I'd take a bribe

evidence for the opposite argument and/or evidence against my side. Or some way of looking at the issue that I hadn't thought about before, and that now makes sense why someone disagreed with my original stance

I guess in short, it takes sound reasoning with support.

I'm always impressed by the way people debate issues on here, but as a sweeping generalisation, not many people change from their original position. In fact people tend to get entrenched into their existing positions, so I wanted to find out the one thing that would make you change your existing approach to something you hold dear. For example would people change their view on the Iraq war if WMDs were suddenly discovered, would people accept same sex marriages if it just wasn't CALLED marrriage?

Chyeah if they found a stockpile of nukes in iraq I would go oh, hmm maybe it was worth it. Then I would think of the amount of lives lost and go... was it really?? Couldn;'t of we talked it out? used metal detectors in teh ground and just blown em up in iraq with only civilian casualties? omg no. Couldnt we just go back in time and blow up einstine...

no... cuz then world war II would still be going...

hmmm

I'd prolly move to new zealand or canada at that point.

i was thinking specifically rather than generally. Think of a subject you have a strong opinion about and then let me know what would make you change your mind.

To change MY opinion? A rational argument. To change someone else's? The usual rubbish.

Well I think cheesecake is better then pumpkin pie, but If I found a pie better then the cake I would change my mind...


Ummm hows about GAYS!! If you could show that they are immoral/bad parents/are the reason terrorist attacked on 9|11 then I would dislike them.

i would need a rational argument with supporting unbiased evidence.

Well personally I wouldn't on same-sex marriages. And I already think that we need to keep WMD out of the hands of rogue nations so it wouldn't matter to me if they actually found some or just made sure they couldn't create them.

I think the best way to change someones view on something is to show them a different way to look at it. I think it works well because conflicts don't arise from issues, they arise from conflicting world views, so rather than argue over the issue, it is often better to combat the source and try and show them the way you see it.

Evidence that falsifies my current belief (if my current belief is actually supported by evidence as well). Not all beliefs are supported by evidence... some are simply assumed to be true because someone told you at an early age. We all fall victim to that... and often don't realize it until years later if ever.

I am well aware of the blind men and the elephant fable... wherein no one has the full truth... and each person is convinced that their view is the full answer rather than just a part of a larger picture that perhaps no one has. This view leads me to be agnostic about many things - though I have pet theories that seem reasonable... it is pretty hard to prove something right.

Often I believe that it is more important for people to recognize and accept alternate perspectives than it is to prove a particular perspective over others... for one thing it is next to impossible to convince someone against their will... for another thing, it is important to get along and show and receive respect, lastly, we must always realize that, as unlikely as it seems, it could be us that is more wrong. Given time, perhaps generations in many cases, evidence will mount sufficiently to move public opinion... but along the way a lot of inflexible old people have to be replaced by fresh blood willing to take another look... It's all tiny changes that accumulate (like evolution)... baby steps.

I was going to ask something similar Maniac, changing your mind / being open-minded can be hard even though most of us think we are. I can't think of a good example for myself off-hand :-(

Somebody who knows the logical fallacies arguing the case would be a start

"Somebody who knows the logical fallacies arguing the case would be a start" - yes, TheGhostmaker, that is a start... and it is all too rare. A course in formal logic ought to be a required course in school.

ab+cb=qf/5h

simple enough for people to get logic

For instance, since jman777 wants to discuss Intelligent Design, I have always been about science. I believe that the earth was created when geologists say it was (about 4 billion years ago), and that the universe is as old as Cosmologists say it is (about 15 billion years), and that life happened in the way that biologists say it did (single cell evolves into everything). I trust that these fields of science have developed as sciences for a reason, and while they are not all perfect or exact and there may be modifications to theories for centuries to come, I trust that they are not all wrong just because ONE source disagrees - i.e. the Bible.

So I've thought this for many years and started having discussions with a fundamentalist friend of mine on all sorts of Bible-related topics. He gave me many books to read, and I would read them and come up with scientific counters to most of the claims being made. I found it disheartening that many of the authors (Josh McDowell is a particularly bad offender) were not being intellectually honest with their readers. They would make claims that they felt undermined things like Carbon14 dating, so that you can't believe the biologists and chemists who research this area of science that the earth is so damn old, since that would undermine the 6000 year old earth claim. But then as proof that some aspect of the bible had some time consistency, they would use the same science they were trying to discredit elsewhere.

That was not sound reasoning to me and I was able to counter many such arguments made in these books. The interesting thing is that my friend never got around to reading the ones I gave him. Ones written by scientists explaining the science that they were defending that was being attacked by creationists. He would not have his way of thinking altered even with sound reasoning and evidence because his way of thinking wasn't based on that to begin with. I on the other hand wanted to have my mind changed if it were possible - after all, while I can understand why many people don't believe in god, I can't for a second think why someone wouldn't WANT to believe in God. I always considered myself an athiest who wanted to be wrong. But not if I have to ignore science.

Well, to get back to the topic of the thread, there were some books on ID that did make me think about it as a legitimate posibility. Although the most I could say, due to the lack of evidence, is that the posibility exists that some kind of being created everything we know, and meant for it to work itself out to its present state. That is, set all of the physical constants up just right, so that the universe as we know it could exist and our planet as we know it, could create and sustain life.

So I think I did change the way I think on that subject, but the reality is that it's only a philisophical distinction. You would never be able to tell if a disinterested creator created the big bang or if it was a fluke of Quantum mechanics on a REALLY large scale. And it certainly doesn't do a single thing to prove that this same creator talked to people like Moses and inspired him to write the bible.

I just love the idea of a disinterested creator

Here's another one - My own changing circumstances. In certain states in the US, teenage girls can get abortions without their parents knowing about it. Mind you if they break their arm, they can't have it set by a doctor without parental consent, but an abortion ... yeah no problem.

While I was a teenage boy having sex with teenage girls I took comfort in the fact that if necessary, we could handle a situation without any adults knowing about it (never had to though, thankfully).

No my situation has changed. I now have a daughter and it offends the hell out of me that she can't get her arm set without my permission but she can get an abortion without it.

No my situation has changed = Now my situation has changed

there is that theory that you get alot more conservative as you get older as your priorities change

@trim: There's a saying that reflects that that I've always found kinda funny:

If you're young and conservative, you have no heart, If you're old and liberal you have no brain

i was trying to remember that one im glad you said it i was racking my brains, and for the life of me couldnt get it

I think people get entrenched in arguments on here because people move farther to the extreme of their position, often because they need to address the crazy people first. If I was debating one on one with a rational person I would deconstruct each one of their points. Those that I believe to be valid need to be incorporated into my argument.

I agree with Centurian. It would take an obvious proof to change my opinion. Unfortunately, what someone else thinks in "obvious" and "proof", I often see as "fabricated" and "lie or disinformation" :)

first and foremost your opinion/way you think cannot be altered by any person(outside of brainwashing)

but for me, in order for someone to affect how i see a situation or how i think of something the person first has to be understanding of my point of veiw. if they arent open-minded towards my opinions then i tend to shut out what they say and nothing they say really matters.

i think that this is true for everyone bc people want to feel appreciated in society and for someone else to give them the time of day and listen to what they have to say makes a huge difference. once that person feels comfortable around someone their emotions and thoughts are easier to manipulate due to the fact that their guard is lowered around people they like/like to be around.

on a different level i agree with what you guys are saying about how it would require great amounts of proof in both what the other person believes and how my opinion/believes are flawed or what not

Philcore, I understand your position. However I would like to clarify that there is a difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism. The first just asserts that some greater power created the universe. The second asserts that God is the one who created it.

First of all, I would like to ask how an explosion could create order. It is shown in the second law of thermodynamics that when left alone, things degenerate from order, to disorder. I would like to ask you haw many explosions you have heard of that have created order, and not disorder.

Secondly, about carbon dating. I don't believe that it is accurate because I have heard of cases where they took newly formed rock, tested it, and it came out as being millions of years old. I don't know where to find this evidence so thus it's credebility is greatly weakened but I would like to throw that our there as an idea and I will try and find who did the experiment so that I can solidify it.

Lastly, your point about the creator of the earth and God not having to be the same, I would like to argue that it would be impossible for them to be different. By saying that God talked to Moses you are accepting part of the Bible as being true, then you are saying that the world was created through a large explosion and thus discrediting it at the same time. I don't know if that made any sense but I guess my main point is that you can't take parts of the Bible and try to apply it without accepting the whole. It just doesn't work.

I hope that these points make sense to you and that it doesn't sound like I'm angry because I'm not even though sometimes my writing makes it sound like I am.

you do know there can be a god and the bible could be completely wrong?

what ive always wondered is how they do carbon dating
dont you have to know how much carbon it started with in order to find out how old it is?

Wow, thats a very good point, it never crossed my mind, and I don't know if there's anyway to disprove/prove it. But if there is I will find it.