Lately i happened to be involved in some debates with creationists and fundamentalists.. The only intention i keep while debating is to change thinking of other person. I couldn't find source but i read in some book, how to seduced someone thinking..
1) Framing: It basically carl sagan approach, where we just explain our position, understanding and approach, with out hurting or questioning other person views..
2) Mocking: It christopher hitchens approach, challenging other person, attacking ignorance, being like rebel.
I hope you got the idea, Most of the time, i start framing approach, but due to opponent fanaticism, i end up in mocking position at end of debate.
I'm wondering, is anyone have any articles or material in this subject, What are you thoughts about it???
My instinctive reaction on reading this was - FALSE DICHOTOMY! FALSE DICHOTOMY!!
Seriously - you can do both (and you should do both) at the same time. Mockery can be a useful tool. If someone challenges you saying that you're "mocking" them, explain that you have given a clear explanation of your argument - the mockery is not your argument per se.
With a subject like that, I thought I was going to learn some methods of THE seduction. You have disappointed me
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has - Margaret Mead
05-Oct-2010, 10:58 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-Oct-2010, 10:59 PM by Ron2005.)
I feel that Mocking puts the other person in a defensive position. That means he would be thinking of ideas to counter your statements rather than trying to understand what you are saying.That is not good if you are trying to get some thought/opinion across!
An open and friendly discussion might provide more results.Framing should work
Personally I don't like mocking, But sometimes i can't help it, For some ignorant people, even when i am doing framing they think i am being rude... Last week i was in debate in University of Evansville he was arguing that, "I need faith to be atheist" I have tried to explain my view, He was using same negative logic to support his view, it was 20 min, then i said "I don't need faith to reject flying monkey or talking donkey", Then he stopped arguing with me.
Framing only works with thoughtful people, not everyone..
Mocking works for little bit thoughtful and little bit arrogant people, Which is most of case..
For some people nothing works.. Its simply waste of time, Its just feeding hungry loin with red meat, they probably end up more religious at end of discussions.
Which is also case of Learned paralysis, i.e they been strongly indoctrinated in the belief system, their mind is not wired to think logically and critically, That is a psychological problem..
19-Oct-2010, 02:20 PM
(This post was last modified: 19-Oct-2010, 02:26 PM by Ajita Kamal.)
I agree with unsorted on this issue.
Most of the discussions on such topics ignore the fact that people are all different and therefore require different approaches. No two atheists are the same, so why would all theists be alike, requiring similar tactics on our part? Here are a couple of quotes from an article
Quote:"I submit that we must adopt a pluralistic strategy.
Any single advocate for atheism cannot influence every type of individual who believes in the supernatural. This is obvious if you take into account how vastly different people are in their thinking."
Quote:"There is a very important role that anger, ridicule and passion play in any social movement. While intellectual understanding is key to a movement that is well-grounded, it is the primary emotions that provide the impetus for social organization. Without this, atheism would simply remain an idea to be discussed in academia and in private settings.
Let me give you an example. Secular Humanism has been around for more than a century. Humanists often deride the ‘New Atheists’ for their bitterness. In fact, the argument from many humanists has been that their tactics are more effective! But how many people knew about secular humanism before the ‘New Atheists’? Their whole movement was an academic one, restricted to an elite group of people who had the time and inclination for such intellectualisms. While the humanists were debating about human rights and ethics for over a century, atheists continued to remain in the shadows, in a cultural environment where they were unable to realize many of their fundamental rights. The only community that was available to most atheists was society at large. As you may well know, one of the most important functions of religion is to provide a common cultural ground to enable a common morality and social code to bring together people and form a functioning and content community. We atheists did not have this- not until a few years ago. It is easy to ignore the freedoms (from the point of view of social acceptance) we have gained towards expressing our beliefs in public and for gathering in the name of reason. It is easy to forget that millions of atheists crave the kind of social contact that religions have traditionally provided. It is even more easy to forget the role that anger, ridicule and passion have played in creating this global community of freethinkers. Without the ‘new atheists’, secular humanism would have remained irrelevant in the public sphere. Today we can meaningfully talk about replacing religion with a secular morality derived from humanistic principles only because of the social impetus that the ‘New Atheists’ like Dawkins have provided humanity with.
It is a false assumption that to convince a believer about the validity of atheism (or rather, the absurdity of religion) one needs to be gentle and defensive. That is complete bull. It may work in a few cases, but it is generally a long term strategy applicable only to a tiny segment of people, the ones who are genuinely interested in exploring the truth regardless of their personal emotional intuitions. The vast majority of religious people are absolutely reticent to question their own beliefs and instead will attack atheism blindly. Most people who have become atheists have done so because at some point they began to question their own beliefs. Contrary to the general assumption, this sort of questioning does not come naturally to everyone. It does not come simply because we present logical arguments defending atheism. It often comes because at some point, someone else questioned their ridiculous religious beliefs. Often because someone ridiculed those beliefs. Throughout history, this is how revolutionary ideas have dispersed through culture. Society does not work on the same principles of science, in that evidence and proof do not determine what the majority will believe. Ideas die in a culture when it becomes embarrassing to hold on to them. Social conformity is achieved not through intellectual discourse as much as through the need to belong. If your ridiculous beliefs are laughed at, you begin to question them. This may not apply to you or me or many in this group, assuming that we are more evidence-based on our thinking, but this certainly applies to the majority of people on earth.
Do not think that I am advocating personal attacks. I am talking about ridiculing irrational beliefs, not people."
So in essence, there is no one strategy. We need pluralism in promoting freethought. There is a very important role that mocking plays, just as there is a very important role that compassion and understanding plays. People are always compartmentalizing their beliefs, and the most effective strategies that get people to change their minds about their superstitious beliefs usually involve an assault on many of the defenses that religious and other cultural belief systems have built around them over their lifetimes.
"Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian"
~ J.B.S.Haldane, on being asked to falsify evolution.
I agree with you, This was interesting video i have watched yesterday
In this video, i really liked pastor, his has very saddle good way taking arguments.. or maybe he's doing framing approach on hitchens. In this particular case i would do framing approach.
It was wonderful explanation why mocking should be done, but still out of my experience. In the debate I have been, Few people take very strong rigid position in their belief system, no matter how much logic or reasoning i used, they never change their position. As a matter of fact, i change my mind all the time based information and evidence.
What i want to say is, Sometime even mocking doesn't work who seems to be a good healthy person. check this video
I believe, its a result of learned paralysis or Strong indoctrination. Their mind seems to hard wired or thinking system hard coded or something like that. Or Just i am poor at convincing.
Do you any thoughts on this??