evaluating the evidence together instead of idly confronting our belief and non-belief.

Well then, you are basically trying to find a way to be able to talk openly and critically without causing offense and things basically "shutting down" and becoming fruitless.

You basically need to find a back door, or a different way of phrasing things (which is the same thing essentially). So is it a matter of emotional maturity? (i.e. ... you can handle certain aspects with rational thought where as he cannot)? If it is ... then be the grown-up and understand how to "lower your communication level" to speak to a younger audience. If it's a matter of you offending him ... find out the psychology behind why you are offending him. The actual belief being defended, is almost ALWAYS misdirection from what is actually being offended in the first place.

 

[Sunsneezer]

@Loss Leader
I asked for it and I got served. Thank you for deflating my bubble. Maybe something got lost in translation, but I wouldn't count on that to save either of us. I promise you I won't butcher philosophy any more. I make up for it by being a ferocious researcher and having an eye for visual trickery so I'll go back to what I do best. [not sarcasm]
So the whole
Pseudoskepticism = denial
Sekpticism = doubt
thing is nothing but a brainfart? I felt the consensus around doubt was certain.
@Trentway
Well as you can see from my high-level philosophy skills, I'm a bottom-up kind of guy. So the goal there is to try to steer the conversation with this guy towards the actual individual pieces of evidence instead of flapping our lips about beliefs and theories and conspiracies.

^{*At this point I'm considering mentioning I love the writing of Douglas Adams to win back sympathy points and attrack attention away from my awful attempt at philosophy. Have you read Last Chance to See?}

 

[Trent Wray]

@Loss Leader
I asked for it and I got served. Thank you for deflating my bubble. Maybe something got lost in translation, but I wouldn't count on that to save either of us. I promise you I won't butcher philosophy any more. I make up for it by being a ferocious researcher and having an eye for visual trickery so I'll go back to what I do best. [not sarcasm]
So the whole
Pseudoskepticism = denial
Sekpticism = doubt
thing is nothing but a brainfart? I felt the consensus around doubt was certain.
@Trentway
Well as you can see from my high-level philosophy skills, I'm a bottom-up kind of guy. So the goal there is to try to steer the conversation with this guy towards the actual individual pieces of evidence instead of flapping our lips about beliefs and theories and conspiracies.

^{*At this point I'm considering mentioning I love the writing of Douglas Adams to win back sympathy points and attrack attention away from my awful attempt at philosophy. Have you read Last Chance to See?}

The problem with the philosophy of your believer friend is, again, that he is content to shove all the objects of his faith into the "unknown" sliver of doubt ... and thus they are safe there. Any random idea he encounters that goes against what he wants to have faith in, he can hide behind the, "well, we can never be sure because we are limited with our senses, etc and so forth. We live in caves and look at shadows," blah blah blah.

This isn't philosophy ... it's sticking fingers in your ears and going "la la la la! I'm not listening! And because I can't hear you means that what your saying doesn't make any sense to me! La la la!" He is content to close his eyes, ears, and other senses to the evidence that might speak against what he WANTS to believe, and he is all but telling you this. "We cannot trust our senses. We are limited."

BUT ---- he still practically has to survive. He uses his eyes, ears, and his mind all day everyday to get around town, hold down a job, have a conversation, etc and so forth.

However, for some reason, he has decided to believe in something based on NO PRACTICAL EVIDENCE whatsoever.

So, again ... if you try to use philosophy, or critical thinking, or practical reasoning to get your friend to be open to discussion about certain ideas .... you are going to be S.O.L. He is going to stick his fingers in his ears, close his eyes, and not trust anything you tell him or anything that he thinks, sees, hears, or could possibly understanding because he is SHUTTING DOWN.

It is not going to be a chance to flex your skeptic muscles, or philosophical muscles. It's a chance to flex your psychoanalysis muscles if you wish. And the key to that will be finding out WHY he is WANTING to believe in something and NOT TRUST any objective evidence to the degree that he RUNS AND HIDES into the very dark cave he is using to justify his actions with.

He is most likely afraid to leave the cave and see what he will find. Why would he be afraid? He obviously finds something that he sees as beneficial in the dark cave rather then the reality you are living in. What is in the dark cave that he is thinking is beneficial? If you aren't willing to get inside his mind, I'm thinking you will go nowhere .... you will end up only flapping lips around the evidence and never looking at it, because he doesn't want to see it and he's content with that .... that's imo