Help me understand the effectiveness of bashing other people's beliefs

[Az]

I mean I don't quite understand it. Why use words or ideas that denigrate people just because they believe something different? Even if you believe they are obviously wrong it should be clear that they believe the things they do for strong reasons. Is it really possible to make a person give up their beliefs by means of degrading them (I mean short of torture)? I just don't see it.

To my thinking using words you know others feel insulted by will just cause them to distance themselves from you and your ideas all the quicker. If you really wish to make a difference and establish communication through which to exchange ideas it would seem that a certain amount of civility is required. Particularly on a subject as emotional as religious belief.

As I see it not every conversation has to result in a winner or a loser. Isn't it possible to communicate and find what common ground exists and leave it to later discussions to find ways to connect to more controversial issues? Or is there some advantage to thrashing a person's beliefs based on your beliefs?

I just don't understand.

[Kiouni]

1. Is ignorance really bliss?

I agree with you that there needs to be a certain level of tact when discussing theology but there needs to be discussion. Philosophy is an important part of what makes us human and we should all strive to fully understand why we are here and what our purpose is. If you think you have figured it out then I can guarantee you haven't but the point is human inquisitiveness needs to be perpetuated and religious isolation just to be nice will only drive down conscious growth.

[Dorian Gray]

14. I totally agree.

But, discussion is different than mocking. I agree with all your sentiments in this post, though, Kiouni.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. There is none. But...

in all forms of human discourse, we eventually get down to the insult when others simply don't get our enlightened truth.

Irwin Copi's classic logic text was laden with real examples. In the chapter on Aristotle's informal fallacies, he related the story of a solicitor in Merrie Olde England who worked long and hard on a case that would go to trial. The barrister who would try the case refused to look at it until the day of trial when he opened the brief. It was simply one page-- "We have no case. Insult the opposition."

[TallahasseeGrannie]

16. "our enllightened truth"

a wonderful phrase! And so true.

One thing we humans are good at, is OPINIONS, as this forum proves. And I am as opinionated as any.

[tblue]

3. You make an excellent point Are you talking about us at DU, or left v. right?

[Az]

4. I suspect it is more a US thing

I suspect much of our incivility comes from generations of isolation of various schools of thought. Intellectual dialog has atrophied in the US for numerous reasons. As a result there is little social impetus to investigate opposing schools of thought. Instead groups turn in on themself and begin to demonize anything that is not familiar to it.

With the advent of the internet there has been a resurgence of discourse. As more people of a like mind are able to locate each other various minority positions are able to find numbers that allow them to be represented. But due to a lack of practice or exorcise in such discourse in our society it is more emotional in confrontation than civil due to pent up hostilities. Old wounds and a lack of knowing the opposition lead to ignorance and dismissal of the oppositions positions. And this of course feeds into the preconcieved notions that each side has of the other.

[tblue]

5. I think things are worse now, since the 'news' has gone so corporate. We are so hungry to

hear our truth on the tv. The nexus of the Administration and the media has created overwhelming frustration on our part, especially when we're confronted with people who don't see it, and don't understand there is no reliable objective parsing of news events in MSM. America really consists of two parallel, clashing universes. It's like half of us speak Greek, and the other half Latin, and the volume just gets louder and louder and louder. I don't know how that will ever be resolved, until we clean hous,e as far as big media is concerned.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

17. Do you ever wonder

if the discourse online satisfies our political urges and makes us more apathetic in the real world?

I know that sometimes after a hard day sloshing it out on DU and elsewhere I really don't give a hoot and go to bed!

Do we use up our energies and righteous anger online?

[lligrd]

6. Love To Know If You Get THE Answer To This Question

Sometimes it seems like even progressives aren't progressing much beyond the teen years.

[Meshuga]

7. It's ineffective

You are right. There is no effectiveness unless you are trying to hurt others. A lot of people sometimes say things without thinking as a joke that hurts someone else. Sometimes we lose our heads in a heated argument and say something that will be hurtful to the other person. I catch myself doing these things from time to time and I DO feel bad about it. I have to work on setting up rules for myself (letting things go and being careful not to hurt anyone).

Intentionally bashing others is ineffective as far as maitaining a debate but very effective if you want to fuck with someone and hurt that person or a group of people. Whoever says, "I can take it so I will give it" just does not know how to put her/himself in other people's shoes.

My two cents.

[no_hypocrisy]

8. It's only "effective" if the other side doesn't rebut or argue back and you

"win" the argument of my-idea-is-superior-to-yours by default.

Just because bashing the beliefs of another person is ineffective doesn't mean that it won't be tried. It's a logical fallacy to win an argument by evading the tedium of proving the validity of your position and denigrading the other's argument. It's easy -- and fun, in some people's minds.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. It might influence a third party

If it's just you talking to someone you want to persuade, it may be better to reason, stay polite and so on. If you think the other person isn't amenable to reason anyway, that may be just a waste of time, but, yes, insults and bashing aren't likely to get anywhere with them either.

But in a situation where other people can see the exchange (such as on this board), ridicule and insults might have an effect on them. If you think your opponent is talking rubbish, then it can be highly effective to point this out - sometimes in a cruel way.

[trotsky]

10. I think it's totally unavoidable with religion.

It doesn't matter how benign the comment, SOMEONE will feel like you're bashing their cherished beliefs.

And you know what? THAT'S the problem. By lending religion this special status, allowing people to be outraged when someone doubts or yes, even mocks their beliefs, we set ourselves up for the poisoned political dialog of the last couple of decades. Policies are now tied to people's religions - so if you criticize the policy, you're criticizing their religion, their deeply held beliefs. Or you're an agent of Satan. Or both, like me! How does that lend itself toward working together and compromising? Answer: it doesn't. It polarizes and squelches debate.

[cosmik debris]

11. Confrontation vs. Appeasement

Most of those here who preach tolerance are simply trying to keep the peace. They seem to believe that respecting and tolerating the beliefs of others will be helpful in the long run.

There is another school that believes that tolerance is appeasement. The acceptance as legitimate of ideas that are just plain poppycock is not helpful to debate or progress.

For example, a recent thread spoke of paleontology as a paradigm rather than a science. To allow a science to be reduced to an alternative way of addressing an issue, equal to superstition, retards progress.

Passively accepting the ideas of another may keep the peace, but it dose not promote understanding. I believe that we should mirror the statements of others so that they can see themselves as they are seen by others. If this means bashing to you, I can live with that. After all, it was appeasement that got us the religious right in the first place.

[JerseygirlCT]

12. Me either, AZ, but I guess it comes down to what your goals

are.

Are you interested in dialogue and more understanding? Or are you just interested in scoring points of some sort. IOW, is the goal oppositional or cooperative?

So long as words don't turn into actions, I think (personally), it ought to be possible to have civil, even educational, conversations with people whose ideas differ from mine.

It's when those ideas turn into actions that may harm others that I stop being so interested in them!

[Dorian Gray]

13. Well...

some people come to these boards to learn. Some to form a community. Some to argue. I guess it all depends on what their purpose is.

I agree with you, Az. :)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

15. Well said!

We all have our little "things" and if we want to be accepted in spite of them, we need to accept others'.

I think that belittling other's faith (and I've been guilty at times) or lack thereof is arrogant. And arrogance is not a pleasant trait.

[Silent3]

18. Depends what you mean by "denigrate"

Is saying something negative about a particular belief automatically considered "denigrating" to anyone who holds that belief?

It's almost always more productive to critique ideas, concepts, beliefs, etc., themselves rather than criticizing the people who hold them -- but what are you supposed to do when someone automatically takes personal offense at any negativity directed at their beliefs?

While I'm not going to go out of my way to insult and annoy people for the sake of insulting and annoying them, I'm not going to shut up and be quiet on every issue that I'm afraid might offend someone either.

As for effectiveness... it's very hard to ever change any one person's mind on anything no matter what strategy you try. If I could go from 0.01% chance of changing someone's mind to a 0.1% chance, by virtue of the most careful, cautious, diplomatic language I can muster -- it's hardly worth the effort. Not when there's another angle from which I can be far more effective with direct, even scathing language -- changing the entire atmosphere of public debate.

When atheists tiptoe around religion and treat it as a topic of special reverence, as something off-limits from criticism, as something automatically due some special kind of respect without any regard to the merit of particular beliefs, they work against their own interests. Acting like that isn't merely neutral, it boosts the position of religion in this world.

I predict that the new outspokenness of many atheists is very likely to have a measurable impact over time. You'll see more and more people openly and willingly declaring atheism, and it won't just be people who've been silent before, but new people who've left religion behind, and new people who've never adopted any religion (or "spiritualism" or other metaphysical superstitions) in the first place.

The way forward here is frank, honest, and sometimes scathing criticism of religion -- silence, excessive tiptoeing, aren't going to cut it.

Even if you believe they are obviously wrong it should be clear that they believe the things they do for strong reasons.

If by "strong" you mean "difficult to shake", or "emotionally charged", or "well-padded by ignorance", perhaps yes. But if you mean "good" -- I find it all to rare when people have good, solid, well-thought out reasons for the things they say they believe.

[redqueen]

19. There is no effectiveness, IMO.

It's counterproductive, whether for beliefs or opinions or whatever else...