Evidence And The "worldview Backfire Effect"

[jkwilliams]

I used to be against SSM gay rights. No worldview backfire effect for me.

So was I. Other than, you know, leaving the church, that was the big one.

[ERayR]

I used to be against SSM gay rights. No worldview backfire effect for me.

 

 

I didn't.  I still am not.  What I am against is forcing others to cater to them.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I used to be against SSM gay rights. No worldview backfire effect for me.

 

What about you?

 

PS it seems I was wrong in post 101, and Robert pointed that out.

I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong

 

 

and it has been a while for me too

So you caved. Good for you. DO you want a medal. I have not found a convincing argument for SSM.

 

I was never opposed to "gay rights". I was and am still opposed the the redefinition of marriage to include ssm.

 

BTW this is not an invitation to try and persuade me. If you wish to, you can open a new thread which I likely won't participate in as I am sick and tired if talking about things gay related.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[jkwilliams]

So you caved. Good for you. DO you want a medal. I have not found a convincing argument for SSM.

 

I was never opposed to "gay rights". I was and am still opposed the the redefinition of marriage to include ssm.

 

BTW this is not an invitation to try and persuade me. If you wish to, you can open a new thread which I likely won't participate in as I am sick and tired if talking about things gay related.

For me, it was just that I finally concluded that there were no convincing arguments for opposing same-sex marriage. Obviously, we disagree. Where's my medal?

[ERayR]

For me, it was just that I finally concluded that there were no convincing arguments for opposing same-sex marriage. Obviously, we disagree. Where's my medal?

 

Did you check with Skeptic?

[jkwilliams]

Did you check with Skeptic?

I'll check at the next meeting of the stonecutters.

[Calm]

I used to be against SSM gay rights.

Are you claiming that the sole reason you changed your mind about SSM was because of what you heard on the board? Just clarifying.

[TheSkepticChristian]

BTW this is not an invitation to try and persuade me. If you wish to, you can open a new thread which I likely won't participate in as I am sick and tired if talking about things gay related.

 

It was just one example dude. Please answer my question, 

 

When was the last time you changed your views about something very important here in the MDDB?

 

Are you claiming that the sole reason you changed your mind about SSM was because of what you heard on the board? Just clarifying.

 

No, but it helped.

 

SSM rights  

Edited August 3, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Stone holm]

 

I didn't.  I still am not.  What I am against is forcing others to cater to them.

 

Have always been against SSM as far as Church membership goes, what I have always been against is forcing others to conform to our religious beliefs. I think that has been the backfire effect. The various churches mounting a challenge to the gay's right to marry, we wound up creating a backfire on organize religion in general. Turns out people have enough gay friends and relatives, that they reacted to the religious conservatives putting forward things like Prop 8. I don't think anybody except social conservatives are buying the concept that the religions are being persecuted.

[jkwilliams]

It was just one example dude. Please answer my question, 

 

When was the last time you changed your views about something very important here in the MDDB?

 

 

No, but it helped.

 

SSM rights

Same here. I think it was the over-the-top reaction from some people here that caused me to step back and wonder what was really going on. I never had that kind of visceral they're-coming-for-our-kids reaction but thought that some of the arguments made sense. The hyperventilating among some people seemed so disproportionate to what was happening that I decided to take another look at the issues, and I changed my mind. So, in a way, I can thank people here for helping clarify the issue for me.

Edited August 3, 2015 by jkwilliams

[Stone holm]

 

Same here. I think it was the over-the-top reaction from some people here that caused me to step back and wonder what was really going on. I never had that kind of visceral they're-coming-for-our-kids reaction but thought that some of the arguments made sense. The hyperventilating among some people seemed so disproportionate to what was happening that I decided to take another look at the issues, and I changed my mind. So, in a way, I can thank people here for helping clarify the issue for me.

 

I didn't mind the hyper-ventilation, but the waste of time, effort, and treasure fighting to keep other people from doing something that didn't directly affect our lives and didn't affect us -- just seemed so senseless.

[jkwilliams]

I didn't mind the hyper-ventilation, but the waste of time, effort, and treasure fighting to keep other people from doing something that didn't directly affect our lives and didn't affect us -- just seemed so senseless.

Where I changed my mind was in thinking that same-sex marriage adversely affected other people's lives. I never thought it affected my life, but I did believe it could hurt children. I've changed my mind. Like I said, the amount of angst (and, as you say, the waste of time, effort, and treasure) seemed way out of proportion to any potential harm.

[mfbukowski]

Seems to me that, when people do change their minds here, it's on something big. True, it tends to go in the direction of not believing in Mormonism, but maybe the opposite happens once in a while.

I have seen it several times, in fact, more in the direction of returning than on the way out the door. I have been fortunate in helping some myself.

[TheSkepticChristian]

When was the last time you changed your views about something very important here in the MDDB?

 

I already answered your question, I can give you more examples. 

 

Please tell me, when was the last time you changed your views about something you considered very important? Any example from anywhere from the last 20 years?

 

 

 

When were we ever close enough that you would know?  You are making assumptions of which you are totally ignorant. 

 

You guys never answer my questions. 

[ERayR]

I already answered your question, I can give you more examples. 

 

Please tell me, when was the last time you changed your views about something you considered very important? Any example from anywhere from the last 20 years?

 

 

 

 

You guys never answer my questions. 

 

Insert something here about casting Pearls ...

Edited August 3, 2015 by ERayR

[Stone holm]

Insert something here about casting Pearls ...

Really! How exactly does calling someone a swine help with the discussion?

[jkwilliams]

Really! How exactly does calling someone a swine help with the discussion?

 

Well, if the shoe fits.

[Robert F. Smith]

..................................................................

 

If you want a cautionary tale of going against the religious dogma of the time a better choice would be Giordano Bruno.

.................................................................................

 

Yes, or Michael Servetus, who was burnt at the stake by John Calvin.

Bruno was burnt at the stake in 1600 simply because he taught things like the plurality of inhabited worlds, the infinity of the universe, and heliocentrism (Copernican astronomy), among other heresies.

 

I'll .leave you to tell Isaac Newton the Sorcerer the bad news about real science and the Age of Reason.  Bearing in mind, of course, that Bertrand Russell always maintained that there was nothing truly new since Classical Greek philosophy.

[Robert F. Smith]

For me, it was just that I finally concluded that there were no convincing arguments for opposing same-sex marriage. Obviously, we disagree. Where's my medal?

I agree, jk, and I think that we should be far more tolerant of differing value systems.  Indeed, I should have thought that Articles of Faith 11 & 12 were applicable  Moreover, we are hypocrites not to realize that we were persecuted for our belief in plural marriage for much the same reason.

 

We should not have to support or agree that non-traditional forms of marriage (or any other odd cultural attribute) are good.  We need only goodheartedly tolerate them, as long as they don't do any harm.

[jkwilliams]

I agree, jk, and I think that we should be far more tolerant of differing value systems.  Indeed, I should have thought that Articles of Faith 11 & 12 were applicable  Moreover, we are hypocrites not to realize that we were persecuted for our belief in plural marriage for much the same reason.

 

We should not have to support or agree that non-traditional forms of marriage (or any other odd cultural attribute) are good.  We need only goodheartedly tolerate them, as long as they don't do any harm.

 

I hope you're not being sarcastic. 

[Stone holm]

I agree, jk, and I think that we should be far more tolerant of differing value systems.  Indeed, I should have thought that Articles of Faith 11 & 12 were applicable  Moreover, we are hypocrites not to realize that we were persecuted for our belief in plural marriage for much the same reason.

 

We should not have to support or agree that non-traditional forms of marriage (or any other odd cultural attribute) are good.  We need only goodheartedly tolerate them, as long as they don't do any harm.

Agreed. Unfortunately we often forget our own social and economic history. Something about no sooner does a man gain a little power, but he immediately begins....

[ERayR]

Really! How exactly does calling someone a swine help with the discussion?

 

You are right>  I apologize. 

[thesometimesaint]

 

Yes, or Michael Servetus, who was burnt at the stake by John Calvin.

Bruno was burnt at the stake in 1600 simply because he taught things like the plurality of inhabited worlds, the infinity of the universe, and heliocentrism (Copernican astronomy), among other heresies.

 

I'll .leave you to tell Isaac Newton the Sorcerer the bad news about real science and the Age of Reason.  Bearing in mind, of course, that Bertrand Russell always maintained that there was nothing truly new since Classical Greek philosophy.

 

 

There was a high price to pay for going against the established religious dogma of the day. It only took 400 odd years for the Catholic Church to apologize for how they treated Galileo. I guess late is better than never. 

 

For all his good ideas Newton had some really unorthodox ones.

SEE

 

I'll agree to limited extent. Though it is quite a jump from the four basic elements of earth, wind, fire, and water to what we know today.

[Robert F. Smith]

I hope you're not being sarcastic. 

Those on the this board know that I am seldom or never sarcastic.  Just sincere.

 

But, in case you think this is also sarcasm, could you point out which part seems sarcastic?

[Robert F. Smith]

There was a high price to pay for going against the established religious dogma of the day. It only took 400 odd years for the Catholic Church to apologize for how they treated Galileo. I guess late is better than never. 

 

........................................................................................................................

Yes, the Roman Catholic Holy Office (Inquisition) was finally shut down in about 1834.