Can you prove anything to someone who wants to deny?

[A Vestigial Mote]

Consider the most obvious truth. Should one wants to deny it, he/she can surely do, and there is nothing you can do to make him admit it.
What is the most obvious truth?

It is the bright sun, in the mid noon, in a clear sky!

If you are pointing to the sun in clear sky, telling me: look, the sun is in the sky!

I tell you, no, it is not. I do not see it! You must be imagining! You are wrong! You must be sleeping, seeing the sun in you dream!

I mean, when someone does not want to admit truth. When someone wants to deny it. Surely they can. Anyone can do illogical fallacy, and deny even the most obvious truth, when it is against the desire to accept!

So, why do you keep arguing to prove something to anyone, who does not want to accept it. Do you think you can win, and defeat him? What benefit is in these arguments, other than making yourselves tired?

I normally don't present anything for anyone to "accept." And if I am denying some "truth" when I say that I don't believe that any "god" exists, then this is a "truth" that is not very accessible AT ALL. Not as accessible as anything else in my life I would consider "truth" - for example, mathematical proofs, that idea that mass is attracted to mass (i.e. gravity), or the idea that I need food, water and warmth to survive. Those things are right there, working themselves out in reality at all times around me, and the evidence for them is prevalent and obvious to me. "God" however? Do I have much more than the words of others as evidence? And are those words even THE SAME WORDS to any significant degree from everyone who is stating them? The answer is "no" on both counts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Consider the most obvious truth. Should one wants to deny it, he/she can surely do, and there is nothing you can do to make him admit it.
What is the most obvious truth?

It is the bright sun, in the mid noon, in a clear sky!

If you are pointing to the sun in clear sky, telling me: look, the sun is in the sky!

I tell you, no, it is not. I do not see it! You must be imagining! You are wrong! You must be sleeping, seeing the sun in you dream!

I mean, when someone does not want to admit truth. When someone wants to deny it. Surely they can. Anyone can do illogical fallacy, and deny even the most obvious truth, when it is against the desire to accept!

So, why do you keep arguing to prove something to anyone, who does not want to accept it. Do you think you can win, and defeat him? What benefit is in these arguments, other than making yourselves tired?

I'm going to reply to this with a quote from Dr Gregory House:

"You can't reason someone out of a position that he didn't reason himself into in the first place".

In other words, it all depends on how the person came up with the position he is in.
If that person values evidence, and arrived at his current position through evidence supporting that position, then presenting new evidence showing the position incorrect or incomplete, won't be a problem in convincing that person of his error.

If the position however was arrived at "by faith", then the person simply "decided" that that is what he was going to believe. That person doesn't care about evidence. So no amount of evidence will be able to persuade him, unless he decides he's suddenly going to care about evidence.

 

[nPeace]

Consider the most obvious truth. Should one wants to deny it, he/she can surely do, and there is nothing you can do to make him admit it.
What is the most obvious truth?

It is the bright sun, in the mid noon, in a clear sky!

If you are pointing to the sun in clear sky, telling me: look, the sun is in the sky!

I tell you, no, it is not. I do not see it! You must be imagining! You are wrong! You must be sleeping, seeing the sun in you dream!

I mean, when someone does not want to admit truth. When someone wants to deny it. Surely they can. Anyone can do illogical fallacy, and deny even the most obvious truth, when it is against the desire to accept!

So, why do you keep arguing to prove something to anyone, who does not want to accept it. Do you think you can win, and defeat him? What benefit is in these arguments, other than making yourselves tired?

I believe most people try to prove things to others, because they believe the other person does not see.
Most of us believe that we might, by using reason, help the person to see, if not now, perhaps at some later time, when they think about it.

To me, it's more a matter of sharing knowledge that I feel the person may be deprived of.
It's like helping someone with a phobia. Rather than give up on them, we patiently try to help them.
That doesn't tire me.

The man who sees the sun in the sky, may not agree with you because he believes that you are deluded into believing that the alien ship is actually a sun.
At least when I listen to him, I 1) understand what he believes, and why.
When I reason with him, and he with me, 2) I gain more understanding and knowledge about him.
When I do that, 3) I know what approach to take from there.

Since I have already reasoned with him, and allowed him opportunity to reason with me (which I hope he will), and I realize that I cannot pry this thought away from him ... which is real to him. I simply refrain from going down the same path again, because it just becomes a merry-go-round. In other words, I simply let the person know, we've been down that road before. No need to walk it again.
That's not tiring.

The good thing about RF, is that we always have new persons who see things different to us, and the same way I am patient with them, and don't dismiss them as senseless, just because I think I am the one seeing the sun, while they are denying it, I would like them to be patient with me, because they might actually think I am seeing an alien ship.

We can't prove a person is in denial.
Arguments here are not as simple as whether it's the sun in the sky, or an alien ship.

 

[nPeace]

I'm going to reply to this with a quote from Dr Gregory House:

"You can't reason someone out of a position that he didn't reason himself into in the first place".

In other words, it all depends on how the person came up with the position he is in.
If that person values evidence, and arrived at his current position through evidence supporting that position, then presenting new evidence showing the position incorrect or incomplete, won't be a problem in convincing that person of his error.

If the position however was arrived at "by faith", then the person simply "decided" that that is what he was going to believe. That person doesn't care about evidence. So no amount of evidence will be able to persuade him, unless he decides he's suddenly going to care about evidence.

Of course, if one is a skeptic, he likely has the wrong idea of what faith is. So when he says faith, he has in mind something totally foreign to the Christian.

Religious people often think of faith as confidence based on a perceived degree of warrant, while others who are more skeptical of religion tend to think of faith as simply belief without evidence.

Hence, your statement is true... only to skeptics, but is false, in reality.

 

[MNoBody]

True. I was just pointing out how it goes both directions. Some folks like to lament how others can't be shown anything, yet they themselves are in the same boat. I'm currently facing the challenge you mention, although I'm not employed. When that same potato mind asks for your opinion, what they really want is your approval.

yup, darn confirmation biases,
conform or be cast out sang Rush.....classic anthem of the idiocracy period we live in

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course, if one is a skeptic, he likely has the wrong idea of what faith is.

Faith is what you need to accept something as true, when there is no evidence to demonstrate, or at least reasonably support, it to be true.

There's not much to understand about that.
When you have evidence, you have no need for faith.

So when he says faith, he has in mind something totally foreign to the Christian.

Nope.

Religious people often think of faith as confidence based on a perceived degree of warrant, while others who are more skeptical of religion tend to think of faith as simply belief without evidence.

Nothing in that article contradicts what I said above.

Hence, your statement is true... only to skeptics, but is false, in reality.

No, it's not.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Consider the most obvious truth. Should one wants to deny it, he/she can surely do, and there is nothing you can do to make him admit it.
What is the most obvious truth?

It is the bright sun, in the mid noon, in a clear sky!

If you are pointing to the sun in clear sky, telling me: look, the sun is in the sky!

I tell you, no, it is not. I do not see it! You must be imagining! You are wrong! You must be sleeping, seeing the sun in you dream!

I mean, when someone does not want to admit truth. When someone wants to deny it. Surely they can. Anyone can do illogical fallacy, and deny even the most obvious truth, when it is against the desire to accept!

So, why do you keep arguing to prove something to anyone, who does not want to accept it. Do you think you can win, and defeat him? What benefit is in these arguments, other than making yourselves tired?

You are correct. I am open minded, my atheist friends at RF would disbelieve Jesus appeared to them if He appeared to them, yes.

 

[nPeace]

Faith is what you need to accept something as true, when there is no evidence to demonstrate, or at least reasonably support, it to be true.

There's not much to understand about that.
When you have evidence, you have no need for faith.



Nope.



Nothing in that article contradicts what I said above.



No, it's not.

You are wrong.
The article does contradict you, and clearly says that skeptics viewpoint are different from the religious viewpoint.
That's all I will say to you on that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are wrong.

No, I'm not.

The article does contradict you

It doesn't.

and clearly says that skeptics viewpoint are different from the religious viewpoint.

Quote in what way they are different and explain how it contradicts what I have said.

That's all I will say to you on that.

Yes, you have a (bad) habit of just asserting things.

 

[chinu]

So, why do you keep arguing to prove something to anyone, who does not want to accept it. Do you think you can win, and defeat him? What benefit is in these arguments, other than making yourselves tired?

Though, it always very difficult to prove something to someone, but still, if by chance I succeed proving and someone accepted, still there's NO benefit at all.

 

[Heyo]

Though, it always very difficult to prove something to someone, but still, if by chance I succeed proving and someone accepted, still there's NO benefit at all.

Then why debate at all?
I see it this way: if someone can prove a point to me I didn't see before, I have gained in knowledge. (Which alone makes it worth to argue my point for reciprocity.) But also, proving my point to others makes my confidence in that point go up.
So in my point of view I benefit both from me proving things to others and vice versa.
But that only works when your goal is to find the truth. If you debate to win, you wont benefit from either.

 

[chinu]

Then why debate at all?
I see it this way: if someone can prove a point to me I didn't see before, I have gained in knowledge. (Which alone makes it worth to argue my point for reciprocity.) But also, proving my point to others makes my confidence in that point go up.
So in my point of view I benefit both from me proving things to others and vice versa.
But that only works when your goal is to find the truth. If you debate to win, you wont benefit from either.

Okay, take for example you own a ABC-Book written by some very famous historical writer, but, for some very personal reasons you cannot tell me that you own this precious book, and wanna debate with me on the truth of a particular paragraph that is written in this book.

There started a debate between you and me and you succeeded proving me your point without showing me this book.

Will this increase your confidence ? NO. because the book is with you -- truth is in your hands. If, by chance, you even failed to prove your point, still it will NOT reduce any bit of your confidence.

 

[Heyo]

Okay, take for example you own a ABC-Book written by some very famous historical writer, but, for some very personal reasons you cannot tell me that you own this precious book, and wanna debate with me on the truth of a particular paragraph that is written in this book.

There started a debate between you and me and you succeeded proving me your point without showing me this book.

Will this increase your confidence ? NO. because the book is with you -- truth is in your hands. If, by chance, you even failed to prove your point, still it will NOT reduce any bit of your confidence.

Having the book doesn't prove the truth of the paragraph in question. The only thing I know is that it's in the book.
Being able to prove that truth to you shows to me that I probably understand that truth correctly and, yes, it raises my confidence into that truth.

 

[nPeace]

No, I'm not.



It doesn't.



Quote in what way they are different and explain how it contradicts what I have said.



Yes, you have a (bad) habit of just asserting things.

Quote in what way they are different? Seriously?
I did that... Twice. That would be to do it a third time.
if you do not see the difference between ...
Religious people often think of faith as confidence based on a perceived degree of warrant, while others who are more skeptical of religion tend to think of faith as simply belief without evidence.
Then you are on your own B. You are the intelligent one. remember. LOL.
Speaking of having a bad habit of just asserting things. Double LOL.

 

[oldbadger]

Consider the most obvious truth. Should one wants to deny it, he/she can surely do, and there is nothing you can do to make him admit it.
What is the most obvious truth?

It is the bright sun, in the mid noon, in a clear sky!

If you are pointing to the sun in clear sky, telling me: look, the sun is in the sky!

I tell you, no, it is not. I do not see it! You must be imagining! You are wrong! You must be sleeping, seeing the sun in you dream!

I mean, when someone does not want to admit truth. When someone wants to deny it. Surely they can. Anyone can do illogical fallacy, and deny even the most obvious truth, when it is against the desire to accept!

So, why do you keep arguing to prove something to anyone, who does not want to accept it. Do you think you can win, and defeat him? What benefit is in these arguments, other than making yourselves tired?

Exactly which particular Truth did you have in mind which is as clear as the bright hot sun shining in the sky?

I have never ever witnessed any person to deny the existence of a shining hot sun blazing down upon them.

 

[Clara Tea]

Proof of God is proof of Santa. Belief in God is belief in Santa. The rationales are the same. If we believe w/o proof, we'd have to believe in Santa, the tooth fairy, Fred Flintstone, et al. Atheists only believe if they have proof, and there is no proof of God. Theists argue that so many apostles could not be wrong. Atheists argue that apostles might not have had anything to do with the writing of the bible, since the bible was written almost 100 years after the death of Christ and all apostles were dead by then. Theists could argue that the bible was divinely inspired, but, once again, there is no proof. Theists firmly assert that the bible is the word of God and, therefore, perfect. Atheists argue that the bible is not perfect, and can cite numerous contradictions in the bible (Gen 1:25 vs. Gen 2:18 , which was created first, man or animals....bible says both correct). The bible says that Jonah lived in the belly of a whale (I say that the miracle was that God beached a whale when Jonah was hungry, but misinterpreted in modern times). With misinterpretations and errors, the bible is far from perfect. The bible is the only reason to believe in God, because that is where the notion of God comes from.

 

[night912]

Proof of God is proof of Santa. Belief in God is belief in Santa. The rationales are the same. If we believe w/o proof, we'd have to believe in Santa, the tooth fairy, Fred Flintstone, et al. Atheists only believe if they have proof, and there is no proof of God. Theists argue that so many apostles could not be wrong. Atheists argue that apostles might not have had anything to do with the writing of the bible, since the bible was written almost 100 years after the death of Christ and all apostles were dead by then. Theists could argue that the bible was divinely inspired, but, once again, there is no proof. Theists firmly assert that the bible is the word of God and, therefore, perfect. Atheists argue that the bible is not perfect, and can cite numerous contradictions in the bible (Gen 1:25 vs. Gen 2:18 , which was created first, man or animals....bible says both correct). The bible says that Jonah lived in the belly of a whale (I say that the miracle was that God beached a whale when Jonah was hungry, but misinterpreted in modern times). With misinterpretations and errors, the bible is far from perfect. The bible is the only reason to believe in God, because that is where the notion of God comes from.

You mean Christians believe the bible. Not all theists believe what you just said.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Consider the most obvious truth. Should one wants to deny it, he/she can surely do, and there is nothing you can do to make him admit it.
What is the most obvious truth?

It is the bright sun, in the mid noon, in a clear sky!

If you are pointing to the sun in clear sky, telling me: look, the sun is in the sky!

I tell you, no, it is not. I do not see it! You must be imagining! You are wrong! You must be sleeping, seeing the sun in you dream!

I mean, when someone does not want to admit truth. When someone wants to deny it. Surely they can. Anyone can do illogical fallacy, and deny even the most obvious truth, when it is against the desire to accept!

So, why do you keep arguing to prove something to anyone, who does not want to accept it. Do you think you can win, and defeat him? What benefit is in these arguments, other than making yourselves tired?

I have come to the same conclusion yes i can speak about my belief and faith, but i have no more wish to "prove to others" that my way/belief is better then theirs, if they do not like orcagree with my belief it is ok. I can only speak for my own spiritual understanding, belief and faith. And so xan they about their belief or disbelief.

No stress

 

[night912]

To me, it's more a matter of sharing knowledge that I feel the person may be deprived of.
It's like helping someone with a phobia. Rather than give up on them, we patiently try to help them.
That doesn't tire me.

Your later comment contradicts what you'r saying here.

I simply refrain from going down the same path again, because it just becomes a merry-go-round. In other words, I simply let the person know, we've been down that road before.

And that one doesn't line up with your 3rd point.

3) I know what approach to take from there.

Let's use the phobia analogy. If someone told you that they are afraid of going out to the club to hang out with his friends and meet new people. Then you tell him that he has social phobia. He's afraid of socializing with others because he's afraid that he might not know how to react towards others and/or how they will react to him. Then you suggest some solutions that can help him overcome this. He disagrees with you and explains why he believes it's not that. Then you explain more, and even after explaining the other symptoms associated with that phobia, he still disagrees and give different examples why he disagrees. So you start from the beginning and explain what social phobia is and that's what he has. Rinse and repeat. Then you conclude that he doesn't understand your explanation and let him be.

Now let's examine that scenario. First, the problem is presented. Second, you identify the problem, analyze it, and conclude with a solution for the problem. The results; he disagrees and presents his explanation for the disagreement. Next, you explain it again in a different way to try and overcome the misunderstanding he has. And the cycle repeats itself until you conclude that, as of now, he won't understand what you said and leave it at that.

Now here's the problem that I see with your method. Right off the bat, you approached it wrong. Your way is below......

To me, it's more a matter of sharing knowledge that I feel the person may be deprived of.

Starting with an assumption and yhen make a claim about it. Making a claim and providing information, isn't entirely wrong. Making the assumption that others lack the knowledge of it is the wrong way of thinking. Right away after he disagrees with you, having already made an assumption, you proceed with more assumptions. This time, it's the assumption that he doesn't understand your explanation, so you try to explain it differently. It ends up having the same result.

The problem is that, you never knew how to approach his problem. Why? It's because you didn't listen and try to understand him. And since arrogance was there from the start, you didn't bother to reevaluate the situation and perhaps make a different approach. Your arrogance caused you to think that you know more than him and disagreement is due to him not understanding what you said.

In reality, he's actually more knowledgable than you on this subject. The whole time he was disagreeing with you was because he knows that he doesn't have social phobia, in fact, he has agoraphobia.

We can't prove a person is in denial.

Actually, sometimes we can. And here in RF, to show that someone is in denial is by showing their post of saying it, and is presently denying that they said it. If their response is say that they never said tha and explained why maybe it was written incorrectly and/or typo. And if what they are now saying has a different meaning as before, then, no, they are not denying of not saying that. But if they are simply just rewording it, then they are denying.
- Reading comprehension skills is really important here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Quote in what way they are different? Seriously?
I did that... Twice. That would be to do it a third time.
if you do not see the difference between ...
Religious people often think of faith as confidence based on a perceived degree of warrant, while others who are more skeptical of religion tend to think of faith as simply belief without evidence.
Then you are on your own B. You are the intelligent one. remember. LOL.
Speaking of having a bad habit of just asserting things. Double LOL.

And then it goes on to explain the different types of faith.
And in those, it doesn't contradict what I actually said.

The quote you provided, talks about what people think.
As in: believers do not think of faith as belief without evidence.

You should really work on your reading comprehension.