"They think that about you too!"

[McC]

Many-a-time I've run across a situation wherein I'll say, "I can't fathom how a religious person could think this, since it's completely obvious that it's the opposite." The person I'm discussing it with turns around and says, "Yeah, but they think the same thing about you." And I tend to find myself at a loss for how to respond, beyond, "Yes, but I'm right, and they are wrong, because I have evidence and they don't." To which they respond the exact same way. This leaves me rather frustrated. How does one deal with such a scenario?

[AdmiralKanos]

As an engineer, I can use the scientific man's theories to safely design a bridge or a building. Let me know when the religious man's theories are anywhere near as useful or reliable.

Last time I checked, there was no accredited school of Scripture-based Engineering anywhere in the world.

[Ariphaos]

Many-a-time I've run across a situation wherein I'll say, "I can't fathom how a religious person could think this, since it's completely obvious that it's the opposite." The person I'm discussing it with turns around and says, "Yeah, but they think the same thing about you." And I tend to find myself at a loss for how to respond, beyond, "Yes, but I'm right, and they are wrong, because I have evidence and they don't." To which they respond the exact same way. This leaves me rather frustrated. How does one deal with such a scenario?

One girl I met was absolutely shocked to learn that Hindus had faith like she did.

...anyway, I usually use Aristotle for this type of discussion, particularly, that his belief that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. When his hypothesis was finally put to the test, some two thousand years later by Galileo, some refused to believe that Aristotle could have been wrong, and that gravity must have changed some time in the past.

Here we have a fact that can be directly observed, measured, and that although many people believed in it, can be shown to be demonstratably wrong, in relatively short order.

The entire Creationist arguement, for example, save for appeals to miracle (God the Deceiver), consists of various misunderstandings or misinterpretations that can be proven wrong. Some of these might require more steps than others, but it ultimately boils down to a set of repeatable observations.

[R. U. Serious]

This leaves me rather frustrated. How does one deal with such a scenario?

It depends on whether it's opinions or facts where you are standing on opposite ends. IMHO with opinions you can almost forget arguing any further, because - especially stupid - people will form ( or adopt is the better word) an opinion and after that will try to gather supportive facts. So no matter how many of the facts you can correct, or how many more important other facts you can bring in, they will cling on to their opinion.

With facts, well those are usually based on some aspect of objective reality. So that at least in theory a conclusion should happen (at least between more or less rational people). Simply "believing" something does not make it reality.

So if all you can think is "completely obvious that I am right", than you haven't really thought about the issue it seems to me. Unless it's something that can be immediately experienced anytime by everybody. No doubt the "ways of reasoning" for a fundie are not exclusive to fundies, you can also find it in many other areas of life and on non-religious issues. So just because you're taking a non-religious position on some topic does not make you immune to their "way of reasoning".

So, I guess what I am trying to say: If you don't know how to deal with that, you should probably invest more time in investigating your opinion and why it is your opinion. And you should do so before a debate. You should also make yourself familiar with the other guys position in advance (if you happen to know it), and investigate where the difference is between your way of reasoning and his. If you still can't come up with anything, maybe there isn't.

(given that the question was posed so abstract, it's not really possible to give a more concrete answer, as it will change from topic to topic)

[Winston Blake]

Many-a-time I've run across a situation wherein I'll say, "I can't fathom how a religious person could think this, since it's completely obvious that it's the opposite." The person I'm discussing it with turns around and says, "Yeah, but they think the same thing about you." And I tend to find myself at a loss for how to respond, beyond, "Yes, but I'm right, and they are wrong, because I have evidence and they don't." To which they respond the exact same way.

I had a giant dose of this when the strek-v-swars board opened. IMO that sort of thinking should be confined to the period before any evidence is presented or arguments made. Both sides walk into a debate thinking they're right (nothing wrong with this), but once arguments are described and can fight against each other, logical discussion should ideally result in one side conceding that the evidence is not in their favour.

The problem is when somebody refuses or is incapable of discussing things logically. Now, to somebody who hasn't been following the reasoning of the debate, there is simply two sides who still both think they're right, with nothing to distinguish them. Throw in a little 'every answer is right' mentality and you get people who can't see that differences in opinion can be resolved with right-vs-wrong logic rather than Golden Mean consensus. It's easy to assume that a lack of consensus implies a lack of actual validity.

This leaves me rather frustrated. How does one deal with such a scenario?

It might be a good idea to explain the Golden Mean fallacy and show that whether somebody is right is decided by how well they can back up their arguments, not how well they can profess faith in their own rightness.

[Zero]

I say this sometimes, but not with the intention of claiming that the two ideas are necessarily equal. It is true that most opposing positions find your position irrational and stupid no matter how well you explain it. This doesn't mean they're as right as you are, it just means they have as much conviction as you do, even though they're wrong.

[McC]

Sorry for being so vague with this.

I'm specifically referring to religious discussions. I'll say to someone during the course of discussion, "Their position is clearly illogical, based on X, Y, and Z. It is impossible to support a theistic position with evidence." The other person, not necessarily a theist but taking the role of a theistic apologist, will say something to the effect of, "Yes, but they don't think your evidence is evidence, and they think their evidence proves a theistic position." I then ask for such evidence to be produced, which is met by a response usually similar to, "You wouldn't accept their evidence." This I typically counter with, "If it's legitimate evidence, I have to accept it. If it's anecdotal bullshit, then I don't." Which is then met with, "Yes, but to them it's not anecdotal bullshit." Back and forth, ad nauseum.

It is, to me, symptomatic of the culture that supports the idea that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion," even in matters wherein opinions are irrelevant. Personally, I don't hold with the idea that everyone is entitled to his own opinion; one is only entitled to an opinion one can rigorously support. Otherwise, honesty and intellectual integrity demands one abandon it.

I hope that clears things up a bit.

[mr friendly guy]

The other person, not necessarily a theist but taking the role of a theistic apologist, will say something to the effect of, "Yes, but they don't think your evidence is evidence, and they think their evidence proves a theistic position."

Who cares what they think? They are wrong.

That very argument assumes that by holding an opinion it is automatically valid.

Ask them since Islamofundy terrorists think they are good, and no amount of our evidence will convince them otherwise, does that mean Islamofundy terrorists are good? I bet he will try and avoid answering. If he can't he will be forced to acknowledge that his logic is wrong.

[McC]

I've actually raised that very point in the past. It's typically met with, "They think they are," as if that's some kind of justification.

[Vendetta]

There are two ways to understand this. One is that they are cultural relativists, (to which the stock reply is "Show me a cultural relativist at thirty thousand feet and I'll show you a hypocrite." Though you could substitute Mike's example about bridges.) or they're making a serious point that any sufficiently strongly held belief is a pathological delusion which will lead to selective thinking about contradictory statements.

In the former case, there's no helping them. They will think that any sufficiently strongly held belief has validity simply because of the fact that it is strongly believed. These people are as mad and wrong as the people who think that there is a God who, presumably, can barely look at a paleontologist without breaking into fits of giggles.

In the second case, you're not arguing with them really. They are simply agreeing with you that people with faith based positions are ill in the head.

[R. U. Serious]

Which is then met with, "Yes, but to them it's not anecdotal bullshit." Back and forth, ad nauseum.

It is, to me, symptomatic of the culture that supports the idea that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion," even in matters wherein opinions are irrelevant. Personally, I don't hold with the idea that everyone is entitled to his own opinion; one is only entitled to an opinion one can rigorously support. Otherwise, honesty and intellectual integrity demands one abandon it.

Since you are specifically saying that it's about matters where opinions are relevant, I am assuming you are discussing about "factual" claims about the real world. In that case the way to going about arguing is to startm from the baics, establish whether your opponent believes in an "objective reality" that is experienced by all people. If they don't, it' solipsism which has been discussed in severl topics recetly.
If they accept objective reality, talk about how knowledge about this reality can be gathered and compared (this will essentially lead you to the scientific method), also point out the flaws of methods that are not reliable for gathering information.

Basically with thse kind of "relativists" your best bet is to trying to lead the discussion with questions rather than making postulations yourself.
The other important thing to be aware is to be very specific in agreeing what it is you are actually discussing up front. It's obviously a totaaly different topic whether you're discussing the mindset/self-evaluation of religious terrorists, or whether you're discussing their immediate effect on society/reality. Even though colloquially both times you might say "do you believe religious terrorists are good?"

[R. U. Serious]

edit: of course I meant to say "about matters where opinions are NOT relevant"

[Darth Wong]

I have successfully used a Socratic-style interrogation technique to get a fundie to admit that he was badly contradicting himself when he tried to pretend that science and religion existed on a similar level of credibility.

His solution? He simply declared that I was clearly a superior debater, but my "tricks" would not change his mind.

There's just no winning with some people.

[Darth Servo]

As an engineer, I can use the scientific man's theories to safely design a bridge or a building. Let me know when the religious man's theories are anywhere near as useful or reliable.

You should already know they'll fall back on the old "religion produces superior morality" bullshit that they've been peddling for centuries.

[Wyrm]

I'm specifically referring to religious discussions. I'll say to someone during the course of discussion, "Their position is clearly illogical, based on X, Y, and Z. It is impossible to support a theistic position with evidence." The other person, not necessarily a theist but taking the role of a theistic apologist, will say something to the effect of, "Yes, but they don't think your evidence is evidence, and they think their evidence proves a theistic position." I then ask for such evidence to be produced, which is met by a response usually similar to, "You wouldn't accept their evidence." This I typically counter with, "If it's legitimate evidence, I have to accept it. If it's anecdotal bullshit, then I don't." Which is then met with, "Yes, but to them it's not anecdotal bullshit." Back and forth, ad nauseum.

Did you actually present your evidence and cite sources? That takes work. You can demand that the other side give you the same courtesy by presenting theirs. Why should you do all the hard work of doing your part for your side if the other side is not willing to participate equally to the discussion?

Also, take time to "remind" the other side what "evidence" really is, and that it can be distinguished from anecdotal bullshit. Whether or not the opposition can tell the difference is not your problem.

It is, to me, symptomatic of the culture that supports the idea that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion," even in matters wherein opinions are irrelevant. Personally, I don't hold with the idea that everyone is entitled to his own opinion; one is only entitled to an opinion one can rigorously support. Otherwise, honesty and intellectual integrity demands one abandon it.

People have confused "everyone is entitled to their opinion" with "everyone is entitled to present their opinion as a sensible point of view." You're certainly entitled to have the opinion that the moon is made out of cheese, but absolutely do not have the right to expect others to take this opinion seriously without some serious evidence.

[Count Dooku]

I have successfully used a Socratic-style interrogation technique to get a fundie to admit that he was badly contradicting himself when he tried to pretend that science and religion existed on a similar level of credibility.

His solution? He simply declared that I was clearly a superior debater, but my "tricks" would not change his mind.

There's just no winning with some people.

Care to teach the rest of us that trick?

It's as simple as this my friend: religion is faith based, while science is fact based. When you take something on faith, you don't need facts to back it up, and that's why fundies are so dangerous - they don't care how much evidence we have that disproves their beliefs.

[Covenant]

People have confused "everyone is entitled to their opinion" with "everyone is entitled to present their opinion as a sensible point of view." You're certainly entitled to have the opinion that the moon is made out of cheese, but absolutely do not have the right to expect others to take this opinion seriously without some serious evidence.

This is an important point. As with the example of Aristotle and Galileo, even the famed scientist himself (who touted experimental data above all other forms of knowledge) didn't do his own goddamn experiment and test gravity. As things grow more complex, such as examining global warming or trying to determine what level of taxation has the greatest benefit, it's very hard to just drop things off a balcony and find out. If we could, domestic policy would certainly be a lot easier.

The best way to defuse the argument is to point out that some of the greatest scientists have also been religious men, so they are not mutually exclusive ways of viewing reality. But if you wish to disprove the existance of an omnipotent, omniscient, invisible creator-being... you've got an uphill battle.

People who say science and religion are equally valid are insane though. They're not similar in purpose whatsoever, and that's another good tact. Science leads to medical research, to advancements in food science, in climate control, efficent energy sources, materials that are stronger and safer to make bridges and homes out of, and so on. Faith is something that fills a spiritual need, while science fills the physical demands of the human race. Don't be mad they don't see the same things you do, but explain how blocking science harms a lot of people, and doesn't stop them from going to church. And stopping their kids from going to science class doesn't remove their need for antibiotics either.

[Darth Wong]

What's particularly aggravating to me is people who point out examples of scientists believing stupid things, and then using this as proof that science itself is a bad methodology. Of course, they completely ignore the fact that science, unlike religion, has a method of identifying and correcting these mistakes, which is the whole fucking point.

I also like to point out to imbeciles like this that a bad behaviour on the part of an individual practitioner does not translate to a flaw of the methodology itself. I personally know an accountant who ran up $15k of credit-card debt by carrying balances and paying the minimums. Does this mean that economic theory actually supports this idiotic practice? No. Similarly, the fact that somebody knows some jackass scientist who ignored his schooling and became a YEC does not mean that the profession at large actually endorses this foolishness.