SDN Style Doesn't Work -- What to do?

[McC]

Having been here for a number of years, the sort of in-your-face confrontational, quote-them-the-fallacies debating style that goes on around here has become modus operandi for me in pretty much any argument. I tend to leave out the name-calling in other discourse, but the rest is much the same.

However, it never actually works. No one is ever convinced of an argument; more often than not, they simply end up firewalling the whole discussion and saying, "I'm not listening; I am entitled to my opinion/belief/etc." and nothing changes, other than leaving me (and probably them) quite frustrating and upset.

So, what does work? How do you change someone's mind? How do you make them see your point, and get them to come around? Can this be done? I just spent an hour arguing with someone about the degree to which permitting religion to go uncriticized (religionism?) is tantamount to racism or sexism or any other -ism, only to have the conversation ultimately end with "I could care less what you believe, it's having to put up hearing the same old stuff over and over again. You have a belief. I respect that. But that doesn't mean I have to be "happy happy joy joy" whenever you shove it in conversation."

And this is often the case. In this particular circle of individuals, I've very much become "that guy" who, whenever religion comes up, elicits the thought, "Oh no, you're going to set him off now and we'll have to listen to it." How do you change something like this, so that instead of eye-rolling, people actually recognize what you're saying and adopt the view you're espousing?

Just feeling really down about all of this lately, and looking for some support from like-minded folks.

(Apologies if this is the wrong forum -- it concerns debating and religion, so I figured SLAM was the right place)

[Kanastrous]

People become heavily invested in their reality-tunnels.

At a certain point, they dig in their heels and no amount of reasoned, point-by-point argument can be understood, by such people.

It's a defense mechanism.

[Kanastrous]

Also...I suspect that a lot of people-of-faith know perfectly well that many faith-based positions are untenable from any position other than that of strong faith-for-its-own-sake.

And they pride themselves upon their ability to resist any logical, rational, supported-by-the-available-evidence argument, that contradicts that faith.

[salm]

Are you talking about online or real life debate?

[Ariphaos]

The SD.net method is pretty pathetic for dealing with such people in Real Life, but it's more because dealing with such people is annoying and rather than deal with the average broken record that drops by, it's far easier and less time consuming to resort to ridicule than kid gloves.

The easiest way I've found to plant a few seeds of doubt is to be genuinely curious about their philosophies, provide honest and respectful insight where you can, etc. Bible Studies don't generally go over the parts glorifying rape, et. al. which makes this easier.

From what I understand, mere news of my loss of faith was a greater impact on those Christians I debated with (while I was Catholic) than anything I could actually have said.

[Darth Wong]

However, it never actually works.

Sure it does. Third-party observers are often quite convinced that the guy you're arguing with is an imbecile, because of the way you so easily shredded his arguments.

Of course, if you think that success means "convincing the other guy he's wrong", good luck. Regardless of whether you're talking politics or religion, most people are so entrenched in their viewpoints that there is no technique in the universe that would change their minds, at least not overnight.

[General Zod]

If you're pretty good at making people laugh, I find that taking a humorous approach and pointing out how ridiculous some of the concepts they follow works best. Unfortunately on the internet the head-first tactic works best because people don't relent nearly as easily.

[drachefly]

The best I've done IRL was that one time I managed to convince a middle-aged fundie that evolution was internally consistent.

I did it by not going on the offensive, which would get his back up, and not going on the defensive, which would let him determine the shape of the debate, but simply explaining.

I explained why negative mutations can go ahead and be bad for the organism 99% of the time or whatever numbers he was using, and evolution would still advance.
In the end, he finally got what 'survival of the fittest' really meant, and saw why its tautologicalness wasn't a problem for evolution.

When his mom brought up those old human and dinosaur footprints, I just said, "Wow, whoever confirmed that would get a nobel prize!"
Which kind of put a kink in her otherwise inevitable rant on scientists covering up data they know disproves their claims.

That was around 8 years ago. I wonder what he thinks now. I'm pretty sure his mom is, if still alive, unchanged in that regard.

[Darth Wong]

The best I've done IRL was that one time I managed to convince a middle-aged fundie that evolution was internally consistent.

Some fundies are more receptive to argument than others. That's a function of the fundie himself, not the argument or its style.

If you're pretty good at making people laugh, I find that taking a humorous approach and pointing out how ridiculous some of the concepts they follow works best. Unfortunately on the internet the head-first tactic works best because people don't relent nearly as easily.

Unfortunately, McC wants to convince the fundie himself rather than an audience of reasonably intelligent onlookers, and making fun of him will probably make him even angrier than a condescending attitude or an insulting one.

[General Zod]

Unfortunately, McC wants to convince the fundie himself rather than an audience of reasonably intelligent onlookers, and making fun of him will probably make him even angrier than a condescending attitude or an insulting one.

Depends on how you go about it. Making comparisons that make their position seem silly can work on some people, others it works by simply poking fun at their core system of beliefs. Really depends a lot on the individual fundie, how well you know them and their general attitude.

[rhoenix]

I've gotten into debates of this sort before - particularly when I worked for a health care company run by Seventh-Day Adventists. Rabid Bushies, the lot of them, but anyway.

I didn't make fun of them or insult their intelligence - I proved my points one by one, calmly and with compassion. The brought up the "you have to believe in God to be moral" and I retorted with priest molestation, the Crusades, and various acts performed by the Catholic Church over the years. If they spew out something outright wrong, like the "Hitler was an athiest" meme, I just show that the Pope at the time made it a point to visit Hitler on his birthday.

One doesn't have to be aggressive and confrontational about it in a face-to-face debate - the moment anyone feels attacked, they typically will drop into "fight or flight," and either drop it and leave, or start getting mad and closing their mind even more. Neither is a victory, in my mind. Victory, in this sort of situation, is them not having a soundbite to issue, and instead looking thoughtful. I remember (and proudly, might I add) doing this regarding evolution to a few fundies.

I grant that there have been some fundies who, the instant they discover you're not Christian, and worse, disagree with them on a few of their talking points, they batten down the hatches and proselytize. In which case, I don't change tactics, and they usually end up making themselves look like an ass.

[Junghalli]

I did it by not going on the offensive, which would get his back up, and not going on the defensive, which would let him determine the shape of the debate, but simply explaining.

I think that's probably the best way if you want to actually bring your opponent around to your viewpoint. Turning the discussion into an adversarial battle is not really a good way to make your opponent receptive to your viewpoint: it makes them defensive, and makes them feel like they'll lose face if they conceed.

[Cairber]

IMO, it is all about the lurkers. I run into this alllll the time when debating circumcision on parenting boards and the like. You get these people who will go so far as to accept female genital mutilation as a parental right/choice just to remain consistant...there is no logical argument with these people. But we press on because we ALWAYS convince some lurkers or casual posters to the conversation of our views. We do it with evidence, backing ourselves up, remaining logical...basically the SDN way.

Just the other day I was involved in a 30 page train wreck on the subject with people who were so pro circumcision they kept their sons' foreskis in a keep sake box. I also got about 10 or so PMs and emails from other members whose minds were changed or opened to our side. So we press on...

[McC]

Typically, I'm not debating fundies, but fundie apologists -- people who are the sort of ambiguous pseudo-spiritual types that defend the "right to believe" and the whole "don't question someone's faith" garbage. There are a few fundies, but they're rarer than the types that like to sit back and smirk, shooting snide comments/questions/strawmans about being an atheist and such like.

An excerpt:
Him: The point is Ryan, slavery, civil rights, and suffrage is based on PHYSICAL qualities - gender, skin color, age, etc. You're attacking personal beliefs, and that firmly falls under personal freedoms guaranteed to us by the Constitution of this country. And if you're going to keep repeatedly ramming your personal freedoms down everyone ELSE'S throat, you're going to have to expect to get people VERY pissed off at you.
Me: Wrong. You are guaranteed by the constitution to have a freedom of choice. You are not guaranteed to be immune to criticism of that choice. Though you're right. This isn't really an issue of rights. Atheists and Christians and Muslims and whomever else (in this country) legally all have the same rights. Unofficially, this country is radically Christian-biased, but that's another matter. We aren't facing rights issues anymore; we're facing fact acceptance issues. Peak Oil, global warming, atheism, evolution -- fact is at war with belief, and fact must win, because if it does not, we all go bye-bye.
Him: Then maybe you should respect people's private, personal beliefs and not attack them. Or at least keep that in mind when you piss off people.
Me: Oh, goody, the "personal beliefs are private and to be respected" line.

[Ghost Rider]

Interestingly, it won't convince the other party. In fact most arguments rarely do so even if you are 100% correct(I have clients I can attest that tell me I am wrong because they saw some article in a newpaper....only to get audited next year), and in fact should never be your goal. Take for instance Darkstar and his rabid morons. Nothing will ever convince them, not even you bring back Gene and have him tell Scooty-puff that Star Trek loses.

What you want to convince are the onlookers. That is where being tough more times then not convinces them. People attribute it to strength or confidence and if both parties display such, then they weigh in the facts.

[Darth Wong]

Typically, I'm not debating fundies, but fundie apologists -- people who are the sort of ambiguous pseudo-spiritual types that defend the "right to believe" and the whole "don't question someone's faith" garbage.

I actually reserve considerable ire for that sort of person. They're what I call "the Mindless Middle". They don't have real arguments; just mushy subjective touchy-feely shit. This means you can't refute their arguments, because in order to refute an argument, the argument must first exist. All you can do is point out that they don't actually have an argument, and this is the sort of smiling idiot who doesn't actually feel that he needs to have a logical argument to support any of his beliefs. He can just support them by saying them.

This is the kind of imbecile who goose-stepped behind George W. Bush all the way into Iraq and then, five years later, turned around and blamed Bush for 'deceiving" him, thus washing his hands of the entire matter. This is the kind of imbecile who makes decisions on every political issue without even bothering to read about it, because he goes entirely on gut instinct. It's the kind of imbecile that Stephen Colbert makes fun of every night, and he's so fucking retarded that he'll watch Colbert's show, laugh, and not realize that he's the butt of the joke.

[Lord MJ]

The key here is "Reasonably Intelligent Audience."

I'm pretty sure there are many cases where even if you are totally right and are totally shredding your opponent's arguments. In the eyes of your opponents you are crazy, as well as the audience you are crazy.

Also if you resort to belittling your opponent, it would convince the audience that you are an asshole, and thus bias them against your arguments. The audience might not even care about what your argument is in this scenario.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Typically, I'm not debating fundies, but fundie apologists -- people who are the sort of ambiguous pseudo-spiritual types that defend the "right to believe" and the whole "don't question someone's faith" garbage.

I actually reserve considerable ire for that sort of person. They're what I call "the Mindless Middle". They don't have real arguments; just mushy subjective touchy-feely shit. This means you can't refute their arguments, because in order to refute an argument, the argument must first exist. All you can do is point out that they don't actually have an argument, and this is the sort of smiling idiot who doesn't actually feel that he needs to have a logical argument to support any of his beliefs. He can just support them by saying them.

This is the kind of imbecile who goose-stepped behind George W. Bush all the way into Iraq and then, five years later, turned around and blamed Bush for 'deceiving" him, thus washing his hands of the entire matter. This is the kind of imbecile who makes decisions on every political issue without even bothering to read about it, because he goes entirely on gut instinct. It's the kind of imbecile that Stephen Colbert makes fun of every night, and he's so fucking retarded that he'll watch Colbert's show, laugh, and not realize that he's the butt of the joke.

I am with Mike 100%. I can't stand those total chickenshits that trot out, "well let's agree to disagree." Of course they do that, because they can't win; you can bet your ass if they smelled blood and had you in a corner and supported by mouthbreathing peers, they'd berate you and probably make gross generalizations about your character in general. The best method is to be like, there's no point in talking about personal beliefs which have no influence on others, society, or anything else. You have the right to a belief that you don't have to pay taxes, but you can't expect the IRS to not fuck you. You have the right to believe whatever you want, but as soon as you open your trap to try and push them to others on the marketplace of ideas, you've declared them fair game.

[Lord MJ]

I am with Mike 100%. I can't stand those total chickenshits that trot out, "well let's agree to disagree." Of course they do that, because they can't win; you can bet your ass if they smelled blood and had you in a corner and supported by mouthbreathing peers, they'd berate you and probably make gross generalizations about your character in general. The best method is to be like, there's no point in talking about personal beliefs which have no influence on others, society, or anything else. You have the right to a belief that you don't have to pay taxes, but you can't expect the IRS to not fuck you. You have the right to believe whatever you want, but as soon as you open your trap to try and push them to others on the marketplace of ideas, you've declared them fair game.

Well a lot of people throw out the "Let's Agree to Disagree" when there is a debate and there are two diametrically opposed viewpoints, and one person simply does not want to be bothered with dealing with a debate anymore. Many people do it as away of escaping annoyance.

The problem is if the person saying it is completely wrong in his arguments, then that causes issues. Add to that in the eyes of the mainstream, someone saying "Let's agree to disagree" is considered being reasonable. And someone rejecting a "Let's agree to disagree" request is being and asshole and is open to being treated accordingly.

[Darth Wong]

And the worst thing about these "Mindless Middle" types is that they're HUGE hypocrites: they throw their own mealy-mouthed touchy-feely bullshit out the window once they sense that an idea is sufficiently unpopular. That's why it's suddenly OK to make fun of someone's religious beliefs if that person happens to be a Scientologist. That's why it was OK to openly insult and harangue anyone who was against the war 5 years ago.

For the Mindless Middle, it all boils down to herd mentality. If they see that enough of the herd is moving one way, they'll move that way too, and they'll even develop a sense of righteous certainty that this is exactly the right thing to do. The only reason they pull this "You should be more accepting of other peoples' viewpoints" bullshit is because they can't defend their ideas logically. They have no problem attacking other peoples' viewpoints as long as they think the approval rating is low enough for them to do so safely.

[Lagmonster]

However, it never actually works.

Sure it does. Third-party observers are often quite convinced that the guy you're arguing with is an imbecile, because of the way you so easily shredded his arguments.

I find, when certain religious folk come to my door (and in my neighbourhood, they actually DO - there's a BibleWay Ministries lodge about a block and a half away) the best thing to do is appeal to their emotions, not their logic, because there's no audience to impress, and these types have led a sheltered, cable-free life without confrontation with someone not of the mindless middle who will smile and nod and politely pretend to listen.

Leading people in a Socratic pinwheel into feeling guilty or stupid is dirty pool, but many people don't change their opinions unless they feel bad or morally conflicted for having it; A logical argument, while powerful and valid, doesn't seem to have the same effect on fundies themselves. I'm not saying you shouldn't use logical argument - far from it - I'm saying that it's not how you change a fundie's mind.

Of the people I've met who've done a full 180 from fundie to atheist, they've done so because of emotional response to their beliefs - often it's things like seeing prejudice, unfairness and evil in people their faith paints as 'good' that drives them away. In others, it's a feeling of being unfulfilled by superstition or by feeling guilty or pitied in front of their community (or seeing the ostracism of others), and those feelings make some people fight back, which leads to questioning the promises made by their faith, which leads to dismissing faith as ineffective. In more than a few cases I've witnessed, the last thing to go isn't the religious beliefs but the fear of leaving - or being kicked out of - the only community they've known. I've seen would-be ex-fundies fail not because they can't accept the logical arguments against their beliefs, but because they cannot emotionally accept being ostracized from their family or friends and having to philosophically start over.

Ironically, it's easier to change a fundie's mind than a new ager, and I know this from experience. A fundie is likely to observe real-world conflicts with their faith, or evil repercussions to some of their beliefs, whereas a die-hard 'ghost hunter' will never see anything bad or morally conflicting come from his beliefs that ghosts exist, and since they're just as immune to logic as fundies are, there's no trigger to cause introspection.

[Darth Wong]

Sure it does. Third-party observers are often quite convinced that the guy you're arguing with is an imbecile, because of the way you so easily shredded his arguments.

I find, when certain religious folk come to my door (and in my neighbourhood, they actually DO - there's a BibleWay Ministries lodge about a block and a half away) the best thing to do is appeal to their emotions, not their logic, because there's no audience to impress, and these types have led a sheltered, cable-free life without confrontation with someone not of the mindless middle who will smile and nod and politely pretend to listen.

I'm guessing they're the "nice" type of Bible thumper. I knew a lot of those when I was in university. You tend to find them in more liberal areas; they believe they can reconcile Biblical literalism with modern morality. Because they actually can't, you can often hit them by pointing out the conflict.

However, since leaving university I have run into two varieties of fundie who are almost completely unreachable by any rhetorical method, and believe me, I've tried them all. I'm talking about rural bumfuck fundies and immigrant fundies. Remember me talking about an idiot fundie who said that a homosexual is more evil than a murderer, because a murderer only hurts one person but a homosexual hurts all of humanity in the eyes of God? She was from Venezuela. And don't get me started on the fucking Filipino fundies.

Leading people in a Socratic pinwheel into feeling guilty or stupid is dirty pool, but many people don't change their opinions unless they feel bad or morally conflicted for having it; A logical argument, while powerful and valid, doesn't seem to have the same effect on fundies themselves. I'm not saying you shouldn't use logical argument - far from it - I'm saying that it's not how you change a fundie's mind.

Of the people I've met who've done a full 180 from fundie to atheist, they've done so because of emotional response to their beliefs - often it's things like seeing prejudice, unfairness and evil in people their faith paints as 'good' that drives them away.

You have obviously not met a lot of the kind of fundies who actually revel in their own prejudice. I'm talking about the kind of people who would try to break up a happy family because one of the members is a heathen, or who invite preachers from Texas to speak at their church because "we Canadians are too soft on Satan".

In others, it's a feeling of being unfulfilled by superstition or by feeling guilty or pitied in front of their community (or seeing the ostracism of others), and those feelings make some people fight back, which leads to questioning the promises made by their faith, which leads to dismissing faith as ineffective. In more than a few cases I've witnessed, the last thing to go isn't the religious beliefs but the fear of leaving - or being kicked out of - the only community they've known. I've seen would-be ex-fundies fail not because they can't accept the logical arguments against their beliefs, but because they cannot emotionally accept being ostracized from their family or friends and having to philosophically start over.

Ironically, it's easier to change a fundie's mind than a new ager, and I know this from experience. A fundie is likely to observe real-world conflicts with their faith, or evil repercussions to some of their beliefs, whereas a die-hard 'ghost hunter' will never see anything bad or morally conflicting come from his beliefs that ghosts exist, and since they're just as immune to logic as fundies are, there's no trigger to cause introspection.

As I said, I've known this type of fundamentalist, and they're a rather different breed than the kind that I'm usually talking about. This kind of person is a fundamentalist only in the sense that he hasn't really thought about it yet. I've spent a lot of time dealing with fundamentalists who are quite aware of the more morally questionable aspects of Christianity, and who have embraced it all.

[Lagmonster]

Since leaving university I have run into two varieties of fundie who are almost completely unreachable by any rhetorical method, and believe me, I've tried them all. I'm talking about rural bumfuck fundies and immigrant fundies.

You have the double blessing of living in a larger, more multicultural community and what I assume is experience as the target of religious-based racial prejudice. Even without spending a lot of time on the farm in the middle of nowhere (read: Newcastle, Ontario), people like me won't see much religious argument because everyone there presumes there's nobody to argue against; everyone they see is white and presumed Christian.

You have obviously not met a lot of the kind of fundies who actually revel in their own prejudice. I'm talking about the kind of people who would try to break up a happy family because one of the members is a heathen, or who invite preachers from Texas to speak at their church because "we Canadians are too soft on Satan".

I may have, but I wouldn't know it for looking at them. In practice, fewer people try to preach to tall, fairly dressed white males, or forbids them from marrying into their family, because they assume they're Christian already.

[Jew]

As other have said, trying to change someone's worldview is a difficult process. It takes a long time, and it takes more than hard logic and cold reasoning, because human beings are not logical.

I find that it's helpful to emphasize points of agreement. That helps to show that you respect the other person. (And yes, you must respect the other person. Otherwise you're just being a contrarian.) Specifically, you should always preface your arguments by stating the things you agree with, or the things you respect about the other person's beliefs. Then move into the areas of disagreement. But don't jump straight into the disagreement. For example, let's take your excerpt:

An excerpt:
Him: The point is Ryan, slavery, civil rights, and suffrage is based on PHYSICAL qualities - gender, skin color, age, etc. You're attacking personal beliefs, and that firmly falls under personal freedoms guaranteed to us by the Constitution of this country. And if you're going to keep repeatedly ramming your personal freedoms down everyone ELSE'S throat, you're going to have to expect to get people VERY pissed off at you.
Me: Wrong. You are guaranteed by the constitution to have a freedom of choice. You are not guaranteed to be immune to criticism of that choice.

OK, do you see what happened there? Your immediate response was "Wrong." That puts him on the defensive. Sure, you mention some points of agreement later. But it's too late; you have already staked out an antagonistic position.

All you have to do is switch around the order of what you say:

Me: I agree with you on some points. This isn't really an issue of rights. Atheists and Christians and Muslims and whomever else (in this country) legally all have the same rights. Unofficially, this country is radically Christian-biased, but that's another matter. We aren't facing rights issues anymore; we're facing fact acceptance issues. Peak Oil, global warming, atheism, evolution -- fact is at war with belief, and fact must win, because if it does not, we all go bye-bye.

But I disagree with the idea that the Constitution protects people from criticism. You are guaranteed by the constitution to have a freedom of choice. You are not guaranteed to be immune to criticism of that choice.

Another useful thing is to always phrase things so that it's clear you are disgreeing with an idea, not with the person holding the idea. It's as simple as saying "That idea is wrong because..." instead of "You're wrong because...." It doesn't seem like much, but it helps.

[Nephtys]

However, it never actually works.

Sure it does. Third-party observers are often quite convinced that the guy you're arguing with is an imbecile, because of the way you so easily shredded his arguments.

Of course, if you think that success means "convincing the other guy he's wrong", good luck. Regardless of whether you're talking politics or religion, most people are so entrenched in their viewpoints that there is no technique in the universe that would change their minds, at least not overnight.

It's impossible to convince another person they're wrong.

But what you CAN do is demolish them on-stage if they're trying to convince others. In malls or public streets where 'street preachers' are common, you can do real good by blowing them away with a display of reason and humor to the common person. I've done it a few times to Hovind-copycats or various anti-science nuts, and it's quite rewarding.