A Problem With Ideologies

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2911
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

A Problem With Ideologies

Post by Red » Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:34 pm

I'm pretty tired right now, so I'll probably flesh this post out in much greater detail tomorrow or Wednesday.

It's pretty hard to change someone's ideology. After reading my friend's book (which is honestly the worst book I have ever read), I've learned the following thing about ideologies:

Do not associate yourself with any ideology, whether it'd be religious, political, or economic.

At a cursory glance, ideologies seem like a useful and even good thing; It's a person's beliefs about the world and what they believe ought to be done, and how they ought to achieve it. Some people would think this is a good thing, as it inspires social change and revolution, and looks to bring a better tomorrow for everyone.

Here's an issue with that: Since ideologies are often associated with religion and politics, two things based heavily on faith, it becomes more about dogmatic thinking than useful science or ethical ventures. Along with being based on faith, religion and politics are also a source of identity for people, so when you criticize someone's beliefs, you're criticizing their identity, and thusly, you're criticizing them.

People must not root these things to their identities, as it usually becomes impossible to change their minds. Beliefs should not be a part of you, they should be something you carry around and are willing to dispose of and replace if you encounter something even better. The way I see it, you can say you agree with an ideology, respecting its ideals, and you agree with them due to an actual part of your identity (usually being, you're a moral person and want to do good).

Look at this here forum: We're not vegans because it's our ideology (though Carnap would likely beg to differ on that point), rather it stems from a desire to do the most good, and we have determined that veganism is the best solution to doing the most good due to the insane amount of versatility it has in various fields of altruism and activism (environmental, ethical, health benefits).

So, if you believe that Jesus is God and was crucified and yadda yadda yadda, don't say you're a Christian, say that you follow the teachings of Jesus and the Bible (or something along those lines). If you believe in work'ers control over means of production, don't say you're a Democratic Socialist, say you believe that Democratic Socialism would be the best system to implement.

Sorry if this post came out half assed. What do you think?
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1198
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:09 am

This might need a bit more explaining. How does calling oneself a democratic socialist, liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc. make it more difficult to have one's mind changed than saying that you hold those viewpoints?
Look at this here forum: We're not vegans because it's our ideology (though Carnap would likely beg to differ on that point), rather it stems from a desire to do the most good, and we have determined that veganism is the best solution to doing the most good due to the insane amount of versatility it has in various fields of altruism and activism (environmental, ethical, health benefits).
It's irrelevant whether veganism is an ideology if what you are saying is true. Imagine this hypothetical situation: If an invincible alien were to transmit a signal from his spaceship to your television yelling "If you do not start eating animals again, I will blow your entire planet to smithereens, killing all life!", you would (I assume) stop being a vegan out of the interest of the greater good. Yet attaching the label of "vegan" to yourself does not inhibit you from doing this. Similarly, if a rational thinking person who calls themselves democratic socialist/liberal/conservative/libertarian/etc. were to encounter evidence that their ideology does more harm than good, they would change their minds. Attaching the label of an ideology does not inhibit somebody from doing that.
So, if you believe that Jesus is God and was crucified and yadda yadda yadda, don't say you're a Christian, say that you follow the teachings of Jesus and the Bible (or something along those lines). If you believe in work'ers control over means of production, don't say you're a Democratic Socialist, say you believe that Democratic Socialism would be the best system to implement.
Well, what about those whose ideology does not have a name, and forces them to describe the viewpoint that they hold, rather than attaching a label to themselves? For instance, those who want to abolish the U.S. Presidency? Does the fact that they don't attach a label to themselves mean that they are more likely to be free of the biases those who attach a label to themselves have? Well, I'm not convinced. The way I see it, if you're open-minded, you're open-minded and if you're close-minded, you're close-minded. Whether you attach a label to yourself is irrelevant.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2911
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:06 pm

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:09 am
This might need a bit more explaining. How does calling oneself a democratic socialist, liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc. make it more difficult to have one's mind changed than saying that you hold those viewpoints?
As I said, it has to do with dogmatic thinking and associating ideology with your identity. Don't you remember that Adam Ruins Everything episode clip you showed me?
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:09 am
It's irrelevant whether veganism is an ideology if what you are saying is true.
Of course, I'm not denying that some ideologies are right, though a lot of the time, when they are, the supporters of the ideology usually support it not because of evidence, but because of faith and rhetoric. I'd rather have someone be vegan for valid and sensible reasons, rather than based on emotional and faith based reasons. But the latter is usually the easier way to convince someone.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:09 am
Imagine this hypothetical situation: If an invincible alien were to transmit a signal from his spaceship to your television yelling "If you do not start eating animals again, I will blow your entire planet to smithereens, killing all life!", you would (I assume) stop being a vegan out of the interest of the greater good.
I this did happen, I'd still believe that veganism is the way to do the most good. Them making a threat like that isn't going to change my beliefs, but my actions. But in an insane case like yours, of course I'd stop going vegan, as I act in accordance with morality. I'm not entirely sure what your point is.

Of course, a sensible ideologue would not be willing to do justice let the world perish, but, especially when it comes to nationalistic ideology, that is actually possible to not happen. Some people are willing to die for what they believe in, maybe to show heroism amongst fellow ideologues or even to become a martyr.

If someone were to come up to you and put a gun to your head and demands for you to renounce, say, atheism, would you do it? Of course you would, and you'd still be an atheist. Now for the theist, it may be a different story...
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:09 am
Similarly, if a rational thinking person who calls themselves democratic socialist/liberal/conservative/libertarian/etc. were to encounter evidence that their ideology does more harm than good, they would change their minds. Attaching the label of an ideology does not inhibit somebody from doing that.
Do you honestly not remember the Adam Ruins Everything clip you showed me?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8NydsXl32s

Sure, for a rational person this may be the case (though I don't think there's such thing as a rational conservative), but most people aren't rational or honest, and are willing to cling to their beliefs despite what reason and evidence say.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:09 am

Well, what about those whose ideology does not have a name, and forces them to describe the viewpoint that they hold, rather than attaching a label to themselves? For instance, those who want to abolish the U.S. Presidency?
I assume that was a jab at Jebus (who I think changed his mind on that), but of course there are exceptions to the rule (such as this one), where if there isn't a certain label, you can become dogmatically attached to a belief. That's just a guess though.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:09 am
Does the fact that they don't attach a label to themselves mean that they are more likely to be free of the biases those who attach a label to themselves have?
Depends, but remember what I said about identity.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1198
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:01 pm

Red wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:06 pm
As I said, it has to do with dogmatic thinking and associating ideology with your identity. Don't you remember that Adam Ruins Everything episode clip you showed me?
Again, you've not really shown how labeling yourself with an ideology will make your identity more resistant to threats than holding a viewpoint that aligns with that identity. For instance, take this:
So, if you believe that Jesus is God and was crucified and yadda yadda yadda, don't say you're a Christian, say that you follow the teachings of Jesus and the Bible (or something along those lines). If you believe in work'ers control over means of production, don't say you're a Democratic Socialist, say you believe that Democratic Socialism would be the best system to implement.
If Christians and Democratic Socialists were to take that advice, there's no reason to think that "I follow the teachings of Jesus and the Bible" or "I believe that Democratic Socialism would be the best system to implement" is going to form less of a part of their identity than simply calling themselves a Christian or a Democratic Socialist.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:09 am
It's irrelevant whether veganism is an ideology if what you are saying is true.
Of course, I'm not denying that some ideologies are right, though a lot of the time, when they are, the supporters of the ideology usually support it not because of evidence, but because of faith and rhetoric. I'd rather have someone be vegan for valid and sensible reasons, rather than based on emotional and faith based reasons. But the latter is usually the easier way to convince someone.
I didn't mean vegans, I meant you specifically. If what you are saying about how attaching a label to yourself functions, then the same would apply to vegans. If instead of saying "I am a Democratic Socialist", I should say "I think Democratic Socialism would be the best system to implement", then likewise instead of saying "I am a Vegan", I should say "I believe it is immoral to consume products which require the exploitation of animals".
I this did happen, I'd still believe that veganism is the way to do the most good. Them making a threat like that isn't going to change my beliefs, but my actions. But in an insane case like yours, of course I'd stop going vegan, as I act in accordance with morality. I'm not entirely sure what your point is.
I perhaps ought to have been less specific in my analogy. I was trying to imagine a scenario in which one could come to the conclusion that being vegan would cause more harm than good. Nevertheless, the point I made still stands. Regardless of whether one believes that veganism is the way to do the most good, to call oneself a "vegan" one has to actually abstain from all products which require the exploitation of animals. Because in this scenario, you would be willing to drop the label in the light of new evidence, it shows that attaching a label to oneself does not mean that threats to that identity are hardly going to be any more likely to cause a backfire effect than if one did not use that label.
Of course, a sensible ideologue would not be willing to do justice let the world perish, but, especially when it comes to nationalistic ideology, that is actually possible to not happen. Some people are willing to die for what they believe in, maybe to show heroism amongst fellow ideologues or even to become a martyr.
And is this going to be less likely to happen if instead of saying "I am a nationalist", they said "I believe that the interests of my country ought to be valued over the interests of other countries"?
If someone were to come up to you and put a gun to your head and demands for you to renounce, say, atheism, would you do it?
I don't know. I'd like to think that I wouldn't, but I'm a massive coward, so it would probably be a different story if I actually had the gun pointed to my head.
Of course you would, and you'd still be an atheist.
Being an atheist is different from being a vegan in that veganism is focused primarily around actions, whereas atheism is primarily focused around beliefs. This is also taking a situation that was specifically tailored to a vegan, as if somebody is a vegan, that it likely for ethical and/or health and/or environmental reasons. Any of these would mean that if there was a threat of the extinction of all life on the planet which their veganism could be causing, that vegan would renounce their veganism. Being an atheist doesn't say anything about whether one would be happy to sacrifice their own or other peoples' lives.
Now for the theist, it may be a different story...
Would this be affected by whether or not they call themselves a "theist"?
Do you honestly not remember the Adam Ruins Everything clip you showed me?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8NydsXl32s
If you genuinely thought I might not have done, you could have put this link in your first question asking me. The truth is that these are both rhetorical questions that add nothing to the discussion. Do you remember where I linked that Adam Ruins Everything episode to you? (another rhetorical question) It was in a discussion about rhetoric where you advocated the belief that rhetoric is not helpful in debate.
Sure, for a rational person this may be the case (though I don't think there's such thing as a rational conservative), but most people aren't rational or honest, and are willing to cling to their beliefs despite what reason and evidence say.
And why would this change if they didn't attach a label to their beliefs?
I assume that was a jab at Jebus (who I think changed his mind on that),
Based on what?
but of course there are exceptions to the rule (such as this one), where if there isn't a certain label, you can become dogmatically attached to a belief. That's just a guess though.
Well any rule is perfect if you ignore exceptions to the rule. It's also perfect if you don't provide any evidence that it should apply in the first place.
Depends, but remember what I said about identity.
And you've given no reason that attaching a label to your beliefs is going to make them more of a part of their identity.

Ultimately Popper's falsification principle is where your whole argument falls apart, as you're not allowing anything to falsify it.

Somebody whose beliefs have a label attached to them isn't changing their mind = "Its proof that ideology constitutes a big part of their identity that can't be threatened!"
Somebody whose beliefs have a label attached to them is changing their mind = "Well, they're a rational person, so it's different."
Somebody whose beliefs don't have a label attached to them is changing their mind = "That shows that not attaching a label to yourself makes you more open minded."
Somebody whose beliefs don't have a label attached to them isn't changing their mind = "Well, they're the exceptions to the rule."

If you disagree, then you've just got to articulate what would falsify your belief that applying a label to your beliefs is going to make you less open minded.

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1198
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:07 pm

I should probably clarify: When I asked "based on what?" in response to your point about Jebus, I meant what are you basing your belief that he changed his mind on, rather than what are you basing your belief that my comment was a jab at him (it was). All that should be obvious but I'm just making sure that there are no misunderstandings.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2911
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:40 pm

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:01 pm

Again, you've not really shown how labeling yourself with an ideology will make your identity more resistant to threats than holding a viewpoint that aligns with that identity. For instance, take this:
So, if you believe that Jesus is God and was crucified and yadda yadda yadda, don't say you're a Christian, say that you follow the teachings of Jesus and the Bible (or something along those lines). If you believe in work'ers control over means of production, don't say you're a Democratic Socialist, say you believe that Democratic Socialism would be the best system to implement.
If Christians and Democratic Socialists were to take that advice, there's no reason to think that "I follow the teachings of Jesus and the Bible" or "I believe that Democratic Socialism would be the best system to implement" is going to form less of a part of their identity than simply calling themselves a Christian or a Democratic Socialist.
If they disassociate themselves from the label then it will. But I know that subconsciously, most people aren't gonna do that, even if they say they will.
I know I showed you this video, but seriously, watch it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA783XpBx1A
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:01 pm

I didn't mean vegans, I meant you specifically. If what you are saying about how attaching a label to yourself functions, then the same would apply to vegans. If instead of saying "I am a Democratic Socialist", I should say "I think Democratic Socialism would be the best system to implement", then likewise instead of saying "I am a Vegan", I should say "I believe it is immoral to consume products which require the exploitation of animals".
Veganism is both a behavior and an ideology. So, if I'm referring to my diet, saying I'm vegan wouldn't automatically refer to the ideology (though in some circumstances some people would it take it that way).
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:01 pm
I perhaps ought to have been less specific in my analogy. I was trying to imagine a scenario in which one could come to the conclusion that being vegan would cause more harm than good. Nevertheless, the point I made still stands. Regardless of whether one believes that veganism is the way to do the most good, to call oneself a "vegan" one has to actually abstain from all products which require the exploitation of animals. Because in this scenario, you would be willing to drop the label in the light of new evidence, it shows that attaching a label to oneself does not mean that threats to that identity are hardly going to be any more likely to cause a backfire effect than if one did not use that label.
I don't disagree that's how things should be. Oh yeah and I refer you to the answer I have earlier.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:01 pm
And is this going to be less likely to happen if instead of saying "I am a nationalist", they said "I believe that the interests of my country ought to be valued over the interests of other countries"?
Eh, probably. Who knows.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:01 pm
I don't know. I'd like to think that I wouldn't, but I'm a massive coward, so it would probably be a different story if I actually had the gun pointed to my head.
Are you serious? If you say you renounce atheism, you continue living and you can still be an atheist. Just because someone tells you to renounce something and you say you do doesn't mean you actually have renounced it.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:01 pm
Being an atheist is different from being a vegan in that veganism is focused primarily around actions,
Veganism can also be based on a belief too. You can eat meat and believe in veganism, and call yourself vegan in the ideological sense, for example.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:01 pm
whereas atheism is primarily focused around beliefs.
More like the lack of beliefs. But I've seen atheists be pretty dogmatic too, so religion doesn't really have a monopoly on it.\
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:01 pm
This is also taking a situation that was specifically tailored to a vegan, as if somebody is a vegan, that it likely for ethical and/or health and/or environmental reasons. Any of these would mean that if there was a threat of the extinction of all life on the planet which their veganism could be causing, that vegan would renounce their veganism.
Again, that'd be ideal, but a dogmatic vegan would likely not give up their lifestyles in light of conflicting evidence. Why do you think there are so many climate change and evolution deniers?
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:01 pm
Would this be affected by whether or not they call themselves a "theist"?
In a way, yes. If a theist believes in Heaven/Hell or an afterlife that has a possibility of punishment, then they likely won't renounce their religion out of fear of punishment.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:01 pm
If you genuinely thought I might not have done, you could have put this link in your first question asking me. The truth is that these are both rhetorical questions that add nothing to the discussion. Do you remember where I linked that Adam Ruins Everything episode to you? (another rhetorical question) It was in a discussion about rhetoric where you advocated the belief that rhetoric is not helpful in debate.
Right, and I've changed my mind on that. However, when going against a rational person, rhetoric is generally not useful.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:01 pm
And why would this change if they didn't attach a label to their beliefs?
Watch the Adam Ruins Everything clip.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:01 pm
Based on what?
I don't know, I'm not Jebus.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:01 pm
Well any rule is perfect if you ignore exceptions to the rule. It's also perfect if you don't provide any evidence that it should apply in the first place.
Right, which is why I said it was a guess.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:01 pm
And you've given no reason that attaching a label to your beliefs is going to make them more of a part of their identity.
Watch the Adam Ruins Everything Clip.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:01 pm
Ultimately Popper's falsification principle is where your whole argument falls apart, as you're not allowing anything to falsify it.
Of course you can, you'd just need to get scientists skilled in the relevant fields to conduct an unbiased study on what we're talking about. I mean you might not have the money or resources to do such a thing, but other people do. What makes is unfalsifiable?
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:01 pm
Somebody whose beliefs have a label attached to them isn't changing their mind = "Its proof that ideology constitutes a big part of their identity that can't be threatened!"
Somebody whose beliefs have a label attached to them is changing their mind = "Well, they're a rational person, so it's different."
Somebody whose beliefs don't have a label attached to them is changing their mind = "That shows that not attaching a label to yourself makes you more open minded."
Yeah that seems to be a pretty accurate representation of what I'm saying.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:01 pm
Somebody whose beliefs don't have a label attached to them isn't changing their mind = "Well, they're the exceptions to the rule."
I meant exceptions in terms of the people who are willing to change their mind.

Keep in mind that saying what you believe instead of labeling yourself as something is a suggestion, not a solution. There probably is an effective solution to this ideology problem, but I'm not sure what it is.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:01 pm
If you disagree, then you've just got to articulate what would falsify your belief that applying a label to your beliefs is going to make you less open minded.
A cohesive study refuting me.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1198
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:12 am

Red wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:40 pm
If they disassociate themselves from the label then it will.
You've given no reason for saying that it will.
But I know that subconsciously, most people aren't gonna do that, even if they say they will.
If that's the case, then not attaching a label to your beliefs isn't going to affect anything, so it's pointless even suggesting such a thing.
I know I showed you this video, but seriously, watch it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA783XpBx1A
This video shows how ideology colours one's beliefs and ideas, however, I never denied that. What I'm denying is your claim that disassociating oneself from the label of that ideology is going to remove the bias that comes with it.
Veganism is both a behavior and an ideology. So, if I'm referring to my diet, saying I'm vegan wouldn't automatically refer to the ideology (though in some circumstances some people would it take it that way).
That's why I said it's not relevant whether it's an ideology or not. It's still something that affects your beliefs and attitudes to life in the same way an ideology can. Later on in the episode of Adam Ruins Everything where the clip comes from, a man is doing CrossFit and is unwilling to recognise its negative impacts. CrossFit is not an ideology, yet it still affects your beliefs and attitudes to life in the same way that an ideology can and in the same way that veganism can. The fact is that if you're going to say that one should disassociate oneself with the label of their ideology, then the same should go for all other things that work in the same way as ideologies.
I don't disagree that's how things should be. Oh yeah and I refer you to the answer I have earlier.
Well that's how things are for rational people. For irrational people, whether they attach a label to their beliefs isn't going to change anything as they aren't going to allow anything to go against them. Think about the anti-science viewpoints you oppose, such as those who are opposed to GMOs, vaccinations and nuclear power. Those viewpoints don't have labels to go with them. The people who advocate them aren't going to describe their viewpoints by beginning with "I am a...", in the same way one can say "I am a conservative" or "I am an atheist". They will have to begin their statements with "I believe..." and that doesn't mean that their ideology isn't going to colour their biases.
Eh, probably. Who knows.
If you don't know, then why would make the claim that people ought to remove the labels associated with their ideology?
Again, that'd be ideal, but a dogmatic vegan would likely not give up their lifestyles in light of conflicting evidence. Why do you think there are so many climate change and evolution deniers?
Absolutely, but I'm not denying the fact that having an ideology can lead to dogmatism. What I'm denying is that having a label for this should do anything to exacerbate this dogmatism.
In a way, yes. If a theist believes in Heaven/Hell or an afterlife that has a possibility of punishment, then they likely won't renounce their religion out of fear of punishment.
That's not an answer to the question I asked you.

I didn't ask you this question: Would this be affected by whether or not they are a theist?

I asked you this question: Would this be affected by whether or not they call themselves a "theist"?

In other words, would a theist who uses the label "theist" be more likely to not renounce their belief than a theist who does not use that label? I.e. Would fighters for the "Islamic State" be less willing to die for their cause if the group changed its name to "State which believes that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger"?
Right, and I've changed my mind on that. However, when going against a rational person, rhetoric is generally not useful.
Well if you don't think that rhetoric is generally useful when going against a rational person, then why are you using it in this deb... oh, I see now. You think I'm irrational, huh? Well... your mum's a virgin! 8-)
Watch the Adam Ruins Everything clip.
Well, I went out of my way to watch the clip again just in case I'd forgotten something. But no. There's nothing in there that answers the question I asked. You've given me no reason to believe that applying a label exacerbates the problem of ideology more than not using a label for that same ideology.
I don't know, I'm not Jebus.
Then why would you make baseless claims about it.
Right, which is why I said it was a guess.
Well my guess is that your guess is wrong.
Watch the Adam Ruins Everything Clip.
I did. You've still given no reason that attaching a label to your beliefs is going to make them more of a part of their identity.
Of course you can, you'd just need to get scientists skilled in the relevant fields to conduct an unbiased study on what we're talking about. I mean you might not have the money or resources to do such a thing, but other people do. What makes is unfalsifiable?
What exactly would you be looking for in that study that would disprove what you are saying?
Keep in mind that saying what you believe instead of labeling yourself as something is a suggestion, not a solution.
Well you've no reason to suggest it in the first place.
There probably is an effective solution to this ideology problem, but I'm not sure what it is.
That definitely is unfalsifiable.
A cohesive study refuting me.
Why would you need one when you're happy to make the claim that labelled ideologies are going to be instil more dogmatism than non-labelled ideologies without any cohesive study?

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2911
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:33 pm

It's been a while since I've brought up religion on this forum but I have recently changed my approach when talking to religious people and it has worked quite well.

At least 95% of the people in my country are highly religious and it it is not unusual for me to get caught up in a discussion about religion. Previously (when talking to Christians) I have tried to use my (somewhat significant) biblical knowledge when discussing/debating. I recently realized that it is more effective to act as if I have never previously heard of the God they are describing.

i.e.
What do you mean when you say God?
How do you know he did that?
Really? Wow! what you are telling me is quite extraordinary. What makes you believe that?

While this approach is not at all confrontational, it is a good way of forcing the religious person to address inconsistencies without leaning back on pillars that s/he believes are commonly known or agreed upon.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1198
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:38 pm

Absolutely, like Anthony Magnabosco's street epistemology.

And they feel good about the conversation, because they get to be experts and teach you something... except they may come to realize they don't know what they're talking about on their own and start questioning.

Adopting this for veganism is possible, but a little tricky. It takes a lot of time and patience, since veganism isn't just hypothetical, it's also about empirical facts (like nutrition) which have personal implications.

Like if people are questioning your veganism, you can treat them as experts, and ask them (as somebody might a doctor) if they think you need to eat meat and why rather than telling them nobody needs to.

User avatar
Greatest I am
Full Member
Posts: 219
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:24 am
Religion: Other
Diet: Vegan

Post by Greatest I am » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:55 pm

You are correct in that when we label ourselves we kind of tie ourselves to a particular ideology.

That is part of why I do not label myself till after I found what I think is the best ideology out here.

It is based on us being esoteric ecumenists and naturalist, which allows us to cherry pick the best rules and laws from all the ideologies and incorporate them into our thinking.

I am a Gnostic Christian, and so far, I can say it is the only worthy universal ideology.

We are perpetual seekers of the best rules and laws to live by and that means that we cannot idol worship our own God and creed.

Regards
DL

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Red and 4 guests