NationStates Jolt Archive

Suppose you wish to convince someone that their faith/life philosophy/ideas are incorrect and/or that yours are much better. Perhaps even to the point that you genuinely believe the other person would suffer immensely in the future if they do not change.

Would you be completely truthful then - or be willing to bend the truth a tiny little bit if it makes your task easier ?

*poll coming*

Yes, there is some overlap between the options. And yes, it is anonymous - so feel free to vote truthfully ;)

If you can't change someone's opinion honestly then you're clearly not too secure in your own opinions.

If you can't change someone's opinion honestly then you're clearly not too secure in your own opinions.

Agreed.

"I might claim to have researched something extensively while in truth I just read it on a forum"

Isn't that what NSG exist for?

"I might claim to have researched something extensively while in truth I just read it on a forum"

Isn't that what NSG exist for?

Absolutely :)

Would you be completely truthful then - or be willing to bend the truth a tiny little bit if it makes your task easier ?

If your religion/philosophy believes it is OK to lie, it would probably be OK to do so, but I would have sincere doubts about any religion that holds such a belief.

Two points. One, I can't convince anyone of the correctness of my opinion (though I can explain the flaws I have found thus far in the alternatives) so the scenario isn't going to happen very often. Two, rarely do flaws in ideologies or philosophies have anything to do with pure facts - lying is generally unnecessary.

Two points. One, I can't convince anyone of the correctness of my opinion (though I can explain the flaws I have found thus far in the alternatives) so the scenario isn't going to happen very often.
Fair enough :)

Two, rarely do flaws in ideologies or philosophies have anything to do with pure facts - lying is generally unnecessary.

But it happens. And while it easy to use (for instance) an average young earth creationist as an example and feel all superior, I somehow doubt this tendency to distort truth is limited to the religious fundies, lawyers and politicians. Especially on a mostly anonymous internetforum.

If you can't change someone's opinion honestly then you're clearly not too secure in your own opinions.

Not necessarily.

Most of our thoughts, especially those referred to in the original post are wrapped in emotion. It is more often the case that we form our beliefs and then give them ad hoc rationalization. It is very difficult to overcome this emotion with reasonable argument (even more difficult to determine whether we are rational and not emotional in our own convictions), and the truest argument may yield no change in opinion.

This thread makes me want to start a thread about the deflationary theory of truth.

Not necessarily.

Most of our thoughts, especially those referred to in the original post are wrapped in emotion. It is more often the case that we form our beliefs and then give them ad hoc rationalization. It is very difficult to overcome this emotion with reasonable argument (even more difficult to determine whether we are rational and not emotional in our own convictions), and the truest argument may yield no change in opinion.

Indeed. And if one would really, really believe the other one would end up in hell (or an unhappy marriage. Or whatever negative thingy you can think of), which could all be prevented by a little lie even though they consider lying bad...
Hey. Who knows. "Lesser of two evils" ring a bell ? It is written next to that statement about the the road to hell being paved with something ;)


Then again - once the lie is found out one has a problem.

This thread makes me want to start a thread about the deflationary theory of truth.
Go for it. Though it has been done, it has been quite a while :)

Not necessarily.

Most of our thoughts, especially those referred to in the original post are wrapped in emotion. It is more often the case that we form our beliefs and then give them ad hoc rationalization. It is very difficult to overcome this emotion with reasonable argument (even more difficult to determine whether we are rational and not emotional in our own convictions), and the truest argument may yield no change in opinion.

This thread makes me want to start a thread about the deflationary theory of truth.

So the solution is to use an unreasoned argument rife with inaccuracies and fallacies?


Pass.

What possible lie could you tell someone to get them to convert to your belief system?

A) Are you going to lie and say they'll go to hell if they don't convert? But if you're lying when you say that, it means you don't believe people will go to hell for not joining your group, so then why are you trying to convert them?

If you do believe it when you say it, then you're not lying to get them to convert.

And if they don't already believe in a hell, then telling them they'll go to hell if they don't convert is unlikely to have much impact. And if they already believe in hell...then what are you converting them from?

B) Or maybe you'll lie and say they'll be arrested or otherwise penalized if they don't convert? But if that's a lie, it will be easily exposed by them just asking the local authorities if it's true, or by ignoring you and seeing what happens.

Or if you get the laws rewritten to make conversion to your group mandatory, then you're not lying when you tell them they'll be penalized if they don't convert.

But of course, that begs the question of whether you want sincere conversion or just token, pro forma conversion. If, as suggested in the OP, you are really afraid for their welfare if they don't convert, then why would you be satisfied with insincere conversion? Just what kind of organization or group are you trying to get them to join and why? And if you would be satisfied with insincere conversion, then you can hardly be said to be trying to get them to adopt your beliefs, because they wouldn't really believe as you do. They'd only pretend to in order to avoid the penalty.

C) Or would you lie and say they will get some kind of benefit for converting to your beliefs/group? If that is a lie, it will be exposed soon enough, if they convert and then do not experience the promised benefit.

Or if the promised benefit does come through, then you were not lying when you promised it.

And if you were lying, it is likely that your converts will soon abandon your group when the promise is not fulfilled. What does that do to your "sincere" fear for their welfare if they do not convert? Just what really was your motive in getting them to join up?

Indeed. And if one would really, really believe the other one would end up in hell (or an unhappy marriage. Or whatever negative thingy you can think of), which could all be prevented by a little lie even though they consider lying bad...
Hey. Who knows. "Lesser of two evils" ring a bell ? It is written next to that statement about the the road to hell being paved with something ;)

I doubt a lie would be much more successful than a rational argument.

So the solution is to use an unreasoned argument rife with inaccuracies and fallacies?

No, the solution is to first understand the emotional aspect of a person's beliefs, understand a person's concurrently held beliefs, and attempt argumentation with a keen eye on these aspects. Appeal to the person from the inside, not from your own point of view.

And if all else fails, agree to disagree.

But it happens. And while it easy to use (for instance) an average young earth creationist as an example and feel all superior, I somehow doubt this tendency to distort truth is limited to the religious fundies, lawyers and politicians. Especially on a mostly anonymous internetforum.
Yeah, people can construct weird world-views from skewed facts, but you can usually point out why the consequences of these facts conflict with existing precepts without needing to go straight for the underlying errors. After all, the reason I have a problem with what YECs believe isn't necessarily that they're wrong (since for all I know, although evidence suggests otherwise, they might not be) - it's how their actions are influenced by that belief.

If your religion/philosophy believes it is OK to lie, it would probably be OK to do so, but I would have sincere doubts about any religion that holds such a belief.
/threadwin

What possible lie could you tell someone to get them to convert to your belief system?


You lie to them about theirs.

About 20 years or so a fellow named Ed Decker wrote an anti-Mormon book called 'The Godmakers.' (Which was turned into a movie) This piece of literary refuse contained a cubic buttload of outright lies and distortions in order to discredit the LDS Church. His stated goal: To convince other Mormons to leave the Church as he had done. In one interview he openly admitted to falsifying information in the book, feeling that the ends, conversion out of the LDS Church, justified the means.

You lie to them about theirs.

About 20 years or so a fellow named Ed Decker wrote an anti-Mormon book called 'The Godmakers.' (Which was turned into a movie) This piece of literary refuse contained a cubic buttload of outright lies and distortions in order to discredit the LDS Church. His stated goal: To convince other Mormons to leave the Church as he had done. In one interview he openly admitted to falsifying information in the book, feeling that the ends, conversion out of the LDS Church, justified the means.
Did it work?

Did it work?

Well considering that I hear some of that very nonsense parroted in debates I have with people to this day, I'd have to say it did manage some success.

You lie to them about theirs.

About 20 years or so a fellow named Ed Decker wrote an anti-Mormon book called 'The Godmakers.' (Which was turned into a movie) This piece of literary refuse contained a cubic buttload of outright lies and distortions in order to discredit the LDS Church. His stated goal: To convince other Mormons to leave the Church as he had done. In one interview he openly admitted to falsifying information in the book, feeling that the ends, conversion out of the LDS Church, justified the means.

Well considering that I hear some of that very nonsense parroted in debates I have with people to this day, I'd have to say it did manage some success.
How many ex-Mormons parrot his nonsense, and how many of them became ex-Mormons as a result of reading his book?

If it doesn't cause Mormons to give up being Mormons, then no, it doesn't work as a means of conversion.

Suppose you wish to convince someone that their faith/life philosophy/ideas are incorrect and/or that yours are much better. Perhaps even to the point that you genuinely believe the other person would suffer immensely in the future if they do not change.

Would you be completely truthful then - or be willing to bend the truth a tiny little bit if it makes your task easier ?

*poll coming*

Yes, there is some overlap between the options. And yes, it is anonymous - so feel free to vote truthfully ;)

The faithful of any faith worth following teach by example and not by evangelizing.

Erm by lying to them wouldn't that mean your not really helping them? Just giving them a watered down version of the said help?

How many ex-Mormons parrot his nonsense, and how many of them became ex-Mormons as a result of reading his book?

If it doesn't cause Mormons to give up being Mormons, then no, it doesn't work as a means of conversion.

I have no way of knowing how many exactly, but it's not at all uncommon to see them on various religious-themed forums talking about their 'enlightenment' out of the Church, sometimes citing that book or references that originated from it. There's some success, but whether it's a significant number compared to the overall population of Mormons or ex-Mormons I don't know.

I do find it interesting how often people are willing to turn a blind eye to the lies. It's as if they'd never openly align themselves in the 'ends justify the means' category but are perfectly happy to watch it happen. I often ask them where, in the Bible, they see Jesus sanctioning this tactic and you can imagine the sort of BS answers I get.

I'd be willing to twist the truth a little, though I wouldn't lie outright. In the average conversation/debate about philosophical or political issues all participants are likely to have less than comprehensive knowledge of the matters on which they speak. People tend to try to sound more informed than they really are, for instance by pretending their sources are more credible than they are, and are likely to omit caveats that might weaken their case. Thats part of the art of debate. Perhaps in an ideal world everyone would speak straightforwardly rather than introduce a series of minor distortions throughout their argument, but as things are if you don't play the game like everyone else, you tend to lose, even if your points are valid.

I'd be willing to twist the truth a little, though I wouldn't lie outright. In the average conversation/debate about philosophical or political issues all participants are likely to have less than comprehensive knowledge of the matters on which they speak. People tend to try to sound more informed than they really are, for instance by pretending their sources are more credible than they are, and are likely to omit caveats that might weaken their case. Thats part of the art of debate. Perhaps in an ideal world everyone would speak straightforwardly rather than introduce a series of minor distortions throughout their argument, but as things are if you don't play the game like everyone else, you tend to lose, even if your points are valid.

*applauds one of the few honest people here*

I'd be willing to twist the truth a little

*applauds one of the few honest people here*

wonderful

I have no way of knowing how many exactly, but it's not at all uncommon to see them on various religious-themed forums talking about their 'enlightenment' out of the Church, sometimes citing that book or references that originated from it. There's some success, but whether it's a significant number compared to the overall population of Mormons or ex-Mormons I don't know.
So... you don't really know if this has an effect on the Mormon church. Can you make it apply to the OP question then?

I do find it interesting how often people are willing to turn a blind eye to the lies. It's as if they'd never openly align themselves in the 'ends justify the means' category but are perfectly happy to watch it happen. I often ask them where, in the Bible, they see Jesus sanctioning this tactic and you can imagine the sort of BS answers I get.
I don't know what you mean. Are you saying that all these people who do not challenge the writer of the book in question are Christians? That seems unlikely.

Are you saying that other people, who perhaps have no interest in Mormonism one way or another, are somehow responsible for knowing if something someone says about it is true or not?

Also, I'm still not seeing what this has to do with the OP. In what way does this tie in with tricks people use to convert others to join their belief system? Are you saying that expressing an opinion amounts to trying to convert someone? Are you saying that every act of slander or libel is equivalent to trying to convert someone into joining some kind of group? Are you saying that trying to dissuade someone from something is the same as trying to persuade them to take up something?

wonderful

I'm honest about why I'm occassionally a little dishonest:p...

So... you don't really know if this has an effect on the Mormon church. Can you make it apply to the OP question then?

Sure. Decker's book is an example of someone using lies to convert people (from one specific religion) to his own brand of Christianity. (He's some flavor of Evangelical but I don't remember which.)


I don't know what you mean. Are you saying that all these people who do not challenge the writer of the book in question are Christians? That seems unlikely.

No. I'm talking about the people who knowingly use the source material from his book and others like it in debates. Generally such people tend to be Christian because non-Christians don't normally have much of an interest in how Mormon Christianity differs from other types. Not all apologists do this, of course.


Are you saying that other people, who perhaps have no interest in Mormonism one way or another, are somehow responsible for knowing if something someone says about it is true or not?


People who have no interest in it aren't the audience that book was meant for, and obviously not the people I'm talking about.


Also, I'm still not seeing what this has to do with the OP. In what way does this tie in with tricks people use to convert others to join their belief system?

See above.

Are you saying that expressing an opinion amounts to trying to convert someone?


No.

Are you saying that every act of slander or libel is equivalent to trying to convert someone into joining some kind of group?


No.


Are you saying that trying to dissuade someone from something is the same as trying to persuade them to take up something?

No.

wonderful

Ironic, isn't it ?
And somewhat saddening. But hey.

I'm honest about why I'm occassionally a little dishonest:p...

And how would I know that, liar? :tongue:

Sure. Decker's book is an example of someone using lies to convert people (from one specific religion) to his own brand of Christianity. (He's some flavor of Evangelical but I don't remember which.)

No. I'm talking about the people who knowingly use the source material from his book and others like it in debates. Generally such people tend to be Christian because non-Christians don't normally have much of an interest in how Mormon Christianity differs from other types. Not all apologists do this, of course.

People who have no interest in it aren't the audience that book was meant for, and obviously not the people I'm talking about.

Ah, this was not clear from what you said before. So, is he not just attacking Mormonism but promoting his own church in its stead? And are other people using his book to get people to join their churches? Kind of like "Join us because we're not them icky Mormons"?

If that is what they are doing, then that is possibly one of the most dumbass tactics I've heard of. Are there actually people who fall for such crap? If they were talking to people with brains, they'd fail spectacularly, because you don't have to join them to not be a Mormon.


See above.

No.

No.

No.
OK.

Ah, this was not clear from what you said before. So, is he not just attacking Mormonism but promoting his own church in its stead? And are other people using his book to get people to join their churches? Kind of like "Join us because we're not them icky Mormons"?

Yeah they do sometimes, which is one of the reasons for my general frustration with the whole thing. I once had a brother-in-law who tried to use some of those very tactics on me. He sent me tracts and pamphlets all of which were filled with the same sort of nonsense one might find in Decker's book. (I don't know if they were citing it directly, but some of the material was eerily similar.) My response to him was something like "If you need to lie to me to get me to join your church, then clearly the benefits of your church don't stand up on their own." I didn't mean it as a dig against his church, but rather as a way to show why I wasn't impressed by his approach, or that of the authors of the tracts.


If that is what they are doing, then that is possibly one of the most dumbass tactics I've heard of. Are there actually people who fall for such crap? If they were talking to people with brains, they'd fail spectacularly, because you don't have to join them to not be a Mormon.


That's very true, which is why I think such a tactic is so epic a failure.

It seems to me the only people who are going to be converted by a book such as his are those who were already looking to do so and are just building a case. (Kinda like what my ex is doing right now.)

Ah, this was not clear from what you said before. So, is he not just attacking Mormonism but promoting his own church in its stead? And are other people using his book to get people to join their churches? Kind of like "Join us because we're not them icky Mormons"?

Excellent tactic, very similar to that of the ID movement. Do not claim that your idea is right, just claim a competing idea has flaws and make sure your idea is fixed in peoples minds as an alternative. Bonuspoints are awarded if you manage to imply that it is the only alternative.

Sneaky, sickening and so on - but it works.

Excellent tactic, very similar to that of the ID movement. Do not claim that your idea is right, just claim a competing idea has flaws and make sure your idea is fixed in peoples minds as an alternative. Bonuspoints are awarded if you manage to imply that it is the only alternative.

Sneaky, sickening and so on - but it works.

Works in national elections, too.

Excellent tactic, very similar to that of the ID movement. Do not claim that your idea is right, just claim a competing idea has flaws and make sure your idea is fixed in peoples minds as an alternative. Bonuspoints are awarded if you manage to imply that it is the only alternative.

Sneaky, sickening and so on - but it works.
If such tactics are successful, it proves only that the world is full of idiots, in my humble opinion, because it would take an idiot to join Group A solely on the basis of things said about Group B.

If such tactics are successful, it proves only that the world is full of idiots, in my humble opinion, because it would take an idiot to join Group A solely on the basis of things said about Group B.

I think that's rarely the case. I think more often it's when someone has doubts about their religion for some other, unrelated reason and is open and receptive to this sort of thing as a way of justifying the choice to leave.

I think that's rarely the case. I think more often it's when someone has doubts about their religion for some other, unrelated reason and is open and receptive to this sort of thing as a way of justifying the choice to leave.
Yeah, if said person is an idiot. It's one thing to glom onto a hateful anti-Mormon screed as a justification for quitting Mormonism. It's quite another to use it as a reason to join a different church. How does what they say about Mormonism prove that they are any better than they say Mormons are?

If somebody wishes to suffer that is his own business.

Yeah, if said person is an idiot. It's one thing to glom onto a hateful anti-Mormon screed as a justification for quitting Mormonism. It's quite another to use it as a reason to join a different church. How does what they say about Mormonism prove that they are any better than they say Mormons are?

I suppose if the author (or tract giver or whatever) casts himself as having saved them from a cult, they can use that gratitude as an 'in.' On a strictly objective level it really doesn't prove squat about the new religion, but it's all about manipulating emotions anyway. After all, if such people were honestly interested in reasoned discussion, they wouldn't resort to the tactics of lies to begin with.

Doesn't it completely depend on the person? If I think the person is the type of person who would jump on any slight inconsistency to claim the entire argument is completely invalid then I would probably omit such details...

Hang on, if I thought they would do then I probably wouldn't bother having the conversation with them. Me and a friend got on to talking about what drinks the student union sells and then how they don't sell Coca-cola. I say its NUS policy not to sell coca-cola. He whines about political arts students with nothing better to do with their time. I mention it's because of the illicit activities that Coca-cola gets up to without going into any detail. He complains how he for one prefers Coca-cola to Pepsi and doesn't like people interfering with that. I have reams of ideas going through my head about what to say in return, but instead I just say I have to check up on how my risotto is doing.

Is that bad of me for not wanting to have that conversation? I was thinking about how Coca-Cola's bottlers treat their workers in their South American factories; depletion in the quality and quantity of ground water in India where bottling factories are located; that the vast majority of people can't identify Coca-cola in blind taste tests; and that hardly any of the local bars/pubs sold coca-cola either. Maybe I didn't want to argue as I don't think Pepsi is much better than coca-cola.