Convince me

Originally posted by divegeester
You say you are open; are these statements you have made representative of someone who is open?

Yes, my view of the world has quite a huge allowance for error. Also , it has the capacity for introducing new ideas and even complete upheaval, if necessary.
But the longer I go on (over ten years now), the more the "guides" in my life seem to reaffirm that I'm on the right path. It seems that now I have the original edifice in place, I just need to fine tune some ideas and incorporate new ones with the already established ones.

It would take me a lot of words to explain my tenets of my philosophy of life as I reckon we would have many linguistical difficulties. All that being said, I dont see where you are coming from. I dont see how I am not open.

I guess one could ask "open to what? " , as I am certainly not open to changing my stance on say the death penalty (strongly disagree), or being open to deal with some problem I have through violent means.
But as far as philosophy/spirituality/religion are concerned, I can say that I will genuinely sit and listen to what someone has to say about their views on this stuff, and if the arguments are compelling enough, even to change my view about a certain matter.

Originally posted by divegeester
How does me being "open"mean that I am "swayed on every word of everyone's mouth"?

Is that how you perceive me here?

I agree. It's not as simple as that. You can be open and still be staunch about the tried and true things in your life.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I tend to forget exactly who is who and what their exact beliefs are.
Although I do not need to know your exact current beliefs, I can hardly go about convincing you that you are wrong and I am right if I do not know where we differ. For example, if I start out explaining evolution to you, yet you don't have any objections to evolution theory, I would be ...[text shortened]... ring opinions / beliefs / understanding. I am simply not sure where to start. Any suggestions?

My OP is not about you convincing me I am wrong, it is about you convincing me what you believe is correct or beneficial.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I know very little about your beliefs also and yet we've been here the same amount of time. I know your a non-denominational Christian, who rejects the trinity doctrine who thinks that Islam is the work of the Devil. Other than that i couldn't tell you.

What else do you feel you need to know and why?

My OP invites others to convince me about their own beliefs, not to mine and show me how they think I'm wrong.

Originally posted by Galveston

"sure what ya got?"

divegeester

"How about you pick any one item from the catelogue of topics you and I have been debating here over the last 4 years, that you are open to change over. Any one..."


another bump for Galveston....

Originally posted by divegeester
My OP is not about you convincing me I am wrong, it is about you convincing me what you believe is correct or beneficial.

I am not sure I see the difference. I am also not sure that I hold any beliefs purely because they are beneficial, nor would I want to pass on false, but beneficial beliefs.
So maybe we can start there. I believe it is harmful to hold irrational beliefs especially when said beliefs are held for selfish or supposedly beneficial reasons. I believe that although the motive may be good, the end result is bad. One irrational belief generally leads to other irrational beliefs. Over time, the believer looses sight of why they believe (benefits) and ends up so whole heartedly invested in the false belief that it starts to harm them (or others). They also encourage others to hold irrational beliefs (largely because people don't like to be alone in their beliefs).
Any questions, objections so far?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not sure I see the difference. I am also not sure that I hold any beliefs purely because they are beneficial, nor would I want to pass on false, but beneficial beliefs.
So maybe we can start there. I believe it is harmful to hold irrational beliefs especially when said beliefs are held for selfish or supposedly beneficial reasons. I believe that alt ...[text shortened]... ely because people don't like to be alone in their beliefs).
Any questions, objections so far?

The difference is that some come here to attack the beliefs of others whereas my OP invites readers to discuss their own beliefs and reasons for holding them in a way that is convincing in its own right.

You tend to speak in generalisations, claiming that one irrational belief leads to another; what statistical evidence do you have for this? Or is it an irrational belief?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

As you should.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You just don't know the right people.

Originally posted by FMF
Regularly reassessed conviction in a box made of healthy doubt/skepticism and curiosity. I think it could work.

Yes. But it is a broad definition of "conviction", with all that doubt, skepticism and curiosity. Anyway the latter should lead, imo. Being too convinced or becoming too much of a follower can close off to the new and different that arises. A "holding pattern" for the moment, based on 'light' convincing is a base from which to work, a most effective one, I think.

It's finally an attitudinal stance. Often "convinced" stances arise with discomfort or fear in the face of ambiguity.