Being Open Minded

[Ambassadar]

These are just some thoughts I have had on the topic of being open minded. I would be interested to hear what other people thought on this perspective.

 

 

 

Why is it most so called open minded people only seem to be "open minded" to one side of of most issues? Think about it. I bet most people that use the term don't even consider that. How can they just take a side? Isn't the act of taking a side the act of closing your mind to the other side hence the loss of being truly "open minded"?

 

 

 

Wouldn't being truly open minded mean being open to every single idea out there? I could understand someone being "open minded" until they learned enough to form an opinion(this is a good thing) but as soon as that opinion was formed on the issue they would cease to be open minded on the topic. The act of forming an opinion means they are rejecting a position in favor of another position. That is not open mindedness.

 

 

 

To me the only people that should be going around claiming to be open minded on a topic are only those people that haven't made up their minds on the issue yet. True open mindedness should be a position of neutrality since a side has not been taken and all sides are being considered. Claiming open mindedness on a topic should be the same as claiming ignorance(this isn't bad, just being honest with oneself saying I don't know enough to make a decision yet) on that topic until said person has educated themselves enough to form an opinion.

 

 

 

Let's face it, in a debate where everyone is taking sides true open mindedness doesn't exist. Taking a side in a debate and then proclaiming your side open minded while claiming the other position as close minded is just a subtle little game in semantics to try to make people of one position look good and people of the opposing position look bad due to word associations.

 

 

 

I would go as far to say that many people that sling these words around don't even realize they are just using semantics to try to make the people they disagree with seem backwards, ill informed, or just ignorant. You have to admit, even if it is dishonest(intentionally or not), it is an effective tactic because most people don't even think about what it really means. All most people get is the negative or positive feel of the words and how those words were associated to the issues.

 

 

 

Just remember, if you disagree with anything I wrote you aren't being open minded! :wink:

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

Here is me being open-minded:

 

 

 

 

BÃÆÃâÃâábism

 

BahÃÆÃâÃâá'ÃÆÃâÃâí

 

Sabians

 

Samaritanism

 

Ajivika

 

Ayyavazhi

 

Buddhism

 

Christianity

 

Islam

 

Judaism

 

Hinduism

 

Jainism

 

Sikhism

 

Caodaism

 

Chondogyo

 

Latter Day Saints

 

Confucianism

 

Shinto

 

Taoism

 

Yiguandao

 

Atenism

 

Manichaeism

 

Mithraism

 

Orphism

 

Scientology

 

Yazd̢̮̉̉nism

 

Zoroastrianism

 

 

 

Here is you being closed-minded:

 

 

Christianity

[Ambassadar]

You can say you don't have an opinion on any of those religions because you don't know enough about them yet if you want and claim to be open minded but you cannot claim to believe all of those religions are true since they all contradict each other.

 

 

 

So which is it?

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

You can say you don't have an opinion on any of those religions because you don't know enough about them yet if you want and claim to be open minded but you cannot claim to believe all of those religions are true since they all contradict each other.

 

 

 

So which is it?

 

You're right. I don't believe in any of them. I understand their contents, while you refuse to even mention anything outside of Christianity.

 

 

 

you cannot claim to believe all of those religions are true since they all contradict each other.

 

so which one is the right one, in your opinion? Just curious.

[warri0r45]

I'd agree on some points. On matters of opinion, I'm not here to tell anyone that my opinion is right or that someone elses is wrong. I don't care about my opinion so much as getting other people to think by challenging thiers.

 

 

 

But, on matters of fact, evidence, observations and verifiable tests, I don't consider it at all closed minded to go with what science would theorise and critically conclude.

 

 

 

You may, and I wouldn't at all mind, say I'm closed minded by demanding evidence and being a critically thinking, skeptical human being. In doing so I'm not saying the claimant must be wrong in what they propose, I'm inviting them to prove to me that they are right in terms I, as a piece of flesh with eyeballs, eardrums, nerve cells, tastebuds and an olfactory system, can percieve.

 

 

 

I'll recognise I'm a limited human being. Skepticism, empiricism and methodological naturalism are some of my limits. Aside from that, I'm not saying they are realities limits. I'm agnostic as well as atheist. The former comes from accepting I don't know a certain something and the latter comes from the lack of evidence for the same certain something and the presence of skepticism.

[Ambassadar]

You're right. I don't believe in any of them. I understand their contents, while you refuse to even mention anything outside of Christianity.

 

Actually I never mentioned a single religion in my post. See what I mean how word associations have been programmed into our collective psyche over the years to automatically draw conclusions?

 

 

 

so which one is the right one, in your opinion? Just curious.

 

This isn't a religious topic. It is more a look at word games. My religion or anyone else's religion or lack of is irrelevant to the conversation.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

You're right. I don't believe in any of them. I understand their contents, while you refuse to even mention anything outside of Christianity.

 

Actually I never mentioned a single religion in my post. See what I mean how word associations have been programmed into our collective psyche over the years to automatically draw conclusions?

 

 

 

so which one is the right one, in your opinion? Just curious.

 

This isn't a religious topic. It is more a look at word games. My religion or anyone else's religion or lack of is irrelevant to the conversation.

 

Your religion is very relevant to this conversation. You were obviously fueled to make this thread after being involved in several religious-oriented debates in this OT forum. In each of those debates, your arguments cited only Christianity, while your opponents' arguments encompassed more than one religion, yet you are now claiming that you are the one who is "open-minded."

 

 

 

Also, the word "semantics" means "meaning." You indicated the opposite in your first post.

[Ambassadar]

But, on matters of fact, evidence, observations and verifiable tests, I don't consider it at all closed minded to go with what science would theorise and critically conclude.

 

 

 

On an even more basic level one could ask is it close minded to think it is always wrong to hurt an innocent person? Is it close minded to think it is wrong to force someone to starve? If a person took those positions then that person isn't being "open minded" to the alternative.

[GrimHams]

Well, i believe being open minded is about having your position in a belief but willing to argue it against others and if they have a valid point not being stubborn and saying "no i'm not going to change my point even though you have a valid one".

 

 

 

In that sense im open minded, but almost everything has weaknesses (ideologies) that you have to just say "yeah its a weakness but i still believe it because of this this and this".

 

 

 

Skepticism, empiricism and methodological naturalism are some of my limits. Aside from that, I'm not saying they are realities limits. I'm agnostic as well as atheist. The former comes from accepting I don't know a certain something and the latter comes from the lack of evidence for the same certain something and the presence of skepticism.

 

 

 

Yeah but scepticism is such a ridiculous cop out argument if we looked at things philosophically

[warri0r45]

But, on matters of fact, evidence, observations and verifiable tests, I don't consider it at all closed minded to go with what science would theorise and critically conclude.

 

 

 

On an even more basic level one could ask is it close minded to think it is always wrong to hurt an innocent person? Is it close minded to think it is wrong to force someone to starve? If you take those positions then a person isn't being "open minded" to the alternative.

 

 

 

I can't exactly see what that has to do with what I quoted but if those things make me closed minded, so be it. I don't particularly care when it comes to those points.

[warri0r45]

 

Skepticism, empiricism and methodological naturalism are some of my limits. Aside from that, I'm not saying they are realities limits. I'm agnostic as well as atheist. The former comes from accepting I don't know a certain something and the latter comes from the lack of evidence for the same certain something and the presence of skepticism.

 

 

 

Yeah but scepticism is such a ridiculous cop out argument if we looked at things philosophically

 

 

 

To be honest I'm not really at all into philosophy. My bag is almost exclusively science. Tell you what, give me a philosophical argument for something and I'll tell you where I stand in terms of philosophy on the issue.

[Ambassadar]

yet you are now claiming that you are the one who is "open-minded."

 

Actually I am doing the opposite. On most topics I am not open minded because I crave knowledge and am constantly learning. I then apply my knowledge to the world around me and form opinions. The only time I would claim I was open minded on a topic was if I wasn't sure what I thought about that topic yet. I would then go learn until I could form an educated opinion. I would no longer be open minded about it then. After that opinion was formed I would continue to listen to people that had an opinion that differed from mine and if I learned more and felt my opinion was wrong then I would change it.

 

 

 

Also, the word "semantics" means "meaning." You indicated the opposite in your first post.

 

I don't know if that is just some awkward lingo we use in the country I am from that other countries don't use but saying someone is playing semantics means they are playing word games or a game of word meanings. It is twisting and manipulating words. Please let me know if anything else I wrote was confusing.

[Intriguing]

People are naturally going to take sides with certain arguments, that's natural. Being open-minded doesn't affect that. How open minded you are effects whether or not someone can actually sway your opinion on a topic if they present a good arguement.

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

I then apply my knowledge to the world around me and form opinions. After that opinion was formed I would continue to listen to people that had an opinion that differed from mine and if I learned more and felt my opinion was wrong then I would change it.

 

 

 

but as soon as that opinion was formed on the issue they would cease to be open minded on the topic. The act of forming an opinion means they are rejecting a position in favor of another position. That is not open mindedness.

 

 

 

Why do you think you "continue to listen" but others don't? What evidence do you have that heightens your intellect over other people?

 

 

 

The correct meaning of Semantics is "Meaning" or "Definition" in any country. You seem like one of those people who also fail to understand the meaning of the word "Theory."

 

 

 

Please let me know if anything else I wrote was confusing.

[Ambassadar]

People are naturally going to take sides with certain arguments, that's natural.

 

I completely agree.

 

 

 

Being open-minded doesn't affect that. How open minded you are effects whether or not someone can actually sway your opinion on a topic if they present a good arguement.

 

How can one person truly know what the other person knows and feels deep down? How can a person know that another person could never be swayed? How can one side in a debate claim to be the open minded side and that the other side is the close minded side if it differs on an individual basis?

 

 

 

I like how you define it and I feel it would be a more honest way of explaining what being open or close minded is but many times it feels like the majority of people say things like "If you believe X then you are close minded or if you believe Y you are open minded." That is making being open or close minded an issue of what a person believes and not a matter of how open or closed they are to being further educated in an area.

 

 

 

Do you think most people just don't understand what it really means to be open minded or do you think the way you explained it unfortunately isn't the way it works in reality?

[Intriguing]

People are naturally going to take sides with certain arguments, that's natural.

 

I completely agree.

 

 

 

Being open-minded doesn't affect that. How open minded you are effects whether or not someone can actually sway your opinion on a topic if they present a good arguement.

 

How can one person truly know what the other person knows and feels deep down? How can a person know that another person could never be swayed? How can one side in a debate claim to be the open minded side and that the other side is the close minded side if it differs on an individual basis?

 

 

 

I like how you define it and I feel it would be a more honest way of explaining what being open or close minded is but many times it feels like the majority of people say things like "If you believe X then you are close minded or if you believe Y you are open minded." That is making being open or close minded an issue of what a person believes and not a matter of how open or closed they are to being further educated in an area.

 

 

 

Do you think most people just don't understand what it really means to be open minded or do you think the way you explained it unfortunately isn't the way it works in reality?

 

 

 

In my personal opinion, if people claim that their side and their side only is open-minded, and any other side is close-minded, then they're idiots. But then again, I'm being hypocritical, because I'm doing exactly the same thing.

 

I don't think that being open-minded has anything to do with what side you take. It has to do with the individual. I know a hell of a lot of close-minded Christians, but that doesn't mean all Christians are like that. Likewise, just because some atheists are close-minded it doesn't mean they all are, even if they agree with each other on some espects.

 

Anyway, I can't really answer your last question, because I don't know. Sorry.

[Ambassadar]

Ambassadar wrote:

 

I then apply my knowledge to the world around me and form opinions. After that opinion was formed I would continue to listen to people that had an opinion that differed from mine and if I learned more and felt my opinion was wrong then I would change it.

 

 

 

 

 

Ambassadar in first post wrote:

 

but as soon as that opinion was formed on the issue they would cease to be open minded on the topic. The act of forming an opinion means they are rejecting a position in favor of another position. That is not open mindedness.

 

In my first post I was speaking in third person since I was talking about an idea.

 

In the post where I said "I" I was answering a personal question. Lighten up.

 

 

 

Why do you think you "continue to listen" but others don't? What evidence do you have that heightens your intellect over other people?

I never made any claim as to who does or doesn't listen. All I can answer for is myself.

 

 

 

You seem like one of those people who also fail to understand the meaning of the word "Theory."

 

If you read the first line of my original post.

 

 

These are just some thoughts I have had on the topic of being open minded.

[IGoddessI]

I'll let you sit opposite a woman who looks completely normal who tells you with no emotion and without blinking she enjoyed killing her child.

 

 

 

Or across from a man who looks completely normal who says he gets pleasure from touching his daughter in her private places.

 

 

 

Until you can do that showing no expression on your face and with empathy, you wouldn't know open-minded if it hit you in the face lol

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

 

In my first post I was speaking in third person since I was talking about an idea.

 

In the post where I said "I" I was answering a personal question. Lighten up.

 

You were talking about the idea that there are people who claim to be open-minded but really aren't, right?

 

 

 

That being said, let me ask you again, since you avoided answering my question: In a debate, people form opinions. You form opinions, and so do the "open-minded" people you criticize. What makes you think that, after opinions are formed, You continue to listen to other people but They don't?

 

 

 

 

I never made any claim as to who does or doesn't listen. All I can answer for is myself.

 

Why is it most so called open minded people only seem to be "open minded" to one side of of most issues?

 

 

 

Also, I was never talking about your first line. Please don't bring in irrelevant quotes to this conversation.

[Ambassadar]

let me ask you again, since you avoided answering my question: In a debate, people form opinions. You form opinions, and so do the "open-minded" people you criticize. What makes you think that, after opinions are formed, You continue to listen to other people but They don't?

 

 

Ambassadar wrote:

 

 

 

I never made any claim as to who does or doesn't listen. All I can answer for is myself.

 

 

 

Ambassadar's first post wrote:

 

Why is it most so called open minded people only seem to be "open minded" to one side of of most issues?

 

 

 

 

Hmm, well it appears I did make some claim of that type then. I'm sleepy heh. Good point. Notice how I am getting information I hadn't considered earlier and now that I am processing it I am changing my opinion on what I had said. :P

 

 

 

I'll try to clarify what I meant. If a person claims being open minded or close minded based off the side they are on in a debate then they aren't being open minded in any way. (This is what I was referring to when I said" Why is it most so called open minded people only seem to be "open minded" to one side of of most issues?")

 

 

 

If a person has a position in a debate but doesn't base who is "open minded" or "close minded" off their position then according to Intriguing's definition of open minded it would all depend on if that person was actually listening to the other side and weighing it against their opinion. I wouldn't want to as well as couldn't make a claim as to whether they were being open or close minded because it's not like I could read their mind. That's what I was referring to in my other quote.

 

 

 

Nice call on pointing that out and hopefully when I wake up in the morning what I just wrote still makes sense since I'm so tired. :P

[Barihawk]

I think it's funny that most of the people here attack Ambassador for not being open minded.

 

 

 

For one thing, most Christians on this forum (big posters, not small time) do not attempt to force their opinions on others.

 

 

 

However, many atheists, agnostics, and others frequently attack us and try to push their beliefs down upon us, while having the audacity to call us closed minded.

 

 

 

The hypocrisy is paramount.

 

 

 

And yes, I am closed minded. It's not really an insult by the way. It just means that I know where I stand.

[insane]

Calling someone "close minded" is just an appeal to emotion. Calling someone close minded is a cheap, easy way to get ahead in an argument but when you look at it logically it actually has no power associated with it. It's just as powerful as calling someone brown haired and expecting it to actually provide some sort of argumentative advantage.

[Barihawk]

Exactly.

 

 

 

Being close minded is having a position while being open minded is being undecided.

 

 

 

By calling it "open or closed minded" you are simply exchanging in hyperbole, giving them positive and negative connotations, respectively. And yes, it is a really cheap way to get ahead in a public debate.

 

 

 

"I'm right and your wrong because you are a closed-minded person" gets played far too often on these boards.

[Kenshinjapan]

Exactly.

 

 

 

"I'm right and your wrong because you are a closed-minded person" gets played far too often on these boards.

 

 

 

That's so true :? . Anyways, it does seem cose minded when everybody is jumping down the throat of the author and making conclusions that he believes in Christianity (where he never said he did). That in my opinion, is being close minded.

[Satenza]

Theres a difference between having an opinion and having a dogmatic opinion. I hate these words anyway but i'll admit I am "close minded" on somethings because I beleive empiricism is the way to find truth, and therefore i am "close minded" to things like divine revelation ect.