Ask them to put their argument in premise-conclusion form with clear definitions such that not one word is mentioned that is not clearly defined

Ask them to put their argument in premise-conclusion form with clear definitions such that not one word is mentioned that is not clearly defined — khaled

That could be difficult, when nearly all English words have more than one dictionary-meaning. :chin:

I am talking about a circumstance where someone won't even engage in proper debate. If they do talk with you they won't respond at all or properly to your points.

But overall I am wondering how philosophically we should approach and cope with irrationality.

In a way we probably need to use brute force ourselves to put some semblance of reason on the agenda. I am not using reason in a biased or intellectual way here but just reason as basic logic.

I don't think facts equal reason because facts and statistics can be misused but rather logic and consistency.

Here as an example of a problem. The following video documents lots of contradictory statements in the bible.

But when you are having a random conversation you can't call upon this and even if you do have it to hand the other person will give convoluted reasons or evasions how it isn't correct.

So how do you get the point across succinctly that you have really good evidence that point X is incorrect without getting bogged down?

Some people are so invested in their beliefs that it is like a battle to get them to the stage of reasoning honestly about them.

Just ignore them. There are some people who do not respond to rational arguments, and after awhile you'll see it's a complete waste of time dealing with them. Just focus on the people who can grasp rational arguments.

Its a dangerous problem because to argue with someone because they follow a dogma rather than reason, is still to necessitate reason as a form of dogma considering both dogma and reason observe inherent rules or structure.

Dogma is inevitable in one form or another.

Rationality necessitates a form of connectivity in these respects where the opponents, and your own position, must be fully observed to observe any reflective qualities. This is considering Rationality, from the work "ratio", necessitates a form of proportionality or balance.

When a person strictly disagrees only, without any opportunity for finding a common bond, then the person negates themselves from the argument. The same occurs if they only agree. For the process of reasoning with a person to take place both elements must progress.

Reasoning as a synthetic element in this respect, along with common mirroring qualities, and relativistic nature where neither side is complete on there own terms as each position is a part.

One of my sisters is an extremely doctrinaire fundamentalist Baptist Trump fan. I'm pretty much her opposite. We both come from a large family where none of this sort of thinking was encouraged or typical.

I would describe my sister's thinking as double tracked: On religious and political matters she is governed by strict ideology. It's a closed system: one can not engage in argument with her on these matters. On practical matters (money management, medical concerns, auto maintenance, general news and information, etc.) she is practical and rational. She doesn't rely on God to solve medical or financial problems. She's rationally thrifty and pro-active in medical affairs.

Both of us are senior citizens; major changes in thinking at this point in time are very unlikely. But major changes in thinking are always hard to achieve, even for one's self--let alone somebody else. Our very different thinking has been heading in opposite directions for... most of our lives, actually, and getting "better" or "worse" depending on who is making the judgement. I'd say she is politically and religiously worse now than even 5 years ago. (She declared me hell-bound decades ago.)

I like this philosophy! I need to try and apply it.

She doesn't rely on God to solve medical or financial problems. — Bitter Crank

That is the hypocrisy of these people. Fiercely rational in some areas. Fingers in the ears in others.

It is embarrassing that the rest of the animal kingdom does not fall for this irrationality.

But overall I am wondering how philosophically we should approach and cope with irrationality. — Andrew4Handel

Maybe try a perspective that Aristotle suggested which is "It is a mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain the thoughts of others without taking them on for own".

Listen to what they have to say, mirror it back so they know they have been heard, acknowledge that is or isn't in line with your thoughts, turn and walk away. Maybe even feel a bit of sympathy that they have to live with their ideas.
Just my two cents... If I can get my change, I will be on my way

I don't view it as hypocrisy; I am, rather, grateful that she isn't depending on god to cure her physical ailments or drop a bag full of money in her lap. Most theistic believers could reasonably say that while god can solve any of our problems, but they apply their own minds and energy to the solution. (God helps those who help themselves...)

People can hold incompatible ideas in their heads; one can completely accept the science behind global warming, even feel personally responsible, BUT take many long flights which add quite a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere on their account. People buy lottery tickets even though they know the chances are 300 million to 1 (or worse) against them. Lots of people know how to steal, but they don't because they also want to feel they are honest. Or more to the point, they have stolen, but still feel like they are honest.

As Kant said, "Nothing straight was ever built with the crooked timber of mankind."

Incompatible beliefs maybe acceptable in trivial or personal matters but this is not the case when people are targeting hate at other people.

If someone tries to persecute or oppress me with non trivial hypocrisy I see that as egregious and cause for concerted action.

Personally I have no difficulty in assessing whether my beliefs are irrational or contradictory. Why is it so hard? For example I am a moral nihilist as I accept I cannot defend moral claims.

I do not accept that people can be allowed to abuse and religiously indoctrinate their children like I was and it be seen as trivial cognitive dissonance. I do not think ignorance is an excuse for abusive parenting or logic failure. I think a problem has been a failure to challenge religious irrationality partly due to the previous popularity and status of religion.