Ideologues

ideologues: (noun) An adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic.

I've had discussions on a wide range of topics and the only thing common is humans seem incredibly prone to the mindset of an ideologue.  Unfortunately, this is true in the current age of information where data is available to everyone.  It seems people are satisfied to repeat whatever their social group says and resist anything that contradicts those assertions.  I've lamented on this topic in several posts before. (See: Atheist and Beliefs, A political party)   I just didn't realize how deep this problem goes.

Solar Panel

Most people think that religion is the only dogmatic form of thought, but I've talked with people who became hostile when presented with facts about solar panels.   They couldn't handle that solar panels aren't economically feasible on a massive scale mainly due to a lack of technology for industrial power storage and the availability of the sun varies.  I argued that solar panels aren't the answer to getting off fossil fuels for reasons I've written in two articles. (See: Solar Myths. . .Again, Solar Mecca)  Why should facts be so offensive?    It's fine if you want to waste money putting panels on your home, but don't pretend that they are the solution to the energy problem.

Cannabis

Recently, I was talking with some people about cannabis.  They claimed that it should be legalized due to a wide range of benefits from smoking cannabis like curing cancer, multiple sclerosis, and HIV.  Sounds too good to be true?  They obviously had never researched the topic because when I asked for the basis of their claim they posted five links to news stories.  The titles appeared to support their claims, but they obviously didn't read the study referenced in the news story.  None of the studies supported their claims.  In this case, several of the links referenced studies that were against their position.  When I pointed this out, they tried to rationalize how I was still wrong.  All they had to do was read their own links.  They should have the courage to admit they wanted it to be legal because they liked getting high.  Honestly, I don't care if it is legal or not.  It wouldn't affect me either way because I wouldn't smoke it regardless of it's legal standing.   What I am against is unsupported claims especially claims that could cause harm to people like cannabis cures cancer and HIV.    There are some benefits in certain cases, but all of those benefits are available in synthetic pill form which makes the legalization of pot irrelevant.

Gun Control

Another common hot topic is that of gun control.  I have posted three separate times on this topic. (See: My opinion on guns, Propaganda on guns in Australia, and Assault Weapons Ban)  There are many books on the subject.   The most well known books are by John Lott titled "More Guns, Less crime" and "The bias against guns".  John Lott's work has been replicated over 25 times in peer reviewed literature.  It has never been refuted despite some unsourced claims by political websites.  I have never encountered a logical or reasoned argument against the private ownership of guns.

In fact, all my discussion on guns go like this:

1. Owning buckets is legal 
2. Putting water in your buckets is legal
3. Sometimes people leave buckets full of water unsecured
4. Some children drown in these buckets
5. I support #1 and #2
6. I hate children

In this example, I would support a ban on owning buckets if someone could show that banning buckets would save lives.    However, their proof goes like this.

1. Country A has fewer Children downing in buckets than Country B
2. Country A has low bucket ownership compared to Country B
3. #1 must be the result of #2

This is a correlation equals causation argument and conflicts with the evidence we have available.  They ignore all the other types of drowning which could be a sign of neglect on the part of the bucket owner or the parent.   They are ignorant of the history of the laws toward buckets in country A.  It's possible they never owned a large amount of buckets or even had the right to do so.

The crime rates have been falling for decades despite gun ownership going up and the increasingly common CCW permits.    This simple look at crime statistics shows that the mere availability of guns doesn't increase crimes.   Otherwise, we should expect more crime as more guns are owned.

Religion

The oldest of dogmas is religion.   I have never written much outside of a few debates because there are many books covering this topic.  The bluntest of these books is "God is not Great" by the late Christopher Hitchens.  I think the strongest argument against Christianity is covered in books by Bart Ehrman which addresses the bible from historical perspective.   Of course, another of my favorite authors on this topic is John W. Loftus.     The best argument I've seen against religion was made by Mr. Loftus as quoted below.

"Let's consider the kind of evidence believers point to for us to believe.  Philosophical arguments don't count as evidence.  They are mostly special pleading since they don't lead to any specific religious sect.  What's left?  There is no empirical evidence since we weren't there to witness the resurrection for ourselves.  There is no first hand eyewitness testimony.  The textual evidence comes from the 4th century.  There is no prophetic evidence of a resurrected Messiah, while all the so-called OT prophecies are either not predictions at all or misapplied by the NT writers. And I'm supposed to accept Christianity? Really? Seriously?  When I say there isn't sufficient evidence to believe I mean just that.  It doesn't matter if the earliest disciples had sufficient evidence to believe.  We don't know that they did.  All we have is the so-called evidence above. The kicker is that the Jews of that day did not believe this so-called evidence, nearly 8 million of them, even though they believed in God, his ability to do miracles, OT prophecy, and were there. So tell me once again why any reasonable person should believe? It simply does not add up."

-John W. Loftus

Feminism

The most controversial topic I have researched by far is that of feminism.  I started from a neutral position and researched the claims made by feminist.  What I found was the worst dogmatic beliefs resistant to the slightest glimmer of light from logic and evidence.  I have never experienced more hatred than when I questioned the feminist position.   Apparently, I am supposed to merely accept it without question even when their ideas are toxic.

Feminist are the most violent ideologues I have every seen.  When Erin Pizzey challenged common (feminist) beliefs about domestic violence she was threatened and her dog was killed.   This violence is still seen today in their protest against any ideas threatening their dogma. 

The conclusion I have come too is feminism only cares about women and female supremacy.  Feminist often quote statistics that ignore men and assert that men are responsible for the women.  I have addressed the feminist narrative in a series of articles starting with What feminist don't want you to know: Introduction.

In the end

Maybe it's just the agenda they are pushing?  The politics they subscribe too?  They already have the answers and look for facts to support it while ignoring anything that doesn't agree.  This is nothing more than confirmation bias.  Now, I understand how creationist can think they are right.  They are no worse than a self proclaimed skeptic who comes to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.

My discussion usually follow the same pattern which is why I stopped trying to reason with these people.  They never provide sources for the basis of the opinion.  When asked, they do a quick Google search for relevant titles.   The links they post are normally news stories to politically leaning sites supporting their conclusion.  (The right is usually to Fox and the Left is to HuffPost) The have titles supporting their assertion, but sometimes the content contradicts their basis.   I end up wasting my time reading their links and pointing out the problems I find.   They are never willing to discuss the issues with their links.  They rationalize their position followed by name calling or switching the burden of proof to me by claiming they are right until I disprove their theory.

What evidence can you provide to someone who denies all evidence?  The answer is you don't.    You will never convince someone with dogmatic beliefs and it is best to simply avoid them.   At most, you may convince someone who is already sitting on the fence from their doubts.  No one can ever be reasoned or debated from a position they hold as absolute truth.  Debates are good to reach people who are undecided and attended the debate to gain additional information.